leica007 Posted October 1, 2009 Share #1 Posted October 1, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) An M9 In Paris – A Field Review Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 1, 2009 Posted October 1, 2009 Hi leica007, Take a look here Reichmann's M9 field report live now.. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
yanidel Posted October 1, 2009 Share #2 Posted October 1, 2009 thanks for pointing out. Good review and I am glad to see his claim for the possibility to set a higher minimum speed on Auto ISO Maybe in the next firmware... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overgaard Posted October 1, 2009 Share #3 Posted October 1, 2009 Great review in fact that looks at some new things that are of interest. Also I like the comparison to Canon 1Ds Mark III files where the M9 is sharpher. The one thing Mark III has is sharp files (which are very flat and graphic 2D though), and it make me a somewhat happier M9 owner to see the M9 beat the beast in that as well. Not that a Leica M9 owner can possibly be happier, but it's a good feeling anyways Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry Posted October 1, 2009 Share #4 Posted October 1, 2009 I was very impressed with his review and his perspective as a real-world shooter. His observation that, in the case of some brands, there's too much emphasis on adding features at the expensive of the shooting experience should resonate with all Leica users. Larry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
larryk34 Posted October 1, 2009 Share #5 Posted October 1, 2009 Having just posted thread on "blown highlights" with digital sensors, I was happy to see Reichmann make the following point about the new M9: "The highlight warning (when activated) is now very precise. It exactly matches the clipping indication in Lightroom, and is not influenced by the JPG setting (if any) as it is on so many cameras." From my M6 onward, the main attraction of the Leica RF system has always been image quality, much of which can be attributed to the lenses and then the medium used to capture the image. In this regard, the M9 seems to have lived up to this tradition. Hopefully, the demand for this type of camera (RF) and the improved digital capture will keep Leica in profits and business for many years to come. "It ain't over til it's over", right? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guido Posted October 1, 2009 Share #6 Posted October 1, 2009 A passionate review, which fortunately contains everything owners waiting for their M9s want to hear Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest EarlBurrellPhoto Posted October 1, 2009 Share #7 Posted October 1, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) First off, Reichman lost his credibility in my book along with everyone else who didn't see or didn't report the IR debacle on the M8 in the beginning. That said, I have little respect for someone who calls himself a pro and then compares a Leica rangefinder to a Canon D-SLR. It's like comparing a Nissan Mizmo with an Armada. Furthermore anyone who calls himself a pro knows enough that you can't take expert postprocessing out of the equation. Clients buy prints, or at least print-ready files, not RAWs. A good chef can make a tastier steak from the supermarket than an average chef can do with the finest Kobi cut. That's why restaurant reviewers rarely ask that their meat be served uncooked We'd all be better off if camera reviewers could get salmonella from comparing raw files Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted October 1, 2009 Share #8 Posted October 1, 2009 The positive point for me to see how many images were taken with the Tri-Elmar. I like this lens with my M8 and I hope I will love it with my M9, where the 28 really will be a 28. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevem7 Posted October 1, 2009 Share #9 Posted October 1, 2009 Yep! Another fine report on the M9. I enjoyed it! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam.meier Posted October 1, 2009 Share #10 Posted October 1, 2009 Actually I had a feeling, he wanted to protect Leica. The first digital M had to be a landmark and everyone wished the transition would be successful. And so he deliberately left out the IR issue. Oh, and by the way, the Canon 1DsIII shot seems to be slightly blurred with vibration. Not the first time that it happens in his reviews. Not a deal breaker to me, I like his images and his passion for photography. He is a professional and a gentleman, not true for many gear heads I meet on fora First off, Reichman lost his credibility in my book along with everyone else who didn't see or didn't report the IR debacle on the M8 in the beginning. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnbuckley Posted October 1, 2009 Share #11 Posted October 1, 2009 Michael Reichmann has written a review of the M9 that captures the aesthetic romance of working with it better than anything else I've read so far. What a terrifically multidimensional analysis. His critics may have food poisoning on their mind. Reichmann has photography, and in his reference to Zen and the aesthetics of the Leica, something a little more elevated on his. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty Posted October 1, 2009 Share #12 Posted October 1, 2009 That said, I have little respect for someone who calls himself a pro and then compares a Leica rangefinder to a Canon D-SLR. It's like comparing a Nissan Mizmo with an Armada. Furthermore anyone who calls himself a pro knows enough that you can't take expert postprocessing out of the equation But he is not really comparing RF and DSLR, just the output. He even admits that it is difficult, so the samples may or may not convince you - however they do seem to bear out the theoretical claims. You may wait for a dxomark test but even that does not tell the whole story. And why take postprocessing into account - the postprocessed "worse" picture is still going to be worse than the postprocessed "better" picture. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnbuckley Posted October 1, 2009 Share #13 Posted October 1, 2009 By the way: as to the criticism that Michael Reichmann didn't discover the IR issue and publicize it on the first day he had an M8, I think he -- along with others who missed it -- would have written about it if he'd seen it. I do know his withering critique of the M8 after one performed badly on a trip to Antarctica he took with other photographers was proof of his credibility. Not only did he say the M8 performed badly in wet weather, he put his money where his mouth is: he sold his M8. The fact that he is back now and, three weeks after launch, soberly assessing the M9 as positively as he does is something that we should take seriously. One last thing: he writes and photographs well. It's nice to see those two in combination ;-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fourfa Posted October 1, 2009 Share #14 Posted October 1, 2009 One last thing: he writes and photographs well. Can someone point me towards examples of his photography? If there's a link to his fine-art or landscape gallery images anywhere on his site, I've never been able to find it. The closest thing seems to be a map to the gallery in Toronto. His many illustrations in articles seem to be mostly throwaway snapshots with little or no post-processing. The article in LensWork a while back was nice, and I'm sure his gallery is fantastic (wouldn't mind stopping in next time I'm there). I'm willing to take it on faith that he does photograph well. I just find it beyond strange that someone with such a name, web presence, traffic, and obviously a lot of time spent in fantastic locations with the best equipment available should make it so hard to see his work. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overgaard Posted October 1, 2009 Share #15 Posted October 1, 2009 I have little respect for someone who calls himself a pro and then compares a Leica rangefinder to a Canon D-SLR. I don't think so. Many pro photojournalists use their dSLRs for local work, reportage, portraits, etc where they never go above 90mm anyways. If a compact and discrete camera like the Leica M9 can do that job, it's a worthy replacement. Those days you have to cover football or attach a 800mm to capture Obama in the airport the M9 is no choice. Then you have to bring the dSLR. I know some dSLR shooters who think like that, and that's also my own considerations in terms of Leica DMR versus Leica M9. But truth is that the majority of professionals have gotten accustomed to shoot 8fps at auto whitebalance and autofocus of ordinary people standing still (which blast them away). When they go real nerdy, they go manual on exposure. So in their book, the Leica M9 is a camera from another planet and for them any comparison with a RF is irrelevant. But some pros consider the non-paparazzi-look interesting, as well as the many other qualities attached to Leica rangefinders. And for them comparing Mark III with M9 is very relevant (and convincing). We'd all be better off if camera reviewers could get salmonella from comparing raw files That's another good point. Some comparisons is in it's place, but it is much more interesting to know how the camera feels and does the job. Salmonella is a great idea, any idea where I can download some? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reven Posted October 1, 2009 Share #16 Posted October 1, 2009 Michael saw the IR issue with the m8. He held it back, because Leica asked him so and promised a fix for it. That never really happened. (well yes filters ....) He stated his mistakes and apologized for them. However, honestly if Leica asked me the same thing, I probably would have done the same. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest EarlBurrellPhoto Posted October 1, 2009 Share #17 Posted October 1, 2009 And why take postprocessing into account - the postprocessed "worse" picture is still going to be worse than the postprocessed "better" picture. If by better/worse you're speaking of the content, then I agree. However if you mean technically, then what you say is just not true. Inexpert postprocessing will at best not bring out the best a camera has to offer, and at worst will make it look like it was shot with a cellphone. Someone with expertise and (not 'or') experience with both the image-processing software AND the camera's raw output can make a critical difference between final prints from different cameras. That is why I find it funnily ignorant when people slam Canon or Nikon files as being "soft" or "plasticky" or say that because it has an AA filter it can't make as sharp a print as a Leica. Judging the capability of a camera based on pixel peeping at raw files suffices for defending your latest camera purchase on an internet forum of largely amateurs, but clients buy the finished product, and postprocessing has a huge influence on that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ceflynn Posted October 1, 2009 Share #18 Posted October 1, 2009 I agree with John Buckley's comments. If you would like to see just how questionable an assessment of the M9 can be, take a look at this blog posting by a professor of computer science at MIT: Philip Greenspun’s Weblog The Leica M9, one for the marketing textbooks Of course, it is the high quality of the comments that make this blog worth reading. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fourfa Posted October 1, 2009 Share #19 Posted October 1, 2009 a professor of computer science at MIT: ...and the founder of photo.net, which was the dominant (only?) gear review / photo discussion site during the WWW's infancy. doesn't mean he knows anything; I have the impression he hasn't been involved with actual photography for many many years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljclark Posted October 2, 2009 Share #20 Posted October 2, 2009 In the links to other M9 reviews, he appears to have forgotten to list Ken Rockwell's. Darn. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.