M9 users (M8 too): Is it the glass or the camera that attracts you?

[eleskin]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have been using my M8 since 2007, and am looking towards an M9 when I can afford it (most of my camera money in the past few years has gone to buying used Leica lenses only). For me, the Leica glass is the thing that keeps me buying Leica M cameras (for me digital now). The camera is nice, but it is the glass that is the special thing to me. The M9 is a great camera, but technologically it trails behind the innovations of Nikon and Canon in many areas (although the simple layout of the M9 or M8 is much more attractive to me than confusing options and multi functions I will never need). So it is because of the glass that I keep shooting with Leica.

So how many of you digital M shooters out there are using the M9 (M8 too) because you love the glass more than the camera? I know I am, because if there were other M mount digital cameras (Zeiss? Voigtlander? etc,,,) I would consider them as well, but my Leica glass will always be in my camera bag!

 

Ed

[henri]

It is, first, really the Leica lenses, that count. Second: the ergonomics of the M body.

It would be extremly nice to imagine a Leica M9 camera with a real high-end sensor and a corresponding sophisticated digital image processing... but this seems only a dream never to come true.

[tmldds]

I moved from an m8.2 after 3 months to an m9 and love it. I only miss my Canon for low light, and macro work. At times, autofocus would have been handy when my eyes are tired. Save your money and buy an m9, otherwise you will, most likely, be wondering... Still the m8 is a great camera... Good luck, Tri:)

[ldhrads]

I moved from an m8.2 after 3 months to an m9 and love it. I only miss my Canon for low light, and macro work. At times, autofocus would have been handy when my eyes are tired. Save your money and buy an m9, otherwise you will, most likely, be wondering... Still the m8 is a great camera... Good luck, Tri:)

 

I have to echo Tri

The M9 is amazing in my hands and I loved my M8. But really, it's the glass that makes the system.

 

LDH

[Nicoleica]

It has to the glass. A Leica lens gives a certain quality and aura that no other lens can touch. (And I have some very nice lenses by other makers too.)

 

I think that you could stick a Leica lens on a sardine can with a piece of film taped inside, and get better results than from a super-dooper camera with a different lens.

[jaapv]

It would be extremly nice to imagine a Leica M9 camera with a real high-end sensor

Leica's choice is best quality up to ISO 1600, hence a CCD sensor. Would they have chosen for noiseless processed high-ISO it would be CMos. Which high-end CCD outperforms the M9 sensor? In fact which high-end sensor do you mean?

[Steve Ash]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The quality of the Leica glass is out of question but I mostly respect and appreciate the overall concept to simplify the life of the photographer by straight-forward ergonomics and control.

 

Regards

Steve

[dpattinson]

camera for me. if the S2 with its arguably better lenses was the same price as the M9 - i'd still buy the M camera.

[Theodor Heinrichsohn]

In my case, both M8u and M9 AND the Leitz/Leica lenses.

The camera because of its ergonomics, simplicity and 24x36 sensor (M9) in a small camera.

Teddy

[rosuna]

Leica's choice is best quality up to ISO 1600, hence a CCD sensor. Would they have chosen for noiseless processed high-ISO it would be CMos. Which high-end CCD outperforms the M9 sensor? In fact which high-end sensor do you mean?

 

Take a look at DxO graphics...

 

Canon's 22MP and Nikon's 24MP sensors are the points of reference at this moment.

 

Noise is a more complex phenomenon than digital "grain". Noise affects dynamic range, detail, color gamut, etc.

[Tom_W]

Predominantly the glass, followed by the size given it is now full frame.

 

Personally I think the body is overpriced considering what you get and would welcome at least seeing a canon/Zeiss equivalent with a Leica m mount, as long as was full frame.

 

T

[theendlesshouse]

Got to be the glass, sensors come and go rather too quickly with product/software cycles getting shorter and shorter. After all it is not just the sensor we are talking about here, it's the processor, computer, software, storage, printers, consumables etc.

[gpwhite]

Absolutely the glass!

 

I have loved all my M bodies (particularly M2), but my RD-1 was also fantastic during the years when Leica had fallen asleep. Bodies come and go, but it is the image quality of many Leica lenses that remains unmatched for my taste.

 

For example, my 35 SX draws the same nuanced depth (illusion of 3D) at f/2.8 on Velvia 50, RD-1, M8 and M9... the latter three each having different sensor/processors. No other lens from any format I have used can match it. It's the glass!!

 

[i have only had my M9 for one week. Images are certainly different from my M8, but I am not yet convinced that the M9 affords "better" photographs than the M8.... perhaps it will take some time to adjust and write up a worthy post]

 

21SX, 28SM, 35SXa, 50SXa, 85ZM, 135APO

[giordano]

The camera. Current Leica lenses are better than I need, bigger than I want, and too expensive for my piggy-bank.

[Guest WPalank]

Size!

 

Compare the M9 with backup camera (in my case an M8) with 3 M lenses and 2 extra batteries to a comprable DSLR system.

[stephan_w]

Canon's 22MP and Nikon's 24MP sensors are the points of reference at this moment.

 

When you have good glas for it. To be honest, all my comparisons with the D3x in the 160-320 Iso range give an advantage for the M9 (a small advantage, though). i compared 24, 35, 50 and 90 mm lenses so far. The Leica combo always gives better detail rendering.

 

The main point for the m9 is the small size and weight, and extremely easy use, compared to the pro-DSLR.

 

The downside is, that there are some subjects that are hard to shoot with rangefinder cameras, so you will probably need another camera for this work.

 

And yes, it has to be a M9. Unfortunately.

[tollie]

While the lenses really make the image... it is the implementation of the rangefinder concept that has brought me back to photography.

 

Just the basics of photography, composition, shutter speed, aperture, ISO, focus point... all readily under my control... what ever comes out is the result of what I did in planning and executing the shot.

 

Its the basics of photography implemented in a seamless clean manner.

[luigi bertolotti]

Impossible to give a straight answer... "Leica and its lenses" is what I like as a combo... first af all, indeed, I like RF photography from the times of my Zorky, and so the handling of a Leica is the top I can imagine... but is hard to separate this from such a long history of top glass: in pure speculation... would CV make a Digital Bessa, with a proper sensor, I'd like the idea to use it with my Leica glass... and admit that even the Sony Nex is someway intriguing for me, just for the reason that I probably could use my lenses (with a handling/taking/focusing, I think, terrible for me)

[mgreernz]

For me, having lugged a substantial SLR kit around for far too many years, it's the ergonomics of the M system (size, shape, weight), rather than it's technological sophistication that ticks the box for me. And perhaps that it's a light box that refreshingly demands that I "think" before shooting.

 

But I have to agree that it's the quality of the glass that's been the icing on the cake. I'm embarrassed to admit that came as a complete surprise to me. I've owned a wide range of Canon and Nikon pro quality lenses over the years - but I've never had a kit of lenses that offer such startling, remarkable and consistent quality as does my current set of Leica: 2/28 Cron, 2/35 Cron, 1.4/35 Lux,1.4/50 Lux, 2/75 Cron and 2/90 Cron.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[UliWer]

...

Its the basics of photography implemented in a seamless clean manner.

 

Though when you look at it a little bit closer, you might find out that the rangefinder is the much more complicated and even absurd concept.

 

With an SLR you look into the viewfinder and the camera enables you to look though the lens. Lens, camera and eye are integrated tools.

 

A rangefinder can be handled and looked through even if the lens is covered by a cap or without any lens. What you see is not the same what the lens sees. You have to guess and adjust to get an approximate idea what the photo will show you. The lens has it's own point of view, which seems to be useless in the photographic procedure.

 

Each lens for a rangefinder seems to wear a stamp saying: "The human eye is not allowed to look though me!" It's just the camera which gets a chance to share what the lens sees for a fracture of a second. At the same time the eye looks out of the window.

 

The collapsible lens is the true symbol for the symbiotic relationship between lens and and a rangefinder body. The lens says: "Leave me alone, I want to rest in the lap of my cam."

 

The rangefinder lens is more like a cat than like an optical tool.