Telegraph's M9 Review

[diogenis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

hehe, nice one Bill I have more than 20 years to hear about that.

Nice.

[johnwolf]

Thank you John. Much appreciated. Yes, I get to travel quite a bit. Actually, substantially more than the photos on my site would suggest...

Your comment made me browse through your site: great bw work, very graphic and suggestive with strong compositions (I have a sweet tooth for the square format...)

 

Thanks for the compliment. I've become so enamored with square that I just got out my Rolleiflex TLR. Haven't shot it in thirty years, or film in ten or so, but I'm going to give it a try.

 

John

[johnwolf]

Quite frankly, any M camera is much simpler than that.... it's design simplicity the reviewers usually talk about, and Leica has that, while Canon and Nikon mainly don't.

 

Walk up to an M body and you know how to adjust aperture, shutter, and how to gain focus. Walk up to any 5 Canons or Nikons and you'll be doing something different for each one, and sometimes for individual bodies, since things like AF or aperture choice can be swapped around to different buttons on many cameras.

 

Ok, I know what you're saying, and for average results you're right: turn it on, find P mode, and "adjust" as you like.

 

OTH, I would miss too many shots working that way, trying to outguess the camera. That, to me, is too complicated.

 

BTW--I'm not saying that any of this results in better pictures from one or the other. For me, though, not having to think about the camera means something like an M... or a D3 with all the auto stuff except AF turned off. And when I fight with my D3 over focus, I mentally give another point to the Ms

 

Jamie, of course I'm overstating to make a point. We all know Ms embody Einstein's wonderful principle: "Everything should be as simple as possible, and no simpler." What's not to love about that. I just have an allergic reaction when reviewers cite this argument against DSLRs. I've used every camera I've ever owned--Nikons, Canons, Rolleis, Leicas, even point and shoots--in the same simple way. Complexity has never interfered with my photography.

 

John

[farnz]

Interesting, Pete.

 

We're back to Rubén's original question, aren't we? Just what kind of paper is the Telegraph?

 

Canadian citizen. In New Zealand. Spider bite. Reported in London paper? Okay, okay, it's all part of the Commonwealth, but a vacationing Canadian gets bitten by an endangered spider--this is a big story? Anywhere?

 

And on top of that, the illustration is wrong.

 

The story is fishy from the get-go.

 

You s'pose it was planted to lead us away from the M9 review?

 

Isn't Canon about to add a Katipo Commemorative Catadioptric Kit to their Canon Collectibles series?

 

The story is a plant!

Howard,

 

The story was reported in the Northern Advocate on 16th May, which is the local paper round those parts, and was also reported in the New Zealand Medical Journal so I don't think it's a plant and I don't think it's fishy. NA report here.

 

The wrong spider picture is just sloppy editing because although the Katipo is only found in NZ there are plenty of pictures of it in Google images (although all 8-legged ones ) so the paper could easily have checked.

 

Is the Canon Commemorative Kit a 'ho_co ho-ho' by any chance?

 

Pete.

[AlanG]

The real truth is that:

When you have 2 devices that perform the same tasks and results the same with little or no difference in their results, and one is : mechanically simpler, smaller, lighter and simpler to use then this is the superior device.

 

So by the same tasks, do you mean just the narrow range of things that the M9 can do? Then of course it can be lighter, smaller and simpler.

 

Because why would anyone ever want... precise framing, auto focus, IS, sensor cleaner, higher frame rate, magnified live view, the ability to use tilt shift lenses, macro lenses, and long lenses, better hi ISO quality, weather sealing, more reliability, the ability to shoot hi def videos (with stereo sound), professional support and quick repairs, and a lower price?

[bill]

...why do you own Leica, Alan? I'm genuinely curious.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[zlatkob]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Alan's point is valid. A chair is a "superior device" to a Porsche 911 (i.e., for sitting).

[ho_co]

... Is the Canon Commemorative Kit a 'ho_co ho-ho' by any chance? ...

For shame, Pete! That one's beneath the belt.

 

 

Seriously, I think we're not getting the whole story.

 

The katipo is not aggressive but will attack when trapped against the skin, according to various Web sources. My guess is that the poor guy had a tryst on the beach and didn't check his underwear when he picked it up.

 

Clearly an uninformed tourist, in my book. I mean, any true Texan knows to turn his boots upside down and shake them before putting them back on.

 

"It bit me while I was sleeping after a swim"? C'mon!

[stunsworth]

Because why would anyone ever want... precise framing, auto focus, IS, sensor cleaner, higher frame rate, magnified live view, the ability to use tilt shift lenses, macro lenses, and long lenses, better hi ISO quality, weather sealing, more reliability, the ability to shoot hi def videos (with stereo sound), professional support and quick repairs, and a lower price?

 

Just buy the fucking SLR and have done with it. You obviously don't 'get' the appeal of the M series, you're wasting not only our time, but more importantly your own. Congratulations. You're the first person to make it to my ignore list.

[AlanG]

Just buy the fucking SLR and have done with it. You obviously don't 'get' the appeal of the M series, you're wasting not only our time, but more importantly your own. Congratulations. You're the first person to make it to my ignore list.

 

You could have written that on a typewriter as it is simpler at such a task than a computer. It has nothing to do with M vs. SLR. It is simply a situation of logic that I felt was full of holes. I have owned a number of cameras that were especially good at a narrow range of uses. There is nothing wrong with that. But to say that minimal is better is only true if you ignore other tasks that the more complicated item can do. By this logic a film M is better than a digital M.

 

Besides that, how can one conclude that there is "little or no difference in results?" I believe that in the tasks that are common between an M9 and a DSLR, the M9's results are generally superior. Isn't that the point along with the smaller size and lower weight?

[diogenis]

...Because why would anyone ever want... precise framing, auto focus, IS, sensor cleaner, higher frame rate, magnified live view, the ability to use tilt shift lenses, macro lenses, and long lenses, better hi ISO quality, weather sealing, more reliability, the ability to shoot hi def videos (with stereo sound), professional support and quick repairs, and a lower price?

 

No one would, if he was reasonable enough not to carry around the bulk and weight of a dSLR that has all these features

[AlanG]

No one would, if he was reasonable enough not to carry around the bulk and weight of a dSLR that has all these features

 

I agree for the sake of discussion that all those buyers of the 5DII and some other DSLRs are unreasonable. Is weight and size the major concern then? What if the M10 or another camera has all these features and is lighter, smaller, and less expensive than the M9?

[diogenis]

I already answered to that.

I repeat: results are compared to the high end digitals, like the 5Ds, 3Ds's etc...

Then you mostly have to decide if you are after live view or portability. I would take portability anytime. Oh add discretion as well on Leica's pat and intimidation on any dSLR...

[jaapv]

The main source of irritation is, Alan, that there are dozens of fully loaded cameras and only one minimalistic one. Trying to change that single one is like telling a Buddhist begging monk that he should have a slap-up meal at a Parisian restaurant .

[michali]

All of us hang around this Forum for a number of different reasons, however there is a commonality that we share. Following on from Jaap's Buddhist monk analogy, I would say that many of us share in the philosophy of "less is more" and therefore the simplicity of the Leica appeals to us.

 

If we wanted a camera that gave us precise framing, auto focus, IS, sensor cleaner, higher frame rate, magnified live view, the ability to use tilt shift lenses, macro lenses, and long lenses, better hi ISO quality, weather sealing, more reliability, the ability to shoot hi def videos (with stereo sound), professional support and quick repairs, and a lower price, then we would have bought such a camera and wouldn't be here but would be hanging around in the DSLR forums comparing the size of our "cameras".

 

It is therefore extremely irritating, boring and tedious to constantly have comparisons drawn between what the M cameras can and can't do vs. the DSLRs. We're all very well aware of what DSLRs can and can't do and we don't want that! That's why we're here.

 

I've also got a sneaky suspicion that there's more than meets the eye here (excuse the pun). Judging by the way some of my friends with complex DSLRs behave, I have rightly or wrongly come to the conclusion that many are so driven by the fear of failure and so unsure of their ability as photographers that they need all these gimmicks in their cameras to ensure that they never miss a shot.

 

I've recently been using my 1939 Leica Standard again, which has no light meter, no ISO setting, no rangefinder and no focusing mechanism other than the distance scale on the lens. I like to think of it as photography in just about its purest form. I'm sure there will be many more dud shots than decent ones, but after all that's what it's all about. Most of my friends with DSLRs just don't get it.

[delander †]

The main source of irritation is, Alan, that there are dozens of fully loaded cameras and only one minimalistic one. Trying to change that single one is like telling a Buddhist begging monk that he should have a slap-up meal at a Parisian restaurant .

 

Well said Jaap, hundreds of alternatives yet it seems that some photographers actually resent the existence of one tiny little presence in market, the Leica M.

 

Jeff

[jaapv]

I think, Jeff, that for some people it is very hard to understand that the "lack" of features is liberating, not limiting.

[vintola]

All of us hang around this Forum for a number of different reasons, however there is a commonality that we share. Following on from Jaap's Buddhist monk analogy, I would say that many of us share in the philosophy of "less is more" and therefore the simplicity of the Leica appeals to us.

 

If we wanted a camera that gave us precise framing, auto focus, IS, sensor cleaner, higher frame rate, magnified live view, the ability to use tilt shift lenses, macro lenses, and long lenses, better hi ISO quality, weather sealing, more reliability, the ability to shoot hi def videos (with stereo sound), professional support and quick repairs, and a lower price, then we would have bought such a camera and wouldn't be here but would be hanging around in the DSLR forums comparing the size of our "cameras".

 

It is therefore extremely irritating, boring and tedious to constantly have comparisons drawn between what the M cameras can and can't do vs. the DSLRs. We're all very well aware of what DSLRs can and can't do and we don't want that! That's why we're here.

 

I've also got a sneaky suspicion that there's more than meets the eye here (excuse the pun). Judging by the way some of my friends with complex DSLRs behave, I have rightly or wrongly come to the conclusion that many are so driven by the fear of failure and so unsure of their ability as photographers that they need all these gimmicks in their cameras to ensure that they never miss a shot.

 

I've recently been using my 1939 Leica Standard again, which has no light meter, no ISO setting, no rangefinder and no focusing mechanism other than the distance scale on the lens. I like to think of it as photography in just about its purest form. I'm sure there will be many more dud shots than decent ones, but after all that's what it's all about. Most of my friends with DSLRs just don't get it.

 

+1

- vintola -

[diogenis]

I think, Jeff, that for some people it is very hard to understand that the "lack" of features is liberating, not limiting.

 

They will hardly -if ever- understand this. Blame it to the marketing people however, I can't blame Alan for this, but I fully accept it and admit that there are people maybe the majority maybe the minority that go for "full features". Something that doesnt always happen in the opposite direction...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[AlanG]

I really don't think any of you get my post. It has nothing to do with cameras and all to do with fractured logic. One item isn't necessarily better or worse than an other unless you establish the criteria that you are comparing. In some cases a manual hammer is "better" than an air nailer, but not for a lot of applications. So to try to "prove" it in such a weak manner screams out for that faulty logic to be revealed. There are reasons why all kinds of different cameras have been made over the years. I get why different cameras are used for different purposes or are preferred by different photographers. You could just as easly conclude that a Holga is a better camera than an H4D as so many fine art images have been made with a Holga.

 

Here is a conundrum of logic - If simpler is the best, why is it also not the most popular approach among professionals? (E.G. why did pros move from manual focusing to AF in droves as AF improved? Hint - it wasn't because marketers made them do it.)

 

I am also very surprised that anyone accepted the premise that the M9 makes images of "little or no difference in results." I think most people have the view that if you bought a $4000 lens, it should be able to take a better quality image than a much less expensive lens. And this shouldn't be subject to conjecture as it can be tested and proved. I thought the entire point of a Leica is that for what it does well, it is better than other cameras. If this is not so, then the main reason to own it is because you like it. And there is nothing wrong with that.