M9 and M comparisons

[Paul J]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I absolutely see where you are coming from. However it does not quite fit into the historical role of Leica. They have been the inventor and carrier of the small format compact camera for a century now. Was that the highest resolving best quality image of the time? Of course not. Even if the Leica shots were surprisingly good, any view camera would run rings around them.

For the same reason they had to develop good lenses. Without them the small format images would have looked like nothing at all.

 

These days nothing has changed. Leica builds the best they can - for a small camera with a small sensor. And lenses to make it exceptional. For requirements like yours they have made the S2. And then there is medium format proper - which shows up the limitations of our small "full frame" sensors.

 

Thanks for understanding. I understand also that it does not fit into the historical role of Leica but our history does not make our future. There is a lot of excitement about Leica these days and I believe the company could really create something special that is timely and generally being sought after all whilst honouring their past and maintaining the M philosophy.

 

The Leica S2 as THE high res solution is a bit of a misnomer for me. I looked at that camera hoping to find the same kind of look the M lenses create and I didn't find it. And it's not quite high res enough to go for a high res camera. It's somewhere in between IMO and I just didn't feel it. I create art. I like character. I don't want highly corrected, perfect lenses. The Noctilux is perfect for me to that regard. Sharp but full of character a blend of modern and classic.

[Advertisement]

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

[Jeff S]

One of the great things about all M cameras is that when you're used to using them they sort of disappear in your hand and you can find yourself behaving as though YOU are taking photos spontaneously; as though there's no equipment involved. As long as a new camera doesn't diminish that experience and the results are difficult to distinguish from those of an M9, which I find beautiful, I shall be happy.

 

I may buy a new M. I'm on the list because I like playing with cameras, it looks like a fun toy, but from a photographic point of view its not really a sensible thing to spend money on because the M9 is so good. There's little reason why the up-dating of a camera means anyone in their right mind needs to go out and buy it straight away unless they simply want to for the fun of it. Which is OK of course!

 

But if it comes down to a quest for scientific comparisons of barely discernible differences, count me out: its beside the point of the camera and the point of photography in the first place.

 

Frankly I wouldn't mind if the IQ were identical (although I prefer the b/w output from the M8.2 over the M9). I'd still buy the camera in that case for practical reasons like weather sealing (to carry in conditions I wouldn't otherwise), quieter shutter (for maybe more discreet access in some situations, but even if not, for a more film-M-like experience), faster processing (less bugs), longer battery life, and the ability to better focus with longer lenses. And the M would allow me to continue to have the 2m frame lines I already prefer.

 

If I cared just about playing with new cameras, I would have bought the M9, and maybe the MM. But I tested the former against my M8.2, and without regard to price, I preferred the M8.2 for my needs and preferences.

 

Some of us really don't have GAS. I love the M experience, but I sure don't care to own every one that comes along, even though I could afford to 'play'. I'd rather take pics and spend more time improving my shooting and printing skills. The M may allow me to take more pics, in an operationally more effective and desirable way, than my current 'M'. But if the IQ isn't adequate (for my needs and preferences), the rest won't matter and I'll happily stick with what I have. For me it really is a tool, albeit an enjoyable one, not a toy as you characterize it.

 

Jeff

[nyckylim]

Well guys,

 

Both the top pictures are from the M9 and the bottom 2 from the m240.

 

And I wouldn't be able to get anymore pics as I only happened to snap few shots as i just happened to walk by the dealer that day.

 

Also, both camera are using the exact same lenses.

[markechoes]

This confirms it for me.

 

I will keep my beloved M9, which has been on many adventures around the world and which has been a very faithful companion.

 

The IQ difference isnt enough for me, personally.

 

We must remember that Leica, with the ME, realise that the new M wont be for everyone.

 

They are all fantastic cameras and the new features will definitely appeal to many people. I applaud Leica for developing the platform but also giving buyers a choice.

 

[CaptZoom]

Helloooooooooo?? I'm not talking about Rangefinders I'm talking about IQ!

I understand that you are talking about IQ. However when you mention there are alternatives to a singularly unique system, I think you are in error.

 

If it needs to be a rangefinder for you then that does not govern every body else.

I did not say, nor did I imply, otherwise. I was simply responding to a comment you directed at me.

 

I could easily use both...

Good for you.

 

...and so could all the other people Leica are trying to attract from Planet dSLR.

Most other people, otherwise agreed.

 

An alternative does not need to be rigidly, exactly, identical.

Correct, but it does have to be comparable.

 

As for human vision - I'm sorry but I stand by what I said. My Phase One exceeds human vision. It's because of it's resolution.

 

Apples are clearly better fruits than oranges. It's because they have more roughage.

 

-- -- -- --

And with that I say: you are right; you win.

[zlatkob]

I've just uploaded a pair of 16 bit TIFF files from my M9 and M, of a random bookcase, taken with the 50 1.4 ASPH, at f/11.

 

Yep, A = 240, but it's actually much closer to the colours of the real scene. The M9 shot is too orangey, and the reds are too hot.

 

In theno23's first examples, the book titled "Basic Photography" has a small image of the Empire State Building at the top. In the M9 photo (version , that photo shows moire (or some kind of false color artifacts). In the new M photo (version A), there is no moire.

[hepcat]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

One of the great things about all M cameras is that when you're used to using them they sort of disappear in your hand and you can find yourself behaving as though YOU are taking photos spontaneously; as though there's no equipment involved. As long as a new camera doesn't diminish that experience and the results are difficult to distinguish from those of an M9, which I find beautiful, I shall be happy.

 

But if it comes down to a quest for scientific comparisons of barely discernible differences, count me out: its beside the point of the camera and the point of photography in the first place.

 

I have to agree entirely, Peter.

 

I've read the entire thread here. Perhaps I'm dense, but I don't see the point. The M9 was mature technology, and obviously remains the current gold standard. The market demanded a new M body with live view. Leica makes an entirely new technology sensor (from it's CCD line) to accommodate live view and all it's accouterments. The new sensor generally has the image rendering of the CCD, has some improvements in resolution, gives a larger file size, and may yet bet the best sensor out there, but doesn't "blow us away" with signficantly improved image quality? And so there are complaints?

 

I'm hearing discussion ad nauseum about incremental improvements in a mature technology? This discussion boils down to weighing precisely the number of angels that can fit on the head of a pin and whether or not the pin will notice the weight of one more or one less angel.

 

C'mon... let's do a real recap here: The M has live view. It has video. It has better IQ than the M9 in some areas. It's the most feature-rich sensor, and most feature-rich M camera body Leica has ever produced. It can make use of non-M lenses. And it makes images. What is the big deal here? Once the initial "ok it's a little better and slightly different IQ" comparison is made, why now are we continuing to compare it with the M9 at all? The feature set is the reason to buy the M. If you want or need the new features it offers, buy it. Under most circumstances, no one will be able to tell which body took what photo. If you're content with the feature set of the M9, then you don't need the M. It's pretty simple really.

[jmahto]

As I see it, the new M becomes more of a "system" camera than my M9 is. Currently I use Canon along with M9 for tele shots (birds, kid's soccer). With new M, I will be able to consolidate. That's my hope.

[theno23]

I can't agree with that Jaap. The slight differences are plain to see but the the gain is minimal. I suppose, though, it depends what gains we determine as worthy. We all have our different needs and I don't deny that. Personally i was expecting/hoping for quite a bit more in resolution.

 

Well, what significant gain could there be at ISO160/200? The M9 is a damn good camera at base ISO - you get a good chunk more DR - you can see it even in that test shot, shadows aren't as blocked up, which contributes to the "less 3D" think some people are talking about I guess - you can get back to the M9 level by just increasing the black level and squashing the dynamic range. There's not a lot in it though, a stop, maybe?

 

At ISO 400+ though, the difference is enormous. I've got some night city shots that look great, but not had time to upload them yet.

 

- Steve

[theno23]

I guess what I wanted to really say is that the M9 renders more 'perceivable' detail to my eye. I don't doubt for a second that the M 240 renders more detail. Maybe I have become more accustomed to a combination of a CCD sensor and M lenses.

 

On the picture taken with the M 240 I perceive slight colourisation.

 

I see the same amount of detail - there's more information in the shadows in the M shot, but not a huge amount more.

 

The M9 shot has a yellowy tint, and some of the M colours aren't quite right (but it's a beta profile form Lightroom, so you'd expect that). The tint's not obvious unless you compare to the real scene. Either would be perfectly acceptable in my opinion.

 

- Steve

[theno23]

Well, what significant gain could there be at ISO160/200? The M9 is a damn good camera at base ISO - you get a good chunk more DR - you can see it even in that test shot, shadows aren't as blocked up, which contributes to the "less 3D" think some people are talking about I guess - you can get back to the M9 level by just increasing the black level and squashing the dynamic range. There's not a lot in it though, a stop, maybe?

 

At ISO 400+ though, the difference is enormous. I've got some night city shots that look great, but not had time to upload them yet.

 

"good chunk" is misleading - it's not a huge amount, something like a stop at most I'd say.

 

- Steve

[Peter H]

The point is, when anyone buys the latest digital M camera, whether M or MM, they'll be getting the best digital M camera, as you should expect.

 

That doesn't mean that everyone who already has a digital M camera, like an M9 for example, should now go out and buy a new camera just because there is a new camera available.

 

Its not like buying the latest edition of The Beano.

 

Or maybe it is.

[Jeff S]

The point is, when anyone buys the latest digital M camera, whether M or MM, they'll be getting the best digital M camera, as you should expect.

 

This is where we disagree. A new camera may be better in some technical respects, and may cater to some particular audience (MM), but that doesn't mean that it's better overall (the MM does really poor color), or that it's better for everyone's needs.

 

If the camera is a new toy (your word), then I can see how one might always want the shiny new toy. But if it's a tool for certain needs and preferences, it isn't necessarily better for everyone, or better in all aspects; in fact it might be worse. The M8.2 is a better b/w camera for me (and for many others who have commented on the forum) than the M9. That's just one example where your logic falls apart IMO.

 

Jeff

[Peter H]

Jeff, I think you've misunderstood me. Apologies for not making myself clearer.

 

My point wasn't that the M is necessarily the best camera. I dont actually believe any camera can be the best in any absolute or universal terms. My point was that even if it is the best camera, that would not be sufficient reason to suppose all users of earlier cameras need dash out and snap one up at the first opportunity.

 

I was talking about the consumerist approach to cameras. You took my flippant point a little more seriously than it deserved. I take full responsibility!

[hepcat]

The point is, when anyone buys the latest digital M camera, whether M or MM, they'll be getting the best digital M camera, as you should expect.

 

That doesn't mean that everyone who already has a digital M camera, like an M9 for example, should now go out and buy a new camera just because there is a new camera available.

 

"Best" is subjective. What you get is the latest technology. Whether or not its useful to someone is another issue entirely.

 

Personal computer technology matured about ten years ago. We stopped seeing orders-of-magnitude improvements in processor and data bus speed. Networking took its current form. There have been improvements, but they're relatively small and incremental now. The defacto standards have been established because they work. Cameras matured about five years ago. We're seeing the same incremental increases in performance with new generations, but they're much smaller increments because the manufacturers have gotten their products, performance-wise, to push the envelope of what physics currently allows. So, in order to continue to sell products, they're packing in bells and whistles.

 

That's precisely why I abandoned DSLRs and returned to Leica... I want my camera to do the basic functions a camera performs, and I don't want a bunch of other stuff to have to wade through, disable, or otherwise ignore.

 

There are, however, folks who will welcome some of the techno-wonders of the M and that's fine too, and that's who the camera is marketed to. While it may have some improvements in the areas that are important to me (image quality and file size for example,) they're not significant enough for me to be concerned about buying one. The M is obviously marketed at the techno-crowd as well as R shooters who no longer had a line of bodies to put their R lenses on. It fills a valuable niche in the Leica camera lineup and will do well for them, which is excellent for all of us because it will keep the company healthy into the future. The S is an amazing camera, but they can't sell enough units for the line to be profitable... and the M9 wasn't "new" enough to attract customers from outside the faithful any more. The M has mainstream features that will attract a new and different group of buyers to the marque. I'm pleased that, at least for now, the M-E will remain in the lineup as well for the "faithful" like me. Some day the M may have value for me, but not right now.

 

For me, I found with my Olympus and Fuji X-Pro1 that live view is convenient, but having the rest of the "features" in the way of using the camera was a nuisance. In fact, the techno-wizardry that I don't have any use for that is packed into the M is enough to keep me quite happy with my M8 and M9P. I'll just keep plugging along with my Visoflex when I need it, and it's all OK. I'm getting older. I learned photography with film, and I shoot my M bodies all with the same process whether digi or film. I know how to use the cameras as they are to produce what I want and I don't need the latest techno-innovations to do that. I seem to be in a shrinking minority though, as folks who were raised on digital demand more and more bells and whistles for their menu selections.

 

I'm happy that Leica has the M, it just has lots of stuff I don't need with a sensor that, because of the mature technology, has only slightly (arguably) improved over the M9 CCD image quality. The CMOS is good in the M application for live view and video, but I use neither. So, you see, "latest" works, but "best" as an adjective is best followed by "for me."

[Peter H]

"Best" is subjective. What you get is the latest technology. Whether or not its useful to someone is another issue entirely.

 

..................................."

 

That sums it up really.

[SiOnara]

I find this thread amusing. I think I'm in the minority, because the image quality of the sensor (and I'm not sure what even means) is not a priority. I think choice of lens, proper shooting technique, and post post processing has more to do with the "look" than the sensor.

 

Yeah it's funny. The "Leica look" seemed to exist in the days of film cameras where you could use Kodak, Fuji, Agfa and countless other film makes / types in your Leica body.

 

Did every film type create the Leica look? Each film type added to the final picture it's signature grade but surly it's the lens that truly delivers a big chunk of the final look.

 

I agree that sensors do differ. I have an M9, X1 and the amazing Sigma DP2 Merrill. I can clearly see a hugely different look between the Leica and the Sigma as base ISO but the difference between the CCD M9 and the new CMOS M to my eyes is not that much different. Even the X1 compared to my M9 shot at f2.8 is pretty close.

 

I was always taught "the lens is king" and I think that it still true today

[Jeff S]

"Best" is subjective. What you get is the latest technology. Whether or not its useful to someone is another issue entirely.

 

Different, perhaps better, words than mine, but the same point I was making. It's all about what's best for any given individual. And sometimes, as I said, the newest technology makes things worse for some specific needs and preferences.

 

Jeff

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Peter H]

The same point I was making too.

 

And everyone else too, as far as I can see.

 

Its a funny old game.

[HeinzX]

Best is, what is best for the individual person and his purposes, and what this person can afford and is willing to pay. For me the main points, why I am interested in the M instead of the M 9 are:

Live View plus enlargement in some cases, which will help me focussing my 90 mm (ev. plus adapter) - I am 65 and my eyes are not the very best -

possibility to use my R Macro Elmarit 60 mm (ev. plus extender and plus 2ply APO converter) and making "real" macros with a Leica M

and an improved High ISO performance.

 

Of course these points may not be of importance to everyone - it is a very personal point of view of mine. Anyway - a M might help me to use the Leica more often and to leave the heavy weight 5 D III system more often at home.