GarethC Posted October 12, 2009 Share #1 Posted October 12, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Having moved from a 20D to a 5D and seen the light (pardon the pun) of using lenses at the focal length that they were meant to be used at you'd think I'd get that bit. I'm not sure that I do. Also, and maybe as a related or maybe a completely different issue the M9 is a different camera to the M8, even though ergonomically it may be almost the same.\ For those of you that moved to the M9 from the M8 or M8.2, what were your greatest epiphanies? I've read the reviews but when they get towards the less technical they border on "gushing" and my apologies to Sean Reid, Michael Reichmann and David Farkas whose opinions I honestly do respect tremendously. I love the prospect of FF but with a CV 12/5.6 and Zeiss 18mm, how much will I appreciate FF? And of course any other thoughts that you may have. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 Hi GarethC, Take a look here But how does it feel?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Marty Posted October 12, 2009 Share #2 Posted October 12, 2009 Well the M9 is not that different from the M8, certainly less so than 5D vs. 20D. What surprised me most was that the wide-angles are still great if not greater due to the new perspective. Not sure how CV and Z perform, but the Leica 18mm is a real gem throughout. And 50mm has changed from "a little bit too long" to perfect! All depends on your style too I suppose. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted October 12, 2009 Share #3 Posted October 12, 2009 I've read the reviews but when they get towards the less technical they border on "gushing" Ouch - I hope you weren't referring to me there? The CV wide angles don't work very well on the M9 (at least, the CV15 doesn't). I think that above 18mm most lenses work quite well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 12, 2009 Share #4 Posted October 12, 2009 Having moved from a 20D to a 5D and seen the light (pardon the pun) of using lenses at the focal length that they were meant to be used at you'd think I'd get that bit. I'm not sure that I do. Also, and maybe as a related or maybe a completely different issue the M9 is a different camera to the M8, even though ergonomically it may be almost the same.\ For those of you that moved to the M9 from the M8 or M8.2, what were your greatest epiphanies? I've read the reviews but when they get towards the less technical they border on "gushing" and my apologies to Sean Reid, Michael Reichmann and David Farkas whose opinions I honestly do respect tremendously. I love the prospect of FF but with a CV 12/5.6 and Zeiss 18mm, how much will I appreciate FF? And of course any other thoughts that you may have. It may be that full frame is not going to matter that much for you. Are you happy with the fields of view of your current lenses on the M8/M8.2. Can you live with the filters? Do you need/want to extra res. and the ISO advantages it also gives? Depending on your answers to these questions, you may be good with your M8. I personally greatly prefer the M8.2 but maybe that's what you are using. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMB Posted October 12, 2009 Share #5 Posted October 12, 2009 I personally greatly prefer the M8.2 but maybe that's what you are using. Do you mean you prefer the M8.2 over the M8 or do you mean over the M9? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 12, 2009 Share #6 Posted October 12, 2009 Do you mean you prefer the M8.2 over the M8 or do you mean over the M9? Over the M8... But compared to the M9, I prefer two qualities of the M8.2: 1. The top screen that shows battery life and frames remaining (especially valuable when working with multiple bodies as I explained in the M9 review) 2. The frame lines set for 2 meters. They're the most useful frame lines I've seen in any RF camera. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarethC Posted October 12, 2009 Author Share #7 Posted October 12, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Marty - you seem to have put in a nutshell my move to the 5D from 20D, there was something enlightening about using a 35mm as a 35mm lens in particular. It became a useful lens again. And 50mm became useful too. Jono - yep sorry. I confess I didn't read too much of your review, looked at your photos though. Not sure if that is a backhanded compliment to your photos or an out and out dig at your writing In fairness, I was reviewed out by that stage. Sean - Reading your review and some other comments I have picked up on the less than subtle disdain for the M9 top plate lol As always an interesting perpective of preferring the M8.2 over M8 and M9 for those 2 reasons. I'm not concerned about Reason 1 but I must say that I had a brief fling with a Summicron 40 as the 35m framelines were spot on with it on my M8. To develop the thought a bit more. I will be buried with my 28/2 and Zeiss 18/3.8. I'm thinking that a FF camera may demand a bigger casket as my absolutely beautiful but under appreciated Elmarit 24/2.8 and Summicron 50/2 may have to join us for a party. And I know that 24 and 28 are very close but you don't ignore a beautiful woman because she's similar to your wife, you appreciate her even more. My concern with the M8.2 is that it is no longer manufactured but given the fact that Leicas hang around for ever I guess I shouldn't be such a consumer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest EarlBurrellPhoto Posted October 12, 2009 Share #8 Posted October 12, 2009 Over the M8... But compared to the M9, I prefer two qualities of the M8.2: 1. The top screen that shows battery life and frames remaining (especially valuable when working with multiple bodies as I explained in the M9 review) 2. The frame lines set for 2 meters. They're the most useful frame lines I've seen in any RF camera. Cheers, Sean I agree 100%. All the top display needed was a light and to go to 9999 vs 999. Omitting it was costcutting on Leica's part, just like the backstep to the plastic LCD screen. I bet both items reappear on the M9.2. I sort of "get" why the framelines were reverted, because I think Leica was trying to appeal to the people who will shoot an M9 along with a film body. Then again they complicated life for those shooting an M9 and an M8 by not putting a menu setting in the former so people could keep their IR filters on the lenses. Leica's decisionmaking is often all over the place, like they've got too many factions to placate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanJW Posted October 12, 2009 Share #9 Posted October 12, 2009 Moving from a 20D to a 5D a few years ago, my biggest epiphany was the viewfinder, which was dramatically better -- larger, brighter, less "tunnel vision". With the DRF, this will not be the big plus but getting better WA's will. As an example, the CV 12mm was a difficult lens to use on the M8, (coded or not, Cornerfix or not) and I think using it successfully on an M9 will be a real challenge. (I've sold mine in anticipation of getting a M9 -- someday soon (fingers crossed)) But the 12 was a about a 16mm on the M8, and on the M9, there is the WATE at 16 which is far superior, as well as some 18mm alternatives. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander † Posted October 13, 2009 Share #10 Posted October 13, 2009 How does it feel? Just had the M9 4 days but only been able to work with it for 1 day. It feels good. I had the original M8 so there is a bigger functional difference than there would have been compared to an M8.2. I like the softer shutter (just in normal mode) compared to the M8 which sometimes caused me to 'judder' at the critical point. I'm not sure about the need for all those ISO settings, seems to take longer to change ISO than it did on the M8. Metering may be different to M8 I need to get used to that - as I did with the M8. I think it produces very sharp images, just as the M8 does, but larger. With regard to the IR filters, OK it does not need them but they were an effective solution for the M8's IR problem and I sort of got used to them. Not having to buy them for the M9 is a money saver but at the moment I'm using both the M8 and M9. With regard to lenses, for me there will be a general shift to the use of longer lenses. I used my 90 elmarit yesterday and got some excellent results, something I found difficult on the M8. I've already bought a SDHC card that causes numerous 'Card not present', 'Card full', 'Reading card please wait' and yesterday did did not record several of the images taken. It was a Pretec card so steer clear of them. In a month's time I cant see my remaining M8 getting much use. Jeff PS there is already 'electronic wizadry' bloat in the M9 compared to the M8. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted October 13, 2009 Share #11 Posted October 13, 2009 I love the prospect of FF but with a CV 12/5.6 and Zeiss 18mm, how much will I appreciate FF? That depends on how little you need f/2.8 or f/1.4 at those effective focal lengths. In low light I'd much rather shoot a "real" 24 f/2.8 @ ISO 800 (or 24 f/1.4 @ ISO 200) than a cropped 18 f/3.8 @ ISO 1600. In my personal case the difference is 2 stops (c/v 15 @ f/4.5 and ISO 2500 on M8 vs. Leica 21 f/2.8 @ 640-800 on M9). The same goes for shooting a 35 f/1.4 @ f/1.4 on the M9 compared to shooting a 28 f/2 on an M8 - you either gain one shutter speed or a stop's worth of reduced noise - on top of whatever noise improvements may be native to the M9 electronics or inherent in the smaller enlargement needed for a given print size. It is amazing what a fast lens can do to improve low-light IQ. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wookchang Posted October 13, 2009 Share #12 Posted October 13, 2009 I am very happy with (1) much better jpeg output, (2) uncompressed DNG, (3) auto-bracketing, (4) high ISO picture quality (at least up to 1000), (5) quieter shutter, and finally (6) full frame. Especially auto-bracketing and high ISO quality give me more choices than before, and also I appreciate different shutter feel. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest EarlBurrellPhoto Posted October 13, 2009 Share #13 Posted October 13, 2009 That depends on how little you need f/2.8 or f/1.4 at those effective focal lengths. In low light I'd much rather shoot a "real" 24 f/2.8 @ ISO 800 (or 24 f/1.4 @ ISO 200) than a cropped 18 f/3.8 @ ISO 1600. In my personal case the difference is 2 stops (c/v 15 @ f/4.5 and ISO 2500 on M8 vs. Leica 21 f/2.8 @ 640-800 on M9). The same goes for shooting a 35 f/1.4 @ f/1.4 on the M9 compared to shooting a 28 f/2 on an M8 - you either gain one shutter speed or a stop's worth of reduced noise - on top of whatever noise improvements may be native to the M9 electronics or inherent in the smaller enlargement needed for a given print size. It is amazing what a fast lens can do to improve low-light IQ. It might also amaze some people how shallow the DOF is with a 24mm lens at f/1.4, and that it can be just as much of a compositional limitation as the deeper DOF of a slower lens. The most flexible tool is a fast lens (which can be shot wide-open to exploit the shallow DOF or stopped down to deepen it) fit to a camera capable of low-noise files at very high ISOs. If the M9 didn't still fall 2 stops short of the benchmark, the M8 would look a lot worse in comparison. Leica has to be commended for developing a full-frame body with acceptible corner performance on wides, which was probably the most daunting task. I'm not angry that they couldn't completely eradicate the IR sensitivity, or improve high-ISO noise 3 stops, because I'm confident that in a year or so they will solve those problems as well with the next model. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 13, 2009 Share #14 Posted October 13, 2009 Sean - Reading your review and some other comments I have picked up on the less than subtle disdain for the M9 top plate lol As always an interesting perpective of preferring the M8.2 over M8 and M9 for those 2 reasons. Hi Gareth, Not disdain exactly...I just think it was a step backwards. I don't prefer the M8.2 to the M9 overall, just in those two respects. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlesphoto99 Posted October 13, 2009 Share #15 Posted October 13, 2009 I'm not sure about the need for all those ISO settings, seems to take longer to change ISO than it did on the M8. That was my thought too when I played with the M9 (still waiting for mine). Perhaps a firmware change in the future giving a choice of one stop increments might be in order.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 13, 2009 Share #16 Posted October 13, 2009 That was my thought too when I played with the M9 (still waiting for mine). Perhaps a firmware change in the future giving a choice of one stop increments might be in order.... That's what I suggested in my review - an selectable option for whole stop changes. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarethC Posted October 13, 2009 Author Share #17 Posted October 13, 2009 So let me pose a slightly different question. I don't print large prints, usually up to 14 inches on the long side. I don't pixel peep but I do see a very clear difference, even at smaller sizes, in Leica glass. All other things being equal, did anybody pick up the M9 and say "thank you, now I can use the lenses that I have at the focal lengths that they were intended for"? I'm having great difficulty expressing the transition for me from 20D to 5D and articulating that here (as you can tell lol) to discover if that same revelation will occur given that it is a rangefinder. The added problem is that it was a gradual thing, so perhaps not a revelation at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erlingmm Posted October 13, 2009 Share #18 Posted October 13, 2009 That's what I suggested in my review - an selectable option for whole stop changes. Cheers, Sean Don't you get 1 stop increments by using the up/down errors? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodyspedden Posted October 13, 2009 Share #19 Posted October 13, 2009 What Sean Reid did not cover in his (generally excellent) article was how the two cameras (M8 and M9) compare when printing 22x30 images. Certainly for most of us landscape shooters this is the ultimate test as our images are meant to be printed (large) and hung on walls to be seen. I have done this test and the M9 is so clearly superior it is not worth debating (IMHO of course). So for me, the evolution of the M8 (and yes it is evolutionary not revolutionary) to the M9 is like a breath of fresh air. I will keep my fully upgraded M8 as a backup and when the 135 Apo Telyt is still not long enough. The M9 is something most if not all of us were saying not too long ago was what we needed and wanted. I think Leica has listened and delivered. Doesn't make them a super company without faults but let's applaud when warranted JMHO Woody Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodyspedden Posted October 13, 2009 Share #20 Posted October 13, 2009 So let me pose a slightly different question. I don't print large prints, usually up to 14 inches on the long side. I don't pixel peep but I do see a very clear difference, even at smaller sizes, in Leica glass. All other things being equal, did anybody pick up the M9 and say "thank you, now I can use the lenses that I have at the focal lengths that they were intended for"? I'm having great difficulty expressing the transition for me from 20D to 5D and articulating that here (as you can tell lol) to discover if that same revelation will occur given that it is a rangefinder. The added problem is that it was a gradual thing, so perhaps not a revelation at all. Gareth I respect this point of view totally. If you are not into large prints perhaps the M9 is not a camera that sings for you. As to the crop factor, IMHO the addition of very wide glass from both Leica and Zeiss (as well of course from CV) makes this a relative non-issue. Only problem is that if you shoot both film and digital and are using the M7 and M9 then there are constant adjustments to be made in terms of choice of lens which makes things slow down a lot. (Might be a feature though) Woody Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.