M9 against all of the competition..review here....

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...you know I, ( and I am sure you do to ), have to look at someones images first to get an idea how to evaluate what they say when they talk photography and cameras....

You hit the nail on the head here I think. The problem with the web is that everyone can be an expert. Its a judgement as to how to decide whether they are or not. Having read a lot of reviews myself, I have come to the conclusion that many reviewers consider that technical prowess is the be all and end all of photographic equipment. IMHO it isn't.

 

The fact that you 'had a look see and was terribly disappointed, big and heavy, difficult to hold, even more difficult to frame and focus, very loud shutter and an insane price, for me at least (I obviously don't 'get' the Leica thing )... so a no go' indicates to me exactly what I find frustrating with many reviews. There is not a great deal of 'objective subjectivity' in most reviews. The M rangefinder has to have good image quality obviously (and it does) but also is to an extent an acquired taste and is not a simple and easy camera to pick up and use. I think of it as an 'enthusiast's camera' which, if you 'get it' will reward you well, but its not for everyone - I've handed mine to people who simply don't understand any of it at all.

[Ivan Muller]

Paul, but I don't really expect more from a review than that they give me an objective, hopefully fairly scientific 'test' so to speak of the 'claimed' specs'...the rest is for me to decide..will the camera work with my style of photography, is it userfriendly, will it improve my vision, is it a nice looking camera... ...these are so subjective that really only the buyer can make them...that's why its usually good to also read a review from a seasoned, objective photographer....but where do you find someone like that....?

 

...and as for 'understanding' I think its more a case of 'its not for me'....at this stage any way...these M's are way to pretty not to dream about now and again....

[macusque]

Better? - I am not such a CMos fan based on what I see presently. No - I am hoping for the added functionality within the M concept- suitable for functions like an auxilary EVF (not everybody will want that, but then not everybody wanted a Visoflex...) lower power consumption, maybe Maestro technology giving a quantum leap in processing power, etc...

And trusting Leica to find a CMos that renders as well as or better than the current CCD.

 

+1

 

Maybe they can adopt a shift-type sensor... CCD at 50 to 200 ISO and CMOS from there to infinity and beyond...

[zlatkob]

I think it's a very fair, detailed and informative review. This review has some good and practical insights that I haven't seen in other reviews. I'm not so bothered by them not knowing that the chrome 50 weighs more than the black 50; a minor oversight.

[happymac]

I think it's a very fair, detailed and ...

 

...unfortunately useless. None of the images taken with M9 are really sharp. Don't know the reason, but it seems due to some movements during the shot.

[AlanG]

I downloaded the large versions of the motorcycle shots. The M9 jpeg image has bluish purple fringing on the highlights into the shadows and considerable aliasing though the image compared to the Nex 7 image. There are numerous choppy lines throughout. When I downloaded the DNG and processed it in C1 the color fringing was almost totally gone and the image had a bit more detail as evidenced by better clarity in the numbers on the tachometer. But the aliasing was still there.

 

So the Nex 7 does a better job of jpeg output. And due to the lack of aliasing in the Nex 7 image, I think its jpeg image "quality" was better than the M9's DNG image when converted in C1 although the tachometer shows a bit more detail in the M9 shot when using C1. I didn't see a raw version of the Nex 7 image on-line so I can't say if more detail can be pulled from that image using C1 or DXO but the tach is not as detailed.

 

Since the site posted the images for downloading and the images were made for comparison, I figure re-posting the crops here is acceptable.

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!

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Despite the undeniable blooming and other effects, your C1 conversion is at a totally different level than both other crops - just look at the clarity and plasticity. A print would be infinitely better.

[Paul J]

thanks for posting this. The M9 raw conversion is leagues ahead.

[AlanG]

Despite the undeniable blooming and other effects, your C1 conversion is at a totally different level than both other crops - just look at the clarity and plasticity. A print would be infinitely better.

 

Well there is a lot of clarity in the aliasing. I'd like to use C1 on the Nex 7 image as I think its processing and sharpening algorithms are helping the M9 image over its in camera jpeg. While there is a bit more detail I think the edge aliasing also may let it look crisper in a peculiar way just as sharping enhances edges.

 

C1 gives a little better look for sure but unless you are doing this kind of pixel peeping, all images are quite close when you come down to it. Minor adjustments in raw conversion or in a printer setting could further reduce any "practical' distinction. That speaks pretty well for the Nex 7. My preferred converter is DXO which would be interesting to see applied to the Nex 7 shot.

 

Don't forget that I had no control over those in camera jpegs and they have gone through a bit more from my cropping and re-posting them. (Despite using no compression.) My C1 was saved as a tiff and then only jpegged once. If you are real picky, maybe compare it with the original in-camera jpegs downloaded from the site. Although I don't think I altered them.

 

I see much more detail and feeling of depth on the Nex 7 image when looking at the 3 cutouts under the tach and the hand grip has more detail and a better look to me.

 

Frankly the M9's aliasing which I have also seen as fine broken color-fringed lines in other shots is a disappointment to me that can't be overcome by whatever you seem to feel is better clarity. But maybe this somehow affects all images in different ways and contributes to what some feel is a "more film-like" look in some of them despite the clearly inferior rendering of some subjects.

[jaapv]

A lot of these pixel level artefacts will never show up in print. The plasticity of the image remains however.

[AlanG]

A lot of these pixel level artefacts will never show up in print. The plasticity of the image remains however.

 

The artifacts are something that Leica should fix in the next model. I'm a bit surprised they haven't updated the firmware or image processor (or whatever is necessary) to solve this after 3 years. Despite what you say about prints, if one buys a $7000 camera and uses a very expensive high resolving lens, this kind of defect is not something that most would be happy to see. If you are just going to make smallish prints, you really don't need such lenses anyway. But once you can see what the lenses can do, you will also clearly see the jaggies.

 

Sorry, but I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "plasticity." Other than the difference in depth of field they are pretty close for two different images right out of different cameras or with the default C1 color M9 profile. The M9 image has blown detail in the highlights that should be recoverable in raw conversion but I didn't want to alter anything about the image in C-1. Maybe I should reprocess the M9 image to match the exposure of the Nex image. But I think most people would be very happy with results from either camera until they look at what the new Nokia camera phone can do for much less. Which one has plasticity?

 

Check this out for budget pixel peepers:

http://mynokiablog.com/2012/02/27/official-untouched-nokia-808-sample-pics-zoom-in-and-enhance/

[Ivan Muller]

So isn't it amazing how sensor technology has advanced since the M9's release, in that a aps-c sensor can have the same if not better quality than a full frame...? Now apply that increase in quality to a full frame sensor....who wouldn't want that..? and for us poor folk, thats great news because we can also now have 'M' quality without the price tag......

[JPizzzle]

I don't think that I would describe that as "M" quality-as many factors contribute to what makes the shots that are unique to an m9. Even the reviewers comment on this:

 

"This is the real heart of the M9: Leica set out to reproduce not just the shooting experience of their famous rangefinders, but the total picture-taking experience as well, extending even to the look of the final images."

 

The sensor may be out resolved by smaller CMOS sensors that pack more pixels, but I have yet to see a camera create the results and rendering that the m9 can. Don't take me wrong, many of these newer sensors can produce amazing results. I loved my x100 and the brief shots I took with my nex-7/zeiss 24. However, in my opinion they do not compare to my m9 setup. There is something truly special about the m9 with leica glass that cannot be measured, but can certainly be seen.

[jaapv]

Have you noticed that on the Leica dial you can see the 8 and the 6 and on the Nex they are a featureless blob? If you defocused the M9 to the same extent.. It is far too simplistic to blame just the sensor without considering the response of the raw converter to differences in edge contrast, just like it is very difficult to tell in hifi whether a resonating distortion is caused by the CD, the DAC or any other part of the chain. This is not being defensive, but if such phenomena are seen I prefer aproper test and a an expert explanation. Plus a remark about the relevance for the final print. .

The artifacts are something that Leica should fix in the next model. I'm a bit surprised they haven't updated the firmware or image processor (or whatever is necessary) to solve this after 3 years. Despite what you say about prints, if one buys a $7000 camera and uses a very expensive high resolving lens, this kind of defect is not something that most would be happy to see. If you are just going to make smallish prints, you really don't need such lenses anyway. But once you can see what the lenses can do, you will also clearly see the jaggies.

 

Sorry, but I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "plasticity." Other than the difference in depth of field they are pretty close for two different images right out of different cameras or with the default C1 color M9 profile. The M9 image has blown detail in the highlights that should be recoverable in raw conversion but I didn't want to alter anything about the image in C-1. Maybe I should reprocess the M9 image to match the exposure of the Nex image. But I think most people would be very happy with results from either camera until they look at what the new Nokia camera phone can do for much less. Which one has plasticity?

 

Check this out for budget pixel peepers:

Official Untouched Nokia 808 Sample pics from 41MP sensor. Zoom in and enhance! (38MP samples) : My Nokia Blog

[Paul J]

Well there is a lot of clarity in the aliasing. I'd like to use C1 on the Nex 7 image as I think its processing and sharpening algorithms are helping the M9 image over its in camera jpeg. While there is a bit more detail I think the edge aliasing also may let it look crisper in a peculiar way just as sharping enhances edges.

 

C1 gives a little better look for sure but unless you are doing this kind of pixel peeping, all images are quite close when you come down to it. Minor adjustments in raw conversion or in a printer setting could further reduce any "practical' distinction. That speaks pretty well for the Nex 7. My preferred converter is DXO which would be interesting to see applied to the Nex 7 shot.

 

Don't forget that I had no control over those in camera jpegs and they have gone through a bit more from my cropping and re-posting them. (Despite using no compression.) My C1 was saved as a tiff and then only jpegged once. If you are real picky, maybe compare it with the original in-camera jpegs downloaded from the site. Although I don't think I altered them.

 

I see much more detail and feeling of depth on the Nex 7 image when looking at the 3 cutouts under the tach and the hand grip has more detail and a better look to me.

 

Frankly the M9's aliasing which I have also seen as fine broken color-fringed lines in other shots is a disappointment to me that can't be overcome by whatever you seem to feel is better clarity. But maybe this somehow affects all images in different ways and contributes to what some feel is a "more film-like" look in some of them despite the clearly inferior rendering of some subjects.

 

Nex 7 image is at least 1/3 less exposure. It's also of a different angle (like every other test pic in that review) has a different angle of incidence so the light is rendering detail differently. As said earlier it's an inaccurate test. It's easy for a reviewer to paint a camera in a certain light by selecting pictures that go for or against which ever camera. And I'm sure there are plenty in each test that benefit both, that's the random nature of light, colour and the way technology records them. These images are not similar enough to make a call of judgement like that and it's why I tend to avoid these tests altogether.

 

There's no denying the NEX sensor is really quite capable, and at a much reduced price and form factor but the M still has a decent edge in detail judging by the tachometer. It's clear the other cameras have caught up but one could argue they are 3 years behind...

 

The jaggies are also in the NEX image, albeit to a lesser degree. But they are viewable only at 100% don't show up in print. The trade off of extra detail the no AA gives is worth some jaggies every now and then IMO. If it bother that much and is an important part of the image steps can be made to remove or reduce it in post. As is the colour fringing and it's usually, in most cases easy to remove in post.

[jaapv]

I have on the wall before me a 1 m M8 print - yes, if I move up to less than 25 cm I can just make out a jaggy here and there, and I can see the sharpening halos. If I move back to 50 cm I still cannot see the whole image in one go, but the print is amazingly sharp and full of detail and flawless. So where is the problem?

[chris_tribble]

Complete agreement over the silliness of basing a review on out of camera JPEGS.

 

Some reflections on the M9 in the light of the review.

 

1/ there's little point in JPEG capture unless you're under huge pressure of time. The true quality of the images can only be assessed on the basis of RAW output

2/ a manual focus RF camera needs practice (and in my case, a diopter on the VF)

 

Once you're used to working with the M9 + you have a good work flow in Aperture/C1/Lightroom it takes a lot of beating with lenses up to 50mm (or 75/90).. I've just spent a day at the King's Head Theatre in London documenting rehearsals for a new play. I had the 5D2 with 70-200 along for the ride, but hardly used it. The images here Someone to Blame are 95% M9 (28 cron ash / 50 lux asph) - ALL at 1600 ISO.

 

Once you're used to it it's actually easier to do this kind of job with a manual focus / manual setting camera than it is with an auto everything DSLR (+ the M9 handled the mixed lighting WB better than the Canon).

 

Again - I'm not saying that the M9 is the only camera for all uses. It isn't. However, the combination of lenses, portability, functionality and, above all, image quality it gives me for most of what I want do to, is, so far, unique.

[pgk]

I'm not saying that the M9 is the only camera for all uses. It isn't. However, the combination of lenses, portability, functionality and, above all, image quality it gives me for most of what I want do to, is, so far, unique.

This is a very good summation of my own thoughts too. Thanks Chris.

[KM-25]

Not all of us are going to find it to be worth it, and that does not mean we have lower expectations of image quality, brand awareness or can not afford it.

 

When I used Leica aspheric glass with color slide film, it stood out in some light, not so much in others. But when I put the M9 through it's paces for about a month and then compared those images to my D700 and 35 1.4 G in terms of both image quality and how much I was noticed or not, it just did not stand up as much as it did with film and did not matter in terms of being low key.

I wanted to really think the M9 was worth the expense but at the end of the day, all it seemed like I was doing was trying to find a reason to give a company far too much money for what I was getting and make believe that my art directors, editors and fine art print buyers were going to say "Thank God you used an M9, you would have got a sub par shot had you not, whew!".

 

There are countless documentary, fine art, fashion and even amateur photographers who are blowing the doors off of their Leica-proud competition and yet, year after year, frame after frame, they forgo getting an M9 and use something else, often within the genre Leica was famous for. If Leica truly offered something in terms of either the image or the experience that they could not make happen with other gear like some of you seem to think you see...don't you think they would have gone ahead and got the camera....?

 

I wanted to get it, I had a lot of fun with it, even drove 8 hours out to Salt Lake City just to see it on Leica day, but the reality was, I was going to make just as good an image, have just as much fun, be just as low key and save thousands of dollars going with other gear, then putting that money towards other things like paper, film and Apo enlarging lenses.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[wda]

I don't have an M but looking at the test results I would say that the M9 sensor is being edged out by the more modern sensors.......

Ivan, this only matters if the results from the camera do not meet your requirements. When I bought my Digilux 2 I was very conscious of its limitations when employed on my tasks. Doubling the sensor resolution in the M8 gave me the reserve of resolution I needed. The M9 sensor nearly doubles that of the M8 giving me even more reserve resolution. In my case it is difficult to get worked up about even higher resolutions from more advanced sensors. So for many photographers your continuing quest for higher performing sensors is an academic argument. While they perform to their specifications, both my M9 and X1 will continue to meet my needs. Both are simply superb tools.