Should I take the M9 jump!

[Clive Murray-White]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Wilson that is a very good observation, in fact most of the pictures I took in the burnt forrest were cranked down past f8 and my feeling was that the Leica's ability or Leica lenses ability to show "limitless DoF" over, say Canon 5D mk2 was one of the deciding factors, my personal feeling is that its that slightly intangible issue of 3D modelling or "pop" that gives it the real real edge. Sure I know if I stagger into the bush carrying a pile of medium format stuff (or field camera) loaded with film I can ace my Leica but for sheeer convenience x results Ms win so far by my way of thinking.

 

Logic, reason and numbers said I should buy 5D etc but in my game having images that don't quite look the same as everyone else's is very advantageous. I'll go out on a limb and say it doesn't matter what the numbers say the freshness of a Leica image is almost impossible to beat, with either Canon or Nikon.(and any amount of mucking around in photoshop etc) That's what made me bight the bullet.

[RobertW]

"If you buy an SLR, get a Nikon F or F2 with prism finder."

 

"What about an F3?"

 

"The F3 takes batteries. It is not acceptable unless you also have an F or F2 with prism finder as backup."

 

Etc. . .

 

I still pick up my Minolta SRT 202 (circa 1970's), from time to time.

 

You can't beat the split screen focus which is surrounded by a circle of microprisms for fast manual focusing. Much faster than the rangefinder focusing process.

 

Also the needle and hoop light metering is great. You know exactly if you're over or under exposing.

 

Huge bright optical viewfinder which appears more than 1:1 with a 50mm f/1.4 Rokkor lens.

 

You know you're from the older gen, when I say, "Why don't they make them like this anymore?". Sure would like a split focus system in today's DSLRs as built in rather than having to install an after market product (like Katzeye or Hoada).

[ThorkilB]

So sorry, yourself. Keith took a picture in his kitchen of of a tea pot!!! And, he copyrighted it??? Then, you told him it was an "awfully nice and cosy shot!!!" Are you serious? I realize it was his 3rd post (welcome Keith ) but, encourage him to get out and take a picture. The rain won't kill the M9. It might even make for an interesting picture.

 

Please stop. You guys are killing me. Nice and cosy? Please stop.

 

But Rick...I really liked that Thea-pot-photo from Keith !!! a nice flawer of old-fashioned mood, nice colours and nice focus....cant help it...nice picture

and for Jaaps photo I think the shallow DOF has a mening (even though its out in the snow...and not the rain..) and clives picture also needed that shallow DOF.

As a general I think shallow dof only sometimes has a deep mening, and I fully understand the Wilson's wedding-daughter's view, and some of the best photos I am seeing/have seen, are where there could be a deep dof, but where the objects itselves serves as an attractions itselves/themselves so it/they catches the eye so strongly that shallow dof would give no meening here, and sometimes in contrary, when you a finished with the first eye-cathing things your eye move around and enjoy exploring the rest of the picture....thats where there sometimes occurs a deeper meening in a picture..

[MikeD700]

Nor does the M8/9... And why should one require high ISO during rain??

 

Strange looking rain that...

[MikeD700]

The shallow DOF look risks becoming something only for older photographers. My daughter was looking yesterday, at some of her sister's wedding photos, trying to get some ideas for her own wedding later this month. The photos were taken by a variety of professional photographers (there were lots of them at the wedding, as the father-in-law, Robert Creamer, is one of the US's top art photographers). The commonest camera was a 5D Mk2, usually with a fast prime lens. My daughter complained that a lot of the photos looked as if the people in the foreground were photoshopped on, in front of a fuzzy background. She said, "if I can manage to get both the people sharp and the background, why can't these so called professionals?" I explained DOF to her and she commented "I understand how it works but why would anyone want an out of focus photograph?" It's obviously a generation thing. Young folks are used to seeing photos from phones and small sensor P&S cameras, with almost limitless DOF.

 

Wilson

 

If that were the standard I'd give up on this quite expensive hobby.

[wlaidlaw]

If that were the standard I'd give up on this quite expensive hobby.

 

Sorry - don't follow or understand. Who should give up - you?

 

Wilson

[Keith (M)]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Good bit of banter regarding my teapot and not going out with my new M9 because of the weather, Well, just for Rick here is a hastily uploaded shot from this morning to show I have actually ventured out! Mind you, it was not raining

 

M9, Zeiss Planar T* 50mm f2, f11, 1/45sec. Imported with Lightroom v3.2.

[ThorkilB]

nice!

[MikeD700]

Sorry - don't follow or understand. Who should give up - you?

 

Wilson

 

I meant that if the standard were that everyting in the picture has to be pin sharp, like the average postcard, I'd be buying postcards instead of an expensive camera.

[wlaidlaw]

I meant that if the standard were that everyting in the picture has to be pin sharp, like the average postcard, I'd be buying postcards instead of an expensive camera.

 

Mike,

 

That is the point that I was trying (perhaps badly) to make, that there might be a dichotomy between those used to taking photos with film/larger sensors plus fast lenses and those, probably the majority, who use small or tiny sensors. Their vision has become accustomed to seeing hyperfocal images and they don't understand or like shallow DOF photos. A wide open Nocti shot would be total anathema to them.

 

I was showing my family some other shallow DOF shots as an experiment today and whereas they were comfortable with low light shallow DOF, where there was very visible bokeh, they were far less sure. For me, that is one of the biggest improvements with the M9 against the M8. To get my favourite 35mm EFOV on the M8, I needed to use a 28mm, where I could not have an f1.4 lens and even if I did, it would have deeper DOF than the 35mm Summilux on the M9.

 

Wilson

[MikeD700]

Mike,

 

That is the point that I was trying (perhaps badly) to make, that there might be a dichotomy between those used to taking photos with film/larger sensors plus fast lenses and those, probably the majority, who use small or tiny sensors. Their vision has become accustomed to seeing hyperfocal images and they don't understand or like shallow DOF photos. A wide open Nocti shot would be total anathema to them.

 

I was showing my family some other shallow DOF shots as an experiment today and whereas they were comfortable with low light shallow DOF, where there was very visible bokeh, they were far less sure. For me, that is one of the biggest improvements with the M9 against the M8. To get my favourite 35mm EFOV on the M8, I needed to use a 28mm, where I could not have an f1.4 lens and even if I did, it would have deeper DOF than the 35mm Summilux on the M9.

 

Wilson

 

Wilson I totally agree. I may not be the best user of DoF (tend to overdo it; still experimenting), but I'm trying to make my images more interesting, more 3D, more as you see them with your human eye.

 

It reminds me of some pics I made of a group last summer, 2.0/35 Zeiss D700, dusk approaching, using f2.8 close up, and someone said oh you don't make normal pics.

 

No, I don't.

[Nicoleica]

Apologies if these links have been posted before but here are two links to a pair of helpful videos on deciding whether or not to buy a rangefinder. They should be watched in order.

 

I want to buy a rangefinder

 

I want to buy a rangefinder part two

 

Wilson

 

I'm convinced that those two characters are forum members. I just haven't determined who they are yet!

[wlaidlaw]

I'm convinced that those two characters are forum members. I just haven't determined who they are yet!

 

I know but I'm not saying ;-]]

 

Wilson

[Clive Murray-White]

I've been thinking about these DoF observations a little more, and more particularly young people's reactions to them. Whilst my first reaction was to agree whole heartedly with Wilson a bell started to ring because I thought of all the young people I know and because of this I have begun to think that the real question is "style" not DoF at all.

 

While people can rarely understand why something looses its attractiveness there is nothing more certain. If I lump the young/younger into a general group, issues like the environment, fair trade and distate for pre-Global Financial Crisis values (greed is good) will always come up. Values like decency and honesty have replaced avarice - well maybe not, but at least people talk about it.

 

When people start to think differently aesthetics always follow - you could say that the young of today are more likely to respond favourably to an image that was full of good air. This, I reckon even governs the kind of aesthetics that they desire for their wedding pictures. Cooler, calmer and cleaner than a couple of years ago.

[jaapv]

Strange looking rain that...

Unfortunately, in winter the difference between rain, sleet and snow is not clearly defined over here... I can only say I got miserably wet taking this image.

[RichardM8]

Hi all,

 

OK, an update on how things are developing. Mostly between my ears I must say.

 

A few weeks on after my wonderful trail with the M8 my view is shifting a bit. Right now I'm leaning a little towards keeping my X1 and forget about the M8/9 for a while. During the 8 days and a few hundred frames with the M8 I got a good taste of what M photography is about. Just a good taste, nothing more and nothing less. If I have to sum it up it would be something like this. This is my personal view:

 

1. Look & feel: Brilliant! No other word applies imo. The way an M sits in your hands, how it feels, the way the controls feel and work, it's all wonderful. A superb piece of German high quality engineering and it drips from every single part. The 'wannahave' factor from this aspect alone is huge for me. You just want to pick it up to feel and use it. Weird maybe, but true...

 

2. Manual focus: A dominating aspect of M photography. As far as I know, M focusing is the best implementation of manual focus bar none. Super accurate and a pleasure to use. It makes you more aware of, and more involved in, what you shoot. The feel of the focus-tab on the lens with the split image in the viewfinder is just magic imo. But... not having AF is still a drawback in my view. Regardless how much criticism the X1 gets for its slow-ish AF, there is no doubt in my mind that the X1 is faster on average in locking focus under varying conditions than I could with an M. Even with more practice. Zone focusing aside that is. If only the X1 would remember its last manual focus setting after switching off/sleep mode. This could be solved in the firmware.

 

3. Interchangeable lenses: a clear and obvious advantage over the X1. A wide range of lenses ranging from excellent to the best available. At the same time, I am very sure I'd never own more than one or two lenses. A 35 and maybe a 50 and I'd never carry more than one. So when the 35 is on, you wish it was the 50 and vice versa... Besides their superior optical quality, the wider aperture of the Summicrons also offers beautiful shallow DOF. Obviously better than the f/2.8 24 (=36) Elmarit from the X1 (as it should costing 1,5 x as much as the entire X1).

 

4. Performance/IQ: This is where my major struggle comes in. I am not raving nor totally convinced about the IQ. At low ISOs up to 320 it's very good. The images have a certain hard to describe look about them that is undeniably gorgeous. Stunning even at ISO 160. But unfortunately at higher ISOs the IQ deteriorates quickly. A lot of ISO 640 shots I took looked disappointing and needed quite some work in post. After reviewing the M8 files and comparing them with my X1 files I feel comfortable to say that the X1 beats the M8 clearly from ISO 640. Even 'lower' on quite some shots. My expectations from the M9 are only a little higher. With all respect for the wealth of knowledge here, the extensive reviews & tests from Erwin Puts and Sean Reid show that - besides the # of pixels - the technical (sensor) performance of the M8 & M9 is virtually identical. The perceived better high ISO performance of the M9 is mostly due to more in-camera noise reduction on the DNGs at higher ISOs than anything else.

 

The metering of the M8 is... well... let's say 'less sophisticated' than from the X1 that - to me at least - seems better balanced and much more consistent. Not a small point. And last, the highly praised unobtrusiveness and silence of the Ms. That one must go to the X1 too imo. It's smaller and whisper quiet compared to the M8 (which is plain loud) and the M9.

 

5. Price: This is not to kick in the open door that an M9 + lens(es) is expensive. We all know that. No this is about me having a huge struggle to shell out a lot of money based on a) the above I'm only a mediocre shooter at best and c) the performance of the little X1 is so d*mn good! Based on IQ it's nearly impossible to motivate/justify spending the required amount of money on an M9 over the X1. No matter how long I look at the files. Just having the money and 'being able to' is not enough to feel comfortable with it.

 

So where does this leave me now? Not sure... The thing I fear the most that this is just another episode of gear fetishism. And a very expensive one this time. The look, feel, handling and - I must admit - near 'magic status' of the Leica M seem to carry a lot of weight for me. Much more than the actual performance of the M8. What happens when the novelty wears off in a few months? What if Leica decides to dish out an M10 next year, say 9 months after I flushed my money on the M9? This is something else with a camera costing 1500 (X1) or one that costs 5500...

 

 

So in short, I'm undecided...

 

Richard.

[jaapv]

Manual focus - I think that is a matter of practice. I think I can beat most AF systems, and at least I control what I am focussing on.

 

IQ- I think there is a bit of a learning curve in postprocessing. The X1 may look better out of the box - quite good actually, but a well-exposed and well processed M8 and certainly M9 image is still better up to and including ISO 1250/1600

 

Exposure - that is a matter of skill. certainly the X1 is more user (dare I say beginner) friendly, but the M meter is highly accurate in experienced hands.

[ThorkilB]

For me....if I should take the M9 jump, selling some of the Hassy film-gear and D3...it should be, just to have the same feeling as with my M6, a small and light camera, high quality, unattended, and the fact I can control the exact focus-setting(allmost come to the fact that I allmost hate AF), and also to preset it for hip-shots, without relying on the AF-guessing(did it focus right...?), and also control on the aperture without looking in the camera, and also here, presetting....but yes at a high cost....but I believe this friendly happyness could be translated direct from the M6 to the M9 and could keep me ...happy...for the rest of my days..(please don't talk about M10 etc....)

(and besides that it must be full-frame and have a focus ring or wheel...not a meny)

thorkil

[RichardM8]

IQ- I think there is a bit of a learning curve in postprocessing. The X1 may look better out of the box - quite good actually, but a well-exposed and well processed M8 and certainly M9 image is still better up to and including ISO 1250/1600

 

I don't have your experience with M files but I find that a pretty bold statement. Based on my own experience and what I've seen & read around the web I don't agree. The X1 doesn't have ISO 1250 but definitely not at 1600.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[charlesphoto99]

Focusing an M is MUCH faster than the X1. One doesn't need to refocus each time per se, and even if the focus in the rf isn't exact at least you can still take the picture no matter what (and depth of field might cover it or capturing the exact moment might be more important than absolute precise focus).

 

Like Jaap said it takes practice. After a while you no longer hunt but just swing the focus into where it needs to be and milliseconds later press the shutter.