Pinocchio Wood Posted September 3, 2009 Share #1 Posted September 3, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I moved to a Canon 5D from a 10D. The difference in brightness and image size through the viewfinder alone made the change worthwhile. I have just bought an M8.2. By all accounts the image quality is excellent already. If the viewfinder image size and brightness is unchanged in the M9 then the practical benefit of the FF sensor is lower noise and better low light sensitivity. Isn't moving to FF going to prompt everyone to go out a spend a lot more money on more lenses, to dial out the crop factor? I understand a number of new lenses will also be announced on 9/9. Why change? Pinocchio Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 3, 2009 Posted September 3, 2009 Hi Pinocchio Wood, Take a look here Practical benefits of the M9. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Jager Posted September 3, 2009 Share #2 Posted September 3, 2009 Lower noise and better high-iso performance aren't things to sneeze at. My "other camera" is a D3. Its low light and high-iso performance has been literally transformative. Game changing. If the M9 even approaches that capability, with the advantages already inherent to a rangefinder and the exceptional lenses produced by Leica, that would be an extraordinary package. There's every reason in the world to change... ;-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted September 3, 2009 Share #3 Posted September 3, 2009 Isn't moving to FF going to prompt everyone to go out a spend a lot more money on more lenses, to dial out the crop factor? I guess I am a bit confused here, Leica does not make any lenses for a crop factor camera, just full frame. So if and when I get an M9, I will use what I always have, aspheric 28, 35, 50 and 90mm lenses. Why change? Because like going from a D300 to D3, The M9 will blow the M8 clean out of the water. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bo_Lorentzen Posted September 3, 2009 Share #4 Posted September 3, 2009 Why change.... get wider fov from my 35 lux.? it will be a bit wide rather than a 50mm fov. and naturally the new wide luxes will be really interesting. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted September 3, 2009 Share #5 Posted September 3, 2009 Umm, I think people are talking at cross-purposes here. KM-25, I realize you mostly skipped the M8 (if I recall correctly), but I hope you realize that many who used it bought new lenses (replacing, say, a 28 with a 21 or a 90 with a 75 or a 75 with a 50) in order to retain their preferred fields/angles of view. Now they will need to switch back if they get an M9. Pricey. And has nothing to do with "digital-only" lenses - just "1.33x-crop-framing" lenses. (If I'm wrong about your skipping the M8 - what did you do when you wanted a 28mm field of view?) I've been fortunate - my 24 x 36 lens set was not that far off what worked well on the cropped M8 also - 15,21,28,90,135 became "20,28,37,120,180" - so for the M8 I just dumped a 35 for a 50, which I will sell or trade for a 35 on the M9 - pretty cheap (and I get a real 15mm back free, gratis and for nuttin' - while losing a "180" that was always iffy to focus, and that I can still crop for anyway) Pinocchio - why change? A. My 21 becomes a real 21 again, with f/2.8 speed - a 2-stop increase (on top of any ISO improvements in the M9). To get that with the M8 would have required getting a Zeiss 15 f/2.8 for $4000. B. My 15 becomes a real 15 (assuming the M9 sensor can handle it) instead of a slow "20mm" C. I get either a very compact 35 f/2 or a really fast 35 f/1.4, in place of a compact but slow 28 f/2.8 or an ungodly expensive and large 24 f/1.4. D. I get the quiet shutter and more accurate framelines of the M8 upgrade - without paying the $1800 they would have cost as an upgrade. E. I get back framelines for my 135 (presumably) So right off the bat, I get about $4800 of value out of the M9 in 21mm aperture increase and upgrade-equivalents.... without even considering better high-ISO performance, no more IR filters (if the Leica Japan web text is accurate), 80% more pixels, an ISO button, and a faster "35", one way or the other. I do understand that anyone who just bought an M8.2, or who does not use wide angles, faces a different equation.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
psss Posted September 3, 2009 Share #6 Posted September 3, 2009 a ff m9 with a 18mpix ccd without aa filter would be the closest thing to a phase back....the image quality would be comparable to probably a P21+....and i can tell you that a P21+ blows any canon and nikon out of the water....but since it has to be attached to large, heavy mostly outdated cameras and has to be focused through a frustratingly smallish tunnel it takes the fun out of it and makes the canons and nikons look a lot better...but if you get that look and quality out of a m body.....well...that makes things really fun.... the m8 always reminded me of the cropped file from a P20...nothing to sneeze at, but limited in print size and very limited when it comes to cropping the original file.... i don't expect a real change in high iso...if phase and hasselblad can't do it in their huge chips, leica won't be able to do it either...ccds are just not made for clean high iso....but they shine at base iso and so the m9 should be fine up to about 640 or 800, which is at least one stop better performance then the m8.... the disadvantage of ff is of course that lenses will have to show their corners again.....should not be a problem with leica glass, but i think there will be some surprises...film simply never resolved at this level and nobody peeped at 200%.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted September 3, 2009 Share #7 Posted September 3, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) KM-25, I realize you mostly skipped the M8 (if I recall correctly), but I hope you realize that many who used it bought new lenses (replacing, say, a 28 with a 21 or a 90 with a 75 or a 75 with a 50) in order to retain their preferred fields/angles of view. Now they will need to switch back if they get an M9. Pricey. And has nothing to do with "digital-only" lenses - just "1.33x-crop-framing" lenses. (If I'm wrong about your skipping the M8 - what did you do when you wanted a 28mm field of view?) If I wanted a 28, I simply used one on my D700. I understand that some have bought a new set of lenses to cater to what they thought was going to be a long term sensor format, but I saw it differently, especially when the new wides and the .95 nocti came out, obviously Leica knew that the proper format sensor for their lenses was 24x36, so did I. I just have never bought into the idea of buying a set of expensive lenses for what is a compromise / short lived format. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
waterlenz Posted September 3, 2009 Share #8 Posted September 3, 2009 I moved to a Canon 5D from a 10D. The difference in brightness and image size through the viewfinder alone made the change worthwhile. I have just bought an M8.2. By all accounts the image quality is excellent already. If the viewfinder image size and brightness is unchanged in the M9 then the practical benefit of the FF sensor is lower noise and better low light sensitivity. Isn't moving to FF going to prompt everyone to go out a spend a lot more money on more lenses, to dial out the crop factor? I understand a number of new lenses will also be announced on 9/9. Why change? Pinocchio Moving to the M9 from the M8 models will be much more than simply going ff. Let us hope the IR and electronics issues of the M8 are finally fixed for good! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted September 3, 2009 Share #9 Posted September 3, 2009 film simply never resolved at this level and nobody peeped at 200%.... There are films out there right now that if you shoot them in a Leica M body with aspheric Leica glass, they put even a 1DS-III or D3X to shame in terms of the rendering of fine details. It is not about resolution in the case of Leica M, but the extreme angles into the corners that play havoc on full frame sensors. But technology marches on and right when you think something is not possible, it becomes possible. I'm sure Leica has been working with every lens in the arsenal with this sensor to come out with technology that not only allows great image quality to come through, but caters to it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinocchio Wood Posted September 3, 2009 Author Share #10 Posted September 3, 2009 Sorry folks, first post and was trying to keep it short. Adan, you are correct. That is what I was driving at. I accept your reasoning for upgrading. Do you think you would still want to upgrade if you had the M8.2, not the M8? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrc Posted September 3, 2009 Share #11 Posted September 3, 2009 There are films out there right now that if you shoot them in a Leica M body with aspheric Leica glass, they put even a 1DS-III or D3X to shame in terms of the rendering of fine details. I disagree. The D3x and similar cameras perform far beyond what any 35mm film could do, with any lens or body, in terms of resolution and most other parameters. There are still reasons to film, especially if you like nice shoulders. As far as upgrading to FF is concerned, I may not do it, because I've always liked slightly longer lenses. I love the fact that I have a ~66mm f/1 and a ~100 f1.4 in my Nocti and 75 Lux, and I've been using my 135 on a G1 and an E-P1 for a Leica M ~270... On the other hand, I rarely shoot really wide. What you need depends on what you do...though it'd be nice to have both. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bo_Lorentzen Posted September 3, 2009 Share #12 Posted September 3, 2009 JRC, IF the camera is 18 megapix, then you can upgrade and crop your images to 1.3x when you feel like it. this ad a lot more flexibility to the lenses. I don't see myself using the 8 for closeups and the 9 for the rest, not if I can trim the images and still have plenty of dots left. also while Im very happy with the 8, one would guess the 9 is much more finely tuned for the M lenses based on Leica having a few years to dial in the digital M experience.. so all in all, it should deliver a more refined image. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted September 3, 2009 Share #13 Posted September 3, 2009 I had a decent battery of M lenses for film. With the coming of the M8, I kept using them, and added just two focal lengths, 28 and 75mm (I would probably have bought 18mm in any case; I did definitely NOT buy it to obtain a slow 24!) The only lens I will probably retire is the 75 Summarit, which is in a way a pity, as it is an excellent optic. I will keep the 28 Summicron, because it will probably be the widest lens accommodated by the M9 viewfinder, and because it is simply damn good. I have been warming to it even on film. So I do not think that a full frame M9 will wreak havoc with the lens kits of users. All the present focal lengths with the exception of 18mm were in full use on film and had its adherents, and 18mm will gain its following too. Leica have actually been very decent to us by not luring us into a 'crop lens' cul-de-sac. They would probably have been able to sell quite a number of such lenses, but resisted the temptation. The old man from the Age of the Agfa Silette Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jquimby Posted September 3, 2009 Share #14 Posted September 3, 2009 If I wanted a 28, I simply used one on my D700. I understand that some have bought a new set of lenses to cater to what they thought was going to be a long term sensor format, but I saw it differently, especially when the new wides and the .95 nocti came out, obviously Leica knew that the proper format sensor for their lenses was 24x36, so did I. I just have never bought into the idea of buying a set of expensive lenses for what is a compromise / short lived format. The other option was to do as I did: struggle!!! I started using a D700 and digital wasn't all that bad anymore... Once 9/9/9 hits and it is official all of the Nikon stuff is going up for sale, I will probably keep the M8 as a back up but boy I can't wait to get back to framing with a 50 in my mind raise the camera and not feel that pause as if something just isn't quite right... by about 1.33 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
psss Posted September 3, 2009 Share #15 Posted September 3, 2009 There are films out there right now that if you shoot them in a Leica M body with aspheric Leica glass, they put even a 1DS-III or D3X to shame in terms of the rendering of fine details. It is not about resolution in the case of Leica M, but the extreme angles into the corners that play havoc on full frame sensors. But technology marches on and right when you think something is not possible, it becomes possible. I'm sure Leica has been working with every lens in the arsenal with this sensor to come out with technology that not only allows great image quality to come through, but caters to it. i won't get into a film vs digital discussion, which is pointless, both have clear advantages and obvious problems....i would probably rather see a shot from a m6 blown up to 40x60 then from a m8 but that has nothing to do with detail but more with a look or esthetics.... but dsIII, 5dII or d3x (or even the m8...very, very carefully)can be compared to 645 film not to 35mm.....leica glass or not.... obviously leica had a REALLY hard time getting the smaller sensor to work.....but there are almost 5 years between this sensor and the older one......so this SHOULD be under control...... either way...really exciting stuff.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted September 3, 2009 Share #16 Posted September 3, 2009 I disagree. The D3x and similar cameras perform far beyond what any 35mm film could do, with any lens or body, in terms of resolution and most other parameters. There are still reasons to film, especially if you like nice shoulders. A buddy and I had fun not long ago doing some comparisons with Kodachrome 25, Techpan, ADOX-CMS20 against his D3X. The latter was stunning in rendition of fine details but fell short compared to the microscopic details of the films I mentioned when used with Leica aspherics. Believe me, I was surprised too. You can get CMS-20 but the other two, well I have several hundred rolls of each, but not many other people do. I am doing a book project on a canyon for fine art sales, we are doing Techpan in both 35mm and 120 in dr5 and then printing to Ilfochrome, it is getting expensive though, because in order to fully see the detail in the dr5 / TP shots, we have to go at *least* 30 inches wide, the 120 can go to wall sized. It's freaking unbelievable.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwelland Posted September 3, 2009 Share #17 Posted September 3, 2009 C. I get either a very compact 35 f/2 or a really fast 35 f/1.4, in place of a compact but slow 28 f/2.8 or an ungodly expensive and large 24 f/1.4. That alone pretty much pays for my M9 upgrade. I've been on the fence deciding whether to get the 24/1.4 or not for my M8.2. I just sold my M8 & 28/2 in anticipation of being able to use my 35/2, 50/1.4, 90/2.8 & 135/3.4 as intended again with a FF M9 (there's still the alternative of the 24 'lux if the M9 isn't FF after all). With FF it potentially also liberates my 75/2 too as this is a great 100mm equivalent for me, but I personally don't use 75mm as a native FOV - again potentially another valuable contribution to offsetting any M9 purchase cost. I'll be watching carefully how the WATE performs on a FF digital platform - that could be interesting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwelland Posted September 3, 2009 Share #18 Posted September 3, 2009 As far as upgrading to FF is concerned, I may not do it, because I've always liked slightly longer lenses. I love the fact that I have a ~66mm f/1 and a ~100 f1.4 in my Nocti and 75 Lux, and I've been using my 135 on a G1 and an E-P1 for a Leica M ~270... because On the other hand, I rarely shoot really wide. What you need depends on what you do...though it'd be nice to have both. That's interesting. I know that from a personal perspective my feelings were the complete opposite. I sold my Noctilux because I wasn't getting the value from it as a 66mm lens. It just didn't work for me at all. My 75 cron essentially replaced my 90 'cron and elmarits. I guess that's why we have so many lens choices Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted September 3, 2009 Share #19 Posted September 3, 2009 Pinocchio - I'm a wide-angle freak, in case you couldn't tell from my lens lineup, so I'd jump to the Mine regardless of what I'd already bought, and when. I might not be quite as happy about it, though.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted September 3, 2009 Share #20 Posted September 3, 2009 Isn't part of what this boils down to that the M9 ISN'T an upgrade. It's the M camera that I had wanted since the Epson RD1 showed that digital RF was possible. 1.6 crop just didn't do it for me and I stayed with film (when I wasn't using DSLRs). 1.33 was an acceptable compromise, but it was still a compromise. In fact, the M8 was a downgrade so far as my hopes for a DRF camera were concerned. I accepted it as it made a return to RF photography possible within my normal workflow and business practice., and I would have lived with it if the technological challenge hadn't been overcome. But now, we have full frame again (+ the other benefits mentioned in various speculative and less speculative postings) and I'm willing to invest resources in getting the M that I want and need for projects that are on-going and in the planning stage. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.