Telegraph's M9 Review

[tom in mpls]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I, for one, would dearly like to see better high ISO, perhaps good performance at 3200. And faster display would not change the basic M experience, nor make it more complex in any way, but would definitely make it more pleasurable.

 

I can see why working pros would take to the camera if it could perform some more tricks.

 

For Leica, then, they have to figure out how much R&D they can afford, while at the same time keeping the M experience simple and intuitive.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[AlanG]

I just reflected on how trivial this matter is in light of what Craig Venter announced today. Talk about technology...

[scottygraham]

This thread has certainly been an interesting read.

 

Aren't we lucky in this day in age to have all these options open to us as photographers!!??

 

The Leica is what it is, and the Nikons/Canons are what they are....so many great tools and options for us to choose from. They all rock in their own way.

 

I love my Nikon and what it can do....I am on the waiting list for an M9, and don't wish/hope it will be anymore than what it is. I am getting the M9 as my travel camera...I want a lighter camera to carry (sick of lugging all my Nikon gear), but did not want to sacrifice the quality of my images....to me, it is another great tool I can add to my arsenal....who cares about the debate of which system is better and why? Unless you work for Leica, we get what they produce, and I am sure they have their reasons for putting out what they put out...take it or leave it...I will take it, and if they come out with a Leica M10 with more bells and whistles, I will decide at that time whether or not it is worth it....it will be just another tool we can choose to use or not...

[Rick]

Bill - You always seem to get it right. The rest of you, so glad Leica won't listen to you...

 

Now, on to the really important stuff... when will my new 35 lux get here so I can have Leica M9 full frame and classic 35mm magic??? You either get or you don't.

[pop]

I could not see how limiting my choice of tools would be a plus.

I don't see where "limiting your choice" enters the discussion. No one is limiting yours unless you do so yourself. Buy all the tools you need.

load up the M or make a new small system that is technically advanced.

They did that. The M9 is technically advanced. The S2 is technically advanced.

Give it high ISO capability,

They have done that. The M9's max ISO is higher than the M8's, I believe.

faster shooting,

By all means. If you want to shoot faster, then do. What's holding you back?

faster image display, faster scrolling and zooming.

In principle, yes. There's a drawback. Faster electronics usually use more power. You'd either have to live with a smaller number of shots for one battery charge or with a physically larger and heavier battery.

 

There also seems to be the problem that the power supplied to the M9 by its battery might be on the brink of being strained. That is, at least, my interpretation of the fact that some brands of storage cards do not appear to work reliably in the camera.

Give it live view

Already has been discussed at length. The kind of sensor built into the M9 is not usable for live view. Assuming that Leica know what they do, this very sensor is the optimal part for the particular product. Hence, using any other sensor would be - er - suboptimal. We don't want that, do we?

and a clip on EVF

Nearly useless without live view. There might be some situation where a detachable display or a display with an eyepiece might be useful. Add a power pack to the detachable display with eyepiece, and you might have something.

- keep the rangefinder on at least one body,

There's an idea: make at least one body without the rangefinder, much like the M0 or the MDa (?)

make a wider range of lenses,

Given that most users of the M system are bound to use their system with the rangefinder, the market for shorter or longer lenses would be quite limited. There are better ways to invest into R&D.

sensor based IS,

What do you mean by that?

perhaps give it some processing capbilities such as the ones in the new Sony cameras

You'd have to be more specific than that. Which ones in particular?

- in camera HDR,

Bad idea. HDR takes much fiddling until you arrive at a halfway usable result. It also takes much processing power. In addition, you'd need a way to register your exposures first or the processing will produces multiple edges.

 

Since really useful and efficient HDR solutions are not even available for computers, that wish is not really well considered.

the abiliity to fire off several frames and take the best from each for better low light shooting,

I thought bracketing was possible with the M9.

automatic panorama stitching, etc.

Bad idea. Most of the arguments given for in-camera HDR apply as well. Besides, software changes so fast that the version incorporated into the camera will have become obsolete before the camera leaves the factory.

There are a lot of good ideas out there that can help me and others get better pictures and I don't see why Leica should turn its back on them just to keep "traditionalists and minimalists" happy.

Leica has an USP with their M product line. Most of the current users of that product would be surprised at being called "traditionalists and minimalists". requiring a tool to be made for one particular set of tasks under exclusion of all extraneous elements is neither traditionalistic nor minimalistic.

For me, a camera provides the tool to take pictures. It is not about nostalgia or minimalism.

As for nearly anyone else.

Restricting myself in one camera would mean that I'd need other cameras that can do the rest of the work.

Yes. That's true in any trade which relies on tools.

You know what, I can't travel on planes to jobs with two camera systems and the rest of the stuff I need to bring..

There you have lost me again. Once you have packed and loaded your three cameras which all cover the features you have asked for above, with all those lenses, tripods and lighting gear, I can not see what difference the few kilograms of Leica M gear can make.

Almost forgot... good tethering - preferably in Capture One, is a necessity.

Buy a camera, then, which does tethered shooting, preferably fast shooting, in-camera panorama and HDR processing, additional software functions as present in the Sony, wider range of lenses, clip on electronic finder and so on.

[Rick]

Wow pop, don't slam every single point of Alan's. Leave alan some wiggle room, he still thinks Leica's design concept should include having an interest in making cameras for "more photographers." And, he thinks that has something to do with "getting it."

 

Alan - WE GET IT... do you?

[rdubois]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Alan - WE GET IT... do you?

 

Well I for one think Alan does get it but his voice is only heard by those who wish to hear.

 

I've owned an M8 for a good two years but decided not to upgrade to the M9 because it did not represent enough of an advancement and for me still misses some features required by one camera system for my work.

 

There is no doubt that the M9 is a good camera but because it lacks some features such as for example weatherproofing, live view, AF and high ISO performance it limits its use and a DSLR is often required as a second system when those features are necessary. The M9 with two or three lenses also represents a very substantial investment especially if one needs to add a secondary (DSLR) system to the arsenal.

 

Size had featured high when I chose the M8 but I've discovered that ergonomics also play a huge role. I now own a Nikon D3S and after the initial shock at the size of the thing, 4 months on I can report that it is beautifully designed and the ergonomics near perfect. It balances very well and although still big it certainly more than compensates for its size by its ergonomics.

 

As for those people who suggest that you need to take the manual with you all I can say is that it took me all of one afternoon to learn most of it's features which is a great deal less than I spent when I first got the M8 to work out its features with filters and coding not to speak of the 4 times it had to go back to Solms for repairs.

 

Would I move back to Leica? Highly unlikely unless the price of the S2 miraculously drops. The fact that I can shoot at ISO 6400 and above with impunity means that I can use cheaper lenses.

 

To those who might imply that M9 photographers are somehow better I can only say that this is surely preposterous. The likes of Steve McCurry who do not use Leica are a testament to that.

 

To Alan: Leicaists (at least those who contribute to this forum) seem to be a proud and somewhat arrogant bunch of photographers who will go to unrealistic lengths to defend Leica. Some are in my view very narrow minded and I'm afraid that they will continue to pick holes in your measured arguments.

 

Dubois

[pop]

Leave alan some wiggle room,...

 

I so did, dinni?

[jaapv]

Well I for one think Alan does get it but his voice is only heard by those who wish to hear.

 

I've owned an M8 for a good two years but decided not to upgrade to the M9 because it did not represent enough of an advancement and for me still misses some features required by one camera system for my work.

 

There is no doubt that the M9 is a good camera but because it lacks some features such as for example weatherproofing, live view, AF and high ISO performance it limits its use and a DSLR is often required as a second system when those features are necessary. The M9 with two or three lenses also represents a very substantial investment especially if one needs to add a secondary (DSLR) system to the arsenal.

 

 

 

Dubois

Yes - that has been the case since 1960 - that one needs an SLR system besides an RF system to cover the full gamut of photography. And? A carpenter has both a hammer and a saw, he does not stick to a swiss army knife.

[pop]

...

I've owned an M8 for a good two years but decided not to upgrade to the M9 because it did not represent enough of an advancement and for me still misses some features required by one camera system for my work.

 

There is no doubt that the M9 is a good camera but because it lacks some features such as for example weatherproofing, live view, AF and high ISO performance it limits its use and a DSLR is often required as a second system when those features are necessary. ...

 

That's a perfectly sensible argument. In other words, the Leica M system is not useful enough for you, especially in view of its price. Other systems by - alas - other suppliers meet your needs better.

 

The only reasonable conclusion would be to buy other gear which is better suited to your needs and means, and that's what you say you did.

 

The only question I have in that context is why so many people in that very situation appear to insist in Leica changing their nearly unique and pricey products into less unique products which are present in abundance in an increasingly crowded market.

[pop]

Yes - that has been the case since 1960 - that one needs an SLR system besides an RF system to cover the full gamut of photography.

 

Hey - you left out my beautiful Minox C, my Rolleiflex and the large and for some cumbersome Linhofs.

[rdubois]

Yes - that has been the case since 1960 - that one needs an SLR system besides an RF system to cover the full gamut of photography. And? A carpenter has both a hammer and a saw, he does not stick to a swiss army knife.

 

1. In case time has passed you by, we're half a century passed 1960 and there have been just a few technological advances

 

2. The D3s is hardly a swiss army knife and the analogy is nonsensical. Apart from size there is nothing I haven't been able to do with the D3S which I could have done better with the M8 or I suspect the M9. Conversely it has allowed me to do many things especially related to high ISO completely out of the range of the M8/9 and oh the shame of it, video!

 

Have a great day!

[jaapv]

Concepts haven't changed. Technological change makes it neccessary to use another system additionally, probably many. I am a pro in a different field. What would you think of a dentist with just one tool? If your photography does not need an RF system, why use it??

[rdubois]

Concepts haven't changed. Technological change makes it neccessary to use another system additionally, probably many. I am a pro in a different field. What would you think of a dentist with just one tool? If your photography does not need an RF system, why use it??

 

Well I think the point is that technology has allowed concepts to change. And I no longer use RF.

 

We could discuss this all day but sadly I still have to work for a living and anyhow I doubt we'd find much common ground

[pop]

... Leicaists (at least those who contribute to this forum) seem to be a proud and somewhat arrogant bunch of photographers who will go to unrealistic lengths to defend Leica. Some are in my view very narrow minded ...

 

1. In case time has passed you by, we're half a century passed 1960 and there have been just a few technological advances

 

Yes.

[jaapv]

And I no longer use RF.

So what on earth is your interest in this thread?

[Xmas]

Hi

 

Starting from '59 photogs were seen (and could be heard on the sound channel) with a SLR + motor drive, or several SLR and a M with 35mm lens (or more rarely a CanonP+35mm lens, e.g. Hoppy used a P and Nikon F, for an interval).

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hopkins_(political_activist)

 

The SLR was large and heavy, the M lighter, the M would have been wound on and prefocused.

 

You still have the option of buying a M or P&S dcam for the quick snaps, to complement a DSLR system. Leica's competition is the P&S not the DSLR. A pro will want to shoot, with no delay 100% of time, bells and whistles he does not need, if it is noisy above 600 ISO he can convert to mono, a mono snap is still saleable. Apart from the dev & scan delay he could use a M2.

 

The remainder i.e. bulk of Leicas market is for 'dentists' knicker drawers.

 

Noel

[jaapv]

 

 

The remainder i.e. bulk of Leicas market is for 'dentists' knicker drawers.

 

Noel

So it is - that is where the money is. Leica makes very little profit out of pro photographers - but big names help sell cameras. Not that there are no dentists that actually use the stuff to take acceptable photographs

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Ecar]

What I find interesting is that Leica gets a lot more bashing for not providing some features available in DSLRs (AF, LiveView, video, etc.) than Canikon for not being able to make smaller/lighter cameras and lenses.

At the risk of stating the obvious, every tool at the photographer's disposal is a compromise in size, weight, features, etc. - and will continue to be so for a long time, as technology evolves.

Why some people want a Leica M to do what a DSLR does is beyond me...

I use both - occasionally cursing myself for choosing the 'wrong' one over the other for a given situation or event - and have come to realize that, if I had to choose, I'd go for "portability" over "features" anytime. But that's just me - others may have different needs.

Would I like better high-ISO performance from my Leicas? Sure - and I know it will come in due time. Would sensor IS enhance low-light capabilities? Of course - although I have no idea whether the mechanism would fit in the current M body.

Despite their financial means, I do not expect Canikon to make a camera with AF, LiveView, 12800+ ISO and a 70-200 f/2.8 IS zoom the size and weight of a P&S (although that may possibly happen one day...)

Why would I then expect a company like Leica, with limited financial capabilities compared to the "big guys", to be at the cutting edge of technology and, at the same time, offer a small and light equipment package with outstanding optics?

[AlanG]

I don't see where "limiting your choice" enters the discussion. No one is limiting yours unless you do so yourself. Buy all the tools you need.

 

They did that. The M9 is technically advanced. The S2 is technically advanced.

 

They have done that. The M9's max ISO is higher than the M8's, I believe.

 

By all means. If you want to shoot faster, then do. What's holding you back?

 

In principle, yes. There's a drawback. Faster electronics usually use more power. You'd either have to live with a smaller number of shots for one battery charge or with a physically larger and heavier battery.

 

There also seems to be the problem that the power supplied to the M9 by its battery might be on the brink of being strained. That is, at least, my interpretation of the fact that some brands of storage cards do not appear to work reliably in the camera.

 

Already has been discussed at length. The kind of sensor built into the M9 is not usable for live view. Assuming that Leica know what they do, this very sensor is the optimal part for the particular product. Hence, using any other sensor would be - er - suboptimal. We don't want that, do we?

 

Nearly useless without live view. There might be some situation where a detachable display or a display with an eyepiece might be useful. Add a power pack to the detachable display with eyepiece, and you might have something.

 

There's an idea: make at least one body without the rangefinder, much like the M0 or the MDa (?)

 

Given that most users of the M system are bound to use their system with the rangefinder, the market for shorter or longer lenses would be quite limited. There are better ways to invest into R&D.

 

What do you mean by that?

 

You'd have to be more specific than that. Which ones in particular?

 

Bad idea. HDR takes much fiddling until you arrive at a halfway usable result. It also takes much processing power. In addition, you'd need a way to register your exposures first or the processing will produces multiple edges.

 

Since really useful and efficient HDR solutions are not even available for computers, that wish is not really well considered.

 

I thought bracketing was possible with the M9.

 

Bad idea. Most of the arguments given for in-camera HDR apply as well. Besides, software changes so fast that the version incorporated into the camera will have become obsolete before the camera leaves the factory.

 

Leica has an USP with their M product line. Most of the current users of that product would be surprised at being called "traditionalists and minimalists". requiring a tool to be made for one particular set of tasks under exclusion of all extraneous elements is neither traditionalistic nor minimalistic.

 

As for nearly anyone else.

 

Yes. That's true in any trade which relies on tools.

 

There you have lost me again. Once you have packed and loaded your three cameras which all cover the features you have asked for above, with all those lenses, tripods and lighting gear, I can not see what difference the few kilograms of Leica M gear can make.

 

Buy a camera, then, which does tethered shooting, preferably fast shooting, in-camera panorama and HDR processing, additional software functions as present in the Sony, wider range of lenses, clip on electronic finder and so on.

 

Before you pat yourself on the back too hard, why don't you actually think about the features I listed and also learn about how things such as multi shot for low light actually works. *Hint it isn't the same as bracketing.

 

IS is stabilzation by moving the sensor. An ultrasonic dusk shaker minimizes dust spots on the photographs. By high ISO, I'm thinking more in the 6,400-100,000 range. Faster processors do not use up more power if they are on a smaller dye and have fewer chips. Even tiny 12 megapixel p&s cameras have faster processors than the M9 has. A lot of people will benefit from in camera HDR or in camera panorama even if one could do a better job by doing this in post. Sony's implementation for this seems pretty good an it also provides the middle exposure as a separate image. In any case, I'm usggesting that there is benefir from companies thinking how to optimize and use the digital technology that is already in the camera. At one time I used 35mm-4x5. Now I can do my work wiht 1 system. Traveling by air with 2 systems is more trouble than it's worth if one of those systems is redundant.