edmond_terakopian Posted June 7, 2011 Share #1 Posted June 7, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) It just struck me that this might be useful for anyone deciding on or researching an M9: http://photothisandthat.co.uk/2010/03/30/leica-m9-full-review/ It was originally published in the BJP. Cheers, Edmond Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 Hi edmond_terakopian, Take a look here My M9 Review. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
kaiwing Posted June 7, 2011 Share #2 Posted June 7, 2011 Very good review, in particular the part "Does it Make Sense?". Many thanks for sharing with us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edmond_terakopian Posted June 7, 2011 Author Share #3 Posted June 7, 2011 Very good review, in particular the part "Does it Make Sense?". Many thanks for sharing with us. Pleasure; thanks for your kind words and glad it was interesting :-) Edmond Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdriceman Posted June 8, 2011 Share #4 Posted June 8, 2011 My sentiments exactly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pklein Posted June 9, 2011 Share #5 Posted June 9, 2011 Excellent review, Edmond. I think you explain "Why Leica?" about the best I've ever read. Maybe you're a little too hard on the M8, but I understand why--as a working pro, your threshold for "good enough" is a bit higher than mine. Once you get the IR filters, that's done and you can forget about them. I've been very happy with my M8 up to and including ISO 640 (effective 800). That's usually enough for me, but my career is not riding on getting any particular shot, so if I have to shoot at 1/8 sec and risk too much motion blur, life will go on. And I grew up on Tri-X... Can you imagine a digital M with a CMOS sensor like the Nikon D700's, with no anti-alias filter and the offset microlenses? That would be available light heaven. Although the low ISO image quality freaks would probably feel betrayed at the loss of their half of the Leica legacy, just as the many denizens of the dark feel the M8 betrays the available darkness legacy, and M9 is just adequate. But if someone makes the above camera, whether it's Leica or somebody else, I will be seriously tempted. --Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edmond_terakopian Posted June 9, 2011 Author Share #6 Posted June 9, 2011 Excellent review, Edmond. I think you explain "Why Leica?" about the best I've ever read. Maybe you're a little too hard on the M8, but I understand why--as a working pro, your threshold for "good enough" is a bit higher than mine. Once you get the IR filters, that's done and you can forget about them. I've been very happy with my M8 up to and including ISO 640 (effective 800). That's usually enough for me, but my career is not riding on getting any particular shot, so if I have to shoot at 1/8 sec and risk too much motion blur, life will go on. And I grew up on Tri-X... Can you imagine a digital M with a CMOS sensor like the Nikon D700's, with no anti-alias filter and the offset microlenses? That would be available light heaven. Although the low ISO image quality freaks would probably feel betrayed at the loss of their half of the Leica legacy, just as the many denizens of the dark feel the M8 betrays the available darkness legacy, and M9 is just adequate. But if someone makes the above camera, whether it's Leica or somebody else, I will be seriously tempted. --Peter Many thanks for your extremely kind feedback Peter; much appreciated. Alas as news photographers we have to work in conditions and the M8's ability just didn't cut it for me personally. I do love my M9 though!! Indeed, even lower light ability would suit me just fine :-) Cheers, Edmond Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted June 9, 2011 Share #7 Posted June 9, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thanks!, you made the first portrait with the Noctilux 0.95, that made me think: well maybe it is an interesting lens. I agree with pklein that relatively speaking the M8 is not that bad as you suggest in comparison to the M9, which has its cons too: Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! This photo also shows the reddish skin tones coming from the M9, something the M8 does definitely better in that amount of time PP-ing Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! This photo also shows the reddish skin tones coming from the M9, something the M8 does definitely better in that amount of time PP-ing ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/153694-my-m9-review/?do=findComment&comment=1697453'>More sharing options...
edmond_terakopian Posted June 9, 2011 Author Share #8 Posted June 9, 2011 Thanks!, you made the first portrait with the Noctilux 0.95, that made me think: well maybe it is an interesting lens.I agree with pklein that relatively speaking the M8 is not that bad as you suggest in comparison to the M9, which has its cons too: http://www.flickr.com/photos/terakopian/4147424955/in/set-72157622403036740 This photo also shows the reddish skin tones coming from the M9, something the M8 does definitely better in that amount of time PP-ing Cheers Otto :-) It really is a stunning lens. Which portrait are you referring to? The one you linked to or a different one? As far as the M8, I have seen some amazing work from it. It's just that in my line of work, it could be limiting. That particular shot was a nightmare though! Daylight through a tinted window and two different types of artificial light! I was just borrowing a Noctilux to see the bokeh and DOF so wasn't concentrating much on lighting!! No excuses though! Cheers, Edmond Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted June 10, 2011 Share #9 Posted June 10, 2011 Cheers Otto :-) It really is a stunning lens. Which portrait are you referring to? The one you linked to or a different one? As far as the M8, I have seen some amazing work from it. It's just that in my line of work, it could be limiting. That particular shot was a nightmare though! Daylight through a tinted window and two different types of artificial light! I was just borrowing a Noctilux to see the bokeh and DOF so wasn't concentrating much on lighting!! No excuses though! Cheers, Edmond Yes I meant the man who holds his glasses, from the link. The lighting is good, but I take it that you converted it in LR3 and this gives the red skintones. Jamie Roberts' color profile for the M8 are perfect to smoothen this out, they can be applied in C1 for M9 images with equal success (somewhere here on the forum) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ezc203 Posted June 10, 2011 Share #10 Posted June 10, 2011 Very nice review of the M9, I like the "either you get it or you don't" - idea. I think that is absolutely accurate when it comes to Leica M/rangefinder photography. That said, I found your (seemingly) extremely harsh comments of the M8 to be unnecessary. After all the two cameras (M8/M9) share a lot more similarities than difference. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hx911 Posted June 10, 2011 Share #11 Posted June 10, 2011 great review, and a lot of my sentiment - apart from that for me (ME that is) the M8 did everything (more) than I need and can use. Having the M9 now, after 3 years M8, is that much better - but explaining to someone why I 'need' to spend this money, when I have a perfectly good 5D and L primes and zooms .... not easy. But when travelling EVERYONE sees the advantage! cheers and thanks Hans Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edmond_terakopian Posted June 10, 2011 Author Share #12 Posted June 10, 2011 Yes I meant the man who holds his glasses, from the link. The lighting is good, but I take it that you converted it in LR3 and this gives the red skintones. Jamie Roberts' color profile for the M8 are perfect to smoothen this out, they can be applied in C1 for M9 images with equal success (somewhere here on the forum) Thanks Otto - the image was processed in Aperture. It was shot in November 2009 so was very much getting used to the camera's sensor and rendition. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edmond_terakopian Posted June 10, 2011 Author Share #13 Posted June 10, 2011 Very nice review of the M9, I like the "either you get it or you don't" - idea. I think that is absolutely accurate when it comes to Leica M/rangefinder photography. That said, I found your (seemingly) extremely harsh comments of the M8 to be unnecessary. After all the two cameras (M8/M9) share a lot more similarities than difference. Thanks Eddie - as a reviewer and full time photographer, my opinions on the M8 stand and are necessary - for me and the uses a camera will have. As I mentioned before, I have seen some great work from an M8; as a photojournalist, it just wasn't suitable. The M9 is a different story which is why I use one now as my primary camera and most importantly, it lets me use those lenses I love so much! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edmond_terakopian Posted June 10, 2011 Author Share #14 Posted June 10, 2011 great review, and a lot of my sentiment - apart from that for me (ME that is) the M8 did everything (more) than I need and can use.Having the M9 now, after 3 years M8, is that much better - but explaining to someone why I 'need' to spend this money, when I have a perfectly good 5D and L primes and zooms .... not easy. But when travelling EVERYONE sees the advantage! cheers and thanks Hans Thanks Hans - when my colleagues see me on assignment with a tiny little Retrospective 5 or Fogg B-laika, they immediately see the advantage and that's even before they've even seen the amazing quality of these beautiful Leica lenses! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted June 10, 2011 Share #15 Posted June 10, 2011 Thanks for posting this Edmund. I remember enjoying it the first time round in the BJP and have just enjoyed reading it again. But there's one thing I'd like to ask - do you really believe that the image quality of the M9 doesn't come come close to the Canon 5D II? I was never sure whether you meant just at high iso or not. If you mean across the board, and if you do mean not even close, that's quite some indictment to conclude with. Nevertheless, a very helpful article. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted June 10, 2011 Share #16 Posted June 10, 2011 Thanks for posting this Edmund. I remember enjoying it the first time round in the BJP and have just enjoyed reading it again. But there's one thing I'd like to ask - do you really believe that the image quality of the M9 doesn't come come close to the Canon 5D II? I was never sure whether you meant just at high iso or not. If you mean across the board, and if you do mean not even close, that's quite some indictment to conclude with. Nevertheless, a very helpful article. +1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted June 10, 2011 Share #17 Posted June 10, 2011 With sincere apologies for misspelling your name Edmond, but the edit function's vanished! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edmond_terakopian Posted June 10, 2011 Author Share #18 Posted June 10, 2011 Thanks for posting this Edmund. I remember enjoying it the first time round in the BJP and have just enjoyed reading it again. But there's one thing I'd like to ask - do you really believe that the image quality of the M9 doesn't come come close to the Canon 5D II? I was never sure whether you meant just at high iso or not. If you mean across the board, and if you do mean not even close, that's quite some indictment to conclude with. Nevertheless, a very helpful article. Thanks Peter for the kind words. I'd revise that comment now that I've had my own camera since last July. Originally my main point was about high ASA settings - for me personally, above 1250 isn't great; but also at higher ASAs like 800, the 5D MkII produces 'cleaner' files. My revised comment would include that I would wish for better high ASA performance, but getting to know the look of the file, I have no issues at all with image quality; in fact, I love it! Cheers, Edmond Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted June 12, 2011 Share #19 Posted June 12, 2011 Hi Edmond, thanks for the link! Nicely written and perfectly encapsulates the M9's appeal. I must admit I like mine even more today than when I got it over a year ago I do think your choice of raw converter can have a big effect on noise, especially between 1250 and 2000, with the M9. I haven't used Aperture but the most recent results I've seen from people proficient with Lightroom look quite astonishing on those terms. Personally, I'm a C1 person... and I find that for printing I have no problem with the M9 up to and including ISO 1600 and in a pinch where I need contrast and not absolute shadow detail, even a bit more. All the raw converters just keep getting better too, which is completely encouraging! Thanks again for the post! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edmond_terakopian Posted June 12, 2011 Author Share #20 Posted June 12, 2011 Hi Edmond, thanks for the link! Nicely written and perfectly encapsulates the M9's appeal. I must admit I like mine even more today than when I got it over a year ago I do think your choice of raw converter can have a big effect on noise, especially between 1250 and 2000, with the M9. I haven't used Aperture but the most recent results I've seen from people proficient with Lightroom look quite astonishing on those terms. Personally, I'm a C1 person... and I find that for printing I have no problem with the M9 up to and including ISO 1600 and in a pinch where I need contrast and not absolute shadow detail, even a bit more. All the raw converters just keep getting better too, which is completely encouraging! Thanks again for the post! Many thanks Jamie. A lot of the issue with high ASA is subjective too and also depends on the end recipient of the image. My clients are papers and magazines, so I need to shoot in a way which is going to make my work stand out; did you a British national newspaper gets an average of 16,000 pictures per day! Crazy!! My choice of Aperture is because it works well for me on deadline; it's fast, has the quality I need and is solid. I just couldn't get on with Lightroom and a C1 workflow is far too slow for deadline use - although I did use C1 many years ago for features and portraits with longer deadlines. Have to say that over the years (I've been shooting digital since 1999 and was already in a digital workflow scanning since 1996) the best imaging program I have found is Aperture. I also use Nik Software's Viveza 2 and SIlver Efex Pro 2 as plugins and it's a perfect system! Cheers, Edmond Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.