M9 full specs and pictures are out. Let's discuss.

[Bo_Lorentzen]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Luigi,

 

Maybe they are "dealing' with the fact that most users have a problem focusing a 135 on any camera for that matter. but these days when people pixel peep, the slight focus error will be studied in great detail, so they are kind of covering their back saying the lens must be stopped down... (maybe)

 

though the change to FF have changed a lot of things, my 75 lux is no longer a 100mm lux etc. so bringing the 135 back makes sense since we can no longer use the 90 in that place.

 

I suspect that this will all make more sense to me once the M9 have been around the track for a few laps.

.

[jaapv]

We had the same kind of nonsense on the M8. just use the lens. it will be fine.

[Advertisement]

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

[okram]

We should make a lens-exchange internet group.

[michali]

We had the same kind of nonsense on the M8. just use the lens. it will be fine.

 

Agreed!

It just so happens I had the 135mm Apo Telyt on the M8 this afternoon, no diopter, hand held.

#1 is the full frame & #2 is 100% crop, no pp other than DNG to JPEG.

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!

[UliWer]

Just to touch another point... seems that 135 frame is again in the VF : someway logical, to keep the 6-frame principle and starting from 28, but obviously without a magnifier it will be poor in a .68 VF... anyway, I do not understand completely the sentence that is added in the 135 3,4 description into the famous brochure: "it must be closed at least 2 stops" : why such a detail ? I would have understood better if they simply would have written that "a 1,4x Leica magnifier is highly reccommended" (i.e. "mandatory").

 

This bothered me as well - though when i look back at the M8 sheets where they ruled out the 135mm completely, it is some progress that we know find only some "criteria" for the 135mm Apo-Telyt.

 

I hope that this caveat is "only" caused by the problems to focus the lens on a small DOF. Even in books about the M-System from 20 years ago you find the assumption that a 135mm lens opened like the Apo-Telyt outreaches the possibilities of the M rangefinder. This was the reason for adding goggles to the Elmarit. So this is would be no new information.

 

But somehwere in all these long threads about the new M9 technology I read something which said, that the necessary corrections for wide angle lenses for a FF M-Sensor might cause problems for telephoto lenses (cannot find it any more). I hope very much that this is not the true reason for the advice to stop it down.

 

After all: don't bother, listen to jaapv!

Edited September 6, 2009 by UliWer

[Bo_Lorentzen]

LOL.. Jaapv,

 

Maybe somebody should make a conversion table so we can figure out what a 50mm looks like on a fullframe camera...

 

Oh wait, its just like on my film M. yah.

 

.

[KM-25]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Shy Tot, if you look back in my posts, I am going to be on the road working in the Kodachrome Project for over a year. I use four M bodies for Kodachrome, the M9 will allow me to shoot paid jobs and move stories to my editorial agent. This will also make it to where I do not have to Huallaga two systems to engage in digital output.

 

It's not about the M9 so much as it is now total system integration with film and digital.

[UliWer]

Agreed!

It just so happens I had the 135mm Apo Telyt on the M8 this afternoon, no diopter, hand held.

#1 is the full frame & #2 is 100% crop, no pp other than DNG to JPEG.

 

Good shot. Was it at f: 3.4 or 4 - or smaller?

[lct]

...I do not understand completely the sentence that is added in the 135 3,4 description into the famous brochure: "it must be closed at least 2 stops" : why such a detail ?...

Leica has always claimed that its FF cameras deserve a special CoC value of 0,025mm vs 0,03mm for others, i don't know why. On such a basis, 135mm lenses must be set to f/5,6 to be focused accurately on the M9. Now none of Leica's fast tele lenses could be focused with such a low CoC value actually so the later is hardly credible IMHO.

 

 

[innerimager]

I certainly will welcome 135 frame lines for my Tele-Elmar, perhaps the best bang for buck lens I own.....Peter

[UliWer]

In his book "Leica M6 - Geschichte und System" of 1991 Alfons Scholz writes about tolerances of film (translation by me): " With f: 1 all present focussing systems are overcharged. ...nobody can guarantee for anything. I don't bother, for I never felt the need to photograph with such extreme lens openings. Pictures which are taken this way are not satisfying aesthetically, so I prefer to leave them to other photographers." (p. 84f.).

 

On p. 200 he gives the following statements about the Tele-Elmar 4/135:

 

"The Tele-Elmar is a lens for the M3. Only there the frames in the rangefinder are big and exact enough. ... With the M4 and the M6 the rangefinder is overcharged. The limit for exact focussing lays between f 6.4 and 5.9. For the M3 the limit is between f:4.6 and 4.3".

 

Scholz was very often opinionated about the Leica System and especially about wide opened lenses. You must not follow him; though you could never say that his points were not based on physical facts.

[ShyTot]

Daniel, I didn't understand you. Thought you had found a unique way of making the M9 pay, versus others.

 

I've followed your project and appreciate and respect what you're doing. Bit surprised with your enthusiasm for M9 versus the M8, as for earning money, I can't see a massive difference. I lust for one too.

 

 

Shy Tot, if you look back in my posts, I am going to be on the road working in the Kodachrome Project for over a year. I use four M bodies for Kodachrome, the M9 will allow me to shoot paid jobs and move stories to my editorial agent. This will also make it to where I do not have to Huallaga two systems to engage in digital output.

 

It's not about the M9 so much as it is now total system integration with film and digital.

[stunsworth]

This bothered me as well - though when i look back at the M8 sheets where they ruled out the 135mm completely, it is some progress that we know find only some "criteria" for the 135mm Apo-Telyt.!

 

If they hadn't ruled out the 135 there would have been three sets of framelines in the viewfinder. Focussing being marginal and the need to accomodate the 24mm framelines were, I expect, also factors.

[KM-25]

Daniel, I didn't understand you. Thought you had found a unique way of making the M9 pay, versus others.

 

I've followed your project and appreciate and respect what you're doing. Bit surprised with your enthusiasm for M9 versus the M8, as for earning money, I can't see a massive difference. I lust for one too.

 

The way it has worked is like this, I used the M8 for over a year. When ever I used it along side of M's with Kodachrome, I had to take the IR filters on and off, it made it a chore, loosened the front barrel of my 28 Summicron and wore out the threads on the IR filter for my 50 lux. The other thing was that the high ISO was not all that great, so compared to my D700 which is full frame, I just never bonded with the camera, it did not play well with my film M's.

 

So I ended up carrying around two systems while on the road to do both digital and Kodachrome. When I started using the Carl Zeiss ZF glass on the D3 / D700 and even shot some Kodachrome through them, I strongly considered getting rid of nearly all the Leica gear to keep it simple.

 

But when I project Kodachrome slides shot with Leica aspheric glass on a 7 foot Da-lite screen using a Pradovit RT projector, I see an immense difference in the life Leica glass brings to my Kodachrome originals.

 

If I get an M9, I will sell the D3, two Nikon primes and the two Carl Zeiss primes I use, it will be a swap with minimal monetary damage. I will still have the D700, F100, FM3A, two primes and the best zooms that I would ever need in the Nikon system left.

 

So for earning money with the M9 compared to the M8, I am going to have to disagree with you, for what I need in a digital M in both pragmatic and emotional terms, the M9 will be *FAR* better for me than the M8 could ever be.

 

A lot of this will depend on how the M9 actually performs and how much it costs.

 

But bottom line, if you don't like the camera you are using, you are not going to make the best images you can with it and therefore, you will not reach your earning potential. As much as I tried to like the M8...and I gave it a really good go, I just never got along with it well.

 

This is my particular case and I would have to think it is fairly unique.

[Bo_Lorentzen]

KM-25,

 

I think you are pointing to a very significant issue here.

 

with a full-frame digital M, it is possible to seamlessly switch between film and digital, using the same general user-interface (exposure, focusing and view finder info). the same reason photographers generally like to bag matching cameras so they can switch without having to remember what type they are on.

 

a M6 and a M9 have more user-inteface in commen than a eos 620 and the latest digital...

 

Being able to work the same way with film and digital is a advantage in your projects. the same advantages apply to lots of projects.

 

.

[brill64]

"http://www.Kodachromeproject.com" ..respect!

[adan]

RE: the 135.

 

I've used the 135 f/4 with good success on both film Ms (.72x finders) and the M8 (.68x), but shot at f/5.6 or slower if I really wanted to be sure of good focus while working fast. Rangefinders have their limits.

 

It's interesting to note that Mamiya made a 210mm f/8 for the Mamiya 7 rangefinder.

 

MAMIYA: Mamiya 7 II | Lenses | Telephoto 210mm f/8 |

 

They did not even bother to make it RF-coupled, because their RF could not come close to handling it even at f/8. Scale-focusing only (i.e. basically a landscape lens). And on 6x7 210mm is "only" a 105-equivalent.

 

I look forward to using my 135 on the M9 with framelines. I accept that it's at the extremes of what an .68x RF can handle, because the results are so good when it works.

[nugat]

Leica has always claimed that its FF cameras deserve a special CoC value of 0,025mm vs 0,03mm for others, i don't know why. On such a basis, 135mm lenses must be set to f/5,6 to be focused accurately on the M9. Now none of Leica's fast tele lenses could be focused with such a low CoC value actually so the later is hardly credible IMHO.

 

 

AFAIK

There are two CoC standards for the 36x24mm frame.

The "imperial" was 1/100inch=0.0254mm (for print of 8x10inches looked at from one foot)

The metric is 0.03mm

Both deliver half the possible resolution for people with 20/20 vision.

[delander †]

Does that step in the body of the M9 next to the rangefinder window run right down to the bottom including the baseplate?

 

Jeff

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[giordano]

Does that step in the body of the M9 next to the rangefinder window run right down to the bottom including the baseplate?

 

Jeff

 

There's no step next to the rangefinder window, unless you mean the horizontal one that's been there for decades. On the other side, there's a step between the surround of the viewfinder window and the curved end of the top plate - but that's been there for decades too. The body still has a smooth curve - compare with the pic of the M7 in the same brochure.