Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6   Go Down

Author Topic: M9 Review Discussion  (Read 55280 times)

TMARK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1841
M9 Review Discussion
« Reply #60 on: September 22, 2009, 02:53:20 pm »

I'll shoot my M8 for a long, long time.  Its great for editorial with a 50mm or 28mm. The files are the best I've seen from anything other than an MFDB.  Better than what I've seen from the M9 thus far.

Quote from: pom
The M9 is the camera that the M8 should have been. Methinks it (M8) will not be in anyway timeless but rather quickly forgotten and pushed under the carpet.
Logged

Alex MacPherson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 292
    • http://alexmacpherson.com
M9 Review Discussion
« Reply #61 on: September 22, 2009, 03:06:26 pm »

Quote from: TMARK
I'll shoot my M8 for a long, long time.  Its great for editorial with a 50mm or 28mm. The files are the best I've seen from anything other than an MFDB.  Better than what I've seen from the M9 thus far.

Really? Wow. Is it the M8 or the M8.2?  Leica glass...nuff said.
Logged
Alex MacPherson

Visit My Website

SCQ

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 23
M9 Review Discussion
« Reply #62 on: September 22, 2009, 03:18:12 pm »

Quote from: pom
The M9 is the camera that the M8 should have been. Methinks it (M8) will not be in anyway timeless but rather quickly forgotten and pushed under the carpet.

Could the same not be said of the M9 when the M10 comes out? There really is no timelessness with digital. Sure, you can argue that the M9 may have better resolution and low light handling than any piece of film out there now, but come a new sensor that can shoot noiseless files at 6400 ISO with a sensor that out-resolves a Summilux at f/8 and the M9's going to fade into obscurity as well. I suppose in a way, the M8 is sort of the M5 of digital - but I still love my camera, and it still has produced some of the sharpest images I've ever weened out of a digital camera.

Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
M9 Review Discussion
« Reply #63 on: September 22, 2009, 04:36:23 pm »

Quote from: SCQ
Could the same not be said of the M9 when the M10 comes out? There really is no timelessness with digital. Sure, you can argue that the M9 may have better resolution and low light handling than any piece of film out there now, but come a new sensor that can shoot noiseless files at 6400 ISO with a sensor that out-resolves a Summilux at f/8 and the M9's going to fade into obscurity as well. I suppose in a way, the M8 is sort of the M5 of digital - but I still love my camera, and it still has produced some of the sharpest images I've ever weened out of a digital camera.




I like the reference to the M5; had you been talking wheels it could have been the Edsel but never an M5!

Realistically, you are horribly right. I bought my D700 just a couple of weeks ago not because I think it is the second or third best of the line, but because it`s the basic step that takes me into Nikon FF and allows me to use existing glass. I have no illusions that it won't be obsolete before the flowers spring forth again, but I don't give a damn about that. It is as good as it needs to be to keep me happy and printing at A3+ at a pretty cool level of excellence - if I can consistently make it do that with my limited digital skills. The beauty is that I know it isn't the camera's fault if something blows; I imagine even its bedmate the D200 is better than I am, but now my lenses are able to do what they were meant to do at their focal lengths! That playing field is now level and what will be will be.

Rob C

TMARK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1841
M9 Review Discussion
« Reply #64 on: September 22, 2009, 09:32:23 pm »

Quote from: Dolce Moda Photography
Really? Wow. Is it the M8 or the M8.2?  Leica glass...nuff said.

Yes, Dolce, its the real deal.  M8, Leica and Zeiss glass.  The Zeiss 21, 28, 35 and 50 1.5 and F2 are great.  The Leica 28 cron is amazing, although I like the Zeiss 28 better.  The Leica lenses have a different look, less contrast while being really sharp.  The 28 cron produces some incredible mids on b&w film.  I never used it really for fashion.  JR has some nice fashion with the M8,  I've used it for editorial portraits and for web based motion ads, in store displays, life style crap, head shots for a bunch of furniture designers.  For beauty I need TTL.  I tried beauty with a rangefinder, I shot a test with a Mamiya 7 and I hated the pics.  They weren't what I expected, while the RZ shots on both film and Aptus 54s were what I expected.
Logged

marcwilson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 411
    • http://www.marcwilson.co.uk
M9 Review Discussion
« Reply #65 on: September 23, 2009, 04:26:13 pm »

already here in the UK I'm seeing a slurry of used M8's...1 shop has gone from 1 to about 7 in just a few days, and original version bodies are appearing now for under 2k which is good for UK prices!

That pared with a nice 28 and 50/75 do still make a great combo if you need a set up for say travel / stock that is both discreet and high quality...more so than my electrical tape covered up 5d with 35 and 85mm lenses!

also I read an article today (can't remember where) talking about leica going from a camera for pj's to a camera for celebs (see Seal as their new spokesman, etc) but still surely they do make the best small but high end street / travel kit. (wether its a digital or a film M)

Marc
« Last Edit: September 23, 2009, 04:29:40 pm by marcwilson »
Logged
www.marcwilson.co.uk [url=http://www.mar

Bartie

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 32
    • http://
M9 Review Discussion
« Reply #66 on: September 24, 2009, 04:26:08 am »

Quote from: Bartie
Hi Guys,I`m after a bit of advice.I can feel an M9 purchase just around the corner and was wondering which lens to buy with it.
I asked the question earlier,Which lens would be a good first buy to start my journey into the Leica system.Any advise from you Leica Boys?................Please!
Logged

erick.boileau

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 468
    • http://
M9 Review Discussion
« Reply #67 on: September 24, 2009, 07:12:16 am »

yes which 35mm for a new M9 ? :-)
Logged

michael

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5084
M9 Review Discussion
« Reply #68 on: September 24, 2009, 08:41:06 am »

I'd go for the 35mm f/1.4 Summilux. This, together with the 50mm f/1.4 Lux and the 90mm f/2 Cron are the ideal three lens combo for an M. If you can pick up a good condition Tri-Elmar (28-35-50mm f/4) then you have a great walk-around combo as well. (The Tri-Elmar has been out of production for a couple of years but there's discussion of a new version).

Michael
Logged

Morris Taub

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 437
    • morristaubphotography
M9 Review Discussion
« Reply #69 on: September 24, 2009, 11:38:05 am »

Quote from: michael
I'd go for the 35mm f/1.4 Summilux. This, together with the 50mm f/1.4 Lux and the 90mm f/2 Cron are the ideal three lens combo for an M. If you can pick up a good condition Tri-Elmar (28-35-50mm f/4) then you have a great walk-around combo as well. (The Tri-Elmar has been out of production for a couple of years but there's discussion of a new version).

Michael

Hi Michael, thanks for this...if I wanted to go just slightly wider with a 28mm instead of the 35...what would you suggest...I'm liking this focal length a lot lately...

by the way, I really like the 'a paris' shot...the hand to the left almost looks like someone holding the frame of a photo of the woman in the store window...very cool...and that window looks so familiar...St. Germain des Pres maybe, near the church?...

Christopher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1499
    • http://www.hauser-photoart.com
M9 Review Discussion
« Reply #70 on: September 24, 2009, 05:29:54 pm »

Quote from: momo2
Hi Michael, thanks for this...if I wanted to go just slightly wider with a 28mm instead of the 35...what would you suggest...I'm liking this focal length a lot lately...

by the way, I really like the 'a paris' shot...the hand to the left almost looks like someone holding the frame of a photo of the woman in the store window...very cool...and that window looks so familiar...St. Germain des Pres maybe, near the church?...

It depends what you need. For example, I want small lenses and don't need anything faster than 2.8 or 4. So I would never invest money on a huge 35 1.4 or similiar. I think the 35 summarit is great, especially for the size and price. as for 29, I once again prefer the small 2.8.
Logged
Christopher Hauser
[email=chris@hauser-p

250swb

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 220
M9 Review Discussion
« Reply #71 on: September 25, 2009, 03:57:26 am »

Quote from: Christopher
It depends what you need. For example, I want small lenses and don't need anything faster than 2.8 or 4. So I would never invest money on a huge 35 1.4 or similiar. I think the 35 summarit is great, especially for the size and price. as for 29, I once again prefer the small 2.8.

I agree with you, a Summarit 28mm would be ideal if a 28mm was the first choice. But for a first Leica lens I'd still go with a 35mm, and possibly the Summicron f2 rather than the Lux f1.4. The 35 offers a classic field of view and if the user is new to rangefinders the 35mm frame in the viewfinder is easier to manage, as opposed to the experience of even some non-eyeglass wearers often needing to peer around the edge of the viewfinder to see the 28mm brightline.

Steve

schrodingerscat

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 374
M9 Review Discussion
« Reply #72 on: September 26, 2009, 12:43:08 am »

Quote from: michael
I'd go for the 35mm f/1.4 Summilux. This, together with the 50mm f/1.4 Lux and the 90mm f/2 Cron are the ideal three lens combo for an M. If you can pick up a good condition Tri-Elmar (28-35-50mm f/4) then you have a great walk-around combo as well. (The Tri-Elmar has been out of production for a couple of years but there's discussion of a new version).

Michael


Here here!

'cept my kit was a 35 1.4 that lived on the M3s and 4s I used for 30+ years, a 50 2.0, and 90 2.0.

Been fighting a series Of DSLRs, latest being a 5D II, for the last few years. Picking the thing up just doesn't feel right, but have been happy enough with the images. However...as mentioned by someone else, there is a combination of low contrast and sharpness(especially the 35/1.4) with the Leitz optics that is very hard to describe verbally.  

In fact, I just got a deal on a series 2 35/1.4 and anticipate picking up an M9 when they start showing up on the used market. Like with my first M's, will have to rely on being at the right place at the right time to afford the thing. It's still pretty damn funny to see the amount of rancor the name Leica stirs up. Heck, I was on unemployment when I got my first M3. How come the MF and LF folks don't engender the same responses? Their stuff is even more expensive.

PS - Michael : how is the finder accuracy with the M9?  They used to have parallax compensation. From what I've read here, it's either eliminated or inaccurate.

PPS - If you're going to go on about absolute image quality, use an 8X10 and drum scan or go home.
Logged

michael

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5084
M9 Review Discussion
« Reply #73 on: September 26, 2009, 06:09:47 am »

Quote from: schrodingerscat
PS - Michael : how is the finder accuracy with the M9?  They used to have parallax compensation. From what I've read here, it's either eliminated or inaccurate.

The M9's finder accuracy is quite a bit better than the M8's, but still not as good as one might want it to be. The nature of the beast.

Michael
Logged

georgl

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 140
M9 Review Discussion
« Reply #74 on: September 26, 2009, 05:44:32 pm »

"They used to have parallax compensation. From what I've read here, it's either eliminated or inaccurate."

Parallax compensation isn't the issue, it's the change of focal length depending on focus. The frame-lines of the M9 are calibrated for 1m distance - the M8 to 0.7m, the M8.2 to 2m.
Logged

Bartie

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 32
    • http://
M9 Review Discussion
« Reply #75 on: September 27, 2009, 12:33:26 pm »

Quote from: michael
I'd go for the 35mm f/1.4 Summilux. This, together with the 50mm f/1.4 Lux and the 90mm f/2 Cron are the ideal three lens combo for an M. If you can pick up a good condition Tri-Elmar (28-35-50mm f/4) then you have a great walk-around combo as well. (The Tri-Elmar has been out of production for a couple of years but there's discussion of a new version).

Michael
Thanks For that info Michael, It`s been a toss between the 35mm f1.4 summilux and the 50mm f1.4 lux and I think I`m going for the 35mm as my first lens.

Regards Andy
Logged

michael

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5084
M9 Review Discussion
« Reply #76 on: September 27, 2009, 01:41:10 pm »

Andy,

They are both superb lenses. It ultimately comes down to a matter of personal shooting style.

Michael
Logged

schrodingerscat

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 374
M9 Review Discussion
« Reply #77 on: September 27, 2009, 06:19:50 pm »

Quote from: georgl
"They used to have parallax compensation. From what I've read here, it's either eliminated or inaccurate."

Parallax compensation isn't the issue, it's the change of focal length depending on focus. The frame-lines of the M9 are calibrated for 1m distance - the M8 to 0.7m, the M8.2 to 2m.

Under what situations does this become a real problem?

Always composed for full frame with the M3 and 4 and never noticed any great discrepancy between the intended framing and that captured on film, or even thought about it. Now the various DSLRs...always have to take viewfinder slop into account.

So exactly what is the shift of say a 35mm 1.4 from 1 m to infinity? Or any of the other lenses used with the brightframes, for that matter?  Not finding much in a general search. Most posts seem to be about focus or zooms, not focal length shift, which would be the only thing to consider for brightframe accuracy.
Logged

georgl

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 140
M9 Review Discussion
« Reply #78 on: September 28, 2009, 07:30:24 am »

It's quite noticable, at infinity you might get a 5-10% larger area in the final image. But it's pretty much the same as with the film-Ms, we never realized it, because we had no instant image control ;-)
Just put a 35mm-lens (classic design, internal focusing may change the impact of this) on a SLR and focus between 1m and infinity, you will so how the image area changes.

This effect is called "breathing", it's an issue in cinematography, when the focus switches fast between fore- and background you'll notice a "zoom"-effect. Very advanced lenses (like Zeiss Master Primes, up to 50k$ each...) use double internal focusing to compensate it.
Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
M9 Review Discussion
« Reply #79 on: September 29, 2009, 06:52:50 pm »

Quote from: michael
I'd go for the 35mm f/1.4 Summilux. This, together with the 50mm f/1.4 Lux and the 90mm f/2 Cron are the ideal three lens combo for an M. If you can pick up a good condition Tri-Elmar (28-35-50mm f/4) then you have a great walk-around combo as well. (The Tri-Elmar has been out of production for a couple of years but there's discussion of a new version).

Michael

The 35 1.4 Summilux has some focus shift when closed down - I wonder if a 35 cron may not be a smarter move for the general shooter.

Edmund
« Last Edit: September 29, 2009, 07:00:02 pm by eronald »
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6   Go Up