From Canon 5DII to Leica M9

[farnz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just so you know, you can delete a post for up to about half an hour after you've posted it. Just use the Edit button at the bottom right of your post and select Delete.

 

Pete.

[Advertisement]

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

[aymoon]

Just so you know, you can delete a post for up to about half an hour after you've posted it. Just use the Edit button at the bottom right of your post and select Delete.

 

Pete.

 

thanks Pete... I live and learn

[aymoon]

Too late Pete

I am enjoying my M9 3 weeks ago... Really enjoying!

for me LEICA is "El sabor de la fotografia" (the flavour of the photography ?)

thanks

 

Hey zaronita, how are you getting on with your M9 now?? You said you were looking for the 'flavour' of the photograph... did you find it?

 

I'm still waiting for the leica lens I ordered before I get my M9 (and for some money to come through:mad:), so i'm trying to be patient...

[zaronita]

Hey zaronita, how are you getting on with your M9 now?? You said you were looking for the 'flavour' of the photograph... did you find it?

 

I'm still waiting for the leica lens I ordered before I get my M9 (and for some money to come through:mad:), so i'm trying to be patient...

 

Yes, I did.

 

Every time I take my M9 and try to make a photo, I enjoy everything. Manual aperture, manual focusing, manual iso... I spend some time and this is what I enjoy.

 

Interiors: the authomatic W Balance, some times is confused... I bought my "Lally Caps" and I use "Manual WB".

 

This is for me the "flavour".

 

Because after so many authomatic cameras and posibilities, finally, you finish shooting and shooting... and probably you get "better" pictures, or at least "better and easier pictures".

 

It is not easy to explain my fellings:

 

1/ You can get the most wonderfull authomatic camera and take, very easy and fast, a wonderfull picture. (talking about quality, sharpness, etc.)

 

2/ Or you can spend much time to take a picture, and get not such a wonderfull picture.

 

Perhaps it is "nostalgia" ;-)

 

Concerning the lens, I have a 21 f2.8 and I am waiting a new 35 f1.4, an a used Tele Elmar 90 f2.8 and an old 135 f4, silvered 40 years old!

 

I use 70% 35 mm. 25% 21mm for interiors monuments and some times the 90mm.

 

This will be my travel gear.

 

With Leica we must be patient!

[farnz]

... I have a 21 f2.8 ...

Zaronita,

 

The 21 mm lens gives a picture beyond the M9's viewfinder so you're probably using a 21 mm external viewfinder to frame as you shoot. If you get the opportunity, I strongly recommend trying a Zeiss 21 mm T* viewfinder in a shop, which imho is the best viewfinder available at this focal length.

 

Pete.

[zaronita]

Zaronita,

 

The 21 mm lens gives a picture beyond the M9's viewfinder so you're probably using a 21 mm external viewfinder to frame as you shoot. If you get the opportunity, I strongly recommend trying a Zeiss 21 mm T* viewfinder in a shop, which imho is the best viewfinder available at this focal length.

 

Pete.

 

It came with the Leica viewfinder... perhaps not so good, but supose usable.

Thanks Pete.

[aymoon]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

nice one zaronita!

 

In my experience, there is no difference in the time it takes to get a good picture from my slr and an M. I don't use any automatic functions on the D3, so I go through the same processes with both.

 

I find that the D3 is faster in terms of getting the dof I want, as I can see it in real time.

 

On the other hand, the M is faster in terms of getting the 'decisive moment', as I can see exactly what's happening when the shutter goes, and it is so fast to capture. With the M, I never needed to chimp as I knew exactly what I was getting anyway, unlike the D3...

 

I think this evens things out, but I still prefer the shots i took on the M6 to anything I've taken on the D3. I just wish I could get a wide range of Leica lenses to match my Nikon range.

 

Farnz - Thanks for the recommendation... I'm thinking of getting the 21/2.8 as well, and £570 for the Leica brightline finder is just incredible, even if it does look good!

[farnz]

... Farnz - Thanks for the recommendation... I'm thinking of getting the 21/2.8 as well, and £570 for the Leica brightline finder is just incredible, even if it does look good!

Aymoon,

 

Having looked through both, imho the Zeiss finder blows the Leica finder away. There were 4 or 5 other seasoned Leica users at the Forum meeting in Zingst earlier this year who looked through my Zeiss finder and couldn't believe how bright, clear and free of distortion it was in comparison to the new Leica 21 mm finders for the 21 f/1.4 Summiluxes that were loaned by the Leica Akademy.

 

I used to use a Voigtlander 21 mm finder, which is considered to very good but when I saw the Zeiss and the Voigtlander side by side (thanks to Carl Bretteville) it was no contest and the Zeiss became a must-have.

 

Pete.

[aymoon]

Pete, I don't think I could ask for a better endorsement. It's on my shopping list now.

[skinnfell]

I am a professional photographer and I use the 5DMkII. The lenses I use the most are 24/1.4L , 35/1.4 and 85/1.8 and 70-200/2.8

 

I have used an borrowed M9 alongside it with 35cron and 50cron, and my own M9 is in the mail soon (well as soon as one arrives from solms to norway anyways).

 

I wont write a whole thesis on this issue (it could be done i am sure) but rather I will list the pros and cons based on my own experience:

 

PROS

- much smaller and lighter eqipment, even with "heavy" M lenses

- you generally make do with fewer lenses because of the cost

- no zoom is an absolute treat

- no long lenses is an absolute treat

- accurate focus to be expected every time, provided you become friends with the rangefinder. With the 5DII i find myself shooting up to ten frames to make sure I have one thats in focus. With M9, i shoot one and let it rest.

-The light metering in M9 is simple but very reliable. 5DII is all over the place unless you use spot metering.

-manual mode with SEPARATE controls for aperture and shutter. I hate the way 5DII does this

- medium-format-like image quality from M9. (I recently sold my mamiya 7II for that reason). Amount of megapixels does NOT equal high image quality, even with canons best L glass.

- you will not look so threateing to the people you photograph. That is a big thing not to be underestimated. I often move in crowds to document events, and a big white 70-200 does gets you noticed as a papparazzi no matter what.

-Abilty to have both eyes open while photgraphing - see whats outside the frame. This will make you a better reportage photographer.

- The camera slows you down so you take a MUCH higher percentage of "usable" images.

-With training, ability to take sharp pictures at 1/8 sec. (YES it can be done)

 

CONS

- Not water sealed. Wrap the camera in a plastic bag, stick with one lens and you should be fine, though.

- Not for super-duper-high-iso shots. But then again, iso 2500 on M9 looks VERY good, keep in mind that slightly grainy pictures print better than those with no grain at all.

- No autofocus means you WILL lose a shot now and then, compared to that you would have gotten with the 5D. However the remainder 99 pictures will look better than on the 5D, or any other digital camera for that matter.

- Leica is like getting the taste of fine whiskys. Once you get the taste of it you can NEVER go back to the lesser stuff, and it can get very expensive, depending on the grade of your addiction.

 

Well as you can see the cons arent really cons at all rather they are quirks.

 

 

Leica = Less is More!

[zaronita]

Thanks "skinnfell" for your professional comments.

I am an amateur, bur I think mostly as you. I agree.

 

On the other hand, the 5DII is a great, great camera and I will keep my 5DII for familiar events, childrens, sports perhaps etc.

 

But... I enjoy to take pictures with my Leica.

I don't talk about technical things... But feelings.

The flavour!

 

And thanks everybody has participate in this thread.

[Nando]

Here's my personal take. For me, personally, the main difference between a rangefinder camera and an SLR has to do with how I see and take a photograph.

 

With an SLR, I find that I am constructing the image in the camera. When I look through the viewfinder, it is like looking through a telescope. Everything in and out of focus and I'm searching for something. I click the shutter button once I create the image in the finder.

 

With a rangefinder, I find that the image is a subtractive exercise. That is, I see something that I find interesting in the midst of the chaos that is around me, I bring the viewfinder to my eye and I frame it.

 

With an SLR, I feel that I'm making an image. With a rangefinder, I feel that I'm taking an image. The photos I take with my Pentaxes are quite different than the photos I take with my Leicas. With my Pentaxes, I tend to concentrate more on light and depth of field. With my Leicas, I concentrate more on composition and form. Again, this is my personal experience. It certainly won't be the same for everybody.

 

I find using a rangefinder much more pleasurable. When I see something interesting to frame and shoot, its like receiving a gift. A Leica, being such a finely built machine, makes the experience even more enjoyable.

[Guest mc_k]

...

- medium-format-like image quality from M9. (I recently sold my mamiya 7II for that reason). Amount of megapixels does NOT equal high image quality, even with canons best L glass...

 

hi, I wish you'd elaborate, as I was thinking of going the other direction...I have an M8, and I thought I'd pass on the M9 in favor of medium format (Mamiya 7). I'd be curious how the M9 compares to the Mamiya 7; I'm also wondering what films and print sizes you might have used for comparison. I don't imagine many people have used both cameras.

 

thanks

[zaronita]

With a rangefinder, I find that the image is a subtractive exercise. That is, I see something that I find interesting in the midst of the chaos that is around me, I bring the viewfinder to my eye and I frame it.

 

Wherever you are, there is allways a marvellous picture. Find it.

 

Thanks for your interesting comments.

[Guido]

hi, I wish you'd elaborate, as I was thinking of going the other direction...I have an M8, and I thought I'd pass on the M9 in favor of medium format (Mamiya 7). I'd be curious how the M9 compares to the Mamiya 7; I'm also wondering what films and print sizes you might have used for comparison. I don't imagine many people have used both cameras.

Resolved detail: more or less the same (M9+Zeiss Planar 50/2 vs. Mamiya7 + 80/4)

Tonality and gradients: Mamiya 7

Scalability for prints: Mamiya 7

Dynamic range: Mamiya 7 (I use Ektar 100, T-Max 100/400 and Acros 100)

Film grain / scanner noise / dust spots: M9

High ISO: M9

Portability, reliability and handling in general: M9

Accessories and lens range: M9

 

A2+ prints are no problem with both cameras and will yield crisp and great detail on print. The largest print I made from a Mamiya 7 negative (Imacon scan of T-Max 100) was 92x71 cm, and detail + tonal smoothness look awesome at nose distance; I haven't tried anything close to that size with the M9 yet, but would suspect that more care has to be taken when upsampling and output sharpening the M9 files to avoid artifacts and edge problems.

 

Unless you have access to a very good scanner, I'd keep or upgrade the M8. If scanned on a flatbed (e.g. Epson V750), resolution and tonality of the Mamiya 7 will not reach the level of the M9.

 

Also, don't forget that the Mamiya 7 requires external viewfinders for the 43mm and 50mm lenses, and that you can basically forget the tele range due to the lack of focusing precision with the 150mm lens.

[Guest mc_k]

Resolved detail: more or less the same (M9+Zeiss Planar 50/2 vs. Mamiya7 + 80/4)

...

 

how's that for service...thanks for the detailed information on the two cameras. That does make me think about the M9 a little differently.

 

Actually I was interested in the 150mm Mamiya lens--I think the rangefinder issue can probably be sorted out; maybe the drawback is the closest focusing. Anyway that is great to know how large you printed with the Mamiya. My plan is to get another Leica M lens tomorrow, then eventually the Mamiya plus one lens 80 or 150mm. But I would love to have an M9. I will keep the M8 in any event.

[Guido]

My plan is to get another Leica M lens tomorrow, then eventually the Mamiya plus one lens 80 or 150mm. But I would love to have an M9. I will keep the M8 in any event.

These cameras are so good, and both the Mamiya and the Leicas each have unique advantages in specific aspects. The best choice indeed would be to use both if that option is feasible.