Preparing for the M

[thighslapper]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The high ISO performance certainly is. From the samples I have seen, I would guess the noise at 6400 ISO on the M is roughly where it is at 1000 on my M9. The total resolution is obviously also up a bit from the M9. Also, the whole operation of the camera has hugely improved - the quieter and faster shutter, overall processing performance. So even for these things only it is a huge step forward.

 

While it may be true, that many Leica shooters also had a modern DSLR in their posession and were using that for types of shooting the M9 was not idea for, I have very mixed feelings about this approach. Yes, I like very much about the M9 that it doesn't try to do everything for being especially good for something. However, it also meant that the M9 was not suitable of being the only camera you own. That is a huge backdraw. The M much more moves into a spot where it still is as good, or in fact even better at what the M9 was good at, and adding a few tricks on top of that. Sports photographers won't dump their DSLRs for it for sure, but for most non-professionals, the capability to shoot focal lengths longer than 90mm will really add to its usefulness.

 

Peter

 

We will see .... there will be plenty of us who will end up with M9's, MM's and M's at home and will be able to weigh up the pros and cons. At the end of the day it will be the one you grab most often when you go out that will win.... not the 'best' camera.

 

I have a whole pile of fabulous lenses..... and the ones that I habitually use are not the ones I originally imagined ..... and the choice does not reflect their 'on paper' performance either

[Advertisement]

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

[chris_tribble]

Chris - all power to you for putting your money where your mouth is and buying the new M. Doesn't it worry you a bit though that (a) The CMOS IQ may be just like Can/Nik - so why not use one of these in the first place ( The camera will, to me at least, not really benefit in a proper workable manner, from being able to use all the R glass.

 

Paul - some reflections:

1/ I've never actually had a problem with the output from CanNikon pro bodies - with the best lenses made by these companies + appropriate post-processing, I have been able to shoot M9 alongside 5D2 for the last three years and neither I nor my clients have noticed significant differences (other than file size) in print-ready output. The only difference I have noticed has been that post-process for 5D2 images has been longer than for M9 - especially under artificial light.

2/ I've not owned R glass before and never really saw the point of the R system - I bought Canon DSLRs because I needed to be able to use long fast lenses and I wanted the option of autofocus for the moments when it was useful.

3/ I'm interested in the M because it will make using WIDE lenses easier and gives me the option of focus aids for the 90 and 135 + the option of using longer manual long lenses (at present, the Leica 80-200 f4 + an FD mount Canon L 300 f4) + the further option of using a shift lens (Nikon 28 PC) on the same M body.

 

In the future, I may still have a DSLR with a couple of long professional lenses for certain jobs. But I'm pretty sure that for most jobs I will be using two M bodies with lenses from 18 to 300, a single add-on viewfinder (the EVF).

 

Again... what's not to like?

 

PS - I also do need to make talking head videos for clients from time to time. Not having to lug a 5D2 + a 50 1.4 or 85 1.2 for this purpose only on some jobs is a bit of baggage I'll be happy to leave behind

[-ph-]

 

This is the crux of what makes me worry about the appeal of the new M - the M9 was/is a highly desirable and usable camera whereas the new M is loaded with features that are either poorly implemented or obsolete because Nik/Can can do it so much better.

 

This is NOT knocking Leica though - the company makes great cameras and I wish them every success with the new M - just that I hope that they never drop the ME or basic equivalent with a CCD sensor, because to me at least that is the ONLY type of digital M that I would ever wish to use.

 

Which features do you think are poorly implemented on the M? And which are obsolete because Nikon and Canon would do them better?

 

Peter

[lct]

Many of us are or have been (D)SLR users here and we know quite well that a Visoflex can not replace for all purposes a reflex camera. Same for EVFs obviously. As far as IQ is concerned, the M-240 with R glass will do better than a D3 with Nikon zooms hopefully but when AF or IS are required, it won't be the right stuff that's all.

[jaapv]

Hmmm... I know of very few if any lenses that come close to for instance the Apo-Telyt 280/4.0, 105-280 Vario-Elmar, other Apo lenses up to 800 in the Module system, etc...

[lct]

Hmmm... I know of very few if any lenses that come close to for instance the Apo-Telyt 280/4.0...

True with a tripod or for stronger photogs than me but i do better pics hand held with the lighter Nikkor 300/4. Horses for courses as always.

[haroldp]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hmmm... I know of very few if any lenses that come close to for instance the Apo-Telyt 280/4.0, 105-280 Vario-Elmar, other Apo lenses up to 800 in the Module system, etc...

 

Nikon 200mm F2 VR

Nikon 400mm F2.8 VR

Nikon 300mm F2.8 VR

Nikon 200-400 f4 VR with RRS long lens support (at 100 meters or closer) (an eagle at 100 meters is really small, even at 400 mm)

 

I have not used the others, but these lenses strain even the 36 mp sensor on the D800E.

 

The 200 and 400 are as sharp wide open as my asph summilux.

 

They are all at the level where skill and circumstance affect IQ more than the lens.

 

Regards ... H

[robsteve]

Nikon 200mm F2 VR

Nikon 400mm F2.8 VR

Nikon 300mm F2.8 VR

Nikon 200-400 f4 VR with RRS long lens support (at 100 meters or closer) (an eagle at 100 meters is really small, even at 400 mm)

 

I have not used the others, but these lenses strain even the 36 mp sensor on the D800E.

 

The 200 and 400 are as sharp wide open as my asph summilux.

 

They are all at the level where skill and circumstance affect IQ more than the lens.

 

Regards ... H

 

I don't think any of them will work on the new M

 

I have owned the latest Canon big telephotos and the 300mm f2.8 IS II, in particular was better than the Leica equivalent, but the Leica equivalent was designed twenty years prior.

 

In the really big glass, there is very little difference amongst the brands in quality, with the Leica maybe having better shadow detail and sharper wide open. I know when I shot with both my 400mm f2.8 Leica and my Canon 400mm f2.8 IS II, the Leica seemed to carry detail into the shadows, where the Canon was dark and no detail.

[jaapv]

Jaap - NOT knocking the quality of Leica lenses - just the usability. Fine for most uses but all professional photographers that I know would never go back to manual focus other than for say a Zeiss wide on a Nikon body.

Depends on the discipline - for instance in wildlife using AF focus points is too much of a hassle when branches get in the way.

[k-hawinkler]

I don't think any of them will work on the new M

 

I have owned the latest Canon big telephotos and the 300mm f2.8 IS II, in particular was better than the Leica equivalent, but the Leica equivalent was designed twenty years prior.

 

In the really big glass, there is very little difference amongst the brands in quality, with the Leica maybe having better shadow detail and sharper wide open. I know when I shot with both my 400mm f2.8 Leica and my Canon 400mm f2.8 IS II, the Leica seemed to carry detail into the shadows, where the Canon was dark and no detail.

 

 

Why?

[robsteve]

Jaap - NOT knocking the quality of Leica lenses - just the usability. Fine for most uses but all professional photographers that I know would never go back to manual focus other than for say a Zeiss wide on a Nikon body.

 

How many professional photographers actually use a Leica? I don't think they are the target market for the new M. The S series is their professional camera and even that has a pretty narrow professional market.

[robsteve]

Why?

 

How do you actuate an electronic aperture in a Nikon or Canon lens, with a Leica M?

 

I am not sure about the Nikon lenses, but even for Manual focus, some of the big Canon lenses need to be powered by a camera to engage the focus.

[k-hawinkler]

How do you actuate an electronic aperture in a Nikon or Canon lens, with a Leica M?

 

I am not sure about the Nikon lenses, but even for Manual focus, some of the big Canon lenses need to be powered by a camera to engage the focus.

 

 

I have several different Nikon G to Leica M adapters that have a little pin so that one can set the lens aperture mechanically.

 

Needed is a modification so that the 28/90 line pair is selected.

Also needed is the correct 6 bit code.

 

That's about it.

[robsteve]

I have several different Nikon G to Leica M adapters that have a little pin so that one can set the lens aperture mechanically.

 

Needed is a modification so that the 28/90 line pair is selected.

Also needed is the correct 6 bit code.

 

That's about it.

 

Do the big Nikon telephotos focus without power? Like I said earlier, I am new to Nikon, but the Canon large lenses need power to focus, even manually.

[lct]

We're far from the smooth focussing action of R or Zeiss lenses though. Those lenses are made for AF first of all.

[marknorton]

We're far from the smooth focussing action of R or Zeiss lenses though. Those lenses are made for AF first of all.

 

I agree, the focussing action of the R 180mm f2.8 APO is a marvel compared to that of the long Nikon lenses.

 

The great advantages of Live View for me are the ability to use wide angle lenses without auxiliary finders and the ability to focus accurately with lenses like the Noctiluxes, the 75mm Summilux and the 90mm Summicron.

 

It will be interesting to compare focussing accuracy through Live View with that from the rangefinder for each of my lenses and so decide which of them is in need of calibration. If they are all off, the M240 itself will be plagued with the same old rangefinder mis-alignment which is, for me, a constant source of frustration using the Leica M system.

[chris_tribble]

That is the WHOLE point of what I am saying here - not for one moment saying that the M9 is not a capable camera - it clearly is a superb camera !! What I am trying to get across is that a small number of pro photographers do use Leica M cameras ALONG with their DSLR kit and for this market it is irrelevant that Leica put on superfluous video and live view distractions.

[...]

Knock £1500 off the price and give me a basic CCD M9 (ie ME) and I am interested.

 

All I am hoping is that Leica never neglects this market because if they do I myself will probably never buy into the new type of M.

 

Dear Paul (and others) thanks for a thought provoking and useful discussion. I actually think that there's zero disagreement between us (and isn't it great that the M-220 is being provided by Leica as exactly the tool you personally seem to be after!).

 

As to whether it's worth buying in to the M-240 if you already have an M9, my position is based on the assumptions that:

 

1. IQ with the M-240 is going to be as good as or better than that of the M9 from 200-1600, and that it is going to be a great deal better at higher ISO.
   
2. Weather proofing, better ergonomics, quieter shutter, improved internal image processing speed, and the new Gorilla glass screen will enhance the overall experience of working with the M,
   
3. JUST these improvements would make it worth while trading in a pair of very well used 3 year old M9s. And given that Leica haven't pushed up the price of the M-240, it feels like a no-brainer from a business perspective. I'll simply have had three year's worth of film and processing for around £2,500 per body, and the prospect of another 3 (or even more) years of film and processing with the next ones.
   

The fact that the M-240 gives me the possibility of doing all the other things we've been discussing is icing on the cake. Of course if I'm wrong about IQ then the deal's off (and Leica has serious egg on it's face! )

 

A final comment - if I was making my living doing news or sport, a 2 body DSLR system with f2.8 24-70 / 70-200 + 1x1.4 extender would be the obvious way to go. I have used this kind of system and still have a DSLR + long glass for those occasions when I need it. However, news and sport (and wildlife) is not my market. When I'm doing paid photographic work it's for NGOs and arts organisations and I spend most of my time working very close to my subjects. The M-240 will help me do my job better, and will enable me to extend my reach on the rare occasions when I need to use a long lens or make a quick video interview without having to carry an extra system. It will also help me extend my personal work...

 

Paul, my situation isn't the same as yours, so I choose different tools. Your situation isn't the same as mine, and you make your choices in order to do your work. I think we're in agreement - and I don't think that Leica is letting either of us down or "betraying its DNA".

 

All the best

[lct]

The M-240 will indeed help to focus some fast M lenses and will add what many of us were expecting when we used to discuss around the "M 10" idea here i.e. versatility the same way as the Visoflex did fifty or sixty years ago. The simple possibility to add a macro lens and/or a zoom or a 180 in a still medium sized M bag is reason enough to acquire the new M if image quality matches versatility, which remains to be seen given the novelty of the Franco-Belgian sensor.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[bybrett]

Dear Chris, nicely summarised...

 

If Leica has solved camera freezing, lost images, high ISO banding, SD card problems, etc... then the M240 will be everything the M9 could have been in addition to the above benefits.

 

Here's hoping beta testing will deliver a reliable M240 and further firmware updates will finally fix the M9.

[chris_tribble]

No wanting to dispute your findings re M9 problems but I have to say that in 2 years of owning an M9 and 1 year of an M9P as well, I have actually had none of these issues or any other faults. Have you any more information regarding this ??

 

I was a beta tester for the current firmware on the M9 and decided to stay with FW 1.76. As I'd never had any SD cards or banding issues, this suits me fine (I shoot compressed DNG all the time) - and gives me rock solid performance with discreet mode release (which I really like). I have the strong suspicion that most people who've had problems with FW1.76 and later iterations have been shooting high resolution JPEG + uncompressed DNG. I guess this won't be a problem with the new processor on the M-240, but it seems to overload the M9 (I have no idea about the MM firmware).