Discovering the amazing image files of the Leica M9, the darkhorse of digital photography

[Chris Akin]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've been comparing files shot with the M9, the SL2, the Hasselblad X1D, and the S3. And what I've discovered is quite astonishing, really. The grain from the M9 is very similar to what film offers. The conversions to black and white made with the Silver Efex plug-in, even when film grain is applied, allow the natural grain of the M9 files to shine through. They have more tonal quality, or value differentiation, in the shadows than from the CMOS sensors. In essence, the modeling of objects in the M9 files is better! Also, the CMOS sensors produce a leathery sort of grain, which is a bit too canned, too consistent for my liking. Of course, the CMOS sensors have better resolution, but it sometimes comes at the cost of shadow recovery. For instance, applying noise reduction to an M9 file tends to clean up the shadows quite nicely, an area where the CMOS sensors can struggle. On the subject of resolution, if you've ever looked carefully at a print by Henri Cartier-Bresson, you'll be surprised at the relative softness of the image. If you consider sharpness to be a necessity, you might reconsider this notion. To my mind and eyes, sharpness can be a drawback. It leaves little to the imagination, in other words. It doesn't apply to everything of course - I can't imagine a Karl Blossfeldt that isn't sharp - but for me, at least, sharpness is no longer a priority. Regarding digital noise, it's a drag that noise reduction can't be used alongside super resolution in Adobe Camera Raw or Lightroom. But then again, an 11 x 17 inch print is quite enough for a portfolio, or even a museum exhibition. I didn't expect the M9 to top the other cameras, but I'm a believer now. How can you go wrong with lenses by Leica and a sensor by Kodak? Does it get any better than that? And if you're not terribly interested in black and white imagery, the color files from the M9 are astonishing as well. If we are to make a comparison with food, CMOS DNGs are raw and uncooked, whereas DNGs from the M9 are prepared to perfection, which saves you a lot of time in the kitchen: and better yet, you'll be savoring a meal by a master chef. M9 files are yummy! 

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!

One tip I can share is that if you are using Silver Efex, export your file from LR in color. Silver Efex does a much better job in my opinion when it has a color file to work with, and it will generally convert the color to black and white better than Adobe Monochrome in LR. Silver Efex outshines any efforts I've made at color mixing in Lightroom to get the black and white right.      

Edited August 17 by Chris Akin
make an improvement in the wording for clarity

[pedaes]

1 hour ago, Chris Akin said:

M9 files are yummy! 

Pleased you have discovered this.. 

 

1 hour ago, Chris Akin said:

One tip I can share is that if you are using Silver Efex, export your file from LR in color

I think this is standard practice, after processing your RAW file to maximum benefit in LR. On re-importing from NIK to LR there are further final tweeks to finish.

Edited August 17 by pedaes

[Topsy]

3 hours ago, Chris Akin said:

I've been comparing files shot with the M9, the SL2, the Hasselblad X1D, and the S3. And what I've discovered is quite astonishing, really. The grain from the M9 is very similar to what film offers. The conversions to black and white made with the Silver Efex plug-in, even when film grain is applied, allow the natural grain of the M9 files to shine through. They have more tonal quality, or value differentiation, in the shadows than from the CMOS sensors. In essence, the modeling of objects in the M9 files is better! Also, the CMOS sensors produce a leathery sort of grain, which is a bit too canned, too consistent for my liking. Of course, the CMOS sensors have better resolution, but it sometimes comes at the cost of shadow recovery. For instance, applying noise reduction to an M9 file tends to clean up the shadows quite nicely, an area where the CMOS sensors can struggle. On the subject of resolution, if you've ever looked carefully at a print by Henri Cartier-Bresson, you'll be surprised at the relative softness of the image. If you consider sharpness to be a necessity, you might reconsider this notion. To my mind and eyes, sharpness can be a drawback. It leaves little to the imagination, in other words. It doesn't apply to everything of course - I can't imagine a Karl Blossfeldt that isn't sharp - but for me, at least, sharpness is no longer a priority. Regarding digital noise, it's a drag that noise reduction can't be used alongside super resolution in Adobe Camera Raw or Lightroom. But then again, an 11 x 17 inch print is quite enough for a portfolio, or even a museum exhibition. I didn't expect the M9 to top the other cameras, but I'm a believer now. How can you go wrong with lenses by Leica and a sensor by Kodak? Does it get any better than that? And if you're not terribly interested in black and white imagery, the color files from the M9 are astonishing as well. If we are to make a comparison with food, CMOS DNGs are raw and uncooked, whereas DNGs from the M9 are prepared to perfection, which saves you a lot of time in the kitchen: and better yet, you'll be savoring a meal by a master chef. M9 files are yummy! 

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!

One tip I can share is that if you are using Silver Efex, export your file from LR in color. Silver Efex does a much better job in my opinion when it has a color file to work with, and it will generally convert the color to black and white better than Adobe Monochrome in LR. Silver Efex outshines any efforts I've made at color mixing in Lightroom to get the black and white right.      

 That is one great example shot to prove your point Chris. 👍

[3D-Kraft.com]

Yes, there are still good reasons to use the Leica M9 with its unique Kodak CCD sensor, even though today's cameras are superior in almost every respect.

Here are two shots from yesterday, processed in a very similar way, first one from a Sony A1 with Noctilux 50/1 (@f/2.8) and second one from the Leica M9 with Thypoch Simera 28/1.4 (@f/2.0). Of course the viewing angle is different, but the colors can still be compared well:

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!

 

 

The colors from the A1 are closer to reality - but who wants always reality?

Red/orange and blue tones, in particular, are overemphasized on the M9. You have to like it, but the M9 already provides a rich foundation for that.

 

Edited August 18 by 3D-Kraft.com

[3D-Kraft.com]

Another example, first Sony A1, second Leica M9 (both with Thypoch Simera 28/1.4 @ f/5.6) :

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!

 

 

[pgk]

I am still using M9s and see no reason to 'upgrade' them. They operate superbly but within a relatively tight envelope. I always shoot using base ISO and adjust shadows in Photoshop - there is a limit to how much shadows can be lifted but it is at least 3 stops using base ISO and sometimes more, depending onsubject, enlargement, etc.. Any B&W conversions I do are in Photoshop. To my mind M9 files are a great compromise between a somewhat 'filmic' look and the convenience of digital adjustability. I have other digital cameras which are far 'superior' in specifications to the M9, but my M9s remain my go to cameras and are far more heavily used. IMO the M9 should be regarded as one of Leica's greatest achievements because had it not been for this first but surprisingly mature, full frame rangefinder model, Leica might have struggled. Depite its age and low specification it is still a highly competent performer within its usable envelope.

[Topsy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 hours ago, pgk said:

I am still using M9s and see no reason to 'upgrade' them. They operate superbly but within a relatively tight envelope. I always shoot using base ISO and adjust shadows in Photoshop - there is a limit to how much shadows can be lifted but it is at least 3 stops using base ISO and sometimes more, depending onsubject, enlargement, etc.. Any B&W conversions I do are in Photoshop. To my mind M9 files are a great compromise between a somewhat 'filmic' look and the convenience of digital adjustability. I have other digital cameras which are far 'superior' in specifications to the M9, but my M9s remain my go to cameras and are far more heavily used. IMO the M9 should be regarded as one of Leica's greatest achievements because had it not been for this first but surprisingly mature, full frame rangefinder model, Leica might have struggled. Depite its age and low specification it is still a highly competent performer within its usable envelope.

Likewise and I agree 100%. 👍

[Casey Jefferson]

There are different M9 characters as of now - the original sensor with corrosive sensor glass, official Leica replaced glass (ID15/16), and all sorts of 3rd party replaced sensor glass.

I shot all 3, and mine had the glass replaced in China and to my eyes it has the most unique and nicest rendering. Sadly, the camera component did failed so I'm sourcing another one that's alike.

Attached are two shots that's SOOC, only exposure value adjusted. (2nd was out of focus though)

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!

[Doc Henry]

Hi Chris , Hi Casey and All , good and interesting post . CCD sensors are unique IMHO .

@ Casey you can only change the filter and keep the ID11 sensor.

See the thread below.

 

@ Chris , in black and white , the M8 (CCD sensor) is also very good

Best

Henry

 

Edited August 20 by Doc Henry

[Chris Akin]

Thanks everyone for your thoughtful replies! Here's a picture that demonstrates the incredible color saturation possible with the M9.  

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!

[Stuart Richardson]

If you think the M9 is good, try the S2 or S006. They are like a supercharged version. I unwisely sold mine for the S3. After six years with the S006 and 2 before that with the S2, I never did warm to the S3. But many of my favorite photos were taken on the CCD S cameras and the M9. They pair well together, but the S006 was the peak of CCD for me. The sensor was tuned with all they learned in the M8 and M9, and the double size sensor meant 37mp, which is still extremely usable today. The only challenge now is the corrosion issue. If you can find a body without it, they are truly the best way to enjoy CCD colors. 

[Ne314satel]

M9 is especially good in sunny countries - Cuba, etc. The color and structure of the image are very close to Kodak film.

[Chris Akin]

Yes, I have both the S3 and the S006. They're awfully big for carrying around, though. I've never felt more confident as a photographer than with the S3, that's for sure. I like the S3 because it's so much more responsive than the S006. Even the shutter release is better. I convinced myself that the S3 can do what the S006 can do. I just add contrast, saturation, and some small changes to the color balance to enhance the S3 files. It's been difficult to find one with a good sensor, though. The one I have is perfect save for a bright corner on the sensor, of all things. 

[Archiver]

On 8/20/2025 at 11:57 AM, Casey Jefferson said:

There are different M9 characters as of now - the original sensor with corrosive sensor glass, official Leica replaced glass (ID15/16), and all sorts of 3rd party replaced sensor glass.

Interesting that you mention this, as my M9 received the sensor replacement in 2017 after considerable corrosion was seen. Since then, I've liked the M9's colours even more. They are subtly different from when the sensor was original, but I can't put my finger on how.

M9 files have a sparkle and pop that I can't seem to replicate, even in the SL2S, which comes close but not the same. M9 skin tones have a multivariate palette of subtle shades which even the SL2S doesn't seem to have, subjects seem more crisp and outstanding from the background, and detail is ultra sharp without seeming too digital. Maybe I am not processing the SL2S files optimally, but after years of Lightroom experimentation and several months of working with SL2S files from the same jobs/conditions as my M9, I like to think I have a handle on this.

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!

Zeiss Biogon 21mm f2.8

Voigtlander Nokton 35mm f1.2 v1

Zeiss Distagon 35mm f1.4

 

Edited Monday at 06:29 AM by Archiver

[jaapv]

11 hours ago, Archiver said:

M9 files have a sparkle and pop that I can't seem to replicate, even in the SL2S, which comes close but not the same. M9 skin tones have a multivariate palette of subtle shades which even the SL2S doesn't seem to have, subjects seem more crisp and outstanding from the background

The reason for that is the way Leica handled the IR filtration (which is by no means perfect). The fact that they had to redesign the IR filter after the corrosion debacle accounts for the slight difference between versions 1 and 2.

[Archiver]

5 hours ago, jaapv said:

The reason for that is the way Leica handled the IR filtration (which is by no means perfect). The fact that they had to redesign the IR filter after the corrosion debacle accounts for the slight difference between versions 1 and 2.

In M9 photos, some black fabric has a slight magenta/purple tint which is minimally present in other subjects. This slight magenta is not present in SL2S files. Is this connected with the IR filtering? While it isn't accurate colour, I find this very appealing.

Edited Monday at 11:35 PM by Archiver

[jaapv]

Precisely that. Foliage tends more to Olive, caucasian skin has slight Magenta and Yellow blotches due to variability in IR reflection of the different layers, dark skin has Blue tones, etc., all dependent on the amount of IR in the light. Far less prominent than the M8, but still there. 

[Archiver]

7 hours ago, jaapv said:

Precisely that. Foliage tends more to Olive, caucasian skin has slight Magenta and Yellow blotches due to variability in IR reflection of the different layers, dark skin has Blue tones, etc., all dependent on the amount of IR in the light. Far less prominent than the M8, but still there. 

Now I'm wondering if a strong IR light would make a significant impact on M9 images. Might have to try this! It could result in a kind of night vision effect in the dark, or create subtle highlights in low artificial light.

[jaapv]

Any M in varying degrees. The effectiveness of the IR filter is estimated to be about 60% on the M8, 80 % on the M9, 70% on the M240 and maybe 80 % on subsequent models.
I had a batch of Safari shots taken on the Equator at noon with an M240 that could only be converted to B&W because of a incorrigible yellow IR cast

To see, just put an IR pass filter on your M9 like B&W 092 and try it out. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Adam Bonn]

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!

Here's a crop of an M9 file (left) with a M10-R one, taken at the same time with the same exp settings and lens

For me (OMMV) the far smaller DR of the M9 compared with the more modern CMOS cameras means that on the M9 image the brighter parts shine more (but clip sooner) and this gives the M9 it's look which, in some images at least, gives a lovely '3D' tonality

I suspect CCD has far less to do with it than it does 9 stop (or whatever) FF sensor

But who cares, there's some M9 pictures that are simply glorious and it's not a look that other cameras can replicate (I don't claim this pic as an example of that!)