M9 in the Field.

[colonel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Ok, so effectively we're saying the M9 is not a camera for tough environments. Not a camera for hard photojournalistic use. More of a gentleman's camera, not quite as serious say as a top line canon or Nikon. Further, most of us, for our use, are happy with that?

 

We're saying yes, up to the M6/M7 the Leica was the go to camera for reportage, for war coverage, for capturing the moment the world changed. After that however, it became a hobby camera. Of course capable of capturing lovely images, as long as it's not in hostile environments. Like a fine weather camera for slow, gentle use where you have time to frame up, re-frame, adjust a little and gently squeeze off the shot. Pop it back in your brand new Billingham and take a taxi home.

 

That's fine. I seriously doubt that Leica agree or want that impression. In fact, I'd put a good amount of money on it. But you know, whatever.

 

[edit - artistic license was used to reinforce the image. Pedants re-sheath your sharpened pencils.]

 

You always jump to extremes. There are plenty of professional photographers who use the M9. There are also plenty of people who use it in a harsh environment.

There is no evidence an M9 isn't fine in a harsh environment.

 

This is nothing to do with the OP's points.

Amongst other things, he was complaining about battery life and jpgs. Everyone who reads these forums for five minutes, or looks at the Leica specifications, can see that this is a RAW camera, and yes, 300-500 pics is the max for a battery.

 

Thats fine for people who use it.

 

BTW I have seen many pictures from M9 in conflict areas, e.g. the eqyptian uprising.

[dwbell]

[edit - artistic license was used to reinforce the image. Pedants re-sheath your sharpened pencils.]

[RSL]

Don't know about it not being cropped, I have just got my copy out and looked at it and I have to say that doesn't look like it's cropped to me.

 

Paul, Find a copy of Henri Cartier-Bresson: Scrapbook and look for the picture. There's a copy in there with part of the obstruction still showing. The text also mentions the need to crop because of the post... or fence. In any case it was an obstruction he hadn't time to step away from.

 

What I do however know is that this is a decisive moment and I'm sticking by that

 

What he meant by "the decisive moment" is the moment when your photographic juices are up and YOU are totally focussed on the scene you're about to shoot. I'm sure he was totally focussed when he shot that picture, so, in a way, you're right.

[jgwill1]

I think we're setting up a straw man here with this idea of professional versus amateur. The only thing that really counts is whether the camera fulfils all the requirements that you demand of it. Whether you to take it to Glastonbury to photograph your girlfriend playing in the mud, or on assignment to Afghanistan, the principle remains the same. Will the camera do what you want it to do in the conditions that you will be working in? Obviously professionals put a premium on reliability because the job demands it. But you mitigate the risk by having spare bodies onboard. I certainly would have liked to have seen a bigger buffer on the M9P, as well as weatherproof housing, but that's just my requirements [ and it's not like I haven't managed to completely trash my favourite M6 a few years ago!]

 

Perhaps professional photographers are in a favourable position to road test these cameras, purely based on the the reality they are using them daily, often at the extremes of their performance capabilities, and often in the most adverse circumstances. But do remember that Michael Kamber, the NY Times photographer gave the M9 a glowing report on this very site not so long ago.

 

Let's also not forget that whether you are photographing cats or conflicts the camera is just a means to an end. To borrow from Lance Armstrong, "It's not about the bike" [oh how little did we know!!] It's the photograph that counts, the value of which can be measured in far more significant ways than by merely the amateur/ professional status of its creator.

 

Justin Griffiths-Williams

[bocaburger]

That doesn't mean it can't be improved to fulfil the OP's needs also though does it now?

 

I wouldn't say it can't be, but by the same token I wouldn't say it should be. Particularly if doing so would add to the size, or weight, and especially to the already nauseating price. The M9 is very good at what it does. I'm sure the next model (next substantive model, not merely a cosmetic facelifting) will be better still. I don't really see either the point or the harm in admitting the M9 might not be the war photographer's best choice at present. And frankly, the pacifist in me can't help but add that I think finding a way to obsolete war would represent a much better use of human ingenuity than making a better camera for war.

[GlennB]

Seeing as how this thread has gone far from the original subject, I want to mention one of my pet peaves. I guess I am old enough to remember where "Snap" ,"Snapshooter", and now "Snapper" came from.

 

Personally, whenever a dumba$$ reporter or editor says to get some snaps, thinking that her or her is being cool or cute, it just pisses me off.

 

I have been a newspaper Photographer/Photojournalist for over 30 years, NEVER been a snapshooter damit ! I very much doubt that any press photographer who has died while working their ass off wants "Snapper" on his or her tombstone.

 

From Wikipedia : "A snapshot is popularly defined as a photograph that is "shot" spontaneously and quickly, most often without artistic or journalistic intent. Snapshots are commonly considered to be technically "imperfect" or amateurish—out of focus or poorly framed or composed. Common snapshot subjects include the events of everyday life, such as birthday parties and other celebrations; sunsets; children playing; group photos; pets; tourist attractions and the like."

[bill]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I on the other hand, don't take myself that seriously. Perhaps self-deprecatory humour doesn't travel.

 

BTW, have you never come across "smudgers" and "blunts"..?

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[Guest nafpie]

For me, it sounds a little bit strange after bad experiences with a M8 camera, to believe that with the M9 all problems are gone and paradise has come to earth.

 

It sounds also a little bit strange to me, that things happened on a photo trip, which could easily have been tested 'at home' without wearing off the equipment and loosing a lot of money.

 

Both sounds not very professional to me.

[RSL]

Seeing as how this thread has gone far from the original subject, I want to mention one of my pet peaves. I guess I am old enough to remember where "Snap" ,"Snapshooter", and now "Snapper" came from.

 

Personally, whenever a dumba$$ reporter or editor says to get some snaps, thinking that her or her is being cool or cute, it just pisses me off.

 

I have been a newspaper Photographer/Photojournalist for over 30 years, NEVER been a snapshooter damit ! I very much doubt that any press photographer who has died while working their ass off wants "Snapper" on his or her tombstone.

 

From Wikipedia : "A snapshot is popularly defined as a photograph that is "shot" spontaneously and quickly, most often without artistic or journalistic intent. Snapshots are commonly considered to be technically "imperfect" or amateurish—out of focus or poorly framed or composed. Common snapshot subjects include the events of everyday life, such as birthday parties and other celebrations; sunsets; children playing; group photos; pets; tourist attractions and the like."

 

Glenn, Are you aware that one of Elliott Erwitt's fabulous books is titled Elliott Erwitt Snaps, and another Snaps: Notebook? I guess that makes Erwitt a "snapshooter" and a "dumba$$?" By the way, Wikipedia often is off base. The New Oxford American Dictionary gives this definition for "snapshot": "An informal photograph taken quickly, typically with a small hand-held camera." Golly, sounds a lot like what folks do with Leicas.

[GlennB]

Glenn, Are you aware that one of Elliott Erwitt's fabulous books is titled Elliott Erwitt Snaps, and another Snaps: Notebook? I guess that makes Erwitt a "snapshooter" and a "dumba$$?" By the way, Wikipedia often is off base. The New Oxford American Dictionary gives this definition for "snapshot": "An informal photograph taken quickly, typically with a small hand-held camera." Golly, sounds a lot like what folks do with Leicas.

 

Merriam-Webster "a casual photograph made typically by an amateur with a small handheld camera."

 

New World Dictionary "a hurried shot fired with little or no aim"

 

Encarta Dictionary. "A photograph, especially one taken by an amateur with simple equipment"

 

Free Dictionary.com "snapper or snap·pers :Any of numerous widely distributed marine fishes of the family Lutjanidae (or Lutianidae), many of which are prized as food fishes, that are found chiefly in warm coastal waters of the Pacific."

 

I don't think any of these definitions fit Erwitt's work.

 

When someone is as good as Elliott Erwitt, and I do love his Photos btw, they can call it anything they want.

 

Referring to a photojournalist as a snapshooter, or as defined by some sources, a term that implies

that they are "just an amateur", is at best thoughtless, at worst belittling and disparaging.

 

Oh, and dumba$$ was in reference to scribblers (reporters or editors) who think

they have a better eye than the photographer, or think they should direct

the photographer in how best to do their job because they're just a "snapshooter".

 

For Bill,

I'm assuming slang definitions.

 

Urban dictionary.com " Blunt: A cigar that has been hollowed and refilled with marijuana. The term 'blunt' was originally derived from the preferred brand of cigars for this operation, Phillies Blunts."

 

Slang-dictionary.com " Smudger:

1. a friend, ‘mate’

Example All right me old smudger?

2. a photographer. A jocular reference to inept developing and printing.

also smudge a photograph. This old item of press slang came, in the 1990s, to refer specifically to an illicit paparazzi snap of, e.g., a star en déshabille.

3. a flatulent person

 

Not sure how a "fattie" joint fits into this, but I can see the photographic connection with

Smudger. However it does seem to reinforce my viewpoint, as two of the Smudger

definitions are derogatory.

 

But enough of this.

 

Let's all get back to bashing the OP !

[bill]

Thought not.

 

In the days of Fleet Street, a "blunt" was a reporter. The term derives from blunt nib, as in pen. A "smudger" was indeed a photographer, but it has nothing to do with paparazzi. A sub-editor would dispatch a blunt to cover a story and a photographer to get a smudge or two.

 

My point is that these terms were used in a self-deprecatory manner, and carried no stigma. Taking onself too seriously is never a good idea. Erwitt clearly got that.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[andybarton]

 

Not getting into an argument over HCB but will of course accept that yes the pic was as you state behind the Gare Saint-Lazare and not as I erroneously stated Gare du Nord. But you were still able to identify the picture that I meant so no harm done.

 

Don't know about it not being cropped, I have just got my copy out and looked at it and I have to say that doesn't look like it's cropped to me. What I do however know is that this is a decisive moment and I'm sticking by that

 

I have seen the frames before and after the Gare shot. It seems that there were several "decisive" moments that day...

 

It's not true that he NEVER cropped, either. Very, very rarely, but not "never".

[WigglePig]

Well my last post was an observation that the OP seemed to have gone and bought a camera knowing the M8 had not suited him but still going for an M9 - I'm still curious as to why?

 

As I understand the OP's OP, he did not say that the M8.2 "did not suit" him but rather that he "was having all kinds of issues with [his] M8.2" and "it was sold at a nasty loss after completely freezing on [him]." This is rather different to how you portray his actions. It seems to me, supported by what the OP actually posted, that he had bought the M9 after being reassured that most, if not all, of the issues he had expereinced had been sorted in the release of the M9. Granted, it might have been a good idea to test rather more thoroughly before decamping to the 'Stans but I too would expect a £5k camera to perfom as advertised.

[colonel]

As I understand the OP's OP, he did not say that the M8.2 "did not suit" him but rather that he "was having all kinds of issues with [his] M8.2" and "it was sold at a nasty loss after completely freezing on [him]." This is rather different to how you portray his actions. It seems to me, supported by what the OP actually posted, that he had bought the M9 after being reassured that most, if not all, of the issues he had expereinced had been sorted in the release of the M9. Granted, it might have been a good idea to test rather more thoroughly before decamping to the 'Stans but I too would expect a £5k camera to perfom as advertised.

 

As I see it, the OP makes 5 main complaints:

 

1.The batteries don't last as lone as his D3. No kidding. Nothing different from what Leica says

2. Only certain SD cards work. It is well known that the M8 and M9 have difficulty with Class 10 SD cards (although the current firmware has increased reliability). Just best to avoid Class 10s

3. The frame-lines are not completely accurate. Duh!

4. White-balance is not the best. Its is clear from here that the M9 is a raw camera

5. Too much time is spent in post-production. As the M9 is a RAW camera, some work is required. However my workflow in Lightroom is extremely fast.

 

Its true that we would all like improvements in the next version, but all of these are well known foilbles, and not considered an issue by most of its users.

The M9 is not considered a direct competitor to the machine gun style of the D3.

 

As an anecdote, I was in a conference yesterday, and they had hired a professional photographer to take pictures. He had a 5Dii with grip or 1DIV (couldn't exactly see). He can a cacophany of expensive lenses. Everytime I turned round to look at him, some different large white lens was afront the camera. Not kidding, he must have taken 100s pictures of that single session. So I guess that one or two must have come out ok

 

Again, not saying the OP is not an excellent photographer, but making the point that no photographer is "divine" and being a pro doesn't change that and it is "allowed" to criticise.

[plasticman]

I am not saying the OP is not excellent, but two points come across from this "pro" yesterday: there is a style of machine-gun photography that some professionals use which I don't think is any good (and which the M9 is no good for); and also, despite all the equipment in the world, some people are just not very good photographers.

 

For all the equivocation in these sentences, if you've seen the sort of (internationally award-winning) work that Charles Ommanney actually does, your anecdote about some (apparently rather poor) hired professional for your conference is really not very relevant, and could be misinterpreted as extremely patronizing.

[wattsy]

You know what, if I was the photographer, I would have taken 2-3 pictures of each of the panelists and 3-7 pictures blah blah blah..............

 

LOL. I'm not 100% sure whether you are the 'regular' forum wind-up merchant (using yet another nom de plume) or being serious? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the former.

[dwbell]

As I see it, the OP makes 5 main complaints:

 

1.The batteries don't last as lone as his D3. No kidding. Nothing different from what Leica says

2. Only certain SD cards work. It is well known that the M8 and M9 have difficulty with Class 10 SD cards (although the current firmware has increased reliability). Just best to avoid Class 10s

3. The frame-lines are not completely accurate. Duh!

4. White-balance is not the best. Its is clear from here that the M9 is a raw camera

5. Too much time is spent in post-production. As the M9 is a RAW camera, some work is required. However my workflow in Lightroom is extremely fast.

 

Its true that we would all like improvements in the next version, but all of these are well known foilbles, and not considered an issue by most of its users.

The M9 is not considered a direct competitor to the machine gun style of the D3.

 

As an anecdote, I was in a conference yesterday, and they had hired a professional photographer to take pictures. He had a 5Dii with grip or 1DIV (couldn't exactly see). He can a cacophany of expensive lenses. Everytime I turned round to look at him, some different large white lens was afront the camera.

 

Let me set the scene, we were all sitting down, watching 5 panelists speak. There was very little variation or movement throughout the whole 1 hour session.

 

So this guy was at the back, with his heavy equipment. And every few seconds I heard a "clack, clack, clack". Not kidding, he must have taken 100s pictures of that session.

So I guess that one or two must have come out ok

 

You know what, if I was the photographer, I would have taken 2-3 pictures of each of the panelists and 3-7 pictures of the whole panel.

 

but I would have done something else as well, which he never did. I would have walked to the front, and taken a few "iconic" pictures of the audience looking forward at the speakers. A few arty ones with f2-f1.4, isolating a row or a clump of the audience and other ones with a small aperture to capture the audience in general.

 

I am not saying the OP is not excellent, but two points come across from this "pro" yesterday: there is a style of machine-gun photography that some professionals use which I don't think is any good (and which the M9 is no good for); and also, despite all the equipment in the world, some people are just not very good photographers.

 

Again, not saying the OP is not an excellent photographer, but making the point that no photographer is "divine" and being a pro doesn't change that.

 

For someone who takes offence at being called an armchair photographer......

 

You know what an armchair quarterback is right?

[colonel]

For all the equivocation in these sentences, if you've seen the sort of (internationally award-winning) work that Charles Ommanney actually does, your anecdote about some (apparently rather poor) hired professional for your conference is really not very relevant, and could be misinterpreted as extremely patronizing.

 

I think the comments against those that have disagreed with OP have been extremely patronising. So perhaps I was making a point.

[noirist]

The pro took so many pictures that he's sure to end up with some good ones. Maybe he even checked some of them on his high resolution screen for obvious focus or exposure errors. What's wrong with that? It sounds to me like he did his job, which is to deliver some good pictures of the event with a very high degree of certainty.

 

As an anecdote, I was in a conference yesterday, and they had hired a professional photographer to take pictures. He had a 5Dii with grip or 1DIV (couldn't exactly see). He can a cacophany of expensive lenses. Everytime I turned round to look at him, some different large white lens was afront the camera. Not kidding, he must have taken 100s pictures of that single session. So I guess that one or two must have come out ok

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[colonel]

The pro took so many pictures that he's sure to end up with some good ones. Maybe he even checked some of them on his high resolution screen for obvious focus or exposure errors. What's wrong with that? It sounds to me like he did his job, which is to deliver some good pictures of the event with a very high degree of certainty.

 

fine,

 

I admit my example was poorly judged and detracted from my original point