Luminous Landscape Forum

Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: fredjeang on June 22, 2010, 09:30:57 am

Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: fredjeang on June 22, 2010, 09:30:57 am
Hi,

I am not surprised at all why landscape photographers can be attracted by what Leica knows best: the M serie.

I photograph people, not landscapes, and even if I did landscape there was always a human being (or a dog) somewhere in the viewfinder.
To me, if I had to stay in a desert island with just one 35mm that would be with this Leica.

Despite my background in landscape imagery being close to zero, I can understand why such a camera is indeed a great tool for that genre.
And not specially because you are old and hairy, no.

I see a lot of similitude between street photography, reportage and landscapes and we all know that the M series shines in reportage "à la volée".

In fact, I'm happy to read these kind of refreshing articles and I think we are all lucky to still have this Leica available in digital, even more lucky if we can afford it.

Also, and I don't know if it is because of the lack of AA filter, the Leica glasses, but I found the M9 files (that I had the chance to explore some months ago) nothing less than the best 35mm IQ available today.
IMO, the M9 IQ beats any big, medium or small FF boy with no reservation. I had some pics from the garden and even at 100% (wich is something I hate to do) a leave in a distant tree is a leave,
not a sort of greenish splash. I was really impressed and since that, I started to reconsider the M digital for a future investment in FF.

I completly understand Jack and Michael. It is light, it forces to see and chalenges just enough, and it does have a stellar IQ.

What else?...do we need




Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: pegelli on June 22, 2010, 09:55:11 am
Quote from: fredjeang
What else?...do we need

A warning that tells us when we try to take a shot with the cap on, but for the rest agree with your evaluation of the article fully.

I wasted a lot of film frames due to the "cap problem" with my M2 when I was much younger (and my forgetfulness was allready bad).
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: Rob C on June 22, 2010, 10:17:46 am
Quote from: pegelli
A warning that tells us when we try to take a shot with the cap on, but for the rest agree with your evaluation of the article fully.

I wasted a lot of film frames due to the "cap problem" with my M2 when I was much younger (and my forgetfulness was allready bad).



So why do you think you need a rangefinder and/or bad memory to do the funny cap-shot?

In 1999 I was in Spain doing my first calendar for a beer company. Along on the shoot was the Marketing Director and at one stage he wandered over and nudged me slyly and asked me whether I was aware my lens cap was still on. With a Nikon F series. What he was looking at was the black glare of a polarizing filter...

Oy veh (or something similar).

Rob C

P.S. We got on famously for a few more years after that.
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: Don Libby on June 22, 2010, 10:25:31 am
I had first thought of the M9 as being a companion camera to my Cambo/P45+ however after using it since February I now consider it a partner.

I also decided on the M9 for all the same reason as Michael and Jack Perkins.  I hadn't used a rangefinder for many years and I too had the occasional long wait while the camera took a longer than expected exposure due to the lens cap still in place.  Heck I did that while getting used to the Cambo WRS.  

The ease of this system still amazes me today, five months after I first started using it in my landscape work.  I've taken several multiple mile hikes in all types of weather and terrain and in each case came away with get exposures.

I too consider the Leica M9 a great landscape camera.

Don
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: dseelig on June 22, 2010, 10:32:54 am
You KNow it is funny I shoot a little landscape but street shooting is where my heart is. The m9 till recently was a better landscape camera then a street camera as the low light files were not so good. With the new lightroom it is a much better street camera as itcan now do good low light photopgraphy.
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on June 22, 2010, 10:39:49 am
Quote from: pegelli
A warning that tells us when we try to take a shot with the cap on, but for the rest agree with your evaluation of the article fully.  

I wasted a lot of film frames due to the "cap problem" with my M2 when I was much younger (and my forgetfulness was allready bad).
After some 30-plus years of using view cameras (4x5 and 8x10) and SLRs (35mm and 6x7), I acquired a lovely Mamiya 6 RF camera (6x6) for landscapes. After about three rolls of film on which the first three or so exposures were blank (highly embarrassing -- I'm not new at this game!), I stuck a couple of Velcro dots on the front of the camera and a Velcroed-cardboard tab that would cover the rangefinder window when the lens cap was on, and sit out of the way when the cap was off. Ugly as hell, but I never had any more problems with the lens cap (except explaining to people what that funny piece of cardboard on my camera was for).

The M9 is very tempting. But could I bring myself to mar such a beautiful camera with a lens-cap reminder?    


Eric
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: Rob C on June 22, 2010, 10:41:16 am
Yes, wonderful stuff, but one major problem: the price/value relationship.

I, too, am well of the age where not size but weight matters. I have shot lots of moolah chasing what used to be called silver dreams too, and find that in the end, it all comes down to the same thing: there is no single, simple solution and unless you are able to afford all the systems  you think you might need, you just swap one compromise for another. The moment you have something that gives splendid 21mm shots you discover that that old  500mm mirror lens gave just the spaced out look you suddenly think would make you flavour of the week again, but damn, that new body don't take them things no more!

For this simplicity to work, I believe you have to go through some mental catharsis - find a moment in your life when you understand as clearly as living or dying what your field really is, where you want to be and whether you can live there. Then armed with all those positives, perhaps you can simplify and settle for a unit. Short of that, my advice would be the opposite: keep everything you have and just buy what you can comfortably afford on top of that.

Sure, if you are a successful pro, then life follows another set of fiscal rules and you go with the flow of your work and build your armoury. Unless you are modern, of course, and own nothing.

Rob C

Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: stever on June 22, 2010, 11:36:13 am
Lloyd Chambers (diglloyd.com) has been using and reporting on the M9 for landscapes for several months and has just added a number of examples to his paid site -- well worthwhile for anyone considering an M9 for landscape.
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on June 22, 2010, 12:25:59 pm
/me puts his Mamiya Super 23, magazines and lenses packed in a huge LowePro bag on a scale and runs away wiping away the tears ....

Anyone wants to send me money ? ...  
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: schrodingerscat on June 22, 2010, 11:27:18 pm
The last Sierra backpack trip was with a 5D II and 16-35 L II. Can't wait to get back up this year with the M9 and a 50/2 and 35/1.4(both legacy). Keeping my eyes peeled for a 28 deal.

Have spent the last couple months refamiliarizing myself with a rangefinder. Kinda like riding a bike, but not quite after 10 years of developing bad habits. Have also been testing how well hyperfocal works in the digital realm.
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: tom b on June 22, 2010, 11:47:26 pm
Another thing to remember with rangefinders is coloured filters. I have still got boxes of slides where the first few slides have a green cast where I have changed from B&W film to colour transparencies and have left a green filter on the lens.

Cheers,
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: schrodingerscat on June 23, 2010, 12:26:26 am
Quote from: Rob C
Yes, wonderful stuff, but one major problem: the price/value relationship.

That's why pretty much all my equipment has been purchased used.

The moment you have something that gives splendid 21mm shots you discover that that old  500mm mirror lens gave just the spaced out look you suddenly think would make you flavour of the week again, but damn, that new body don't take them things no more!

Some Nikons will work with the Mirrors, and Sony has added a mirror to the Alpha line.

Rob C
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: James R on June 23, 2010, 12:47:50 am
Quote from: tom  b
Another thing to remember with rangefinders is coloured filters. I have still got boxes of slides where the first few slides have a green cast where I have changed from B&W film to colour transparencies and have left a green filter on the lens.

Cheers,


M9 is digital, no colored filters, so nothing to remember.
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: tnargs on June 23, 2010, 04:07:18 am
If you have the money for an M9, all the necessary lenses to cover your photographic landscape intentions, and the obligatory spare body  , ------- you can probably afford other solutions to deal with the weight of larger format kit.  Like a porter  


OTOH, the M9 + 5 primes kit the writer described weighs 2510g. A Canon 550D (also 18MP) with 5 equivalent primes (generally 0 to 1 stop faster) weighs 2110g. The Canon kit is lighter by 400g (almost a pound)!! What is the big deal about the M9 kit? I can't even imagine the cost difference, and what exactly is the quality differential?

I would love to see blind comparisons of landscape prints made from the 2 kits above.      
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: Rob C on June 23, 2010, 04:41:43 am
One authoritative view: Ewin Puts writing about the M9 and where it sits in the hierarchy of cameras.

"Stunning as the M9 pictures are, they must be put in context and then the Nikon D3x images are just better."

http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/camera/page155/m9part2.html (http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/camera/page155/m9part2.html)

It can hardly be said that Mr Puts has a down on Leica!

However, I think the basic appeal of the camera must be (for me at least) the idea of just walking around with it and the lens of choice that happens to be on it. Any situation that requires a system to be toted around is going to be a PITA; it's why assistants come in useful - I am told.

Rob C
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: sojournerphoto on June 23, 2010, 05:57:29 am
Quote from: Rob C
However, I think the basic appeal of the camera must be (for me at least) the idea of just walking around with it and the lens of choice that happens to be on it. Any situation that requires a system to be toted around is going to be a PITA; it's why assistants come in useful - I am told.

Rob C

That, I find, is much of the appeal of a 35mm rangefinder. Today I have a Zeiss Ikon and 50mm lens and a roll of black and white film, which I will take for a short walk at lunchtime. No system, just a simple case of see it, feel it, make it (to steal a catchphrase)

The M9, and hopefully forthcoming competition in the drf market, fulfil that brief perfectly.

Mike
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: fredjeang on June 23, 2010, 07:24:47 am
I found something.

But before being accused of heresy I'm warning the most sensitive members that you will click at your own risk:
this is an interesting (yes, interesting) link to a Ken Rockwell's article on that matter.

http://kenrockwell.com/leica/m9/sharpness-28mm.htm (http://kenrockwell.com/leica/m9/sharpness-28mm.htm)

(look at the sizes of the glasses in the introduction)

Knowing the Ken's Nikonmaniak, he would have done everything to put the crowne to his D3 but that is not what happened.
Anyway, for those who do not want to have a nervous breakdown with that link, here is a small conclusion extracted from his article:

Ken Rockwell:With the same money spent on lenses, the Leica easily wins.
The Leica is usually superior, or at least as good, as the best from Nikon and Canon at the same price.
When you also consider that the Leica weighs only a fraction as much as either camera or lens, it's a no-brainer to see which is the best for outdoor photography.
Even then, the Leica shot instantly, while I had to jack with menus to set the Nikon and Canon. Worse, I had to deal with foolish electronic controls to set manual aperture and shutter speeds on the Nikon and Canon, while with the Leica, all I did was turn the dedicated, click-stopped knobs. I shot the Leica in a tenth the time that it took to shoot either the Canon or Nikon.
Overall, the Leica wins because of its great sensor coupled with Leica's superior optics. Canon's 21MP sensor is about as good, but the end results only match if you could get lenses this good for the Canon — which you can't do at most focal lengths.
Even if Nikon' slightly higher-on-paper resolution D3X was relevant here, it would also be limited by Nikon's optics, just like the D700 and D3 as shown above.


Ps: I'm aware who is Ken, till wich point he can be trustable and what's to take and what's not to take. This particular article is trustable.

And before the scientists and DoXers will come with their numbers and equations argumentation in order to disqualify
the testing as always, and allowing myself to follow Guy Mancuso's and others steps about that the only trustable instruiment is still the eyes, although it
depends I guess on the grade of training from the eyes in question,  I would say that I had the chance to examinate some M9 files
in a friend's house and I saw the same as Ken (and as many others). And I'm sorry but the D3 or anything from Canon stays behind IMO, with good glasses of course.

Remember that the M9 is another tech, much closer to MF.
Remember also that photographers like Michael, Don...are daily working with the best high-end gear MF+ LF, and therefore used to very high IQ.
Many really demanding photographers are curently using it, in preference of the Canikons. So there might be a good reason for that.
The first that comes into my mind is the availability to mount the best glasses ever built by any manufacturer in that format.
Then, no AA, no menu hassle, just the control that are needed, chalenging just enough, and in a lightweight package that could nearly compeat with this m4/3 format
and with a built quality that does not claim weather seal but that could put to shame any professional dslr today.
Oh yes, and with a discrete shutter noise and an unmatched elegance compared to the D3, 1D, 5D heavy tanks.

That is a lot to like about it.

And if you are an urban photographer, just experimenting the people reaction compare to a standard dslr. The M is friendly to the others, the dslr is agressive.
I could see clearly on field the differences with my friend. The M9 is THE camera for urban reportage.
And that can be the difference between coming back home with some keepers or not. You can get very close with an M and a wide lens.
Try that with your D3 or your 1D...

I will end this parenthesis mentionning that after a thread I wrote here about the R9 digital back, apparently "obsolete",only 10mp... I received some enthousistic letters from  R9 users saying
that people where actually seeing differences in prints, even compare to the 24MP Sony 900, all in favor of the Leica back.
In other words, that people could see differences in print and the Leica prints where more impacting, despite the lower resolution.
I've been critic with Leica after the S2 choice, but again, if I had to go on a desert island with just a gear, that would not be Canon neither Nikon.

All IMHO.
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: Rob C on June 23, 2010, 09:44:47 am
Okay: Erwin1 - Ken 1.

The trouble with the 'eye' tests, of course, is that they are all subjective... folks tend to see what they want to see, particularly when they have spent a lot of money.

I giggle quietly - okay, sort of sotto voce, if you will - when I read about these awful, time-comsumig problems with starting up a dslr before it can shoot.  I never experience any such thing: I have but one af lens which is seldom used and the rest are the latest manuals. I have set the two bodies to as close to manual as dammit and nothing could be simpler in the field. Menu? What menu? The matrix metering is very accurate, you can either check your screen for the highlight sparkle or look at a histogram, exactly what I suppose the Leica offers; you can choose to do neither and just trust the meter. (One must learn to forget all about those siren bells, whistles and buttons; they're for the camera club smoking room.)

You want more simple?

Rob C
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on June 23, 2010, 10:07:22 am
Quote from: fredjeang
Ken Rockwell:With the same money spent on lenses, the Leica easily wins.
The Leica is usually superior, or at least as good, as the best from Nikon and Canon at the same price.

But Ken: You said "the camera doesn't matter."  
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: fredjeang on June 23, 2010, 10:13:46 am
I agree with you Rob. I did the same.

I finally setted both the dslr and lenses to full manual, but in that case I tend to use the manual film age primes and not the current generation lenses.
The irony is that I'm way faster with that configuration. The green light focus confirmation is much more accurate that my vision so I relly on it when I doubt.
If I where shooting sports I would think different, but even for fashion this configuration is possible when you get used to it.
I personally would not hesitate to use a M9 even for fashion shots, the only downside according to James Russel is the tethered configuration.

It has been a long time since I have not enter a dslr menu, not kidding, and guess what: I feel free to a point you can't imagine. I just refuse now to press buttons that
I should not. The lcd has became a sort of preview and use live view only when I really need it, for example at night or for macro.

Still, in most dslr, I'm talking about high-end products, the number of buttons and complicated menus drives me perplex.
As you have and had Nikon, when I was young I worked with the F3, FM2, F4. My favorite was the F3 but the FM2 beated it if you considered the size.
Do you remember Rob in those gear that you had to fight to find Mirror-lock-up? or any important setting?

So what we too often see are art filters instead of good synchro flash, obscurs menus instead of a great and bright viewfinder... the autofocus being supposed to do the job
for us, why should we be able to see bright then. Or mirrorless cameras that have a strong shutter noise, and the long list of marketing departments non-senses.
That is why the Contax 645 is a great machine because it is first and for most a pure photographic tool. And this Leica M is also a unique product (expensive I admit) that I'm sure
is able to restimulate the most bored and experienced photographer.

More they serve us these fantastic gadgets full of (generally useless) features that will be obsolete in 2 years, more I think that the real chic or the ultimate luxury today is simplicity+ efficiency+ relaibility.

Cheers.
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: eleanorbrown on June 23, 2010, 10:18:59 am
My main landscape camera has been, for years, Phase One backs (currently the P60+) on an H2 body.  I'd never even held a Leica (save for my dad's old early 40's original Leica which recorded all of my childhood!).  Thanks to all the M9 reviews, especially Michael's, I bought M9 with the 35 and 75 cron asph lenses.  In short, the M9 and Leica glass is astonishing for landscape (yes hand held) and for most other things.  I carry it with me a lot as it is inconspicuous....I recently did a series on window reflections here in Houston and the Leica glass on this series has a wonderful quality.  On landscapes, the Leica glass coupled with no AA filter has to be seen to be believed.  eleanor
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: ErikKaffehr on June 23, 2010, 12:18:26 pm
Eleanor,

Thanks for sharing! Nice that Leica "hit home run" with a new digital camera!

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: eleanorbrown
My main landscape camera has been, for years, Phase One backs (currently the P60+) on an H2 body.  I'd never even held a Leica (save for my dad's old early 40's original Leica which recorded all of my childhood!).  Thanks to all the M9 reviews, especially Michael's, I bought M9 with the 35 and 75 cron asph lenses.  In short, the M9 and Leica glass is astonishing for landscape (yes hand held) and for most other things.  I carry it with me a lot as it is inconspicuous....I recently did a series on window reflections here in Houston and the Leica glass on this series has a wonderful quality.  On landscapes, the Leica glass coupled with no AA filter has to be seen to be believed.  eleanor
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: ndevlin on June 23, 2010, 04:38:38 pm
I, too, shoot Leica for landscape, and can confirm that it is both wonderful and a total pain in the ass.

On the wonderful side, it's a real camera and feels that way in the hand (not a plastic p-o-s), is far more compact, and produces stunning images.  I feel that there is a noticeable difference in quality between the M9 and the 5D2.  It's a *qualitative* difference - the images have their own visual signature to them, which I prefer. They are much sharper at wide apertures and at frame-edges. This is especially true with wide angle lenses. The Leica lenses are awesome, the Canon lenses suck at the edges and corners. The AA-less CCD chip produces lovely images - especially at low ISOs.

Put it this way: I would use the Leica for serious landscape photography, but not the Canons (if I'm doing dslr, then it's MF-or-bust for serious landscape). The overall micro-detail and quality of the image on the Leica is finer, with none of that annoying, plasticky feel the Canons often deliver (probably due to the AA filter and the internal noise processing).  I can't comment on the D3x personally, but if you're going to carry that kind of weight, might as well go MF.

On the pain-in-the-ass side, it's irritating to have to change lenses all the time, and the framelines are awfully inaccurate. This means shooting, chimping, move the camera slightly, reshooting, re-chimping, etc.  That's just the price of using a RF.

Overall, I love the Leica for this kind of work, but it's horses-for-courses.

- N.
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: tnargs on June 23, 2010, 08:47:20 pm
Again I say, show me the prints, and without telling me which is which first. I agree with Rob, "folks tend to see what they want to see, especially when they have spent a lot of money".

Ken 'RealRaw' Rockwell has a lot of good photo and camera knowledge, and a great philosophy of "I'm only raving on about equipment because my customer base expects it" (my words), but as an authority his weakness is that he has a tendency to greatly exaggerate differences.

As a landscape photographer you take your 18MP 550D and put it on your tripod (after admiring the sun, the butterflies and the great scenery), attach your used $300 Canon prime lens (not even an 'L'), shoot at an aperture and ISO that flatters the lens and camera because you want a great photo and that's why you are standing there anyway not to conduct some extreme camera test, use just the right amount of USM to counter the AA filter, make a good sized (not crazy) print using all your considerable skill. Even the corners are great because the FF lens is coasting on an APS sensor, and you stopped it down for the shot, remember?

Now tote out your equivalent (heavier, slower-lensed, but only slightly so) 18MP M9 kit and do the same. Hand the two prints to your friends without telling which is which and watch them squint.  
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: James R on June 23, 2010, 10:53:39 pm
Quote from: tnargs
Again I say, show me the prints, and without telling me which is which first. I agree with Rob, "folks tend to see what they want to see, especially when they have spent a lot of money".

Ken 'RealRaw' Rockwell has a lot of good photo and camera knowledge, and a great philosophy of "I'm only raving on about equipment because my customer base expects it" (my words), but as an authority his weakness is that he has a tendency to greatly exaggerate differences.

As a landscape photographer you take your 18MP 550D and put it on your tripod (after admiring the sun, the butterflies and the great scenery), attach your used $300 Canon prime lens (not even an 'L'), shoot at an aperture and ISO that flatters the lens and camera because you want a great photo and that's why you are standing there anyway not to conduct some extreme camera test, use just the right amount of USM to counter the AA filter, make a good sized (not crazy) print using all your considerable skill. Even the corners are great because the FF lens is coasting on an APS sensor, and you stopped it down for the shot, remember?

Now tote out your equivalent (heavier, slower-lensed, but only slightly so) 18MP M9 kit and do the same. Hand the two prints to your friends without telling which is which and watch them squint.  

I'm selling my M9 for a 550d and non-L glass.  You convinced me, I'm just not sure of what!  Maybe understanding the great photographic philosopher Ken Rockwell will provide the insight.  Maybe people see what they want to see regardless of the price of the gear.
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on June 24, 2010, 04:11:13 am
This is a more or less pointless debate, even thoug it is fun  

Of course if you have the money, and like using a rangefinder, the M9 is a great camera, and the Leica lenses are arguably amongst the best there is. However, when thinking about landscape, I suppose the regular "rules" apply: you need a solid tripod and head, a bunch of filters, and so on. Once you factor that in, than the "reduced weight" advantage of the M9 system is less obvious?

The "M9 landscape testimonials" are based around hand held landscape photography, or using a monopod. I think that is a bit of a loose definition of landscape photography. Again, if you have deep pockets, the M9 is a great camera, but I would say that the type of landscape photography you can do with it is a bit limited (filters, tilt and shift lenses?).
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: aaron on June 24, 2010, 08:56:15 am
Why is it that when photographers comment on Phase & Hassy MFD backs when used for landscape, the conversation turns to how annoying it is to not have Live View, to not have more auto focus points, to not have better high ISO, to not have better long exposure etc.. ... ...

But when discussing the use of an M9 all those things don't apply,  ???? I don't get it.
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: fredjeang on June 24, 2010, 09:06:32 am
Quote from: aaron
Why is it that when photographers comment on Phase & Hassy MFD backs when used for landscape, the conversation turns to how annoying it is to not have Live View, to not have more auto focus points, to not have better high ISO, to not have better long exposure etc.. ... ...

But when discussing the use of an M9 all those things don't apply,  ???? I don't get it.
Because the Leica does not have all these technolgy facilties but it is minimalist.
Backs does not have those either, but they are not minimalists. On the contrary.

That's my intuition about why is like that.
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: Rob C on June 24, 2010, 09:38:28 am
Quote from: fredjeang
Because the Leica does not have all these technolgy facilties but it is minimalist.
Backs does not have those either, but they are not minimalists. On the contrary.

That's my intuition about why is like that.



Also, if you are into the LF ethic you look at things from a different mental perspective. There is no concern with speed, auto this or auto that: it is about ultimate control and everything being just so. And that is wonderful.

However, I suspect that people using anything else are all taking short cuts, myself included on the rare occassions when I venture into the world of landscape. I think the division between men and boys happens before the bag is loaded - I think it's there in the attitude towards the work. Okay, a small camera might let you into places a large one would prohibit, but then perhaps it isn't worth doing the shot anyway if it's going to be a compromise.

And that's one of the major problems with photography: there are so many opportunities for compromise and I think that when you are working for yourself, that's the very time you should never compromise. What's the point if you are the client, and there is no external pressure, for you to do other than the very best? It's yourself you are ripping off.

Everything has its best solution - most of us know what that is, but how often do we betray ourselves?

Rob C
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: ndevlin on June 24, 2010, 09:40:01 am
This whole discussion is premised on money not being an issue.  If it is, then get the best camera you can afford, and enjoy! The differences are scant for the price.  But if money isn't particularly an issue, then get a camera you love, because you will use it more.

- N.
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: feppe on June 24, 2010, 10:05:56 am
Quote from: fredjeang
Because the Leica does not have all these technolgy facilties but it is minimalist.
Backs does not have those either, but they are not minimalists. On the contrary.

That's my intuition about why is like that.

I give credit to Leica: it takes big balls to sell a camera with a lackluster feature set as a "minimalist" camera. Even bigger ones to charge several times as much for it as the competition. At least the images have magical qualities, and unicorns recite sonnets praising your photographic abilities when you press the oh-so-quiet shutter.

MFDBs are being laughed at due to their lack of features, but you get megapixels, bigger sensor and slightly more DR; with M9 you pay a premium for a camera which lacks many features which have been in 200 EUR point & shoots for years, and has only slight edge in some areas of IQ (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Camera-Sensor/Compare-sensors/%28appareil1%29/640|0/%28appareil2%29/645|0/%28appareil3%29/439|0/%28onglet%29/0/%28brand%29/Leica/%28brand2%29/Canon/%28brand3%29/Nikon) compared to cameras with similar weight from Canon and Nikon.

It does come with a red dot, though.
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: James R on June 24, 2010, 11:38:18 am
Quote from: ndevlin
This whole discussion is premised on money not being an issue.  If it is, then get the best camera you can afford, and enjoy! The differences are scant for the price.  But if money isn't particularly an issue, then get a camera you love, because you will use it more.

- N.

The whole discussion was not about money.  Fred stated, "Also, and I don't know if it is because of the lack of AA filter, the Leica glasses, but I found the M9 files (that I had the chance to explore some months ago) nothing less than the best 35mm IQ available today."  To Fred it is about the captured image.  Mentioning money is about as enlightening as entering a discussion about P&S cameras and toting the advantages of a 1d4--it's off topic.  For some reason, when Leica is mentioned, people complain about its cost.
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: fredjeang on June 24, 2010, 11:50:05 am
I can understand why many people are looking at Leica with a sort of reservation.
It just looks like an old machinery that has just the red dot as a sale argument, comparing to today's products.
Then, the check bill hurts, not as much as MF but it does.

Some time ago, I would have written "against" Leica, but I've been learning to understand why it is very special,
I've been learning to respect it. I may not want to buy it when it comes to be reasonable, wich is my case today,
but indeed, I can understand why so much top photographers are enjoying it.

Talking about price when we talk about Leica is like talking about price when talk about Ferrari.
There is an Audi sport that is as performant and much cheaper, but...
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: sojournerphoto on June 24, 2010, 12:12:05 pm
Quote from: pbizarro
The "M9 landscape testimonials" are based around hand held landscape photography, or using a monopod. I think that is a bit of a loose definition of landscape photography. Again, if you have deep pockets, the M9 is a great camera, but I would say that the type of landscape photography you can do with it is a bit limited (filters, tilt and shift lenses?).


There is also a tendency to an even tighter definition of landscape photography that is based on always using a tripod etc etc to maximise resolution or 'image quality'. It's absolutely the case that my 35mm rangefinders never get used on a tripod - occasionally a monopod stick, but never a tripod. My dslr does get used on a tripod as does the MF RF, though they both also get used handheld.

Horses for courses, but it's all about making pictures

Mike
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: eleanorbrown on June 24, 2010, 01:16:38 pm
We all know that all equipment has trade offs and compromises...yes the M9 only has 18 megapixels but it's a camera that I am able to take many many places that would be difficult for me to take my medium format, even with the Med. format's smallest lens, the 80mm prime.  I can get landscape shots with the Leica that I otherwise wouldn't get with a larger heavier set up.  Last spring I took both systems to Capitol Reef, Utah and never pulled my medium format out of the bag.  Handheld the Leica and the files are bitingly sharp.  Nothing is ideal for all situations.  Eleanor
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: Don Libby on June 24, 2010, 02:36:54 pm
Eleanor and I are in very much the same boat just using slightly different oars as she uses her P60 with a AFD type camera while I use my P45+ on a technical camera.  I believe Eleanor could "get by" without a rock solid tripod on a long hike however I need it any time I want to take a shoot with my Cambo WRS as it just isn't suitable for handheld photography.  

Working in the Southwest as I do there's still plenty of opportunities to take shoots in out of the way places by traveling on roads or trails requiring high clearance (sometime 4x4) vehicles where I can walk within several hundred yards with my Cambo/P45+ (and a tripod that literally weights more than the camera setup itself).  However that's not always the case and that's where a camera such as a M9 shines.

I did a 7 mile hike in the Chiricahuas where the elevation change was several hundred feet in less than 1/2 mile, sometimes over steep rocks; and lets not forget about the weather.  Any time I shoot in the Southwest I need to be aware of my water supply and while in the jeep carrying and extra gallon or two isn't noticeable try carrying just one-gallon on a hike.  One-gallon of water weighs close to 8.25 pounds (one-gallon equals 3.78 liters and 8.25 pounds weighs close to 3.74 kg).

Anytime I can capture images that are close to what I expect to capture from my P45+ and can carry all my lenses as well as a monopod, water and other items that might be needed for emergencies and still be less weight than if I had my Cambo/P45+ I'll do it in a heart beat.  The fact that my M9 and 3 lenses weigh less than another system I've used hasn't escaped my attention.

(My M9 and 3-lens along with an extra battery all fit in a very small case while the Cambo/P45+ along with 3-lens and extra batteries and cable releases require a regular backpack, not to mention a method of carrying the tripod.  All this and we haven't even gotten to the basic necessities such as water, GPS, sat-phone, and food)

I'll admit I was put off at first that the M9 was "only" 18 megapixels till I started comparing files sizes to other cameras that we own and use.

Phase One P45+ average file size: 42.544kb
Leica M9 average file size: 35,580kb
Canon 1DsIII average file size: 24,202kb
Canon 1DsII average file size: 16,531kb

I've used the M9 handheld, on a monopod and on my primary tripod and in each case the image file is stunning.  Is it better than medium format? No.  Do I like it better than the files the 1DsIII produce?  Yes.  Again the answers depend on how exact the captures were taken.

Is the M9 for everyone?  No, just like a P60 or P45 isn't.  I further agree with Eleanor in that there isn't an ideal camera for all situations and probably never will.

I'll continue to use the M9 until I can afford to hire a sherpa to carry all my medium format gear on these long hikes.

I don't think I've drank the Leica Kool-Aid more than I've found a set of tools that fit my needs and requirements; I'll change one or the other as my requirements change.

Don
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: sojournerphoto on June 24, 2010, 05:31:33 pm
Quote from: Don Libby
I did a 7 mile hike in the Chiricahuas where the elevation change was several hundred feet in less than 1/2 mile, sometimes over steep rocks; and lets not forget about the weather.  Any time I shoot in the Southwest I need to be aware of my water supply and while in the jeep carrying and extra gallon or two isn't noticeable try carrying just one-gallon on a hike.  One-gallon of water weighs close to 8.25 pounds (one-gallon equals 3.78 liters and 8.25 pounds weighs close to 3.74 kg).

...

Don


It's a good job you're not in the UK. Here a gallon of water is 4.54 litres and weighs 10lbs!

Useful comments about your experience of the Leica files, although the size difference may just be the canon's lossless compression.

Mike
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: tom b on June 24, 2010, 08:58:50 pm
At present the Leica M9 is the smallest FF 35mm camera available. It has great lenses and image quality. It has no mirror and has excellent build quality. I can see why it would make a great landscape camera.

The Leica doesn't have lens stabilisation, dust control or autofocus. It also costs a lot of money. I can see why other photographers dismiss it.

At work I have a 5D mk II with battery pack, 17-40, 24-70, and 70-200 lenses. I pick up the backpack and each time I do I realise that it's a nice kit but I wouldn't like to walk very far with it.

There is a gap in the camera line for a moderately priced small FF 35mm camera with good lenses, lens stabilisation, dust control or autofocus. The sooner a camera manufacturer fills that gap the better. Until then we will continue to have this conversation. Oh, and of course it will have to have some kind of viewfinder for us blind grumpy old men.

Cheers,

Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: tnargs on June 25, 2010, 02:03:57 am
Quote from: James R
I'm selling my M9 for a 550d and non-L glass.  You convinced me, ....

Hehehe    

I'm sure you didn't buy your M9 because of its price-performance ratio: who would? It is a stupendous piece of kit and highly desirable, and the fact that its IQ is mythologically boosted although doubtless very good indeed, is bordering on irrelevant.

My point is more that, looking only at the image quality of real life prints and the weight that has to be lugged around, which are the two primary points of the article, a 550D plus non-L full frame Canon primes probably competes *extremely* well, and if the IQ and weight of the M9 kit is what is tempting to the reader then a 550D/primes kit is a very serious option.

I mean, it would be a pity if high quality, excellent quality, landscape photography was only available to the wealthy.
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: fredjeang on June 25, 2010, 04:09:57 am
Quote from: tnargs
Hehehe    

I'm sure you didn't buy your M9 because of its price-performance ratio: who would? It is a stupendous piece of kit and highly desirable, and the fact that its IQ is mythologically boosted although doubtless very good indeed, is bordering on irrelevant.

My point is more that, looking only at the image quality of real life prints and the weight that has to be lugged around, which are the two primary points of the article, a 550D plus non-L full frame Canon primes probably competes *extremely* well, and if the IQ and weight of the M9 kit is what is tempting to the reader then a 550D/primes kit is a very serious option.

I mean, it would be a pity if high quality, excellent quality, landscape photography was only available to the wealthy.
The M9 is not targetting the same consumer that the 550D.

Of course there are fantastic cheap dslr today that coupled with primes can do the job very fine. The Canon is one, there are also some bargains in Nikon and Pentax.

First, you have to be able to buy one. Second, you have to need or want its particular design. An M serie will be smaller and lighter than the Canon.
Then, it targets a sort of purists or very demanding photographers in terms of lens quality.

The MFD users feel "at home" more than with any other dslr because of no AA filter and the image processor.

This is not comparable IMO to this 550 or any other camera.

Maybe the best bargains I can think today are the Canon 5DII and this Sony A850.
But some photographers are not looking, neither in need to find bargains but the very best device available to complish a specific task.


Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: Rob C on June 25, 2010, 10:00:57 am
Quote from: fredjeang
The M9 is not targetting the same consumer that the 550D.

Of course there are fantastic cheap dslr today that coupled with primes can do the job very fine. The Canon is one, there are also some bargains in Nikon and Pentax.

First, you have to be able to buy one. Second, you have to need or want its particular design. An M serie will be smaller and lighter than the Canon.
Then, it targets a sort of purists or very demanding photographers in terms of lens quality.

The MFD users feel "at home" more than with any other dslr because of no AA filter and the image processor.

This is not comparable IMO to this 550 or any other camera.

Maybe the best bargains I can think today are the Canon 5DII and this Sony A850.
But some photographers are not looking, neither in need to find bargains but the very best device available to complish a specific task.



There's another problem associated with these über-products: perhaps many people can afford them, but as with cars, that doesn't mean you think it is a justified expense.

I can go out today and put down the cheque for a nice car - or blasted M9, for that matter -  but in the relative scheme of things, I simply can't convince myself that either is worth doing, and trust me, I have been trying!

Take the car: two days after I bought my Ford, twelve years next month, somebody paid it a visit with a pointed instrument and attempted to free it from its blue oval on the trunk/boot. Failure to do that simple thing led them round to the front where they had more luck. So you have to ask yourself, is living in a world where a blue oval is deemed theft-worthy, truly conducive to the purchase of more tempting fare? Further, in an environment where many many vehicles are rentals (most companies even omit hubcaps on these cars), where your own car picks up a rainbow, a virtual cacophony of colour on its sides, how tempting that pretty little BMW M3 in silver? (Okay, I might have lied about the M3 - the State pays me a pension that proves it believes in State-sponsored euthanasia and the banks have ensured that my interest is a thing of the past, but why spoil a good argument?)

The camera? Same deal sans hubcaps. Are you a master in martial, not photographic arts? Or possibly both - I think we have one here? Do you wear your Rolex when you venture into the seamy side of town to visit your wholesaler? Isn't that the very milieu in which the M is supposedly designed to shine, the black one too?

So many questions but so few relevant answers.

Rob C (Curmudgeon, Premier Cru)

Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: Robert Roaldi on June 25, 2010, 10:29:48 am
Quote from: Rob C
There's another problem associated with these über-products: perhaps many people can afford them, but as with cars, that doesn't mean you think it is a justified expense.

I can go out today and put down the cheque for a nice car - or blasted M9, for that matter -  but in the relative scheme of things, I simply can't convince myself that either is worth doing, and trust me, I have been trying!

Take the car: two days after I bought my Ford, twelve years next month, somebody paid it a visit with a pointed instrument and attempted to free it from its blue oval on the trunk/boot. Failure to do that simple thing led them round to the front where they had more luck. So you have to ask yourself, is living in a world where a blue oval is deemed theft-worthy, truly conducive to the purchase of more tempting fare? Further, in an environment where many many vehicles are rentals (most companies even omit hubcaps on these cars), where your own car picks up a rainbow, a virtual cacophony of colour on its sides, how tempting that pretty little BMW M3 in silver? (Okay, I might have lied about the M3 - the State pays me a pension that proves it believes in State-sponsored euthanasia and the banks have ensured that my interest is a thing of the past, but why spoil a good argument?)

The camera? Same deal sans hubcaps. Are you a master in martial, not photographic arts? Or possibly both - I think we have one here? Do you wear your Rolex when you venture into the seamy side of town to visit your wholesaler? Isn't that the very milieu in which the M is supposedly designed to shine, the black one too?

So many questions but so few relevant answers.

Rob C (Curmudgeon, Premier Cru)


Jeez, it's a miracle that we can get through the day at all, with all the dangers lurking around every bend. So, is the solution to only own cars or cameras that no one wants to steal?  No, of course not, we should all buy M9s. If everyone had one, there'd be no reason to steal them.  
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: Rob C on June 25, 2010, 02:34:34 pm
Quote from: Robert Roaldi
Jeez, it's a miracle that we can get through the day at all, with all the dangers lurking around every bend. So, is the solution to only own cars or cameras that no one wants to steal?  No, of course not, we should all buy M9s. If everyone had one, there'd be no reason to steal them.



Robert, I like that philosophy; and yet, and yet - there is a flaw lurking in dem dare shadows!

;-)

Rob C
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: feppe on June 27, 2010, 04:44:46 pm
Quote from: Don Libby
I'll admit I was put off at first that the M9 was "only" 18 megapixels till I started comparing files sizes to other cameras that we own and use.

Phase One P45+ average file size: 42.544kb
Leica M9 average file size: 35,580kb
Canon 1DsIII average file size: 24,202kb
Canon 1DsII average file size: 16,531kb

Does Phase or Leica compress their RAWs (losslessly) like Canon does? If they don't, that comparison is all but meaningless. Well, even then it's useless as I'm sure file size is a poor proxy for IQ when normalized for MP count.

I know, it's like arguments about religion...
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: telyt on June 27, 2010, 05:17:54 pm
Quote from: Rob C
... there are so many opportunities for compromise and I think that when you are working for yourself, that's the very time you should never compromise. What's the point if you are the client, and there is no external pressure, for you to do other than the very best? It's yourself you are ripping off.

That's what I like about not being dependent on photography to pay the mortgage.  I can do it my way, without trying to keep up with a rat race.

Quote from: tnargs
Again I say, show me the prints, and without telling me which is which first. I agree with Rob, "folks tend to see what they want to see, especially when they have spent a lot of money".

Unless you visit the Sacramento area it's unlikely you'll see my prints, but I've shown them to gallery owners who had no knowledge of the format or brand of camera I used to make the prints.  The cameras I used to make the prints are a mix of Nikon film, Leica film and Leica DMR (10 MP, no AA filter, Leica APO glass).  One of the galleries also represents a Canon 'Explorer of Light' photographer.  Their reaction to the DMR prints is always the same: jaw drops, eyes bug out, the brain's speech center is temporarily knocked out of order.  They stand back to look at the whole print, they get really close to the print and look over the entire surface of it.  Invariable they first things they say are a comment on the color quality and detail, and "What camera are you using"?  Great fun.
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: JohnBrew on June 27, 2010, 07:54:40 pm
Quote from: ndevlin
I, too, shoot Leica for landscape, and can confirm that it is both wonderful and a total pain in the ass.
On the pain-in-the-ass side, it's irritating to have to change lenses all the time, and the framelines are awfully inaccurate. This means shooting, chimping, move the camera slightly, reshooting, re-chimping, etc.  That's just the price of using a RF.

I shot my M8 as a landscape camera. I mostly used a 35 Cron ASPH. I don't find using a single lens limiting. Actually it is the opposite, it is liberating. A simple kit. Using a single lens forces the photographer to spend more time looking for the perfect angle to take the shot. Someday I'll get a M9 or its successor. At the moment I'm playing with a D700 and Zeiss 50 Makro. Every time I drag out that monster (compared to a Leica!) I curse myself for not going ahead and biting the bullet and getting on the waiting list for an M9.
John
www.johnbrewton.zenfolio.com
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: James R on June 27, 2010, 09:10:28 pm
To the "Leica is too expensive" crowd:

What is too expensive is a relative concept.  I've seen minimum wage workers buying Starbuck coffee and I know well to-do individuals who wouldn't waste their money one.  Most everybody goes through the same purchase process, whether it is a Canon 550, or a Leica, or a Hassy.  The purchase is made once the decision process is over.  For some reason, every time somebody discusses a Leica camera, there is this desire to berate the purchaser for making a wrong decision.  I'll bet there are many complainers who probably have 20K+ in N or C, which, of course, is justified.  

These treads would be more useful if the conversation stayed on the camera and images, and not on the cost; or, how I can do that photo for thousands of dollars less buy using a cheaper Canon.
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: tnargs on June 27, 2010, 10:27:07 pm
Quote from: telyt
...The cameras I used to make the prints are a mix of Nikon film, Leica film and Leica DMR (10 MP, no AA filter, Leica APO glass).  ... Their reaction to the DMR prints is always the same: jaw drops, eyes bug out, the brain's speech center is temporarily knocked out of order.  They stand back to look at the whole print, they get really close to the print and look over the entire surface of it.  Invariable they first things they say are a comment on the color quality and detail, and "What camera are you using"?  Great fun.
Good story! Reminds me of the "FF prints easily beaten for dynamic range by MF prints even at 5x7-inch even viewed at 20 feet via a glimpse after walking through the door of a dimly lit camera store" story.

A pity your print viewers asked the wrong question. Like the hifi nuts whose jaws drop at the sound of a system and their first question is "what amp are you using?"

Quote from: fredjeang
.... An M serie will be smaller and lighter than the Canon....
Not so, I guess you missed post #14.

Quote from: fredjeang
...Of course there are fantastic cheap dslr today that coupled with primes can do the job very fine. The Canon is one, there are also some bargains in Nikon and Pentax.
...Maybe the best bargains I can think today are the Canon 5DII and this Sony A850.
But some photographers are not looking, neither in need to find bargains but the very best device available to complish a specific task.
Definitely agree, and 'the very best device available' is a matter of many factors not just a matter of image quality; there is no way a 550D can match the tactile experience of an M9, for instance. If one has the money and the M9 resonates then by all means buy it, take and make outstanding landscape prints, and live the good life. The bickering only starts when the M9 owner lapses into leicaphilia and starts raving about stunning superiorities in pure image terms, or even in image-per-kg terms. Them's fightin' words, even if they are delivered with an air of calm superiority.     The Canon 18MP sensor is a natural contestant, its kit weight with primes is slightly less than the M9 kit, the primes are FF so their IQ is mostly about their centre performance whereas the m-series are being stretched to their edges, so it looks like a green light contest to me.

The biggest problem would be finding an unbiased reviewer on the internet, with access to both cameras and lenses, interested in landscape photography, prepared to not only test the usual extremes of performance (pixel peeping, edges and corners, high iso, huge enlargements, max aperture), but also compare the results of sensible practice where one tries to use one's equipment to best advantage and make prints of typical print size and view at normal viewing distance for that size (may I humbly suggest A3 max for arm's length viewing, larger prints for viewing at larger distances), photographed at non-max apertures, and in reasonable light levels or using a tripod rather than high iso when things are dim.

It would be a great contest to do blind comparisons of such prints. But the reviewing world is not oriented to such comparisons because the cameras have different customer bases, and reviewing is all about comparisons of market competitors. Review-world does not seem to take seriously the possibility that something much cheaper could be indistinguishable in *any* aspect of results: that is not the way product ranges work or the way salesmen want us to think!
 

Quote from: James R
To the "Leica is too expensive" crowd:...For some reason, every time somebody discusses a Leica camera, there is this desire to berate the purchaser for making a wrong decision....
I agree, to some extent there is that, and to some extent there is the opposite where someone raves about their wonderful affordable kit and there seems to be the desire for someone to point out their Leica. But the bigger piece of bait is when someone makes unsubstantiated claims of innate superiority.

Jack Perkins' article says "...What I was working with now was a camera that is significantly lighter and easier to handle, with lenses lighter and much smaller than 35mm lenses and thus more appropriate for eschewing the back-, shoulder-, or belly-pack , putting a few lenses into pockets and heading off to photograph. If light levels were low or terrain especially uneven I might carry a monopod ...What I early discovered was that these luscious Leica lenses have a different way of rendering. The Leica-look, aficionados call it..."

I would love to see the results of an objective investigation of the twofold claims of lightness and quality. I have suggested an alternative of similar weight; is it inherently lower in quality in a way that is detectable with normal landscape prints? I suspect we will never know. I also reckon it is incumbent on those making the claim of (innate, everyday, easily-seen-in-average-prints) superiority to back it up with something objective.

BTW I think is not common knowledge that someone seeking a lightweight high quality digital landscape kit has any genuine option to the Leica. The general mood seems to be that dslr-based kit is much heavier. I think it would be a surprise to many readers to realise they can get a dslr with a quality 18MP sensor and equivalent prime lenses that adds up to a kit actually lighter than the M9 kit. It might even be a surprise to Jack Perkins!
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: telyt on June 27, 2010, 10:34:21 pm
Quote from: tnargs
The biggest problem would be finding an unbiased reviewer on the internet

I agree.  You've demonstrated the need.  What you need to do is let go of your own biases and pay attention to those who use the equipment.

(EDIT) On further thought, I'm wondering why it matters to you that others prefer to use the M9.  What's most important to you is that you're satisfied with the results you're getting from your camera.
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: James R on June 28, 2010, 12:16:48 am
Quote from: tnargs
I agree, to some extent there is that, and to some extent there is the opposite where someone raves about their wonderful affordable kit and there seems to be the desire for someone to point out their Leica. But the bigger piece of bait is when someone makes unsubstantiated claims of innate superiority.

Jack Perkins' article says "...What I was working with now was a camera that is significantly lighter and easier to handle, with lenses lighter and much smaller than 35mm lenses and thus more appropriate for eschewing the back-, shoulder-, or belly-pack , putting a few lenses into pockets and heading off to photograph. If light levels were low or terrain especially uneven I might carry a monopod ...What I early discovered was that these luscious Leica lenses have a different way of rendering. The Leica-look, aficionados call it..."

I would love to see the results of an objective investigation of the twofold claims of lightness and quality. I have suggested an alternative of similar weight; is it inherently lower in quality in a way that is detectable with normal landscape prints? I suspect we will never know. I also reckon it is incumbent on those making the claim of (innate, everyday, easily-seen-in-average-prints) superiority to back it up with something objective.

BTW I think is not common knowledge that someone seeking a lightweight high quality digital landscape kit has any genuine option to the Leica. The general mood seems to be that dslr-based kit is much heavier. I think it would be a surprise to many readers to realise they can get a dslr with a quality 18MP sensor and equivalent prime lenses that adds up to a kit actually lighter than the M9 kit. It might even be a surprise to Jack Perkins!


I read your first post and disagreed with it.  First off, praising KR as a first rate reviewer and photography expert was too much for me.  But, let us assume for the sake of argument that he is first rate.  Here is a quote from his website, dated this past December I believe, "The LEICA M9 is the smallest, lightest, highest-quality digital camera ever created by the hand of Man."  

You made a claim that there is no difference between a print made from a Canon 550D and a Leica M9.  However, you do put qualifiers on the comparison.  Unfortunately, you make a claim and then tell us to prove it.  This is sort of a KR review.  Personally, I'll take my 35 Summicron over any Canon EF-S lens even if they made an f/2.  

Putting all this aside, I'm happy with my cameras and I hope you are equally happy with yours.
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: dseelig on June 28, 2010, 01:25:59 am
I am a working pro no I do not make lots of money at it, never made 50 grand in a year, yet I have a complete canon system 2 1d mk111's a 5d mk11 a 1d mk1v and lenses form 16-35 to a 400 2.8. I also have 2 m9s and 24 35 50 75 luxes a 90 crom aa and the wate. I do not go out for dinner much. Why do I own the leica photography is my life and there is nothing else that feels more right for my work for myself then shooting with a leica. I see better with a leica it slows you up and makes you think. Canons put people off that do not know you I am less obtrusive into lives and the lenses are sharper and better then canons. If I want to make pictures I will get a canon if I want to make photographs the leicas come out.
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: Ben Rubinstein on June 28, 2010, 03:24:13 am
I just realised that for what I paid for my 1Ds mkIII second hand I could buy a mint condition late edition Jaguar XJS with all the trimmings, big engine, modern electrics/AC and with around 70,000 miles on the clock. I could use that gorgeous car to drive in extreme luxury, comfort and coolness to anywhere I want and take pictures with the no slouch pair of 5D's I already own.

My priorites are so very screwed up...    
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: Nick Rains on June 28, 2010, 03:57:41 am
Hopefully I can do such a test next month.

I am (hopefully) getting a Hassy 40MP, a Phase P40, a Leaf 40MP and an S2 to play with. Epson are lending me a 7900 with some paper, and myself and two other photogs plan to do some 20x30prints and a blind test. Should be interesting.

Quote from: tnargs
Good story! Reminds me of the "FF prints easily beaten for dynamic range by MF prints even at 5x7-inch even viewed at 20 feet via a glimpse after walking through the door of a dimly lit camera store" story.

A pity your print viewers asked the wrong question. Like the hifi nuts whose jaws drop at the sound of a system and their first question is "what amp are you using?"


Not so, I guess you missed post #14.


Definitely agree, and 'the very best device available' is a matter of many factors not just a matter of image quality; there is no way a 550D can match the tactile experience of an M9, for instance. If one has the money and the M9 resonates then by all means buy it, take and make outstanding landscape prints, and live the good life. The bickering only starts when the M9 owner lapses into leicaphilia and starts raving about stunning superiorities in pure image terms, or even in image-per-kg terms. Them's fightin' words, even if they are delivered with an air of calm superiority.     The Canon 18MP sensor is a natural contestant, its kit weight with primes is slightly less than the M9 kit, the primes are FF so their IQ is mostly about their centre performance whereas the m-series are being stretched to their edges, so it looks like a green light contest to me.

The biggest problem would be finding an unbiased reviewer on the internet, with access to both cameras and lenses, interested in landscape photography, prepared to not only test the usual extremes of performance (pixel peeping, edges and corners, high iso, huge enlargements, max aperture), but also compare the results of sensible practice where one tries to use one's equipment to best advantage and make prints of typical print size and view at normal viewing distance for that size (may I humbly suggest A3 max for arm's length viewing, larger prints for viewing at larger distances), photographed at non-max apertures, and in reasonable light levels or using a tripod rather than high iso when things are dim.

It would be a great contest to do blind comparisons of such prints. But the reviewing world is not oriented to such comparisons because the cameras have different customer bases, and reviewing is all about comparisons of market competitors. Review-world does not seem to take seriously the possibility that something much cheaper could be indistinguishable in *any* aspect of results: that is not the way product ranges work or the way salesmen want us to think!
 


I agree, to some extent there is that, and to some extent there is the opposite where someone raves about their wonderful affordable kit and there seems to be the desire for someone to point out their Leica. But the bigger piece of bait is when someone makes unsubstantiated claims of innate superiority.

Jack Perkins' article says "...What I was working with now was a camera that is significantly lighter and easier to handle, with lenses lighter and much smaller than 35mm lenses and thus more appropriate for eschewing the back-, shoulder-, or belly-pack , putting a few lenses into pockets and heading off to photograph. If light levels were low or terrain especially uneven I might carry a monopod ...What I early discovered was that these luscious Leica lenses have a different way of rendering. The Leica-look, aficionados call it..."

I would love to see the results of an objective investigation of the twofold claims of lightness and quality. I have suggested an alternative of similar weight; is it inherently lower in quality in a way that is detectable with normal landscape prints? I suspect we will never know. I also reckon it is incumbent on those making the claim of (innate, everyday, easily-seen-in-average-prints) superiority to back it up with something objective.

BTW I think is not common knowledge that someone seeking a lightweight high quality digital landscape kit has any genuine option to the Leica. The general mood seems to be that dslr-based kit is much heavier. I think it would be a surprise to many readers to realise they can get a dslr with a quality 18MP sensor and equivalent prime lenses that adds up to a kit actually lighter than the M9 kit. It might even be a surprise to Jack Perkins!
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: Rob C on June 28, 2010, 05:12:04 am
Mention was made about the reasons that price crops up almost ever time the word Leica comes into a conversation.

I think that's because it's exactly what Leica wants to happen. Price and a relatively small, niche market is what the marque was ever about; in fact, I would bet that it's the silent cornerstone of company thinking.

There is no way I would spend the money, now, on a Leica, new or used. When I was working I often thought about it, but all the intelligence indicated that it was M lenses that had whatever superiority the glass was reputed to have. I do remember printing shots of tv studio room sets from a 21mm lens set of negatives at my last place of work, and the 'look' was certainly different to the Nikon stuff we did. However, I knew that RF wasn't what I'd need for myself once I went solo and so I never did buy into the brand.

Now, with no client list anymore, life has a very different perspective and buying Leica is no longer a matter of professional choice based on professional needs. Making such a purchase now - making any purchase now - is based on how it leaves the bank account looking and on how important that purchase might be within the greater scheme of things.

It was never cheap buying into the 500 series either; one made the decision for what it might achieve, and achieve (and grow) the system did. So really, I think one has to look at the ownership question from a clear, differentiated perspective: for the pro, if it gives what you think it will, you will buy and take the mugging; for the am, then it all depends on how rich you are or how committed (a nice, if dangerous word) you might (or should?) be to the idea of photography.

But in the end, unless our skill-set is pretty damn extensive, one might as well buy a better car- like that old Jag. No, not like that; old cars are even worse losers of money for mere non-dealer mortals.

I walk through the local marina a couple of times a week doing my obligatory exercise; I was crazy about boats when I was young, but suffered from acute lack of mad-money if not mad-ideas, one of which was to sell the house in Scotland and come to Spain and live on a yacht. Fortunately, my wife saw the reality while I but the dream, and agreed to move but only into more bricks and mortar. Anyway, during those walks, I do look again at the Sunseekers and Fairlines, and then wham! I walked past a Riva up on the hard. It's one of those small things that must be the current version of the Rudi - it is impossible to read the logo: it looks like RUBARIVA or something similar - I can't make it out - and have long stopped buying boat magazines to know.  Bad marketing or clever? Anway, it did strike a chord of instant love, for the design, if nothing more, the reality of boat ownership becoming very clear if you live alonside the Med... But that little Riva, isn't that exactly the same thing as Leica and its Ms? That it's all about design and striking the sweet spot of peoples' desires?

Rob C
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on June 28, 2010, 05:23:06 am
Quote from: sojournerphoto
There is also a tendency to an even tighter definition of landscape photography that is based on always using a tripod etc etc to maximise resolution or 'image quality'. It's absolutely the case that my 35mm rangefinders never get used on a tripod - occasionally a monopod stick, but never a tripod. My dslr does get used on a tripod as does the MF RF, though they both also get used handheld.

Horses for courses, but it's all about making pictures

Mike

Of course everybody has its own definition of what "landscape photography" is. However, I would risk saying that there seems to be a general consensus about how landscape photos seem to be more interesting when the light is more interesting. And the light seems to be more interesting when it is more difficult to handhold the camera, be it a M9 or a 5D MKII. What is the point of having a great camera and lenses, and compromise the results by shooting handheld? I amo not talking shooting under mid day sun now, I am talking about shooting before sunrise and after sunset.

What I am saying is that, even if I had a M9, I would shoot with it from a tripod, to make the most of its wonderful lenses and sensor. If I happen to go on a trek or hiking, where a tripod is a "no-go", I would much prefer to have some sort of system that incorporates some sort of image stabilization.
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: sojournerphoto on June 28, 2010, 07:39:19 am
Quote from: pbizarro
Of course everybody has its own definition of what "landscape photography" is. However, I would risk saying that there seems to be a general consensus about how landscape photos seem to be more interesting when the light is more interesting. And the light seems to be more interesting when it is more difficult to handhold the camera, be it a M9 or a 5D MKII. What is the point of having a great camera and lenses, and compromise the results by shooting handheld? I amo not talking shooting under mid day sun now, I am talking about shooting before sunrise and after sunset.

What I am saying is that, even if I had a M9, I would shoot with it from a tripod, to make the most of its wonderful lenses and sensor. If I happen to go on a trek or hiking, where a tripod is a "no-go", I would much prefer to have some sort of system that incorporates some sort of image stabilization.


I understand, but my 35mm rangefinders still use film:), so if I want ultimate resolution they will have stayed at home. It doesn't stop me using them for some sorts of landscape though. If I really want to resolve things then the Mamiya 7 on a  tripod with Kodak Ektar is really spectacular (to me, a mere dslr and not mf back owner)

Mike
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: feppe on June 28, 2010, 10:04:13 am
Quote from: James R
What is too expensive is a relative concept.  I've seen minimum wage workers buying Starbuck coffee and I know well to-do individuals who wouldn't waste their money one.

It hasn't occurred to you it is exactly that mentality why the wealthy bocome and stay wealthy, and why the poor don't?
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: James R on June 28, 2010, 10:52:23 am
Quote from: feppe
It hasn't occurred to you it is exactly that mentality why the wealthy bocome and stay wealthy, and why the poor don't?

No it hasn't.  I know too many middle and lower income people who will not buy coffee at Starbucks and they are still not wealthy.  Value judgments are made within the margin of the possible; therefore, the poor don't buy Rolls Royces.
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: ndevlin on June 28, 2010, 11:41:35 am
Quote from: James R
Value judgments are made within the margin of the possible

A perfect last word.
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: Rob C on June 28, 2010, 02:40:48 pm
Quote from: ndevlin
A perfect last word.



You have just sown the seeds of your own verbal destruction: never, ever, tempt fate, even as a joke!

The wealthy become, and often remain wealthy because as the popular saying goes, they are different. For once, popular science is correct. It is a mental condition as much as anything else, has little to do with education, and also works in the traditional rags-to-riches way which many deride as impossible.

This is not a perfect parthian shot, just an observation of ships that have passed in my night.

;-)

Rob C
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: James R on June 28, 2010, 03:08:15 pm
Quote from: Rob C
You have just sown the seeds of your own verbal destruction: never, ever, tempt fate, even as a joke!

The wealthy become, and often remain wealthy because as the popular saying goes, they are different. For once, popular science is correct. It is a mental condition as much as anything else, has little to do with education, and also works in the traditional rags-to-riches way which many deride as impossible.

This is not a perfect parthian shot, just an observation of ships that have passed in my night.

;-)

Rob C

And with that mixed metaphor, I will give you the last word Rob.  Besides, you will take it anyways.
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: Rob C on June 28, 2010, 03:16:41 pm
Quote from: James R
And with that mixed metaphor, I will give you the last word Rob.  Besides, you will take it anyways.



It's the weather....

;-(

Rob C
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: douglasf13 on June 28, 2010, 06:52:54 pm
Quote from: Don Libby
Phase One P45+ average file size: 42.544kb
Leica M9 average file size: 35,580kb
Canon 1DsIII average file size: 24,202kb
Canon 1DsII average file size: 16,531kb

I've used the M9 handheld, on a monopod and on my primary tripod and in each case the image file is stunning.  Is it better than medium format? No.  Do I like it better than the files the 1DsIII produce?  Yes.  Again the answers depend on how exact the captures were taken.

  Interesting.  FWIW, my A900's file size is around 38,500kb per raw.  I would have thought the Phase One's was bigger.
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: ndevlin on June 28, 2010, 08:16:03 pm
Quote from: douglasf13
Interesting.  FWIW, my A900's file size is around 38,500kb per raw.  I would have thought the Phase One's was bigger.

I don't think you can read diddly into these numbers -- I can see no difference between the compressed Raw and Uncompressed Raw files on the M9. I suspect that file size varies largely on the basis of the cameras' proprietary RAW compression capabilities.

That said, the M9 is supposedly a true 14 bit camera, same as the D3x in 14 bit mode, which should make some difference to both file size and quality.

- N.
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: tnargs on June 29, 2010, 08:38:24 am
Quote from: telyt
I agree.  You've demonstrated the need.  What you need to do is let go of your own biases and pay attention to those who use the equipment.

(EDIT) On further thought, I'm wondering why it matters to you that others prefer to use the M9.  What's most important to you is that you're satisfied with the results you're getting from your camera.
It doesn't matter to me at all what anyone prefers. Preference, like taste, is personal, and I respect that in every way.

But the game is on when people make claims of objective superiority. These claims are fair game. The person making the claim should do some research first, or measure it, or have properly controlled (double blind or a reasonable approximation thereof) assessments made to confirm it. Like Rob C said in this thread, "folks tend to see what they want to see", which is fine, until they claim that what they see is objectively true.

Mr Perkins made two significant objective claims:
1. the M9 and its lenses are significantly lighter than dslr kit. Well, I questioned that by proposing an equivalent dslr kit that weighs less.
2. the M9 kit's images have a 'luscious' quality, a special look, and a particular level of 'beauty'. This is an objective claim, that the lenses themselves and the images in the camera have these qualities. I took the bait and asked the forum if these claims are really true, objectively true, when producing realistic prints with a similar-weight, good quality dslr kit.
 
Arg
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: tnargs on June 29, 2010, 08:50:55 am
Quote from: James R
...You made a claim that there is no difference between a print made from a Canon 550D and a Leica M9.  However, you do put qualifiers on the comparison.  Unfortunately, you make a claim and then tell us to prove it.  ...
Actually Mr Perkins made a claim, that images from his M9 kit have special attributes, and I only asked that it be demonstrated objectively. That fact that I suggested a 550D for the comparison (purely because it weighs less and has the same 18MP) does not mean I am the one making the claim.
 
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: larsrc on June 29, 2010, 09:09:04 am
Quote from: Rob C
I giggle quietly - okay, sort of sotto voce, if you will - when I read about these awful, time-comsumig problems with starting up a dslr before it can shoot.  I never experience any such thing: I have but one af lens which is seldom used and the rest are the latest manuals. I have set the two bodies to as close to manual as dammit and nothing could be simpler in the field. Menu? What menu? The matrix metering is very accurate, you can either check your screen for the highlight sparkle or look at a histogram, exactly what I suppose the Leica offers; you can choose to do neither and just trust the meter. (One must learn to forget all about those siren bells, whistles and buttons; they're for the camera club smoking room.)

You want more simple?

Rob C

I don't know what those "awful, time-consuming problems with starting up a dslr" would be. Mine is just on all the time, it doesn't eat any battery when sleeping, so why turn it off? All important settings are changable with a button + dial, no need to go into menus. I hardly ever have to go outside Aperture Priority and Manual modes (not shooting any sports). Yes, there's a lot of features that I never use and that I don't really think belongs on the camera, but they don't get in the way. As you say, one must learn to forget about all the bells & whistles. Goes for any camera except a Holga, which has none.

-Lars
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: James R on June 29, 2010, 11:38:23 am
Quote from: tnargs
It doesn't matter to me at all what anyone prefers. Preference, like taste, is personal, and I respect that in every way.

But the game is on when people make claims of objective superiority. These claims are fair game. The person making the claim should do some research first, or measure it, or have properly controlled (double blind or a reasonable approximation thereof) assessments made to confirm it. Like Rob C said in this thread, "folks tend to see what they want to see", which is fine, until they claim that what they see is objectively true.

Mr Perkins made two significant objective claims:
1. the M9 and its lenses are significantly lighter than dslr kit. Well, I questioned that by proposing an equivalent dslr kit that weighs less.
2. the M9 kit's images have a 'luscious' quality, a special look, and a particular level of 'beauty'. This is an objective claim, that the lenses themselves and the images in the camera have these qualities. I took the bait and asked the forum if these claims are really true, objectively true, when producing realistic prints with a similar-weight, good quality dslr kit.
 
Arg

I believe what he said was, "What I was working with now was a camera that is..."  (emphasis added by me), which compares his new Leica kit to his previous kit.  He is not saying it is the lighter than every DSLR.  I believe you are trying too hard to discredit him.  

"Luscious" and "beauty" are subjective terms and he uses them to describe the feeling he gets from Leica images. He wasn't baiting anybody, just expressing his opinion--OPINION.  Why would he care to test your "opinion."  His opinion is based on his body of work.  Maybe you need to buy an M9 and see if your opinions are correct.  If they are, then we have nothing more than a difference of opinion.  A long way to get nowhere.  



Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: dseelig on June 29, 2010, 05:52:15 pm
For me to carry two canon 5d mk 11 and a 24, 35 f1.4 and a 50 and 85 f1.2 lenses and 2 M9s a 24 35 50 and 75 luxes well. Between the size and weight well I do not want to carry the canon stuff. That is a real comparison not a bunch of f 2.8 lenses. The leica lenses will smoke the canon ones and the autofocus in low light on the 5d does not work that well. If I go to a1ds mk111 well that would be much heavier. I own both systems and love canons as well for certain work I have the Canon 35 and 50 and 85 lenses I am talking about I owned the older 24 1.4 eos. I will own the 24 1.4 vr 11 sooner or later. But for me the canons are for some assignment work the leica for my own work.
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: tnargs on June 30, 2010, 09:14:26 am
Quote from: James R
I believe what he said was, "What I was working with now was a camera that is..."  (emphasis added by me), which compares his new Leica kit to his previous kit.  He is not saying it is the lighter than every DSLR.  I believe you are trying too hard to discredit him.  

"Luscious" and "beauty" are subjective terms and he uses them to describe the feeling he gets from Leica images. He wasn't baiting anybody, just expressing his opinion--OPINION.  Why would he care to test your "opinion."  His opinion is based on his body of work.  Maybe you need to buy an M9 and see if your opinions are correct.  If they are, then we have nothing more than a difference of opinion.  A long way to get nowhere.
...funny old world.... author writes an article, makes a couple of claims...... someone suggests the claims can be objectively checked..... others respond with mostly negativity.... gently chiding the objectivist.... who now questions himself, maybe he lacks artistry or a 'good eye'...? (He certainly lacks the resources....)

Maybe this is not a good forum for myth-busting....   ....it once was though, read the old cognitive dissonance article on LL.... "The dissonance thus lay in the fact that I had the audacity to claim that a mere fixed lens digicam could actually be a useable alternative to an interchangeable lens DSLR. The fact that this particular camera, the Sony, had some image characteristics that were inferior when judged at relatively large enlargement sizes was seized on as proof that I must be wrong." ... I think LL has also published the odd article that it was hard to distinguish prints from certain famous cameras from certain cheapie cameras...?

Is there a wealthy engineer    in the house? With a bit of time to spare?       A bit dangerous though.... we might learn something counter-intuitive.....

Testing a Leica 'by eye' is hopeless.... like road testing a Ferrari.... "I took it commuting at 60km/h and I was stunned, I was shocked.... I could feel the latent power coursing through my veins... worth every penny to have that feeling". Which is fine... just subjective impressions... not generated by the car, rather triggered by its presence.... Then they make the mistake: "this car is amazing!".....

OK I give up.... the gracious loser..... the silent few who might agree need no more from me....  
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: telyt on June 30, 2010, 10:57:46 am
Quote from: tnargs
OK I give up.... the gracious loser.....

Thank you, but that's not very gracious.
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: fredjeang on June 30, 2010, 01:16:55 pm
Let me put it in another way about the M.

In a world where they think we have to have some technical assistance to go to pee, where the most advanced technology is given to us almost for free,
where the sexy is the siliconed and the agencies are finding their ressources in Flickr for free, where the top models are crying under the strong lightnings
and the AD are playing with their I.PAD while the photographer and tech are trying to make all those devices work properlly.
A world where the adventurers are risking their lifes with the GPS and the I.phone connected to Mayday radio.

Simplicity, pureness and minimalism are indeed a luxury, and as any luxury, it is expensive.

This M puts the photographer on chalenge and deserves respect. IMO.
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: feppe on June 30, 2010, 03:38:49 pm
Quote from: fredjeang
Let me put it in another way about the M.

In a world where they think we have to have some technical assistance to go to pee, where the most advanced technology is given to us almost for free,
where the sexy is the siliconed and the agencies are finding their ressources in Flickr for free, where the top models are crying under the strong lightnings
and the AD are playing with their I.PAD while the photographer and tech are trying to make all those devices work properlly.
A world where the adventurers are risking their lifes with the GPS and the I.phone connected to Mayday radio.

Simplicity, pureness and minimalism are indeed a luxury, and as any luxury, it is expensive.

This M puts the photographer on chalenge and deserves respect. IMO.

Or as I said elsewhere, Leica has managed to make lack of features seem desirable. No mean feat.
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: Rob C on June 30, 2010, 04:43:42 pm
Quote from: feppe
Or as I said elsewhere, Leica has managed to make lack of features seem desirable. No mean feat.



That might be a little harsh, feppe, it's more that it is an object of desire per se.

If you looked at the video that Michael published here of his visit to the Leica factory, you may remember the interview with the boffin, an M9 sitting the while on the table, moved this way and that, and I can tell you, I never owned a Leica but I couldn't get my eyes off the beautiful thing: it was like seeing a beautiful woman at a party and wondering how in hell you can ask her to pose for you when you know she isn't a model, doesn't want to be and would possibly scream blue murder if you asked. Not to scream, to model, I mean.

It transcends the practical; it isn't even just junk jewellery, it has something quite unique in the world of cameras. I have never lusted after a contemporary Hasselblad at several times the price of the little M9; no, it is the damn thing itself; it is its own raison d'être and not a lot of things attain that status in my eyes.

Rob C
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: feppe on July 01, 2010, 05:16:46 am
Quote from: Rob C
That might be a little harsh, feppe, it's more that it is an object of desire per se.

If you looked at the video that Michael published here of his visit to the Leica factory, you may remember the interview with the boffin, an M9 sitting the while on the table, moved this way and that, and I can tell you, I never owned a Leica but I couldn't get my eyes off the beautiful thing: it was like seeing a beautiful woman at a party and wondering how in hell you can ask her to pose for you when you know she isn't a model, doesn't want to be and would possibly scream blue murder if you asked. Not to scream, to model, I mean.

It transcends the practical; it isn't even just junk jewellery, it has something quite unique in the world of cameras. I have never lusted after a contemporary Hasselblad at several times the price of the little M9; no, it is the damn thing itself; it is its own raison d'être and not a lot of things attain that status in my eyes.

Rob C

Fortunately I'm impervious to such lust for material things - unless we're talking about Harleys...
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: fredjeang on July 01, 2010, 07:09:52 am
Quote from: feppe
Fortunately I'm impervious to such lust for material things - unless we're talking about Harleys...
See?

So you can understand the all process then. It is just a question of where you put your unrational desire(s) in.

Under the window of my studio, there is a areographer that paints harleys, and not far away, a Harley garage.
I've never seen people spending so much money, time and reparations with their bikes.
And the bloody noise they do when I'm concentrating in my tasks is just fun...

Easy rider myth is exactly the same as the red dot myth.

Both are the essence of something.
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: ndevlin on July 01, 2010, 08:45:24 am
Quote from: feppe
Or as I said elsewhere, Leica has managed to make lack of features seem desirable. No mean feat.

Precisely. And seriously. If (when)  photography is a function, performed for the sole end of producing a particular image, a whiz-bang dslr is usually better.  If (when) photography is an end in itself - a process with an intended outcome but undertaken in part for its own sake - the simplicity and mechanical purity/quality of the Leica makes it better for some of us.

The Harley analogy is apt. if your goal is transport from A to B, the Harley is a lousy answer for myriad reasons (cost, comfort, performance, lack of cargo space, noise).  But if your goal is to ride then, for many, doing it with a Harley is part of the essence of the experience.

Those of us who feel this way about Leicas are not deluding ourselves.  There are a lot of other things I would do with the money I spend on the red dot if I weren't actually getting something out of it. I have sufficient money to afford a Leica, but not mindlessly unlimited resources.  It is a serious choice and commitment. It's also not just about what some call 'psychological compensators', either.  I sold my M8 at great loss because I felt it was inadequate as a photographic tool.

I would also never rely on a Leica M to make a living as any sort of commercial shooter (which I have done). That would just be stupid. I would own a whiz-bang DSLR (several of them) and maybe a MFSLR.  Like James, I would have the Leica too, if I could afford it, because it would allow me to cook something special every now and again.  But mostly I would work with sufficiently sharp zooms on cameras that could get them in focus on whatever I was being paid to put in front of my camera.

All that said, there is (thankfully) a phalanx of rich nobs who think the most expensive camera must be best, and can afford it. These blessed folk keep Leica alive (any contribute to the well being of Phase and other companies as well) for the benefit of those of us who have somewhat more considered reasons for owning these very special tools.  

Photography is both an art and a science. The M Leicas are good at the science (if not always the best) and rather strong on the art in the right hands.

If you don't agree, that's cool. If you don't agree because you have a different vision of the art that you can articulate, then I'm listening, because that's interesting.  If you disagree because you don't agree on the measurement of the art part, then I just don't care. And I mean that in a nice way. If the paintings in this room of the gallery don't move you, walk to the next.

Cheers,

- N.
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: Rob C on July 01, 2010, 09:42:43 am
Quote from: feppe
Fortunately I'm impervious to such lust for material things - unless we're talking about Harleys...



Ah... so there's a hint of the wish for self-destruction lurking behind that considered, sober facade!

But I can understand that too well too; I used to have a 500mm cat lens and the number of times I used it is represented by the very few shots in my website where its use is obvious.

And you know what? It lay unused for years and then I traded it in for something I can no longer remember (breaking, retroactively, my new rule of selling nothing!) and guess what: I am currently looking around the web with the vague idea of getting another one. I sold the first one because it was mine in the days when ordinary people were not allowed CB radio, possession of which, of itself, would have caused customs problems on arrival at some of the airports we visited (in Cyprus, my wife was pulled into an office and questioned for some time because her name was the same as somebody on a 'wanted' list, despite the fact that we had been met at the airport by a representative of the Cypriot Tourist Board), and how could you make yourself heard by some poor girl standing several hundred feet away from you in the surf if not via some form of radio? The lens vignetted like crazy and the definition was never really convincing for anything other than effect shots. And yet, I'm teetering on the verge of getting one again. It isn't the missing perfection, it's probably because of the effect of those bright doughnuts, the compression and not a lot else.

So yes, trifling RF failings can always be accommodated where there is the will!

Rob C
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: feppe on July 01, 2010, 10:26:26 am
Quote from: fredjeang
See?

So you can understand the all process then. It is just a question of where you put your unrational desire(s) in.

Under the window of my studio, there is a areographer that paints harleys, and not far away, a Harley garage.
I've never seen people spending so much money, time and reparations with their bikes.
And the bloody noise they do when I'm concentrating in my tasks is just fun...

Easy rider myth is exactly the same as the red dot myth.

Both are the essence of something.

Agreed to a certain extent. The main difference is that I don't go around posting on motorcycle forums how my Harley goes from 0-100kmh in 3.7 seconds, to 160kmh in first gear, or has 100 more horsepower than the Japanese bikes which sound more like sewing machines than motorcycles.

In other words, I know that Harleys are inferior to much cheaper Japanese bikes on many objective metrics, but choose to ride one because it is the only true bike there is for me (although Indian and Triumph are close as well). Many Leica owners, on the other hand, seem to claim superiority on objective metrics where they aren't.
Title: The M9 for landscape
Post by: fredjeang on July 01, 2010, 10:43:19 am
Quote from: feppe
Agreed to a certain extent. The main difference is that I don't go around posting on motorcycle forums how my Harley goes from 0-100kmh in 3.7 seconds, to 160kmh in first gear, or has 100 more horsepower than the Japanese bikes which sound more like sewing machines than motorcycles.

In other words, I know that Harleys are inferior to much cheaper Japanese bikes on many objective metrics, but choose to ride one because it is the only true bike there is for me (although Indian and Triumph are close as well). Many Leica owners, on the other hand, seem to claim superiority on objective metrics where they aren't.
Feppe, I add an important name on your list: Ducati.

[attachment=22886:robert_l...nce__46_.jpg]
Title: Re: The M9 for landscape
Post by: achrisproduction on January 14, 2011, 04:43:53 pm
I'm selling my M9 for a 550d and non-L glass.  You convinced me, I'm just not sure of what!  Maybe understanding the great photographic philosopher Ken Rockwell will provide the insight.  Maybe people see what they want to see regardless of the price of the gear.
goodluck.  ::)
Title: Re: The M9 for landscape
Post by: PierreVandevenne on January 14, 2011, 07:50:06 pm
Testing a Leica 'by eye' is hopeless.... like road testing a Ferrari.... "I took it commuting at 60km/h and I was stunned, I was shocked.... I could feel the latent power coursing through my veins... worth every penny to have that feeling". Which is fine... just subjective impressions... not generated by the car, rather triggered by its presence.... Then they make the mistake: "this car is amazing!".....

Obviously, you haven't driven a Ferrari. But have you at least tested a Leica?

Testing by eye hopeless? Hmmm, what is photography about? Have you found a way to test pictures without images? I am as rational as anyone when it comes to things that are measurable - at some point we have to agree that "photographc DR" doesn't exceed "engineering DR" or, if it does, the issue is that we are talking about something else than DR. But liking or not liking a picture is by definition highly subjective, and there are two essential unescapable requirements: the eye (at leat one) and the brain.

I think the main mistake people who spend a bunch on esoteric cameras make is that they try to justify/validate the purchase by claiming their property possesses some dubious technical advantage (impossibly higher DR, amazing lenses, etc). They shouldn't bother. Firstly because it is rationally doomed - the sensors, regardless of their sizes, are produced be similar processes. Then because the most important factor is how they use their thing.


Title: Re: The M9 for landscape
Post by: PierreVandevenne on January 14, 2011, 08:45:24 pm
In other words, I know that Harleys are inferior to much cheaper Japanese bikes on many objective metrics, but choose to ride one because it is the only true bike there is for me (although Indian and Triumph are close as well). Many Leica owners, on the other hand, seem to claim superiority on objective metrics where they aren't.

Yup, that really leaves me puzzeld. A few years ago, we had DSLRs, and Leicas, and large format cameras, and so on... and we had film too. At that time,nobody argued that the 50 ASA Ilford (or whatever) film they used somehow acquired magical qualities in one body or the other. The differenciating factor was the format, and its consequences on weight, lenses, workflow and final resolution because of film size. There was a price difference too. That hasn't changed. The price difference today for bodies is still a bit bigger than it used to be (because silicon economics came into play and it is basically as hard to build a larger sensor than it is to build a processor with a larger numbers of transistors at a given scale, with the additional constraint that reducing sensels size isn't as beneficial as reducing transistor size) but we are trending towards the old film based camera pricing structure (Pentax 645d and Nikon 3DX for example - whole systems are likely to be close in price).

Here's my theory.

- the old reasons to use non DSLR formats are still there. There are as valid as ever.
- the price difference between different formats or niche vs mass market products was (and still is to some point) bigger than it used to be.
- manufacturers had to find additional reasons to justify the exponential (actually squared plus a niche market premium) price differential.
- photographers were, in general, uneducated about CCDs
---> marketing saw the weakness and hammered it....
suddenly CCDs, a straightforward signal measuring device if there ever was one, acquired semi-magical properties.

PS: wouldn't BMWs be a good compromise between Harleys and Ninjas? ;-)
Title: Re: The M9 for landscape
Post by: Wayne Fox on January 15, 2011, 11:03:10 pm
Yup, that really leaves me puzzeld. A few years ago, we had DSLRs, and Leicas, and large format cameras, and so on... and we had film too. At that time,nobody argued that the 50 ASA Ilford (or whatever) film they used somehow acquired magical qualities in one body or the other. The differenciating factor was the format, and its consequences on weight, lenses, workflow and final resolution because of film size.
The idea "Leica glass" is special has been around a very long time ... it wasn't about format or film.

It is true the glass Leica uses to make their lenses is created in a very proprietary manner, in fact the equipment used by Corning to manufacturer the glass is owned and controlled by Leica. (this according to my Leica rep) If you've ever seen a piece of the raw glass is it is obviously different ... I've never seen anything quite like it.  It is claimed the process creates a purer glass and is part of the secret to the look of Leica images.  Only very small batches can be made, and the raw glass is heavier, which is purportedly why the Leica lenses seem "heavy" for their size and more expensive.

I really have never formed an opinion one way or the other, even though I'm currently carrying a small M9 setup as backup for my medium format gear.  But it is a debate that has existed for probably half a century and indeed the "glass" used to make the lenses is different.
Title: Re: The M9 for landscape
Post by: ErikKaffehr on January 16, 2011, 12:06:08 am
Hi,

Erwin Puts is an expert on Leica optics and has a small article putting the optical glass issue in perspective: http://www.imx.nl/photo/optics/page146/page146.html

Modern optical glass comes in many variation. Some glass doesn't even contain silica. Glass can also have very different physical properties, can be soft, brittle, hard to polish. Optic makers use a lot of different glasses. Probably all makers, including Leica, use a lot of glass from glass vendor's catalogues, but may add some glass developed in house having special properties.

Erwin's articles are worth reading...

Best regards
Erik

The idea "Leica glass" is special has been around a very long time ... it wasn't about format or film.

It is true the glass Leica uses to make their lenses is created in a very proprietary manner, in fact the equipment used by Corning to manufacturer the glass is owned and controlled by Leica. (this according to my Leica rep) If you've ever seen a piece of the raw glass is it is obviously different ... I've never seen anything quite like it.  It is claimed the process creates a purer glass and is part of the secret to the look of Leica images.  Only very small batches can be made, and the raw glass is heavier, which is purportedly why the Leica lenses seem "heavy" for their size and more expensive.

I really have never formed an opinion one way or the other, even though I'm currently carrying a small M9 setup as backup for my medium format gear.  But it is a debate that has existed for probably half a century and indeed the "glass" used to make the lenses is different.

Title: Re: The M9 for landscape
Post by: dturina on January 16, 2011, 03:04:45 pm
The concept of a tiny, high resolution camera with excellent small lenses for landscape photography is very appealing. However, here are some of my thoughts on this.

First, landscape photography means tripod. This already weighs you down to the point where a tiny difference between a 5d MkII and M9 becomes irrelevant. If you shout out of hand (as most Leica shooters seem to), that's all fine, but then forget perfectionism of resolution, forget blue hour and forget blurred water, which all in all means forget most of landscape photography.

Second, with Leica you use primes, which is all great but my experience is that in landscape photography you sometimes don't have much choice in your position, and a short tele-zoom is what it takes to get that perfect shot of mist in the canyon. Zooming with your legs is a nice sound bite, but in reality it results in lost opportunities.

Third, shooting with a polarizer with a rangefinder is a huge pain. Shooting with a polarizer and ND grad cokin plates even more so.

Fourth, not all the things you see in nature are landscape. Sometimes you need a closeup shot of that hummingbird and with M9 you can kiss it goodbye.

Fifth, sharpness. You don't usually shoot landscapes at f/1.4. In fact, my usual stop is f/13, which gives me DoF without losing much to difraction. All my Canon lenses are perfectly sharp at landscape stops. If there's a problem I don't have with 5d, it's lack of sharpness.

Sixth, Leica users talk much about a huge SLR and a huge bag of lenses as their demon sheep competition. Sorry folks, but I usually have one lens on the camera, another one in the pocket along with a spare battery, my wife carries the tripod and off we go. It's not like I'm carrying an elephant. OK, if I'm riding a bike for 40 km, half of it uphill, then I feel all the weight, but that's where I wouldn't carry my tripod, either, and if I wanted a camera for that, it would be something along the lines of micro 4/3, because an M9 wouldn't really fit into my jacket because let's face it, it's really not all that small.

So Leica, to me, just isn't practical as a landscape camera.
Title: Re: The M9 for landscape
Post by: sojournerphoto on January 16, 2011, 04:42:11 pm
First, landscape photography means tripod. This already weighs you down to the point where a tiny difference between a 5d MkII and M9 becomes irrelevant. If you shout out of hand (as most Leica shooters seem to), that's all fine, but then forget perfectionism of resolution, forget blue hour and forget blurred water, which all in all means forget most of landscape photography.



You have a very narrow view of landscape photography!

I am perfectly happy to accept that the Leica wouldn't fit for you, but to suggest that it's not suitable for anyone is a bit of a stretch.  I have an M9, which works perfectly well alongside my Zeiss Ikons, for what I want. I also have other cameras that I would use when I was going to take a tripod along. To be fair, I don't identify as a lanscape photographer.

Mike
Title: Re: The M9 for landscape
Post by: dturina on January 16, 2011, 04:49:28 pm

You have a very narrow view of landscape photography!

I am perfectly happy to accept that the Leica wouldn't fit for you, but to suggest that it's not suitable for anyone is a bit of a stretch. 


Where did you manage to read that?
Title: Re: The M9 for landscape
Post by: sojournerphoto on January 16, 2011, 05:28:08 pm
Where did you manage to read that?

Really no offence intended - it came out in a  bit of a rush, but I suspect that somewhere there is someone who enjoys his or her landscapes at slow shutter speeds and handheld, for whom the camera shake is a part of the aesthetic. They'll be on flickr somewhere, or try the figital revolution.

You're right, I don't see 35mm rfs, whether digital or film as tripod cameras. I don't have a QR plate for them, so if I want to put them on a tripod it will be the old one, which won't hold them still anyway.

Cheers

MIke
Title: Re: The M9 for landscape
Post by: dturina on January 16, 2011, 05:36:41 pm
Really no offence intended - it came out in a  bit of a rush,

But just so there won't be any confusion, I'm speaking for myself only, and even that is limited to what I currently do, which is very prone to change. I'm perfectly aware that there are dozens of landscape styles (in a technical sense) out there and they seem to work just fine for those who use them. Me, I combine closeup and landscape motives in a way that wouldn't really work with a camera that doesn't do everything through the lens. Someone else might do something I haven't even thought of.
Title: Re: The M9 for landscape
Post by: tom b on January 16, 2011, 08:16:05 pm
Did I miss something?

Michael has a M9 and yet all I see are GH2 images.

Is there something I should know?

Cheers,
Title: Re: The M9 for landscape
Post by: dchew on January 16, 2011, 09:13:13 pm
See his post here (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=49242.0).

Dave

Did I miss something?

Michael has a M9 and yet all I see are GH2 images.

Is there something I should know?

Cheers,
Title: Re: The M9 for landscape
Post by: eleanorbrown on June 24, 2011, 09:49:02 am
Regarding the use of the M9 for landscape...I was determined to travel light on my Arctic expedition so took my m9 and 4 Leica lenses...I was pleased with the results and have started to put a few M9 images at this link for anyone interested.  The M9 lenses render water beautifully....highly recommended for landscape especially if one wants to travel very light.
Eleanor

http://web.mac.com/eleanorbrown/ELEANOR_BROWN_PHOTOGRAPHY/Arctic_2011.html
Title: Re: The M9 for landscape
Post by: Rob C on June 24, 2011, 11:13:46 am
Regarding the use of the M9 for landscape...I was determined to travel light on my Arctic expedition so took my m9 and 4 Leica lenses...I was pleased with the results and have started to put a few M9 images at this link for anyone interested.  The M9 lenses render water beautifully....highly recommended for landscape especially if one wants to travel very light.
Eleanor

http://web.mac.com/eleanorbrown/ELEANOR_BROWN_PHOTOGRAPHY/Arctic_2011.html



 
Okay, a small question. I'm not the hottest PSer in the world, never will be even close; having laid out my stall I dare ask the question: accepted that the water pix are attractive enough in their own right, do I see burned out highlights that digital seems to find almost impossible to do as well/acceptably as over-exposed film, and was this a conscious choice to allow to happen, or just digi falling into old habits, or a specific Leica failing? For me, it ruins good photographs. I also realise I have asked more than one question. ;-)

Rob C
Title: Re: The M9 for landscape
Post by: eleanorbrown on June 24, 2011, 12:22:06 pm
Hi Rob...good question.  I don't think the highlights were burned out in RAW...I was in a hurry to get some up on my site (just returned from the trip pretty exhausted and leave for Colorado tomorrow).  I was probably rushing in processing and also this may be the jpg conversion to some extent.  With the M9 one really needs to expose for the highlights for sure, cause once lost (as with any digital device) there is no retrieving them! Eleanor
Title: Re: The M9 for landscape
Post by: Rob C on June 24, 2011, 02:54:04 pm
Hi Rob...good question.  I don't think the highlights were burned out in RAW...I was in a hurry to get some up on my site (just returned from the trip pretty exhausted and leave for Colorado tomorrow).  I was probably rushing in processing and also this may be the jpg conversion to some extent.  With the M9 one really needs to expose for the highlights for sure, cause once lost (as with any digital device) there is no retrieving them! Eleanor


Thanks, Eleanor, I'll look forward to seeing what you can do with the files when you have settled from your travels. Enjoy the Colorado trip!

Rob C