Leica M9

well i suppose i don't i'm just garnering this from what everyones saying, prove me wrong by all means as i'm happy to admit i'm not always right :)

i suppose sensor wise i compare it to the d3 and expected a higher available iso
 
I find the Leicaman's logic is bewildering to the point of humourous entertainment. I just wish they would stop it; it makes Leicas look silly - different certainly, but not joke material.

Earlier in this thread we were regailed with the story of the guy who swapped his Nikon D3 oufit for a Leica, because it was too big and heavy. Then why on earth did he buy the biggest and heaviest camera he could get in the first place?

Now I've just read Ken Rockwell's account of the M9's virtues, and he refers to Leica's Image Stabilisation system and Live View. Yes, he does, and he's serious!

It turns out the image stabilisation is the amazing ability to hold a Leica steady, an automatic talent instantly bestowed on all superior Leica users. And live view? Because there is no viewfinder black out at the moment of exposure, Leica is the only camera with true live view :cuckoo:

Don't forget your medication Ken.

More gushing hyperbole and incredulous Leica magic here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/m9.htm
 
The absence of a moving mirror does wonders for hand-holding ability. If the Leica had leaf-shutter lenses too, you'd be amazed at how much you could get away with.
 
mustanir said:
The absence of a moving mirror does wonders for hand-holding ability. If the Leica had leaf-shutter lenses too, you'd be amazed at how much you could get away with.
Click to expand...

You're right, I would be amazed. Do you mean it's like a compact then? I'm still grateful for the IS on my Canon G7.
 
Anorakus said:
..without a moire filter :( which just about every DSLR manufacturer seems to think is necessary..

Don't go taking pics of net curtains with your M9!

A.
Click to expand...


Ever thought there may be a good reason for that though... :shrug:


"The Sensor

A moiré filter has not been integrated, allowing full exploitation of the superb resolution of Leica M lenses. Any moiré patterns occurring are eliminated in the camera’s signal processing software. The optimised signal–noise ratio reduces the need for digital post-processing, and results in high-contrast, high-resolution exposures with natural colour rendition from corner to corner."
Courtesy of PhotographyBLOG... :thumbs:


HTH... ;)





:p
 
Well, you know what, I was *very* close this weekend to trading my stuff in and getting an M8 and a couple of Summicrons, which I've been lusting after for a while - both from a photography standpoint, but also from a 'bloogy 'ell this bag of Nikon stuff is heavy' standpoint. I tried an M8 and various lenses, and to be honest, I just don't think I liked it very much.

The size of the camera and lenses (the body is actually slightly larger than you might think) was the thing that might have done it for me to be honest - the lenses are so small that I actually found it quite difficult to manually focus them with my podgy fingers. Maybe it would just be a case of 'getting used to it', but I can usually pick things up and get to grips with them in minutes. Not here though. I suspect if the price were an order of magnitude smaller, I might have given it a go, but it didn't seem like the right thing for me to do this time.

The other thing is that the camera was pretty slow to write data. I'd heard this and didn't think it would be much a problem, but that buffer fills pretty quick. I could deal with that I suppose, but there were a couple of other things I wasn't overly keen on either. But hey-ho, at least I gave it a try 'in the metal'.

I suspect that the M9 might be the better camera for me to be honest, as some wrinkles have been ironed out, but I'm not enthusiastic enough about trying one to justify the massive outlay that would be required.

I have to say though, even though the screen is a bit rubbish, I could see that there is something about the files that the M8 and probably the M9 + the Leica lenses produce that is very nice. Not £5k+ nice for me though.
 
HoppyUK said:
You're right, I would be amazed. Do you mean it's like a compact then? I'm still grateful for the IS on my Canon G7.
Click to expand...

I think the provision of no 'mirror slap' and associated things means that you can generally hand hold one of these types of cameras at a stop or two slower than you normally would be able to otherwise and still get sharp results. Of course, the IS is superior, but you also have to contend with a sensor which is significantly smaller in modern compacts (although that trend is beginning to shift). Also, they cannot accept arguably the best glass going.
 
Oh please stop! ;)

You say that you can see "something" different about the quality of the Leica files on the LCD. The only thing that's different about the M9's LCD is that it is rather small and has feeble resolution compared to the best screens today - it's an inexcusable oversight.

Then lack of a mirror is worth two stops of IS. Even Darren Brown can't do those kind of miracles.

Edit: before you get too excited about an M8 (even the M8.2 is now discontinued) see what Ken Rockwell has to say about it. And he loves Leicas!
 
HoppyUK said:
Oh please stop! ;)

You say that you can see "something" special about the quality of the Leica files on the LCD. The only thing that's unusual about the M9's LCD is that it is rather small and has feeble resolution compared to the best screen today - it's an inexcusable oversight.

Then lack of a mirror is worth two stops of IS. Even Darren Brown can't do those kind of miracles.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm not lying! I've not got an axe to grind as I don't have one and don't need to justify any purchase. Just telling it how I saw it. The mirror slap thing is true though! You *can* hand hold them at slower speeds than an SLR - I know, because I did it, and so did the guy in the shop (who had a picture blown up to A3 and stuck on the wall to prove the point!).

The 'look' is not something you can quantify, but is clearly a function of that lovely Leica glass. I didn't believe it, but there really is something very pleasing about the output. I spend some time looking at people M images on flickr - in general, I like the 'look' of them.

I think KR is buffoon - just in general really.
 
py6km said:
The size of the camera and lenses (the body is actually slightly larger than you might think) was the thing that might have done it for me to be honest - the lenses are so small that I actually found it quite difficult to manually focus them with my podgy fingers. Maybe it would just be a case of 'getting used to it', but I can usually pick things up and get to grips with them in minutes. Not here though. I suspect if the price were an order of magnitude smaller, I might have given it a go, but it didn't seem like the right thing for me to do this time.
Click to expand...
I can totally understand that.

And it is why I'd like a cheaper 'modern' dRF camera (please Voigtlander/Cosina) and it is such a shame Contax are not able to be doing it! With their wonderful autofocus Zeiss lenses and all..... :(
 
:thinking: ... hasn't the majority of this thread got something slightly out of focus here... are we not comparing apples with pears... or even potatoes...


The M9 is a RangeFinder... fact... why, then, are we doing our worst to compare it to a SotA DSLR... :suspect:


Surely we should be comparing it with the equivalent Nikon/Canon/Whatever RangeFinder model if we are talking apples and apples or pears and pears... :cuckoo:


Oh my... I forgot... Nikon/Canon/Whatever do NOT make RangeFinders... :bonk:


So... if we want to compare apples let's do Leica's own DSLR, rather than its RangeFinder, with the rest and not lose sight of the fact we are talking a totally different animal... horses for courses and all that chaps 'n chapesses... :naughty:



Or am I missing something so fundamental here that I need to go boil my head in tar... ;)






:p
 
Venomator said:
Or am I missing something so fundamental here that I need to go boil my head in tar...
Click to expand...

Good thought, but it's not really a head boiling offence ;) There isn't a Leica DSLR.

The closest camera in terms of concept and form is the Panasonic GF1/Olympus F-P1, and they are both very interesting indeed IMHO, and thoroughly forward thinking. But they are Micro 4/3rds, not full frame.

The only full frame comparison is Nikon/Canon/Sony DSLRs.

Ultimately, the key comparison is what do you get for your money? And that one is pretty tricky too, as there aren't many £5k cameras about.

Fact of the matter is the the Leica M9 is different. Uniquely so.
 
I love Leicas too - I own one, in fact...I love the craftsmanship, the looks, the feel and the weight...
Every now and then I take it off the shelf, marvel at the beauty of it and go walkabout with it...then, when the time comes to take a photo, I find myself wishing I had a brighter viewfinder, better focussing system, better metering system, better ergonomics (I hate that little thumb-lever on the lens)...

In fact, I find myself wishing for a modern camera and not a re-vamped 1920's design...

Leicas are lovely, but not a Professional Photojournalism tool in the modern working environment...
And that's without even going into how well (or badly) the new digital technology compares against modern DSLR systems...

I think it's down to taste - if you like it and you can afford it, then buy it, but don't be surprised when you realise it isn't as useful a tool as a good SLR...it's why SLRs dominated the market for so long...or did you all forget that Leica was going down the toilet long before the advent of digital...?
Remember my original comments by the Service Manager in Milton Keynes?
No-one uses them for 'real' photography anymore...
We might own a few, but using them on a job...? Forget it...
 
Venomator said:



So... if we want to compare apples let's do Leica's own DSLR, rather than its RangeFinder, with the rest and not lose sight of the fact we are talking a totally different animal... horses for courses and all that chaps 'n chapesses... :naughty:


Or am I missing something so fundamental here that I need to go boil my head in tar... ;)

Click to expand...

You're missing the fact that Leica no longer make an SLR or a DSLR Rog.. I'm old enough to remember the launch of the original Leicaflex and reading the reviews of it (and later models they produced.) The general concensus was that they were superbly built - the very best of German engineering, but over-priced and lacking the features of their competitors. As a result, they were bought mainly by the well-heeled enthusiast, with most serious users buying other makes.

It's all reminiscent of Rollei - back in the late 50s and early 60s virtually every pro and enthusiast used a Rollei TLR, and back then there was still mucho scorn being heaped on the tiny 35mm format in comparison to the larger Rollei format. Rollei was a hugely successful giant corporation with the photographic world at it's feet. They failed to recognize the threat of 35mm SLRs from the East and the fact that with improvements in film stock more and more users were adopting the smaller format, or if they saw the threat they didn't take it seriously. It was almost as though they were saying "We're Rollei and we know what's good for you."

Eventually they did start to produce some 35mm cameras, but it was too late, the competitors had stolen a huge lead, and Rollei went to to the wall.
 
Voyager said:
Nikon D3x?
Click to expand...


Howsabout we consider a Hasselblad if we're talking "the key comparison being what do you get for your money" ... :eek:


Arkady said:
I love Leicas too - I own one, in fact...I love the craftsmanship, the looks, the feel and the weight...

And that's without even going into how well (or badly) the new digital technology compares against modern DSLR systems...
Click to expand...


But why should it compare to modern DSLR digital technology when it does not pretend to be a DSLR... ?


Arkady said:
Remember my original comments by the Service Manager in Milton Keynes?
No-one uses them for 'real' photography anymore...
We might own a few, but using them on a job...? Forget it...
Click to expand...


!'m a little surprised at that last comment... it surely depends on what is defined as 'real' photography in the sense that one man's meat is another's gravy... ! I repeat... horses for courses... you wouldn't take a thoroughbred flat or dressage model round Aintree and expect it to complete the course, let alone win... !?!


HoppyUK said:
Good thought, but it's not really a head boiling offence ;) There isn't a Leica DSLR.
Click to expand...


I realise they don't have in the Nikon/Canon cropped/FF sense and my comment was somewhat tongue in cheek following on from my statement about the DSLR manufacturers not having a RangeFinder... :naughty: ...possibly a bit too subtle in writing...

But Leica have got a pretty fancy 'S' system that is, basically, a DSLR... :D ...even if it is MF... ;)


Hoppy said:
Fact of the matter is the the Leica M9 is different. Uniquely so.
Click to expand...


Now isn't that really the case in point... :thinking:





:p
 
CT said:
You're missing the fact that Leica no longer make an SLR or a DSLR Rog.. I'm old enough to remember the launch of the original Leicaflex and reading the reviews of it (and later models they produced.) The general concensus was that they were superbly built - the very best of German engineering, but over-priced and lacking the features of their competitors. As a result, they were bought mainly by the well-heeled enthusiast, with most serious users buying other makes.

It's all reminiscent of Rollei - back in the late 50s and early 60s virtually every pro and enthusiast used a Rollei TLR, and back then there was still mucho scorn being heaped on the tiny 35mm format in comparison to the larger Rollei format. Rollei was a hugely successful giant corporation with the photographic world at it's feet. They failed to recognize the threat of 35mm SLRs from the East and the fact that with improvements in film stock more and more users were adopting the smaller format, or if they saw the threat they didn't take it seriously. It was almost as though they were saying "We're Rollei and we know what's good for you."

Eventually they did start to produce some 35mm cameras, but it was too late, the competitors had stolen a huge lead, and Rollei went to to the wall.
Click to expand...

Very true. Germany (Zeiss, Leica and Rollei) dominated the high end photographic market until the 1960s, or thereabouts, with their traditions of superb engineering and optics. The UK and the US also had domestic manufacturers, which were quite highly regarded, but "Made in Japan" was synonomous with rubbish. This changed very quickly, with good cameras and lenses coming on the market at fairly affordable prices, and the West was caught napping. I think this started with the Nikon F (?), but the trend accelerated and the 35mm SLR became the weapon of choice for most photographers.
 
MartynK said:
I think this started with the Nikon F (?), but the trend accelerated and the 35mm SLR became the weapon of choice for most photographers.
Click to expand...

The original Nikon F was the first of the really serious SLRs from Nikon and it was widely adopted by many pros.They later added the photomic head which was light years ahead of anything else at the time. Canon didn't really have a look in despite the fact that they produced their top end all manual F1 which was of similar quality.

Curiouisly, it was the Canon A1 which made Canon a real competitor. Despite the fact that it wasn't really aimed at the pro market, pros were quick to realise the potential of the multi mode camera and used them alongside their Nikon Fs. There was a press tog named Victor Blackman who used to write a column in Amateur Photographer describing his assignments and he was always full of enthusiasm for the A1 while still retaining his Nikons. Please tell me someone else remembers him. :lol:
 
CT said:
There was a press tog named Victor Blackman who used to write a column in Amateur Photographer describing his assignments and he was always full of enthusiasm for the A1 while still retaining his Nikons. Please tell me someone else remembers him. :lol:
Click to expand...

A name from the past. I think he was a senior staff photographer on the Express and I used to read his column in AP, in the library, on Saturday mornings when I was a teenager. I remember him discussing the Photomic head when it came out and, curiously enough, using a Leica rangefinder with a fast wide angle lens at a winter street demo in London. This was probably in the late 60s. The speed, coverage and huge DOF worked well in the poor light and for "overhead" shots. Strange, I'd forgotten all about him. Thanks!
 
CT said:
There was a press tog named Victor Blackman who used to write a column in Amateur Photographer describing his assignments and he was always full of enthusiasm for the A1 while still retaining his Nikons. Please tell me someone else remembers him. :lol:
Click to expand...

Blimey! There's a blast from the past...I remember him well (now that you've reminded me...lol)...

Though I'd take issue with the F2 and A1 being the start of the Japanese 'invasion'... that falls to Pentax - lots of press guys in Vietnam bought Pentax M-42 lenses for their Leicas in the early '60's and when the Spotmatic SLR came out, switched to them - Nikon came soon after, but it was Pentax that paved the way - their lenses at that time were even better than the Leitz equivalents and far-better priced...Lietz soon came back, but by then it was already too late...
Nikon F bodies were the first dedicated 'Pro' workhorse, but lots of guys were using Pentax SLRs and Nikon rangefinders well into the 70's, simply because they were as good as Leicas and half the price...

Sorry Ven, but IMO it isn't a case of 'Horses For Courses' - the rangefinder doesn't do anything that a good SLR doesn't - apart from being a little more discrete - and does several things quite badly by comparison...forget about the cost issues for a minute as they're not relevant to function.
Focus is slow and innacurate due to the parallax errors inherent in the system - using barely-legible frames in the viewfinder is no comparison to seeing what the lens is seeing...I speak of the M6 and M6 TTL - I haven't used a 'new' Leica, but from what I'm seeing, it's the same system...
Your useable range of lenses is 21mm - 100mm with a rangefinder...any longer or wider and you need additional optical devices to see what your angle of view is...and it's still guesswork to a large extent...

With a 35mm lens, the rangefinder is a nice bit of kit, but it ain't quick and it ain't efficient...It's just jewellery nowadays...let it pass...
 
Interesting. The Nikon F came out in 1959, AFAIK, a few years before the Spotmatic, but they only added the Photomic head a bit later. I also seem to remember that the Nikon was the only body that could take a motor drive without some modification at the time? Canon's A1 was introduced a lot later, in the mid 1980s. I was living in SA at the time and a friend brought one back from the States. It caused quite a stir!
 
I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that Pentax introduced TTL metering...which was why it was so popular...doing away with the need for a hand-held seperate light-meter must have been a Godsend in those days...
 
Arkady said:
I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that Pentax introduced TTL metering...which was why it was so popular...doing away with the need for a hand-held seperate light-meter must have been a Godsend in those days...
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure you're right. The Nikons didn't have any metering built into the body, and the Photomic head was only introduced in the mid 60s, just after the Spotmatic came out. It went through a few incarnations after that. I'm going out on a limb now, and wondering just how important the metering was to professionals? Good to have, of course, but I'm guessing most of them could eyeball the exposure pretty well. I was just a kid then, but the only "light meter" I could afford was the guideline printed on the film box, and I did well enough with it!
 
Anything to speed things up would be good...and less kit to carry...
 
Arkady said:
Blimey! There's a blast from the past...I remember him well (now that you've reminded me...lol)...
Click to expand...

I'm surprised you remember him Rob. :D

Though I'd take issue with the F2 and A1 being the start of the Japanese 'invasion'... that falls to Pentax - lots of press guys in Vietnam bought Pentax M-42 lenses for their Leicas in the early '60's and when the Spotmatic SLR came out, switched to them - Nikon came soon after, but it was Pentax that paved the way - their lenses at that time were even better than the Leitz equivalents and far-better priced...Lietz soon came back, but by then it was already too late...
Nikon F bodies were the first dedicated 'Pro' workhorse, but lots of guys were using Pentax SLRs and Nikon rangefinders well into the 70's, simply because they were as good as Leicas and half the price...
Click to expand...
It's a fair cop... I'd kind of forgotton about the Pentax S1a and the dearer SV IIRC. I did have an S1a briefly - couldn't afford the SV.
 
Arkady said:
I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that Pentax introduced TTL metering...which was why it was so popular...doing away with the need for a hand-held seperate light-meter must have been a Godsend in those days...
Click to expand...

It was indeed Pentax - they introduced TTL metering in the Spotmatic of course. Pentax have been real innovators over the years..., first instant return mirror, first aperture priority camera, (with the ME) First AF lenses I seem to recall, although they were great bulky things with a huge AF motor on the side?
 
CT said:
It was indeed Pentax - they introduced TTL metering in the Spotmatic of course. Pentax have been real innovators over the years..., first instant return mirror, first aperture priority camera, (with the ME) First AF lenses I seem to recall, although they were great bulky things with a huge AF motor on the side?
Click to expand...


Yes they were...HUGE things...
Pentax were always innovators, but they never really capitalised...
 
Arkady said:
Yes they were...HUGE things...
Pentax were always innovators, but they never really capitalised...
Click to expand...

I always wanted them to make a pro body and when they finally did it was the LX which was a bit quirky and wasn't really adopted in any great numbers. That seemed to put an end to any ideas Pentax had of producing a pro camera.
 
I think the LX killed them, they had the edge when it came to entry-level SLRs, but by then Nikon and Canon had stolen so much of a lead...same with Olympus...beautiful cameras, but way too flimsy for Press work...

Nikon users tended to go for F2-AS and then F3, with an FM as a back-up, Canon users seemed to always have one F and a couple of A1 bodies...and used them more...
 
CT said:
I always wanted them to make a pro body and when they finally did it was the LX which was a bit quirky and wasn't really adopted in any great numbers. That seemed to put an end to any ideas Pentax had of producing a pro camera.
Click to expand...


Of course this a thread about small cameras and I suppose that's why you're forgetting that for a while, Pentax made THE pro system.

Sooner or later someone id going to come out with the camera that sets the tone for the next chapter of evolution and it would be lovely if it was leica. Who actually thinks it might be though??????
 
I remember Victor Blackman very well. I wrote to him as a keen teenager (I was the keen teen, not him ;) ) and he sent me a hand written reply. That is a sure sign of a true gent :thumbs:

I met him a few times when our professional paths crossed; he was also a keen biker so we had plenty in common. He was a much quieter more modest person in real life than the impression I got from his column. We stayed in occasional contact and he even wrote to me from hospital, just before his death. Really nice genuine guy :)

Pentax are interesting. Although I think Nikon cast the first stone with the F in 1959, and were the absolute number one professional choice for very many years, Pentax sold a heck of a lot more cameras. They probably have more industry firsts than anyone else, from the Spotmatic in its various incarnations including the first auto-exposure mechanism in the Electro Spotmatic, then the ME Super, and the original zoom compact Pentax Zoom70 which started a revolution. It sold in colossal numbers and I think distracted them from the SLR market. Along the way, not forgetting the Pentax 110 SLR - that was a rare mistake :eek:

How is it that a company like Pentax can get it so wrong, and they are now openly debating the long term viability of the brand today. They were bought some years ago by the Hoya conglomeration of companies but seem to have got stuck in a backwater, probably clinging on to old but profitable technology for too long, then missing the boat. I don't think they are arrogant and blinkered like Rollei were, and Leica certainly have been, more that perhaps they concentrated too much on popular trends than eventually dwindled. A good lesson in deversify to survive maybe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top