GMB Posted September 11, 2009 Share #41 Posted September 11, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) The best and most detailed review so far. You covered well the essential additions, a pleasure to read. thanks! Fully agree. The only downside with this review is that it will cost me a lot of money, but it will be spend with pleasure David: Many thanks for this well written, informative, and fun to read review. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 11, 2009 Posted September 11, 2009 Hi GMB, Take a look here David Farkas' review up. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
dempski Posted September 11, 2009 Share #42 Posted September 11, 2009 Many thanks for the review—I learned more here than from all the other first impressions available on the web combined. Those of us who bought lenses based on the sweet-spot performance with the M8, and not for full-frame film, are keenly interested in the edges of the posted photos, looking for signs of softness of specific lenses or unanticipated behavior of the sensor. I need to feel comfortable that my lens set will work well before upgrading. Any initial observations would be appreciated, especially if they pertain to images not selected for this review. Kelly Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted September 11, 2009 Share #43 Posted September 11, 2009 Many thanks for the review—I learned more here than from all the other first impressions available on the web combined. Kelly That's great, which other reviews have you read? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted September 11, 2009 Share #44 Posted September 11, 2009 That's great, which other reviews have you read? The original poster didn't say that they'd read any other reviews, just that they'd found David's post more informative than other first impressions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted September 11, 2009 Share #45 Posted September 11, 2009 I was sincerely curious. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dempski Posted September 11, 2009 Share #46 Posted September 11, 2009 Sean, No offense was intended. I read your review and many others. In fact, I’ve read your reviews before buying most of my equipment, and I’m anxiously awaiting Part 2 of the M9 review. As I’ve talked to David before on the telephone, and followed his advice on lens and monitor selection, his opinion resonates with me, perhaps not as a friend, but certainly a trusted advisor. I may be predisposed to listen to his first impressions. But I wouldn’t make a move without consulting your detailed analysis and opinion. My concern is with lenses I have extending to full frame. If too many of them are weak at the perimeter, I will stay with the M8. I had recently bought a 24 mm f1.4 from David, and so his photos shot with that lens of special interest to me. And as they could be extracted from the blog and seen in greater detail, they were especially useful. The photos in your review used specific 35 and 50mm lenses which I do not happen to own. I am sure it is in your mind to go through other lenses and tell us which ones are still gems for digital full frame use. Please include my travel kit favorite, the 28-35-50 Tri-Elmar. I think I would rather stay with my M8 than give up the convenience of the MATE for the M9. Kelly Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
yanidel Posted September 11, 2009 Share #47 Posted September 11, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Sean, No offense was intended. I read your review and many others. In fact, I’ve read your reviews before buying most of my equipment, and I’m anxiously awaiting Part 2 of the M9 review. As I’ve talked to David before on the telephone, and followed his advice on lens and monitor selection, his opinion resonates with me, perhaps not as a friend, but certainly a trusted advisor. I may be predisposed to listen to his first impressions. But I wouldn’t make a move without consulting your detailed analysis and opinion. I think David and Sean reviews are complementary and a level higher that what has been written elsewhere. Both have a different style and focus on different aspects and it is great to have two experts point of views. Just like "Lord of the Rings" movies, I kind of find it frustrating to have an article split in various parts such as Sean's but I understand the enormous work (tests) behind it did not allow to have the whole review ready at launch. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted September 11, 2009 Share #48 Posted September 11, 2009 Sean, No offense was intended. I read your review and many others. In fact, I’ve read your reviews before buying most of my equipment, and I’m anxiously awaiting Part 2 of the M9 review. As I’ve talked to David before on the telephone, and followed his advice on lens and monitor selection, his opinion resonates with me, perhaps not as a friend, but certainly a trusted advisor. I may be predisposed to listen to his first impressions. But I wouldn’t make a move without consulting your detailed analysis and opinion. My concern is with lenses I have extending to full frame. If too many of them are weak at the perimeter, I will stay with the M8. I had recently bought a 24 mm f1.4 from David, and so his photos shot with that lens of special interest to me. And as they could be extracted from the blog and seen in greater detail, they were especially useful. The photos in your review used specific 35 and 50mm lenses which I do not happen to own. I am sure it is in your mind to go through other lenses and tell us which ones are still gems for digital full frame use. Please include my travel kit favorite, the 28-35-50 Tri-Elmar. I think I would rather stay with my M8 than give up the convenience of the MATE for the M9. Kelly I wasn't offended in the least. I really was curious so that I could put your comment in context. I'll end up testing all kinds of lenses on the M9. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted September 11, 2009 Share #49 Posted September 11, 2009 I I kind of find it frustrating to have an article split in various parts such as Sean's but I understand the enormous work (tests) behind it did not allow to have the whole review ready at launch. That's it exactly. That review is going into more depth than normally happens when a camera is first released and the final firmware often comes in just before the announcement date so time is the challenge. First impressions can be given all at once but the more involved testing all takes time to do, redo if needed, sort through, etc. By the same token, I imagine many people will be expanding their coverage of the M9 as time allows. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrid Posted September 11, 2009 Share #50 Posted September 11, 2009 Nice review. Makes me want one even more. One comment, if I may: >The M7 and MP are set at 1m, and I never had any >issues when shooting with these. Since the M6 all analog bodies, with the exception of the MP3, have been set to .7 meters. Basically the M6/M6ttl/M7/MP are all set to .7 meters. The last film body set to 1 meter was the M4-P, although the last few batches with the M6 top plate appear to use the M6 mask, which is set to .7 meters. The M3/M2/M4/M5/M4-2/M4-P (most)/M5/MP3 and now M9 are all set to 1 meter. This is the reason why the 50, 75, 90 and 135mm are so inaccurate on the post M6 bodies (.7m). Can you ask Leica if they will make the 1 meter mask from the MP3 available to those of us who are still shooting film? I would love to be able to upgrade my M6ttl and M7, so they frame as accurately as an M4 or M9. If they do this I may even buy a new MP. ;-) What about the M9 and weather sealing? Are we still playing Russian Roulette with a very expensive camera? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockyIII Posted September 15, 2009 Share #51 Posted September 15, 2009 I just read the review a second time. I really like the "Wetzlar's Old Town" photo. Rocky Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest roey Posted September 16, 2009 Share #52 Posted September 16, 2009 Actually, that's a great question. I know that the S2 supports HSS with the SF58. I didn't really think about why the M9 doesn't. And, I didn't ask Stefan about it. Let me look into this. David, have you found out anything? Thanks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanJW Posted September 16, 2009 Share #53 Posted September 16, 2009 Sean, No offense was intended. I read your review and many others. In fact, I’ve read your reviews before buying most of my equipment, and I’m anxiously awaiting Part 2 of the M9 review. As I’ve talked to David before on the telephone, and followed his advice on lens and monitor selection, his opinion resonates with me, perhaps not as a friend, but certainly a trusted advisor. I may be predisposed to listen to his first impressions. But I wouldn’t make a move without consulting your detailed analysis and opinion. My concern is with lenses I have extending to full frame. If too many of them are weak at the perimeter, I will stay with the M8. I had recently bought a 24 mm f1.4 from David, and so his photos shot with that lens of special interest to me. And as they could be extracted from the blog and seen in greater detail, they were especially useful. The photos in your review used specific 35 and 50mm lenses which I do not happen to own. I am sure it is in your mind to go through other lenses and tell us which ones are still gems for digital full frame use. Please include my travel kit favorite, the 28-35-50 Tri-Elmar. I think I would rather stay with my M8 than give up the convenience of the MATE for the M9. Kelly Kelly: I am also interested in Sean's take on the MATE on M9. However, I am not so worried because I used the MATE for a long time on an M7. It covered the film frame very well (stopping down always helps) so I know it has the potential to do the same on the same sized sensor. That's not a definitive answer because sensors and film are different, but if the sensor is designed properly the MATE ought to work quite nicely. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dempski Posted September 18, 2009 Share #54 Posted September 18, 2009 Thanks for the reply. I came to Leica for the M8 and so I don't know the full frame history of many lenses. Guess I need to wade through the old reviews. I was hoping Sean would do the footwork for me before the camera becomes readily available. Kelly Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted September 18, 2009 Share #55 Posted September 18, 2009 Thanks for the reply. I came to Leica for the M8 and so I don't know the full frame history of many lenses. Guess I need to wade through the old reviews. I was hoping Sean would do the footwork for me before the camera becomes readily available. Kelly There's only so much one can do in three weeks with the camera, esp. when one is at home/in studio for only one of them. My review work always has to share time with my commitments as a photographer. But over time I will be testing a lot of lenses on the M9. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.