M9 first impressions from a Canon DSLR user

[Audiocide]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Damp........done that?

 

No, not with my M8, and nor with my M9. Yes, with a 2 month old Canon 20D. Some sweat may have mixed in with the condensation (Borneo 2005, Temp 35 C. Hum. 100%). See in picture below what happened with a connector.

 

Took al lot of talking to get a new camera. That was an expensive semi-pro camera at the time and the Netherlands legal position is that appliances should stand up to relatively reasonable use for a reasonable time. My view was that it should be replaced. My dealer and Canon did not like that. Now we are on the best of terms.

 

The M9: I keep in a Ortlieb waterproof camerabag, if the conditions warrant that. See a picture of me, suitably clothed, in the following short video, shot on the Milford Track, New Zealand, in torrential rains last December, The camera was fine in the evening but I did not open the bag all day. And in the evening let it get fully used to dry conditions, with battery and SD-card removed.

 

 

All made with a Pany Waterproof.

 

A lady in the group did open her, already soggy, Lowe Pro bag and then remembered that I told her to remove the battery. She did, and was grateful afterwards.

 

Mind, my views on this subject are, in this Forum, most of the times met with stony silence: evidently something people do not like to read. Residual current when the camera is off - Leica now even concedes it is there - can kill it!

Take care:D , but a bit of drizzle should not hurt. What should be carefully watched are the storage conditions, and even more important, the changes in those conditions.

 

I see. Thanks for the info.

[Shade]

Well I guess if the M9 doesn't live up to your expectations, you can always sell it. I'm sure there are a lot of people wanting to get one and pay top dollars for it.

 

I like mine.

[wolfloid]

"With my dSLR I wont go lower than 1/60 or 1/30 if I really need to."

 

This was the case 20 years ago, but damping has so improved that I regularly use my 5DII with a 35 on it down to a fifteenth of a second and occasionally down to an eighth with very sharp results. I can now honestly say that it matches my Leicas in low light shooting situations. Of course, with longer lenses it is more difficult, but the same goes for the Leicas.

 

The 5DII is a bit of a beast, but with the CV 40/2 on it, its form factor is much improved. The lens is also excellent.

[Audiocide]

Well I guess if the M9 doesn't live up to your expectations, you can always sell it. I'm sure there are a lot of people wanting to get one and pay top dollars for it.

 

I like mine.

 

I very rarely sell my personal possessions. If I absolutely hate something, I'll probably lend it to a friend.

 

Regardless, After a week with my M9, I am beginning to appreciate its capabilites.

 

Please keep in mind that I am not that new to rangefinders. Perhaps I didn't make that clear with my initial post. I have been shooting film with my M7 for a couple of months now.

 

I find the greatest strength of the M9 to be its color rendition and sharpness at ISO160. Of course, this is in no small part helped by the excellent 35 Summicron ASPH.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[vanhulsenbeek]

Good You are getting there ! Yummy greens!

[artears]

I very rarely sell my personal possessions. If I absolutely hate something, I'll probably lend it to a friend.

 

Regardless, After a week with my M9, I am beginning to appreciate its capabilites.

 

 

No, no, I can see that you will be happier with 5DMK2... BTW, let's be friends :D

 

Joking aside, it looks like you are getting used to it... I always taught RF and SLR are complementary to each other. There are some things that RF cannot do, but if I want to stay below 90mm, my pick would be mostly RF...

[Audiocide]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

No, no, I can see that you will be happier with 5DMK2... BTW, let's be friends :D

 

Joking aside, it looks like you are getting used to it... I always taught RF and SLR are complementary to each other. There are some things that RF cannot do, but if I want to stay below 90mm, my pick would be mostly RF...

 

Hehe... Well, instead of losing a good portion of what I paid for something, I'd rather lend it to someone who'll get some use out of it. It also helps when, down the line, they get something cool that I might want to check out.

 

Not going to happen with my Leicas though.

 

I rarely leave home without my M9 since I got it. I don't need to worry about wasting film, like with my M7, so I just shoot anything and everything. I'm really beginning to bond with this marvelous little camera.

 

I really have to get it insured though...

[eleanorbrown]

As of yesterday I'm a brand new M9 leica user...never owned one, never shot with one and the only leica I've ever had "in hand" is the Leica that my dad used in the 1940's to record our family's activities. I have a Canon 5D Mark II converted for IR only and a Phase One P65+ back on an H2 camera body.

 

Leica is totally different and I'm liking it. Had to correct the eyepiece with a -5 diopter and put a Thumbs Up on the camera but what an experience. I am blown away by the quality of the leica glass...I have the 35 and 75 new versions crons and they are sharp...really really sharp WIDE OPEN...left me speechless.

 

yes it takes some getting used to to focus and holding this camera steady is more difficult because i don't have a rubber eyecup to brace against my eye but the camera is awesome. I've printed a few 20X30's and am printing a 22X30 inch print as I type this and they are just outstanding (and I'm very particular when I comes to image quality).

 

I'm processing in Capture one and have to definitely lessen the capture sharpening compared to how i sharpen the Hasselblad/Phase One and Canon files. Just my two cents as a new leica user. Eleanor

[thrice]

I came from a 5D Mark II.

 

I consider it superior in every way barring highlight headroom, which it compensates for with shadow latitude.

 

Which particular type of photography are you doing Audiocide? I primarily shoot landscape, but have dabbled in portraiture, street, commercial, live bands and others with my M9 and find it excels at all. I probably wouldn't buy it for sports or BIF though

[Xmas]

I came from a 5D Mark II.

 

I consider it superior in every way barring highlight headroom, which it compensates for with shadow latitude.

I'm advised you should...

 

Try -2/3 of a stop, but note the metering is simpler than a DSLRs

Note also there is not an anti alias filter imposed on the RAW files.

 

Noel

[Audiocide]

I came from a 5D Mark II.

 

I consider it superior in every way barring highlight headroom, which it compensates for with shadow latitude.

 

Which particular type of photography are you doing Audiocide? I primarily shoot landscape, but have dabbled in portraiture, street, commercial, live bands and others with my M9 and find it excels at all. I probably wouldn't buy it for sports or BIF though

 

I got the M9, or more accurately, the M7, to have a camera I can carry around with me in the street. The M9 came after my satisfaction with the film version.

 

I'm not a professional, so I shoot whatever strikes my fancy at the time. I mainly shot portraits, cityscapes, and social events with my Canons.

 

It looks like the M9 is going to see much more use. Just a week and I've already shot almost 400 frames. That's not including "test shots" which I didn't keep.

 

I have to say, however, I find the M9 to be clearly the worse performer at higher ISO settings. I've found that correct exposure helps a lot in reducing visible noise, but I might still prefer the look of film at ISO1600. Film has larger grain, but it is less harsh looking to my eyes.

[wattsy]

Now, I am going to be very frank here, and this might disturb some users here.

 

It's refreshing to read somebody being a bit honest for a change. I'm always a bit dubious about the threads started here by new members along the lines of "just sold all my Nikon gear to buy the M9 and Noct and I'm loving it" (see attached slightly out of focus photos of cat and 4 year old kid).

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped}

I have to say, however, I find the M9 to be clearly the worse performer at higher ISO settings. I've found that correct exposure helps a lot in reducing visible noise, but I might still prefer the look of film at ISO1600. Film has larger grain, but it is less harsh looking to my eyes.

 

Give it awhile... I find it takes 6-8 months of pro shooting before I really know what a camera system is capable of doing. With the M9, I feel I've got a leg up on post processing because it's similar to the M8 that I've been shooting for years now.

 

But it's not the same. On noise, for example, the M9 is definitely much improved over the M8, but so much depends on how you expose and how you process. The RAW converters are getting better almost with every release now, and I can shoot the M9 in ways I just wouldn't on the M8.

 

Anyway, good luck! So far, I see nothing objectionable at ISO 1600 even in large prints I've made with the M9, but it's early days, and I need to get some stuff to my lab to really tell (I want to make some 30 by 40s and I can't do that here)

[Audiocide]

On the other hand, for the same reasons I stopped using my Rollei SL66 in favor of a Bronica RF 645, I expect the portability and superior wide angle lenses of the M9 to outweigh its disadvantages for the types of photo trips -- hikes, backpacks, travel, etc. -- where most of my best images come from. But, I'll always have an SLR for those many things they can do -- and well. For example, I love the Canon 90 Tilt Shift. On the other hand, I decided not to by the new 24 TS-E. With digital tools, a 2-zone focus with a superior symmetrical WA on the Bronica RF proved quite capable of capturing the depth of field. (See for example, the opening shot at http://www.rangefindermag.com/storage/articles/RF0110_Roark_Bleich.pdf )

 

 

Those are some really nice looking landscape shots.

 

I like to take photos in the street at night, and there is no way I'm lugging a Mark II and the massive 50L around. Besides being heavy and cumbersome, it simply draws too much attention. I can easily hang the M9 cross-shoulder, and keep it inside my jacket when I'm not shooting. Autofocus is also a bore when I lift the camera to my eye to get the shot and it starts hunting for focus all over the place.

 

In controlled environments, and with subjects that hold still, I'd still rather photograph with the Mark II, but I can get those spontaneous shots with my M9 that would just not be possible with the Canon.

[Googaliser]

It's refreshing to read somebody being a bit honest for a change. I'm always a bit dubious about the threads started here by new members along the lines of "just sold all my Nikon gear to buy the M9 and Noct and I'm loving it" (see attached slightly out of focus photos of cat and 4 year old kid).

 

6 months after "just sold all my Nikon gear to buy the M9 and Noct and I'm loving it"

I'm still loving it. Don't own a cat though....

[markowich]

Those are some really nice looking landscape shots.

 

I like to take photos in the street at night, and there is no way I'm lugging a Mark II and the massive 50L around. Besides being heavy and cumbersome, it simply draws too much attention. I can easily hang the M9 cross-shoulder, and keep it inside my jacket when I'm not shooting. Autofocus is also a bore when I lift the camera to my eye to get the shot and it starts hunting for focus all over the place.

 

In controlled environments, and with subjects that hold still, I'd still rather photograph with the Mark II, but I can get those spontaneous shots with my M9 that would just not be possible with the Canon.

 

i can totally understand your feelings about the M9. i have a very similar issue with the M9 and the nikon D3x: clearly the D3x gives superior IQ at all isos and better large prints but i nevertheless use the M9 most of the time, simply because of the weight factor. this makes me compromise and settle for M9 IQ (which is not bad but not D3x after all..).

certainly D3x files are more elastic to heavy PP, have less noise even at base iso but the weight of my nikon equipment just puts me more off.

at the end of the day, if only IQ counted, I'd have to run around with the P65+ and schneider/rodenstock lenses all the time. i find the M9 -in spite of its many flaws- a reasonable compromise.

peter

 

markowich's Photo Galleries at pbase.com

[Maximus]

An interesting comparison of an M9 + 50mm 'cron and a Canon 5D MkII with 50mm prime and zoom here.

 

Certainly not a professional review, but surprising results all the same.

[mardag]

Hi all,

 

I´m a 5d MarkII user and now recently a M9 owner. when I bought the M9 I did quite some research not to be dissepointed. What I was looking for was of course portability and high quality in small format but also there was a curiosity of the rendering of the Leica lenses. Tests on the net by various people are very difficult to evaluate and by reading different forums for a long time I trust some writers more than others. I tend to trust people more that actually have access to different cameras(MFBs, 35mm C,N,S etc) and do their testing by printing the files.

 

I´m very happy with the quality that the M9 gives me but I don´t think It "blows the 5d away" there just is a very different look to the files. I guess what I´m seeing is described by the authors below:

 

Michael at LL

 

"As for overall M9 image quality, it's everything that one could want. The closest thing to medium format that I've yet seen from 35mm. Canon, Sony and Nikon full frame cameras offer somewhat higher pixel count, and certainly lower high ISO noise, but not better overall image quality. And of course in terms of size, weight, and lens quality the Leica simply shines."

 

Guy Mancuso at DPI forum

 

"I am really just seeing how the M9 is coming in relationship to really it's big brother. Same Kodak CCD 6.8 micron size, micro lenses and that really is the closest any back or any camera for that matter will be to the M9"

 

So my point is, I was looking for something different and I think I have found It. (Medium format light)

[markowich]

An interesting comparison of an M9 + 50mm 'cron and a Canon 5D MkII with 50mm prime and zoom here.

 

Certainly not a professional review, but surprising results all the same.

 

don't know what happened there. maybe a focusing issue or canon lenses are really THAT bad. never seen anything like that from my D3x with top nikon glass.

peter

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Audiocide]

don't know what happened there. maybe a focusing issue or canon lenses are really THAT bad. never seen anything like that from my D3x with top nikon glass.

peter

 

The Canon 50L is not a sharp lens by Canon standards. Not a fair comparison.