Leica M9 yes or no? That's the problem...

[cabe]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

@analog-digital

absolutely agree with you, it’s the different color and BW performance of the CCD vs CMOS that makes the M9 and other CCD cameras still highly valued.

A friend who creates color profiles for Lightroom and C1, has never been able to get a profile that emulates the M9 and M9M! and he's a very good technician...

[jaapv]

On 9/22/2020 at 1:01 PM, jankap said:

What is the special quality of a CCD-sensor? If it is history, nostalgic leave it, otherwise it must be very interesting ($$$). Look in Ebay for the prices of the sold items. Film is more nostalgic still.

I am also a difference denier, like you - yet when selling one M camera off  there was no question that it would never be the M9.... 🤓

[analog-digital]

Am 22.9.2020 um 13:01 schrieb jankap:

What is the special quality of a CCD-sensor? If it is history, nostalgic leave it, otherwise it must be very interesting ($$$). Look in Ebay for the prices of the sold items. Film is more nostalgic still.

Forget ebay now. That is not the measure of all things. There are enough second-hand websites in every length.

[Ko.Fe.]

If I would be ever satisfied with M9 sensor results I would have no questions yes or no.

To me Leica CCD sensors have distinguished look. I use same software to get JPEG1 files for slideshows at home computers desktop.

M8, M-E220 pictures looks different from CMOS cameras, but I can't say they are better due to limited dinamic range in colors or something which makes them look sharp, but like from nineties era digital. I could also say these images have some glow, don't know if it is due to Leica lenses or CCD sensor.

For newer Leica digital M, except Monochroms, I see no significant and better difference from any other CMOS camera, but the only significance is in the handling of UWA lenses, like 21 mm. Hard to find another CMOS camera to handle M/LTM lenses like 21 mm wide.

[analog-digital]

I have sent my anthracite M9 to LDP LLC - MAXMAX.COM in new condition (IR glass corrosion). We'll see how this adventure ends.

It's worth it to me

[Ko.Fe.]

Just now, analog-digital said:

Forget ebay now. That is not the measure of all things. There are enough second-hand websites in every length.

If you look at eBay Sold and only prices it is showing real market value price.

 

Where I'm we don't have wide selection of second hand prices web sites.

I'm not sure if it is different in the States. FM and few Leica dealers. I guess it is enough of them in Europe and else.

[analog-digital]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 2 Minuten schrieb Ko.Fe.:

If I would be ever satisfied with M9 sensor results I would have no questions yes or no.

To me Leica CCD sensors have distinguished look. I use same software to get JPEG1 files for slideshows at home computers desktop.

M8, M-E220 pictures looks different from CMOS cameras, but I can't say they are better due to limited dinamic range in colors or something which makes them look sharp, but like from nineties era digital. I could also say these images have some glow, don't know if it is due to Leica lenses or CCD sensor.

For newer Leica digital M, except Monochroms, I see no significant and better difference from any other CMOS camera, but the only significance is in the handling of UWA lenses, like 21 mm. Hard to find another CMOS camera to handle M/LTM lenses like 21 mm wide.

Nobody speaks of BETTER. They are simply DIFFERENT. For me more film like.

And just stop talking about dynamics, scope and numbers like that. No matter how good the dynamic range, if the photographer cannot take photos, such numbers are of no use to you. When the first digital cameras with CCD sensors hit the market, most people didn't care what kind of dynamic range they had. It was just digital and the photos were really good.

So what's all the chatter about these mostly theoretical numbers? And I'm talking about the amateur (hobby) area.

[otto.f]

1 hour ago, analog-digital said:

Nobody speaks of BETTER. They are simply DIFFERENT. For me more film like.

....

So what's all the chatter about these mostly theoretical numbers? And I'm talking about the amateur (hobby) area.

Indeed. And we are talking about individual differences in seeing colors by the human eye and brain. Even if there would be a placebo effect of seeing differences, it will be very hard to overrule this effect with figures

[Ko.Fe.]

5 hours ago, analog-digital said:

Nobody speaks of BETTER. They are simply DIFFERENT. For me more film like.

And just stop talking about dynamics, scope and numbers like that. No matter how good the dynamic range, if the photographer cannot take photos, such numbers are of no use to you. When the first digital cameras with CCD sensors hit the market, most people didn't care what kind of dynamic range they had. It was just digital and the photos were really good.

So what's all the chatter about these mostly theoretical numbers? And I'm talking about the amateur (hobby) area.

And what M9 sensor files has to do with film? Well, I know,  it is same limited dynamic range as scans of slide film. Like it or not. I'm broadcast engineer, who is involved with computer graphics and image processing since earlier nineties. Talk about dynamic range, scopes and numbers are my profession. 

And as professional in this area I see the difference between my M-E220 and another cameras on images taken by me.

As for odd remark on photographer skills, some of those images were published. Not only from M-E 220, but images taken by 200 USD FujiNoFilm P&S. It was good enough for Canadian National Geographic. 

[analog-digital]

We are NOT Professionals, thats just our hobby. Take this in mind!

[jaapv]

Actually, quite a few of the best photographs I know were taken on slide film... And a few of the worst on high-end modern digital gear. This distinction is wholly irrelevant.

[analog-digital]

It seems that professional photographers attach (more) importance to the dynamic range of a camera. But when I look around, certain images don't become more expressive ...

The best camera is still the one you hold in your hand

(Columbus!)

Edited September 24, 2020 by analog-digital

[otto.f]

Happiness is a warm gun.
There are no good photographers, famous or not famous, professionals or amateurs, that do not love their equipment. 

Edited September 24, 2020 by otto.f

[Jean-Michel]

To answer the OP about the wisdom, or not, of purchasing a lightly used M9 with a new corrosion-free sensor: the M9 is a fine camera and should provide you with a few years of happy use. I purchased mine in 2011 (it had its sensor replaced twice, once with an old generation one and then with the new one) and I use it together with a newer M-P. I do not compare files from one or the other. That would be a meaningless time waster. I can process files from each as i see fit in order to make prints. I have 20 by 30 inch prints from the M9 and their are just fine. 

All the discussion about the 'film-like' quality of the M9's ccd sensor vs the cmos sensor of later M's is also quite non-sensical. What film colour rendition are being compared? Is it Kodachrome 25, Kodachome 64, Kodacolor, Portra, Agfacolor, Agfschrome, Ektachrome E-3, Ektachrome E-6, Fujicolor, Fujichome…; and what about the  Monochrom comparisons: are they for Tri-X, Plus-X, Panatomic, Ilford FP3, FP4, Ilford XP-1, developed in Rodinal, HC110, Microphen, D-76, Microdol, etc.? 

All digital files and the raw processor of our choice give us an amazingly wide latitude of processing our images. It does take some time and effort to learn how to process the files so they print as we want them to do – "auto" is usually not enough! 

Back to the purchase decision: it is a matter of price. I purchased my M9 new, I still look as if it was new and worth the purchase price, but on in business books it has depreciated at 20% per year on a declining basis. Eventually it will be worth nothing, it is just a piece of excellent electronic equipment with a very finite life. And here is another calculation to be made: calculate the annual depreciation cost, let's say $1,500, and divide that by the number of images you printed that year to give you a camera cost per print. You need to be OK with that number.  So, a used well-cared for M9 may well be worth a lot more to you than an M10, even if the wish for one is so attractive.   

[martinot]

2 hours ago, analog-digital said:

It seems that professional photographers attach (more) importance to the dynamic range of a camera. But when I look around, certain images don't become more expressive ...

The best camera is still the one you hold in your hand

(Columbus!)

iPhone

[analog-digital]

Gerade eben schrieb martinot:

iPhone

Why not?

[martinot]

1 minute ago, analog-digital said:

Why not?

I use it a lot to take photos. Its like you say; it is the camera I always have with me.

[martinot]

36 minutes ago, Jean-Michel said:

All the discussion about the 'film-like' quality of the M9's ccd sensor vs the cmos sensor of later M's is also quite non-sensical. What film colour rendition are being compared? Is it Kodachrome 25, Kodachome 64, Kodacolor, Portra, Agfacolor, Agfschrome, Ektachrome E-3, Ektachrome E-6, Fujicolor, Fujichome…; and what about the  Monochrom comparisons: are they for Tri-X, Plus-X, Panatomic, Ilford FP3, FP4, Ilford XP-1, developed in Rodinal, HC110, Microphen, D-76, Microdol, etc.? 

All digital files and the raw processor of our choice give us an amazingly wide latitude of processing our images. It does take some time and effort to learn how to process the files so they print as we want them to do – "auto" is usually not enough! 

Totally agree. Very well put.

[Ko.Fe.]

21 hours ago, analog-digital said:

We are NOT Professionals, thats just our hobby. Take this in mind!

The only difference from profession and hobby these days is to be able to get paid enough. I have seen far better results from hobbyists comparing to crap shoots from paid ones.  

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Ko.Fe.]

20 hours ago, jaapv said:

Actually, quite a few of the best photographs I know were taken on slide film... And a few of the worst on high-end modern digital gear. This distinction is wholly irrelevant.

And almost every well exposed, developed picture on bw negative and good wet printed is awesome! And only few Monochrome pictures are so. 

Maybe it is matter of taste?

Or how it viewed. I like slides projected. I don't like them digitized.

And if I jet print on post card size, which file it was originated from is irrelevant. iPhone, Leica M, Canon, OMD etc - all looks the same. And if it is on Apple monitor - same. All is well saturated and with boosted contrast. 

Personally, I could only see some difference if it is viewed on quality monitor via dedicated graphic card, if digital. 

Edited September 25, 2020 by Ko.Fe.