1JB Posted September 17, 2013 Share #121 Posted September 17, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) It certainly has been interesting reading this thread. I sold my M9 35cron and 50 lux a few months ago after purchasing the RX1. My motivation was my disappointment with the M which led me to conclude I wanted to get out of the Leica lineup rather than wait another 5 years with the M9. I will always love that M9 and those lenses. Really either camera is worth the money even though the RX1 has a lot more versatility. Selecting the focus point on the screen or evf and focus tracking are but two that I really like having. The most noticeable difference for me has been the difference in color. There is still a very pleasing look to my M9 prints. Maybe it's nostalgia but to my eye there is a certain look to those prints that I don't think would have been there with the RX1. The only reason to compare the M to the RX1 in my view is to remind Leica of what can be done in the digital age. Other than that these are 2 completely different platforms, each with its own merits. The M9 in any event made me grow in so many more ways as a photographer than I ever could have realized before I started using it. If the RX1 had been available then and I'd gotten it instead the journey would not have been nearly as fulfilling. For me there was just a certain sense of real photography when I was using the M9. It was difficult to let go. I do still so enjoy this forum though. Cheers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 17, 2013 Posted September 17, 2013 Hi 1JB, Take a look here Leica M240 and lux 35/1.4 really outperformed by Sony RX1R?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest malland Posted September 17, 2013 Share #122 Posted September 17, 2013 ...The most noticeable difference for me has been the difference in color. There is still a very pleasing look to my M9 prints. Maybe it's nostalgia but to my eye there is a certain look to those prints that I don't think would have been there with the RX1...The M9 in any event made me grow in so many more ways as a photographer than I ever could have realized before I started using it. If the RX1 had been available then and I'd gotten it instead the journey would not have been nearly as fulfilling. For me there was just a certain sense of real photography when I was using the M9...I don't put much credence in "real photography," but do think that there is something special about the look of the color that the M9 produces — and since it is the image that is the most important thing I wouldn't trade the M9 for another camera; nor the M-Monochrome because the M9 and the M-Monochrome are, in my view, unique digital cameras in the current market. —Mitch/Paris Tristes Tropiques [WIP] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted September 17, 2013 Share #123 Posted September 17, 2013 It certainly has been interesting reading this thread. I sold my M9 35cron and 50 lux a few months ago after purchasing the RX1. My motivation was my disappointment with the M which led me to conclude I wanted to get out of the Leica lineup rather than wait another 5 years with the M9. I will always love that M9 and those lenses. Really either camera is worth the money even though the RX1 has a lot more versatility. Selecting the focus point on the screen or evf and focus tracking are but two that I really like having. The most noticeable difference for me has been the difference in color. There is still a very pleasing look to my M9 prints. Maybe it's nostalgia but to my eye there is a certain look to those prints that I don't think would have been there with the RX1. The only reason to compare the M to the RX1 in my view is to remind Leica of what can be done in the digital age. Other than that these are 2 completely different platforms, each with its own merits. The M9 in any event made me grow in so many more ways as a photographer than I ever could have realized before I started using it. If the RX1 had been available then and I'd gotten it instead the journey would not have been nearly as fulfilling. For me there was just a certain sense of real photography when I was using the M9. It was difficult to let go. I do still so enjoy this forum though. Cheers. 1JB - That was nice. I agree as well. The M8, M9 made me a better photographer, as well, because, the way it made me shoot. All I learned can be carried over to another camera, like the RX1. Some of it is a little harder to employ, like MF, but I completely understand how you are a more deliberate and better photographer now. If, I could only choose one camera it would be the M and the 28 Summicron. My next camera choice would be the RX1 with a 28mm lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted September 17, 2013 Share #124 Posted September 17, 2013 However, a mirrorless camera (or working with the M with the EVF) does afford the photographer to see the DOF at a given aperture that a rangefinder only camera like an M9 does not. That is certainly an advantage when you do not have to take the camera from the eye to check the DOF on camera lenses offering aperture rings). I do not have any M camera or an RX1. But that is my experience shooting Leica R cameras for about 28 years, Mamiya 7II (which is a rangefinder), and 4" X 5" cameras. Rich Hi Rich, in theory yes- but I have a hard time to judge sharpness in an EVF. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted September 17, 2013 Share #125 Posted September 17, 2013 Even though there are image quality differences personally I could get used to and live with each output rx1, M9, M. However I really like optical viewfinders and exchangable lenses, and a simple classic user interface. Now if I was using just 35mm and if I liked EVF better I would probably just use the rx1 because its smaller and has AF. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
naturephoto1 Posted September 17, 2013 Share #126 Posted September 17, 2013 Hi Rich,in theory yes- but I have a hard time to judge sharpness in an EVF. Preferably I use magnification and have the camera on a tripod. But, for me one of the nails in the coffin for my purchasing the M240 was the lack of scrolling in the EVF; I use this feature heavily when tripod mounting a camera particularly for macro, zooms, and long lenses. Rich Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted September 17, 2013 Share #127 Posted September 17, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) 1JB - That was nice. I agree as well. The M8, M9 made me a better photographer, as well, because, the way it made me shoot. All I learned can be carried over to another camera, like the RX1. Some of it is a little harder to employ, like MF, but I completely understand how you are a more deliberate and better photographer now. If, I could only choose one camera it would be the M and the 28 Summicron. My next camera choice would be the RX1 with a 28mm lens. With a Canon AE1 and M6 (borrowed) from my early days, I have stuck to what I love n that's the M, in my case '9' following '8'. For me as a hobbyist the process of shooting with the M has the right balance of effort, challenge and reward. I am keeping my M as, yes it improves my photography skills and rewards more than any other system. For me its pleasure and performance that counts and a massive DSLR that weighs more than a dumbell and consumes disk space like a bluray film collection is not appealing. The one thing in life I sold I regret was an old 911 bought in '97, it was tricky to drive at the limit, noisy, very hard on the road, gave me several heart attacks at the Nurburgring and is now too expensive to buy back and I miss it. Yes I'd be passed by a Nissan GTR with all its trickery (assuming the 'pilot' had some experience) but not everywhere and I'd have way more fun and way more memories. My M9-P is staying with me I'll stop now as I remember I have a blinkin deisel to drive home I might get all nostalgic Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptZoom Posted September 17, 2013 Share #128 Posted September 17, 2013 Huh? I said it was possible with the M - not that it was easier than with a DSLR. Or that zone focussing was "the answer"....My beef is the suggestion that it is impossible without an all-singing all-dancing DSLR. Were photographers so much more accomplished before the advent of AF and is focussing a lost skill? The photo you posted is fantastic. Sports Illustrated type of photography is pretty bland these days. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlesphoto99 Posted September 17, 2013 Share #129 Posted September 17, 2013 About the same I have been saying - the EVF is adequate but not in the same league as an SLR. Still - it works, and quite well in my hands. Yes, of course. And I want to emphasize what I said which is in "stressful situations" a dslr with long lens will do you a lot more favors than an M with EVF, etc. Otherwise the M with adapters seems like a fine solution for the casual user (that can afford it). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 17, 2013 Share #130 Posted September 17, 2013 The photo you posted is fantastic. Sports Illustrated type of photography is pretty bland these days. I think so too 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/212512-leica-m240-and-lux-3514-really-outperformed-by-sony-rx1r/?do=findComment&comment=2423374'>More sharing options...
RHD Posted September 17, 2013 Share #131 Posted September 17, 2013 I have the M9, the M (typ 240) and the Sony RX1. The M(240) has reduced my usage of the M9. The RX1 is, for me, something I use for street photography and as a convenient travel camera. I have the 35 Summicron asph and I think it is wonderful. I really think of the Leica M and Sony RX1 as alternatives based on whether I want to be nearly invisible on the street (RX1) or capture the special color and contrast of an architectural street setting (M+Summicron 35). My favorite lens on either M is the Zeiss 21 2.8, but that is a different topic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptZoom Posted September 17, 2013 Share #132 Posted September 17, 2013 I think so too These remind me a bit of Garry Winogrand's work. I've limited exposure to his work, but that's something I aim to remedy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozkar Posted September 18, 2013 Share #133 Posted September 18, 2013 I don't put much credence in "real photography," but do think that there is something special about the look of the color that the M9 produces — and since it is the image that is the most important thing I wouldn't trade the M9 for another camera; nor the M-Monochrome because the M9 and the M-Monochrome are, in my view, unique digital cameras in the current market. —Mitch/Paris Tristes Tropiques [WIP] No doubt, the M9 can really output ripper color, however it can also screw up big time when shooting people. My son refuses to allow me to shoot him with my my M9P. More often than not, he looks like he's wearing lipstick. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Pandorf Posted September 18, 2013 Share #134 Posted September 18, 2013 No doubt, the M9 can really output ripper color, however it can also screw up big time when shooting people. My son refuses to allow me to shoot him with my my M9P. More often than not, he looks like he's wearing lipstick. May I suggest you try the Huelight M9 Profile for Lightroom. You may change your mind about shooting people with your M9P. I think it has helped me. http://www.colorfidelity.com/ I took this quick snap shot the other day with my Leica M-E and Leica Summilux-M 35mm pre-ASPH: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted September 18, 2013 Share #135 Posted September 18, 2013 No doubt, the M9 can really output ripper color, however it can also screw up big time when shooting people. My son refuses to allow me to shoot him with my my M9P. More often than not, he looks like he's wearing lipstick. I agree. Under artificial lighting we had a lot of trouble with skin tones and lips on the M8 and M9. This has been discussed for years here. I think you are going to be quite pleased with the M color. It is much improved in situations like this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted September 18, 2013 Share #136 Posted September 18, 2013 I shoot with my M9 and mixed sources, very often. Flouro's, tungsten, HMI, flash. I've found no such problems. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozkar Posted September 18, 2013 Share #137 Posted September 18, 2013 I agree. Under artificial lighting we had a lot of trouble with skin tones and lips on the M8 and M9. This has been discussed for years here. I think you are going to be quite pleased with the M color. It is much improved in situations like this. Thanks. That's good to know. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozkar Posted September 18, 2013 Share #138 Posted September 18, 2013 I shoot with my M9 and mixed sources, very often. Flouro's, tungsten, HMI, flash. I've found no such problems. Lucky you, Paul. This Paul, on the other hand, is facing the same problem as me: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/283325-leica-m9-magenta-colour.html#post2393867 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted September 18, 2013 Share #139 Posted September 18, 2013 Lucky you, Paul. This Paul, on the other hand, is facing the same problem as me: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/283325-leica-m9-magenta-colour.html#post2393867 Not luck at all. Just a manual white balance. It's always going to be luck involved with AWB. It is, at times, unreliable on all cameras. Any dominant colour cast in a frame, a wall colour, a blue sky, etc, etc and the camera will shift colour. Correcting colour cast in RAW developer is often too late, IMO. I still filter in camera sometimes too if colour is really critical. The difference of warming in camera and warming in RAW, for example is perceptible. Software colour is convenient, yes. Not always natural though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted September 18, 2013 Share #140 Posted September 18, 2013 IMO. I still filter in camera sometimes too if colour is really critical. The difference of warming in camera and warming in RAW, for example is perceptible. Software colour is convenient, yes. Not always natural though. Yes, but most of us are shooting RAW. Makes no difference in RAW. Correcting in camera makes no difference. The artificial light source challenges of the M8 and M9 especially at higher ISO are known. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.