Guest WPalank Posted March 20, 2013 Share #101 Posted March 20, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'm actually at this dilemma myself as I type this. My M9 and it's box is ready outside to be brought to the shop to be traded in but looking at the M9 vs M 240 pix, I'm inclined to actually stay with the M9 as every comparison, I've selected the M9. The attraction of the 240 though is big LCD display at the back and the usability at high ISO. In other words, is it worthwhile to spend a few thousands of dollars as a catalyst to encourage me to pick up my Leica more to take pictures that are of similar result - or is it better to save the $$ and instill more self-discipline and just stick to the M9. The new battery is a pretty good reason to get the new M as well. Even thought they haven't been released yet, and no one I know has done a field test, I think the grey side strap in conjunction with the HandGrip is going to be absolutely killer. (Said while being stoned to death by all the "Thumbs Up" Users). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 Hi Guest WPalank, Take a look here A little disappointed. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
microview Posted March 20, 2013 Share #102 Posted March 20, 2013 ...... 'I find the lack of pictures or even better dngs to be found online a bit disturbing' err...... I could post dozens of pictures a day ...... but almost all would be rubbish..... ...... but that was the same with all the Nikons I had and the M9 ..... If you want large quantities of holiday snaps 'a la Rohde' then I'm sure plenty of us could oblige. I took 100+ today ....... in the fog ...... so they are hardly representative of what the M can do and would look just as unimpressive with an M9 Thrilling ..... aren't they !! Your top pic is far more inspiring than the comparable misty shot of trees posted in Tim Ashley's glowing endorsements of the Sony RX1! (Generous of him, though, that he lets you download high-res images at his website. Many will recall his LF postings when he acquied the 35 Summilux FLE.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozkar Posted March 20, 2013 Share #103 Posted March 20, 2013 If you want an M, you'll want it for it's feature set, not it's "improved image quality." It's a camera that does what the M9 does well, but is aimed at a market that largely, are NOT current M9 owners. Unless you want live-view, video, a slightly higher noise-less ISO, and weather-proofing. Live view and video on the M are proving to be very limited in terms of usability (according to early adopters). Since my M9 is already too heavy, the extra heft of the M is not enough to compensate for less than 1.5 stops of high ISO improvement. Weather proofing is a moot point since there are no weather proof lenses. Power up time is also much slower with the new M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
douglasf13 Posted March 21, 2013 Share #104 Posted March 21, 2013 Live view and video on the M are proving to be very limited in terms of usability (according to early adopters). Since my M9 is already too heavy, the extra heft of the M is not enough to compensate for less than 1.5 stops of high ISO improvement. Weather proofing is a moot point since there are no weather proof lenses. Power up time is also much slower with the new M. I agree, for the most part, although I'd say some weathersealing is better than none, especially around the controls of the camera, since those will likely take on water before a lens will. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozkar Posted March 21, 2013 Share #105 Posted March 21, 2013 I agree, for the most part, although I'd say some weathersealing is better than none, especially around the controls of the camera, since those will likely take on water before a lens will. I would be more concerned about the lens mount. BTW, here's an interesting report on the video mode on the M: Leica’s first full frame HDSLR – M240 video capable? Disappointing considering LV and video were the big selling points. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted March 21, 2013 Share #106 Posted March 21, 2013 The IQ is bettered by camera's that are half the price and the video quality is terrible. If all that additional cost is just for the rangefinder focussing then I think this is not going to go well in the real world. You have to spend an even larger amount of money if you want a USB port, which is what professionals need. I really don't feel this is a good move for Leica at all. I just can't get over my disappointment with this considering there will not be a new camera for 3 years at least. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rramesh Posted March 21, 2013 Share #107 Posted March 21, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) The IQ is bettered by camera's that are half the price and the video quality is terrible. If all that additional cost is just for the rangefinder focussing then I think this is not going to go well in the real world. You have to spend an even larger amount of money if you want a USB port, which is what professionals need. I really don't feel this is a good move for Leica at all. I just can't get over my disappointment with this considering there will not be a new camera for 3 years at least. If one needs all the bells and whistles of a full-frame electronic camera, the latest Canon and Nikon would be the way to go. However for a compact camera with the essential features to make superlative photographs with the best matched lens in the world and the occasional video then the Leica M should do it. Leica will never achieve mass market adoption and volumes to justify frequent technology refreshes and keep abreast of the latest developments in electronics. Just look at the Maestro processor which is based on Fujitsu's Milbeaut as of 2008 (M-4 I think) and which is now in its 7th iteration. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macjonny1 Posted March 21, 2013 Share #108 Posted March 21, 2013 The IQ is bettered by camera's that are half the price and the video quality is terrible. If all that additional cost is just for the rangefinder focussing then I think this is not going to go well in the real world. You have to spend an even larger amount of money if you want a USB port' date=' which is what professionals need. I really don't feel this is a good move for Leica at all. I just can't get over my disappointment with this considering there will not be a new camera for 3 years at least. [/quote'] Sounds like you want the M to be a studio camera? I'd get a Nikon and save some $$$. Don't get Leica for "IQ". There are cheaper FF cameras. Don't get why people spend this kind of money chasing some dream of superior IQ. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted March 21, 2013 Share #109 Posted March 21, 2013 If one needs all the bells and whistles of a full-frame electronic camera, the latest Canon and Nikon would be the way to go. However for a compact camera with the essential features to make superlative photographs with the best matched lens in the world and the occasional video then the Leica M should do it. Leica will never achieve mass market adoption and volumes to justify frequent technology refreshes and keep abreast of the latest developments in electronics. Just look at the Maestro processor which is based on Fujitsu's Milbeaut as of 2008 (M-4 I think) and which is now in its 7th iteration. I'm talking about IQ. Not bells and whistles which are irrelevant to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Essemmlee Posted March 21, 2013 Share #110 Posted March 21, 2013 The more responses I see the worse I'm beginning to feel. Although there is no doubt the M is an improvement over the M9 I now find myself comparing it's new features with those of it's competitors. Of course, it fails dismally in terms of it's live view, focus peaking and weather sealing, though the shutter is apparently well worth the money. The new bells and whistles do bring the M into the realms of the competitive DSLR world and it isn't going to be able to compete against them on any level. I think the monochrome is one of the the ways forward. Simple rangefinder concept. How about a 24 megapixel M9-S with a nice new shutter (but none of the other distracting stuff)? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenPatterson Posted March 21, 2013 Share #111 Posted March 21, 2013 The new bells and whistles do bring the M into the realms of the competitive DSLR world and it isn't going to be able to compete against them on any level. How about a 24 megapixel M9-S with a nice new shutter (but none of the other distracting stuff)? We are all learning how the "bells and whistles" work, and it's the first day of school, so I'm not surprised by the Q&A going on here. Jono Slack told me that after his many months with the M that it's an improvement over the M9 on every level, and I now agree with him. Shooting with the new EVF and the 0.95 Noctilux is simply an amazing experience, and will only get better with improvements to the firmware. Simple stuff. I also shoot with the Canon 5D Mk. III, but to compare it to the M240 is to miss the whole point of the small, discrete rangefinder body and lenses. The Leica doesn't need to compete, it's a completely different tool for a completely different job. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted March 21, 2013 Share #112 Posted March 21, 2013 Sounds like you want the M to be a studio camera? I'd get a Nikon and save some $$$. Don't get Leica for "IQ". There are cheaper FF cameras. Don't get why people spend this kind of money chasing some dream of superior IQ. My M9 is a perfectly capable studio camera. Why would/should superior IQ be a dream? It was with the M9. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 21, 2013 Share #113 Posted March 21, 2013 Guys, guys, what did you expect? This is a rangefinder camera with auxiliary functions. Amazingly well implemented, but a full-fledged DSLR it is not, nor a video camera, nor a FF Evil with short register distance... Expecting it to be something it is not is bound to lead to disappointment.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tappan Posted March 21, 2013 Share #114 Posted March 21, 2013 It's not a DSLR. Image quality, battery and buffer should be what people are talking about with the M, in my opinion. I found this from Erwin Puts regarding the M9, and I think it's still relevant today. "The M9 motorized transport operates rather slowly and the buffer is not large. But the speed of operation is faster than what an experienced user can accomplish with the mechanical trigger mechanism of the filmloading M-cameras. I personally find the focus on the highest possible number of pictures per second a bit overhyped. For sports photography it may be an important factor in the choice equation. For a manual focusing CRF camera the speed of the motordrive is less relevant and in itself the speed of the M9 (and the M8!) is quite good. And Leica photography is about selecting the moment, not firing at will in the hope that you catch a moment." More from Erwin can be found at M9, part1 Best, Mark Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted March 21, 2013 Share #115 Posted March 21, 2013 Expecting it to be something it is not is bound to lead to disappointment.. My point is though, Jaap, I am expecting it to be something that it WAS. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macjonny1 Posted March 21, 2013 Share #116 Posted March 21, 2013 My M9 is a perfectly capable studio camera. Why would/should superior IQ be a dream? It was with the M9. At the time M9 came out there were few FF cameras. There are abundant cameras out there that have IQ on par to M now and sensor IQ is not a reason to get a Leica now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted March 21, 2013 Share #117 Posted March 21, 2013 My M9 is a perfectly capable studio camera. Why would/should superior IQ be a dream? It was with the M9. Define IQ please......... I am not sure precisely what you want ..... or for that matter need ...... ... and how much 'better', whatever that means ... before you are satisfied..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted March 21, 2013 Share #118 Posted March 21, 2013 before you are satisfied..... Well this is obviously a pointless discussion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hepcat Posted March 21, 2013 Share #119 Posted March 21, 2013 At the time M9 came out there were few FF cameras. There are abundant cameras out there that have IQ on par to M now and sensor IQ is not a reason to get a Leica now. The sensor IQ on the M and M9 are perfectly acceptable in the real world. And the reasons to buy a Leica lay in the form-factor, the optical bright-line rangefinder/viewfinder and the array of lenses available. If you want/need a DSLR then go buy one. I micrometer and a ruler are both measuring devices, but they're complimentary, not exclusionary. Leicas are one more tool for the job. If the job at hand exceeds what the tool can do, then get the right tool. It's pretty simple. The job at hand is making photos, not comparing sensors. Once again, if you have an arsenal of R lenses waiting to be used, or you want video, or live-view, or any of the other host of new features the M has and still allows you to stay in the Leica M world, then it's a good choice. If you're just making images and the M9 suits you fine then you've saved $7k. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk Mandeville Posted March 21, 2013 Share #120 Posted March 21, 2013 Well this is obviously a pointless discussion. I would agree, but probably not for the same reasons. I believe for all full frame 35mm digital cameras, image quality improvements are going to be coming in small steps, rather than the leaps and bounds that some expect. To get more image quality at this time, I think you are going to have to venture into medium format digital such as the Phase One products (and for a serious studio camera, why the heck wouldn't you?). Over the next decade, we will see improvements in dynamic range by perhaps another few stops, improvements in resolution on a FF sensor, better low-light performance, and perhaps some improvements in color and tonal gradations. But I just don't think these will be mind blowing improvements. The truth is, in my opinion, digital has already surpassed film quality in many areas, particularly sharpness. What are you expecting that you are missing right now as far as IQ is concerned? The whole idea that a switch to CMOS should have resulted in mind-blowing improvements in picture quality is kind of silly, in my opinion. Adding the feature set they were able to add by using CMOS, while exerting a lot of control over the design of the chip to ensure room for future improvements, all while still maintaining the quality of image that people expect from a Leica are, in and of themselves, excellent reasons why the M is a great successor to the M9. Basically, they switched technology platforms to ensure the future of the camera, they added a lot of new features in the process, and they didn't mess up image quality to do it (even adding a bump in resolution). I think they hit the ball out of the park with this camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.