What I miss from M9 in my M10

[jdlaing]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have a psychological impressionist opinion.

 

On a side note Pico: Tonite, PBS, 1900 hours Central time.

 

Part II of VII.

You didn't miss much if you didn't see last night.

[pico]

I have a psychological impressionist opinion.

 

On a side note Pico: Tonite, PBS, 1900 hours Central time.

 

Part II of VII.

You didn't miss much if you didn't see last night.

 

You might be referring to the Vietnam documentary. Molly and I are committed to watching the series. Last night enlightened those born late. It is important. Many experienced the war in a state of TV illusions, and for others  it was personal and for everyone the outcome was terrible even though they might not know it.  I'm glad I am almost too old to cry, but sometimes I do when the lights are out before the respite of  sleep. The horror...

 

J. J. Stafford, SSgt, Medical Corps, USAF, 1964 - 1970 -- AKA Pico

Edited September 18, 2017 by pico

[Advertisement]

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

[Jeff S]

Actually 10 parts....September 17-21 and 24-28, repeating the following day, and episodes 1-5 repeating again next Sunday. At least that's the schedule for my local channel.

 

Jeff

[jlindstrom]

I can’t say I’m missing my M8 or M9 anymore. When shooting the M240 based cameras, I certainly was missing the M9 at times. The M262 was already getting close to the point, where I didn’t feel like it was a bad choice when I moved on from the M9.

 

With the M10, it feels like the natural upgrade for M9. No reason to look back anymore. The M10 has the smaller size, has the simplistic controls and has fantastic IQ.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[evikne]

I admit it all must be imaginations, and maybe I can blame on the weather. The reason must simply be that the light conditions was better before. 

[NB23]

M9 = magical thinking.

 

I know I hated mine.

[Utz Nagal]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

M9 = magical thinking.

 

I know I hated mine.

 

Could you explain that?

[NB23]

Could you explain that?

All this "CCD superiorty" thing is self-inflicted BS.

 

IMO of course.

[jlindstrom]

^ Yeah, you can say that again. There were differences in colors & dynamic range, but it’s got nothing to do with ccd vs cmos.

 

Different products have different qualities. M9 is from different era. Technology has evolved and current crop of cameras have more dr. Desaturate M10 colors & adjust contrast + match wb and th results will be very similar for ”the look”.

 

I enjoyed my M9 for other reasons, namely it was lighter & simpler camera than the M240. M262, as said, was very close to M9 feel. M10 is hands down better camera than M9 in every aspect.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[shootinglulu]

To me the M9 renders more beautifully than the M10 which is annoying as I like the better ISO of the M10. 

[jlindstrom]

I’m sorry, but I have hard time swallowing that.

 

I bet, if we take M9 & M10 with same lens & settings, down rez to 18mp, match wb and desaturate the M10 to suite - it would be extremely hard to choose photo + camere used.

 

Ten pairs, randomize order and I’ll bow out & call a champ anybody picking 9 out of 10

correct.

 

There’s usually too much emotion involved in these statements about rendering, snap, pop, 3D, Leica look etc. Very few of those statements can be backed up by facts.

 

Same goes for comparing straight out of camera shots. Should take photos, process to suite and then compare end results as photos usually get post processed anyway.

[pgk]

I bet, if we take M9 & M10 with same lens & settings, down rez to 18mp, match wb and desaturate the M10 to suite - it would be extremely hard to choose photo + camere used.

 

Very few of those statements can be backed up by facts.

I suspect that most 'decent' cameras now produce disconcertingly excellent results and could be added to your 18MPixel equivalence test .

 

What's this about facts? Why let facts get in the way? Facts are so irrelevant these days - so outdated.

 

I still find the M9 to deliver very good files. Depends what you are doing of course but then why muddle things by thinking gear is less versatile than we consider it should be?

Edited September 21, 2017 by pgk

[jlindstrom]

I suspect that most 'decent' cameras now produce disconcertingly excellent results and could be added to your 18MPixel equivalence test .

 

I still find the M9 to deliver very good files.

That’s part of the point I was making. Would be very hard to distinguish between M9 and M10 in similar conditions. And I mean that naturally in equal GOOD conditions. The M10 has some advantages that can’t be disputed, when conditions get tricky...

 

And then the other advantages that are haptics and such.

[shootinglulu]

That’s part of the point I was making. Would be very hard to distinguish between M9 and M10 in similar conditions. And I mean that naturally in equal GOOD conditions. The M10 has some advantages that can’t be disputed, when conditions get tricky...

 

And then the other advantages that are haptics and such.

 

I'd like to see those results. In my experience the M8, M9, M240 and M10 all have their signature look which an artists eye catches every time. I'm not interested in any other view.

[Jeff S]

I'd like to see those results. In my experience the M8, M9, M240 and M10 all have their signature look which an artists eye catches every time. I'm not interested in any other view.

An artist, and competent technician, should be fully capable of creating diverse 'looks' from any of these terrific machines...as part of a total camera to print to display workflow. Special attributes, e.g., low light capabilities, can however expand possibilities.

 

Jeff

Edited September 21, 2017 by Jeff S

[adan]

I do miss one thing from the M9, that will likely never appear in any digital Leica ever again - permanently-visible naturally-illuminated framelines and the signature third serrated window on the front of every Leica from the M2 on (M3 windows were not serrated).

 

It is just - de trop - to have to turn on a Leica M to see the framelines. It was on the top of my "hate list" for the M240.

 

But ultimately, the other practical improvements of the M10 (speed, ISO, color, viewfinder otherwise) overcame that pet peeve.

[pgk]

I'd like to see those results. In my experience the M8, M9, M240 and M10 all have their signature look which an artists eye catches every time. I'm not interested in any other view.

 

The differences/signatures are nuances, but I agree that they are there and can be made use of. That said I do wonder how many can actually see/use the differences? All my cameras have different rendering which is sometimes relevant but at other times not.

[LocalHero1953]

The old wry joke goes around: "That's a wonderful photograph you've taken there - you must have a great camera - ah, a Leica, that explains it".

 

This discussion is all about perceptions and experiences in the mind of the photographer. At the IQ level we have with Leica, hardly anyone (including other photographers) will notice or can detect what camera or sensor a shot has been taken with - if the photograph is good (pace the joke above) no one will care. 

 

For the photographer taking the shot, of course, a camera that allows you or helps you take the shot you want is valuable, but I've given up claiming that my images are inherently better or even significantly different because they have been taken with the M240 rather than the M9 (no M10 in my cupboard yet). On the other hand, I have no regrets for the M9's IR blotches, rear review screen too embarrassingly bad to show anyone, shutter noise, inability to use lenses outside 28-135mm or close-up devices, poor ISO performance, ugly noise patterns. People looking at my shots on screen or in print, though, like them or hate them on grounds totally irrelevant to subtle colour or IQ differences.

[pgk]

The old wry joke goes around: "That's a wonderful photograph you've taken there - you must have a great camera - ah, a Leica, that explains it".

 

I have just had an exhibition and gave a talk at it last night. Before it started someone came over to me and asked me how I had achieved to 'clarity' in my images. After talking it was evident that it was the precise tonality which he was talking about. The images he referred to were shot on M9s, but in reality the tonality resulted from my familiarity with the M9's characteristics and my ability to adjust the files to achieve the final print which I aimed for. So is the M9 a superlative, better than others camera? Well no, but its an excellent camera capable of very high quality output. It has taken me several years to 'learn' its absolute characteristics and thoroughly integrate them into my workflow. In our haste to buy the 'latest and greatest' we often forget that familiarity and understanding go a long way towards achieving the imagery that we want. Its the main reason that I am loath to upgrade from my M9s - I 'know' them and they produce files which I am able to adjust to my taste. Great camera - yes, but a 'great' camera only works well when its characteristics are thoroughly appreciated and understood.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Tailwagger]

After three months shooting the M10 and M240 side by side, from a final results standpoint, IMO, they're almost indistinguishable. There are a few fundamental differences, of course. The 240's color problems seem to have been shifted away from reds and the M10 certainly has more ability to lift or pull highlights in trickier circumstances as well as significantly lower noise at higher ISO.  But there was nowhere near the learning curve around how to handle files that I encountered when going from 645d (ccd) to 645z (cmos). In the case of the Leicas, a few weeks on from processing if it wasn't for the exif, I doubt I could tell which version shot what.