Jump to content

M9 Redux


RSL

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Nikon and Canon were putting serious electronics into their film SLRs, even before digital arrived.

 

Leica chose another route for their film cameras - just metering, auto if you must. With the M8 Leica have continued on that route.

 

The Nikon D3 and other similar cameras are ruthless picture taking machines. I try and use the Leica M8 as an instrument for making pictures, although through my own lack of talent in this area I rarely succeed, but I enjoy trying.

 

Jeff

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 187
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

..shutter release button... On the Leica, it is a joy to push that little button, but not so on the Nikons or Canons. I know it is just a stupid button in the end, but it is made in a way that it advertises "Push me" ...

 

Is this a joke? Do you actually have an M8? My M8 shutter release is the the worst [by some margin] I have ever used, it is far worse even than my long retired 32 year old Olympus OM1. If the shutter release of my M8 had the sweetness of traditional 'M' cameras I would be confident of using it for slow shutter speeds, as it is however, I would choose a Nikon [any modern Nikon] for slow shutter speed work every time rather than an M8.

 

I'll put this politely; the shutter release is crappy. I at least agree with you that it is 'a stupid button', the issue has been well covered here, there is even a thread on 'Fixing the Shutter Release'.

 

.................... Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

{snipped}I'll put this politely; the shutter release is crappy. I at least agree with you that it is 'a stupid button', the issue has been well covered here, there is even a thread on 'Fixing the Shutter Release'.

 

.................... Chris

 

Chris, it's worth pointing out this varies a lot from camera to camera, and I have no idea if that means older to newer bodies.

 

In Vegas, Riccis V and I had a chance to compare; mine is not bad, but certainly not the same as my M6... his was quite noticeably better. So it goes :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a professional I find it curious that the need to compare a excellent general photographic tool like the D3 with an excellent specialized tool like the M8.

 

The D3 cannot fulfill all of my client's needs nor can the M8. So I cannot really justify one over the other.

 

At the moment, in a six week project my M8 is delivering the goods some aspects of the job on while my 1D mk III and the 40D is doing its job well on the other half. When I used the 1DmkIII (its after all a general purpose tool) to take over the M8's job, it did not do a better job in the areas where I consider critical.

 

It did do it a lot faster but not better and in the majority of of those cases the M8 deliver better quality. Canon files are more malleable but then I have 9 years of working with them while the M8's files up close does not look great to me but I am delivering superior quality overall.

 

I'm using the M8 in situations where autofocus is easily fooled, low lighting is a constant (so automatic features light metering and white balance are not an advantage, f2.0 1/60 at ISO 640), and need to run to different points with a tripod to quickly setup. The images need to be enlargeable to 24" x 36" with fine details of moving subjects.

 

In this situation; Canons and Nikons do a good job but are not great when it comes to enlarging to 24" x 36". In this situation, the M8's lack of anti-aliasing filter, wide open sharp optics, light weight, mechanical lens, rangefinder view are massive advantages for me.

 

I am saying this only that just because the M8's specialized abilities lie outside our experience or needs does not mean it there is no justification for such a tool. For a professional, it is frequently the economic reason to get what is necessary. I have never owned a 300mm lens but I don't indulge in posting ridicule in forums.

 

Its really nice to be able to just bring along a D3 with one lens and being able to do the job. I do it too very frequently so I understand that aspect. One of my client is quite amused that I am doing with a 50 summicron compared to what I used to lug along. Their needs changed so I change with it. The really amusing thing for me is the ability to run up 100 steps through a massive crowd with the M8 to get real close to the action when in the past I would whip out my trusty 80-200 and just zoom in. Somehow its different. Maybe I am getting lazy.:p

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, where to begin?

 

I defend the M8 because it is Leica's first in-house digital camera. It is a great start, the next digital M will be better.

 

Yes. That's right. Why? Why did Leica wait so long to get into digital? There seem to be a lot of people on these threads who argue that it's not a great start.

 

what is really funny to me is that the m8 (as a leica) gives me a certain credibility that DSLRs cannot give

 

Exactly what Leica seems to be depending on. Doesn't matter whether or not the camera is really good as long as it has a red badge.

 

You admire electronics way too much. Please, demystify them it will do you good. Hibernating in such a way was Nikon's answer for power preservation. They solve the problem. good. It's NOT a feature, it was a necessity originated from having to deal with all these electronics and micromotors.

 

I'm not sure what electronics has to do with it. A camera either is good or it isn't, no matter how many "electronics" it harbors. Yes, Nikon solved the hibernation problem. There's no delay at all when the camera wakes up. One of the things I'm asking is for Leica to learn from Nikon, or anyone else who's solved the problem, how to create the "electronics" that will prevent a picture-losing delay after the camera's gone to sleep. I'll pass by your shutter release comment. It already seems to have been answered.

 

Oh, well, we can do a lot of such game-quiz... my response is NO

 

This was in response to the pop quiz. No surprise there.

 

As a professional I find it curious that the need to compare a excellent general photographic tool like the D3 with an excellent specialized tool like the M8.

 

The only ones doing that are people who didn't read the thread carefully. The thread is supposed to be about why Leica isn't learning some tricks from other digital camera manufacturers. But we keep getting sidetracked because people want to defend the M8. In general, though, I agree wholeheartedly with your post, Ixlim. Rangefinders and DSLRs are very different beasts. I have the finest DSLR in the world right now. I'd like to see Leica, or someone, come up to a similar standard with a rangefinder. As a class, the rangefinder isn't obsolete. It's just a different tool.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes. That's right. Why? Why did Leica wait so long to get into digital?

 

 

The evolution from film to digital moved a lot faster than many people in the business expected--both on the production end and the consumer end. Just ten years ago, I fully expected to have the choice to use film or digital capture for the rest of my professional career. About 8 years ago, it became clear that the choice was being made for me. Leica is a very small company with very little electronic experience and nowhere near the R&D money of Canon, Nikon and Sony. To expect them to be setting trends with digital imaging is unrealistic in the extreme. I think they've done quite well to put out a camera as good as the M8 at this point and I very much look forward to their next move.

 

But we keep getting sidetracked because people want to defend the M8.

 

 

That's probably because the underlying tone of the thread is that the M8 is an inferior product that is not ready for professional application. Some of us who actually use the M8 professionally do not agree with that notion. Could the shutter be better? Absolutely. But I can still get sharp images hand holding the M8 at speeds far below anything I can hand holding my Canons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes. That's right. Why? Why did Leica wait so long to get into digital? There seem to be a lot of people on these threads who argue that it's not a great start

 

Leica _were_ into digital early - well 1998 or so - Google "Leica S1".

 

So I assume you mean why did Leica wait so long to get into digital with an M? A couple of reasons. Firstly the company didn't see digital as a threat to their existing film line. They assumed that digital would co-exist with the film Ms and that there'd be an ongoing market for a precision film rangefinder that would allow the company to stay in profit. They got that wrong, they didn't anticipate just how quickly, and to what degree, digital would become the dominant source. In the early days when people were claiming that 1 mp cameras matched film it's possible to see how they arrived at this decision. However the world changed more quickly than they anticipated - and for what it's worth, more quickly than I was expecting.

 

Secondly they did not see how they could design a full frame digital M given the close lens exit to 'film' plane. In this they were correct and as far as I know the problem still exists today. However once they realised that the photographic world was prepared to accept a sensor smaller than 35mm film they were able to design a system that _would_ work.

 

There are lots of people here - and again, I include myself amongst them - that consider that the M8 _is_ a great camera. Certainly without the M8 I expect we would be here discussing the former brand of Leica, as it's doubtful that the company could have survived without the injection of cash that the M8 and associated lens sales generated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest jimmy pro
The thread is supposed to be about why Leica isn't learning some tricks from other digital camera manufacturers.

 

You have a chip from one company, firmware from another company, and God only knows how many different companies supplying the circuit boards and switches. Nothing wrong with that as long as Leica's got a person or persons who are really expert in digital camera technology who can oversee it all. What it looks to me like is that they didn't have such a person or persons when the M8 was in development, which is how the IR sensitivity, the funky white balance, the menu-set ISO, and the rest of it managed to get into the production model. And, without that kind of in-house expertise, it makes sense why those "tricks" from other manufacturers weren't incorporated. Finally, you had Leica in a horrible financial situation in '05, with banks refusing to give them credit, and a year later amid restructuring and how many, three? turnovers in CEO, they managed to get the M8 ready right on time for Photokina. So maybe there was a lot of stuff they might have liked to change but they ran out of time and/or money.

 

Jim Provenzano

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry to do this. I had no intention of trying to defend the D3 against the M8. But I keep seeing things on the thread like this from psss:

 

i just had the oportunity to compare a D3 (with 24-70) to my m8 (with CV 50 1.5)....my findings: the m8 beats the D3 in resolution, i would say easily....i shot an outdoor scene, compared a chainlink fence, a streetsign, detail on wood in the distance...detail in dark shadows....both files unsharpened, no camparison....

 

I've worked with raw files from both cameras (Jaap's were the best of the M8 files I was able to lay hands on), and there's no doubt the M8 files are beautiful. Kudos to Leica for bringing that off with a transition to 8 bits and back again (long story told several times on these fora). In any case, Leica managed to hang on to the image quality their lenses are capable of delivering. It's quite a feat.

 

But beautiful as they are, the D3 files at 14 bit color depth are at least as good. Since Andy already has warned me that putting files into the thread is forbidden, I won't even try that, but I'll refer you to this: CLASH OF THE TITANS: NIKON D3 VS LEICA M8, which is at least as scientific a test as the one psss claims he did. As I've noted before, trying to compare photographs on a computer monitor at 72 ppi won't tell you much. You really need at least an 11 x 14 print by someone who knows how to do postprocessing and how to print in order to see what's going on. But the destination of that link is indicative. Yes, I can think of all sorts of problems with any test like that, but my point is that saying one is better than the other doesn't make it so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I always look at landscape shots for an idea of resolution.

 

Looking at the samples of the D3 images shown on DPR I would say that the D3 has an aggressive AA filter. As a result a lot of detail seems to be lost. DPR only shows jpgs I dont know if they are from the camera or from a RAW file. There is one particular image of the London skyline, it is very soft indeed and the detail lost will never come back with sharpening. Two years earlier DPR showed a similar shot from the Canon 5D, which shows detail 'plus moire' where the Nikon shows nothing just a blur.

 

As I have a 5D and an M8 I know that these two cameras produce the about same amount of detail. The M8 with the 75AA cron being noticeably better than the 5D with 70-200f4 L.

 

The Nikon D3 image would annoy me. It is possible of course that the D3 image is not focused correctly.

 

Jeff

Link to post
Share on other sites

I always look at landscape shots for an idea of resolution.

 

Looking at the samples of the D3 images shown on DPR I would say that the D3 has an aggressive AA filter. As a result a lot of detail seems to be lost. DPR only shows jpgs I dont know if they are from the camera or from a RAW file. There is one particular image of the London skyline, it is very soft indeed and the detail lost will never come back with sharpening. Two years earlier DPR showed a similar shot from the Canon 5D, which shows detail 'plus moire' where the Nikon shows nothing just a blur.

 

As I have a 5D and an M8 I know that these two cameras produce the about same amount of detail. The M8 with the 75AA cron being noticeably better than the 5D with 70-200f4 L.

 

The Nikon D3 image would annoy me. It is possible of course that the D3 image is not focused correctly.

 

Jeff

 

Jeff, I wasn't aware that we were looking at images on DPR. Do you know of any web site that shows anything other than .jpegs, or possibly GIFs (if you're not interested in color)?

 

Sorry to hear that the D3 image would "annoy" you. Yes, it may not be focussed properly. I guess I don't get your point. None of these tests tells you much, including the one I gave the hyperlink for above. Taking clues from DPR is probably fine if you plan to limit your photograph to brick walls and test images.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well to be fair the image on DPR is a landscape not a brick wall and presumably was chosen to give prospective purchasers some idea of the camera's output. It is remarkably soft as are some of the other images there. That particular image would annoy me because of the lack of detail which feel will be evident in a print.

 

The improvements I would like in an M9 are lets say 16 MP sensor and better DR, if Leica cant get to FF then maybe 1.1 crop, 1 stop extra ISO performance. I would not change the size, shape, add any electronic features or an AA filter. The shutter does not bother me personally though I can understand that it bothers a lot of users. Having a stronger IR filter on the sensor would be a plus? but no longer essential. The 'flaws' that others have experienced have not been a problem for me but those niggling flaws need to be gone from the M9.

 

Keep it simple!

 

Jeff

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry to do this. I had no intention of trying to defend the D3 against the M8. But I keep seeing things on the thread like this from psss:

 

 

 

I've worked with raw files from both cameras (Jaap's were the best of the M8 files I was able to lay hands on), and there's no doubt the M8 files are beautiful. Kudos to Leica for bringing that off with a transition to 8 bits and back again (long story told several times on these fora). In any case, Leica managed to hang on to the image quality their lenses are capable of delivering. It's quite a feat.

 

But beautiful as they are, the D3 files at 14 bit color depth are at least as good. Since Andy already has warned me that putting files into the thread is forbidden, I won't even try that, but I'll refer you to this: CLASH OF THE TITANS: NIKON D3 VS LEICA M8, which is at least as scientific a test as the one psss claims he did. As I've noted before, trying to compare photographs on a computer monitor at 72 ppi won't tell you much. You really need at least an 11 x 14 print by someone who knows how to do postprocessing and how to print in order to see what's going on. But the destination of that link is indicative. Yes, I can think of all sorts of problems with any test like that, but my point is that saying one is better than the other doesn't make it so.

 

i don't post images of crops of these tests because i do not believe in comparing jepgs on the screen...and i always urge people to do their own comparisons....

i also saw the "test" you linked to before....the "problem" with that test is that i seemes to be shot at 640 or even higher iso...anything below that does not even produce half as much noise on either of my m8s....and i completely and totally agree that the D3 blows the m8 out of the water from 640iso and up.....no question....

but hey...go to any DMF forum and the posts are full of people saying that their canons and nikons are just as good as any MF back! good for them....

 

i will try and not post about this anymore, since i have tested the m8 against the D3 and found it to be more suitable for my work....that is what counts....as i said before, i am sure that the D3 would be the much better camera for the vast majority of shooters...

 

as a side note...nikon released the latest firmware for the D3 a couple of days ago.....turns out it corrupts files....unfortunately these things happen with the companies rushing the latest out the door.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry to do this. I had no intention of trying to defend the D3 against the M8. But I keep seeing things on the thread like this from psss:

 

 

 

I've worked with raw files from both cameras (Jaap's were the best of the M8 files I was able to lay hands on), and there's no doubt the M8 files are beautiful. Kudos to Leica for bringing that off with a transition to 8 bits and back again (long story told several times on these fora). In any case, Leica managed to hang on to the image quality their lenses are capable of delivering. It's quite a feat.

 

But beautiful as they are, the D3 files at 14 bit color depth are at least as good. Since Andy already has warned me that putting files into the thread is forbidden, I won't even try that, but I'll refer you to this: CLASH OF THE TITANS: NIKON D3 VS LEICA M8, which is at least as scientific a test as the one psss claims he did. As I've noted before, trying to compare photographs on a computer monitor at 72 ppi won't tell you much. You really need at least an 11 x 14 print by someone who knows how to do postprocessing and how to print in order to see what's going on. But the destination of that link is indicative. Yes, I can think of all sorts of problems with any test like that, but my point is that saying one is better than the other doesn't make it so.

 

Russel, I am quite willing to concede superiority of D3 files of M8 ones,(not that I really care) but the M8 shot he uses in that test is front-focussed cr@p....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably no one will care much but here is my .02 worth

 

I want both the M8 and D3 to be the best they can because I use each for different purposes. That's why I think these threads are pretty useless. Unless one is trying to either make a one off purchase of one vs the other what is most interesting is to see what each is capable of doing on its own merits.

 

I love the D3 and I love the M8. I get great files from both (without reference to which is best one vs the other). So both companies, please keep on improving.

 

Frankly I think the most interesting thing is how good the Nikon glass has become in this latest generation. A few months ago it would have created flames of a high degree of magnitude if anyone dared to compare Nikon glass to Leica glass. Now we have at least three lenses that can compete quite well with the great Leica M glass and is spelled Nikon!

 

JMHO

 

Woody

Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably no one will care much but here is my .02 worth

 

I want both the M8 and D3 to be the best they can because I use each for different purposes. That's why I think these threads are pretty useless. Unless one is trying to either make a one off purchase of one vs the other what is most interesting is to see what each is capable of doing on its own merits.

 

I love the D3 and I love the M8. I get great files from both (without reference to which is best one vs the other). So both companies, please keep on improving.

 

Frankly I think the most interesting thing is how good the Nikon glass has become in this latest generation. A few months ago it would have created flames of a high degree of magnitude if anyone dared to compare Nikon glass to Leica glass. Now we have at least three lenses that can compete quite well with the great Leica M glass and is spelled Nikon!

 

JMHO

 

Woody

Link to post
Share on other sites

errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

 

 

 

 

and as you say its a complete non-starter for street photography, or reportage, photojournalism, war photography or anything that requires a body with little inertia, something inconspicous you can move around a lot and frame with very very quickly

 

A non starter? I'm a professional photojournalist for twenty years now. I always worked with M camera's, and since a year with M8. It's a very good camera, and stories that it is a slow camera are mostly told by those people who cannot watch and see. Besides of sports one does'nt need more speed than the M8 offers. -Roel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems these "I wish it were" threads are triggered by an insatiable desire to have more than you need.

 

IMO, it just devalues what you have, and leads to the very obsolescence you fear. Camera makers have GOT to love this ... especially at today's prices.

 

So, suddenly a $5,000. piece of gear takes on the luster of failure ... not because it isn't capable of meeting your real needs, but because it can't meet some projected desire to be more than you need ... just for the bragging rights, or some other equally ridiculous reason only a shrink could figure out after 10 years of therapy.

 

Attacking, and justifying the attacking of, a M8 or a D3, or anything else for that matter ... is just a symptom of the illness that's infected photography in general.

 

It's a pandemic virus spread by a host that makes flea ridden plague rats pale in comparison ... the internet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that the M8 can take very nice photos when it is working correctly. Just today I was out shooting with my M8 and got some very nice shots. Then the thing locked up. By the time I took off the bottom cover, removed the battery, reinserted the battery, put the bottom cover back on and turned on the power, the bird I was shooting had flown away. I should stick to trees. They do not move. Are not all Leica M8’s created equally? Is the M8 so complicated that making two of them alike is impossible? I also have a lonely Conon 40D with a 24-105 1:4 L IS lens that has always worked flawlessly. I just think Leica has hurt their reputation by releasing the M8 with all the bugs and inconsistent quality it has.

Link to post
Share on other sites

David,

 

I respectfully disagree here - I own the D3 and the fantastic 14-24 f2.8, which is way faster and wider than anything you can put on a M8. The WATE is f4, and starts at 16mm (21 FOV); the CV 15mm is f4.5, and is about 20mm FOV; the CV 12mm is f5.6, and is about 16mm FOV. In my book, 14mm f2.8 is WAY wider and WAY faster than 16mm f5.6 but, of course, YMMV.

 

 

You forgot the ZM 15mm f2.8.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...