Topic: Diglloyd reviews the M9 (Read 13461 times)

ErikKaffehr · « **on:** November 16, 2009, 12:53:07 pm »

Hi,

Lloyd Chambers has tested the M9 in real life shooting and found a lot of issues, both on the sensor side but also with focusing ability.

The page is here: http://www.diglloyd.com/prem/prot/DAP/LeicaM9/index.html

The "DAP" part of Lloyd Chambers site is a pay-site, but his writing is generally a good read and very careful in his analysis. So the 30USD the DAP costs is a great investment for anyone planning to spend like 10k on a camera/lens combo.

Best regards
Erik

BernardLanguillier · « **Reply #1 on:** November 17, 2009, 06:19:09 pm »

Quote from: ErikKaffehr

Hi,

Lloyd Chambers has tested the M9 in real life shooting and found a lot of issues, both on the sensor side but also with focusing ability.

The page is here: http://www.diglloyd.com/prem/prot/DAP/LeicaM9/index.html

I wouldn't buy a M9 before having read this.

The sensor issues were a surprise, but the difficulty to focus accurately should have been obvious to anyone having trying to optimize sharpness with recent DSLR equiped with live view.

Cheers,
Bernard

helged · « **Reply #2 on:** November 17, 2009, 06:47:46 pm »

A follow-up question to Lloyd´s review: Any comments/solutions to the documented color cast problem with Zeiss ZM 21/4.5 Biogon?

Best,
helge

kers · « **Reply #3 on:** November 17, 2009, 07:40:42 pm »

It is amazing that a company so dedicated to optical excellence makes cameras that cannot be focussed precisely , while the technique is already there.

feppe · « **Reply #4 on:** November 17, 2009, 07:50:30 pm »

Quote from: kers

It is amazing that a company so dedicated to optical excellence makes cameras that cannot be focussed precisely , while the technique is already there.

Not so surprising looking at their history with digital.

ErikKaffehr · « **Reply #5 on:** November 17, 2009, 08:01:47 pm »

Hi,

Let's be a bit more positive. Issues are found and most will probably sorted out.

The other problem that Lloyd found is that focusing accuracy is an issue with the longer lenses and that the range finder framing is not accurate enough. He also lack Live View. These problems are probably more like inherent in the concept and will not be fixed.

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: feppe

Not so surprising looking at their history with digital.

TMARK · « **Reply #6 on:** November 17, 2009, 09:57:19 pm »

Funny, the first M8 I used had focusing issues. The one I bought two years later focuses very nicely. I'll wait another year or so before I pick one up.

JeffKohn · « **Reply #7 on:** November 17, 2009, 10:56:24 pm »

Quote

The other problem that Lloyd found is that focusing accuracy is an issue with the longer lenses and that the range finder framing is not accurate enough. He also lack Live View. These problems are probably more like inherent in the concept and will not be fixed.

But those are pretty big issues for a lot of people. What's the point of a high-res sensor if you can't focus accurately enough to take full advantage of its resolution.

If they had gone with CMOS instead of full-frame CCD, implementing live-view would have been easy. Some might disagree but to me the benefits of CMOS outweigh the benefits of FF-CCD at this point in time. The image quality gap is getting smaller and smaller with each new generation of CMOS, but FF-CCD isn't getting any better at addressing its weaknesses.

ErikKaffehr · « **Reply #8 on:** November 18, 2009, 12:13:07 am »

Hi,

Yes, the focusing accuracy issue is serious also in my opinion. Now, Lloyd Chambers is very careful with focusing, much more than most of us, I guess.
Erwin Puts, who seems to be a kind of Leica Guru says that there is a viewfinder loupe which is an absolute necessity for accurate focusing with longer lenses.

The problem is simply that it is a part of the concept, it seems that the mechanical precision may be good enough, but viewfinder magnification is to small for exact focus. Leica could increase viewfinder magnification but viewfinder would not work some of the shorter lenses.

I guess that the Leica is a very enjoyable camera but perhaps not the ultimate picture taking equipment it could have been with a more modern concept.

All this points deserve good consideration before parting from like 10k $

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: JeffKohn

But those are pretty big issues for a lot of people. What's the point of a high-res sensor if you can't focus accurately enough to take full advantage of its resolution.

If they had gone with CMOS instead of full-frame CCD, implementing live-view would have been easy. Some might disagree but to me the benefits of CMOS outweigh the benefits of FF-CCD at this point in time. The image quality gap is getting smaller and smaller with each new generation of CMOS, but FF-CCD isn't getting any better at addressing its weaknesses.

Paul Roark · « **Reply #9 on:** November 18, 2009, 12:14:05 am »

Quote from: JeffKohn

... What's the point of a high-res sensor if you can't focus accurately enough to take full advantage of its resolution.

If they had gone with CMOS instead of full-frame CCD, implementing live-view would have been easy. ...

Live view -- TLR -- viewing with the M lens mount might be the new platform to beat. I'd guess Zeiss and Cosina will get there before Leica.

Note that such a system would allow tilting the sensor to achieve better focus control with the entire M lens mount line.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

ErikKaffehr · « **Reply #10 on:** November 18, 2009, 12:20:46 am »

Hi,

It can be done already, mounting a Leica-R lens on a Canon or almsot any lens on a micro 4/3 body.

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: Paul Roark

Live view -- TLR -- viewing with the M lens mount might be the new platform to beat. I'd guess Zeiss and Cosina will get there before Leica.

Note that such a system would allow tilting the sensor to achieve better focus control with the entire M lens mount line.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

BernardLanguillier · « **Reply #11 on:** November 18, 2009, 01:49:12 am »

Quote from: ErikKaffehr

Hi,

It can be done already, mounting a Leica-R lens on a Canon or almsot any lens on a micro 4/3 body.

They can also be mounted on Nikon bodies thanks to this adapter of which I have just purchased a copy (not used yet though).

Cheers,
Bernard

MarkL · « **Reply #12 on:** November 18, 2009, 07:46:06 am »

This also isn't helped by the fact that many of the lenses front and back focus

georgl · « **Reply #13 on:** November 18, 2009, 07:47:53 am »

Leica implemented a new calibration system in 2007 - calibration issues have become rare since then and most likely are a side effect of transport (you never know what happened to it until it reached the dealer).

Never had any of these issues with my 2006 M8 (one of the very first 2000) in the past 3 years or with any other M-body.

I don't know what digiloyd wrote in this review but focus precision can be calculated and compared to some degree to SLR-systems. The effective base length of the M8/9 makes it more precise than a SLR with lenses below 75mm focal length. It also absolutely no problem to focus a f1.4 50mm - but you have to get used to the rangefinder-principle.

The sensor delivers pristine quality at ISO160 and 320, comparable to most DSLRs up to 1000-1250ASA - I don't know if I would trade this quality in favor of usable 2500-6400ASA.

There are some rumors that Leica works on an EVIL-system to offer the combination of the M & R-system - but live-view would have been great with the M9 for sure, tripod-work is a pain in the a**.

sandymc · « **Reply #14 on:** November 18, 2009, 08:15:52 am »

Quote from: helged

A follow-up question to Lloyd´s review: Any comments/solutions to the documented color cast problem with Zeiss ZM 21/4.5 Biogon?

Best,
helge

It's a well known problem with not just Zeiss lenses but also some of Leica's lenses e.g., the 18mm, and has been discussed on the LUF extensively. Till Leica come up with a fix, CornerFix (http://sourceforge.net/projects/cornerfix/) can correct the problem if you don't mind the extra step in post.

Sandy

Paul Roark · « **Reply #15 on:** November 18, 2009, 11:12:58 am »

Quote from: ErikKaffehr

It can be done already, mounting a Leica-R lens on a Canon or almsot any lens on a micro 4/3 body.

The optics of interest to me are the rangefinder wide angles. Leica R wide angles are retrofocus and subject to the same difficulties of design as any other make's retrofocus lenses. The Photodo.com tests show them to be, on average, good but not spectacular lenses. There are other SLR wide angles that test out as just as good as the Leica R wides.

The advantage of rangefinder cameras is that they get away from the mirror and allow symmetrical wide angles. These are easier to correct and make for simpler, smaller, lighter lenses that are better. A TTL (live view) M mount would allow both these wide angles and accurate telephoto focusing on a full frame sensor. (Then there is the tilt possibility to really make things interesting.) The parts are in the bin for Consina-Zeiss or someone else to do this, and it could be a spectacular platform.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

BJL · « **Reply #16 on:** November 18, 2009, 02:31:37 pm »

Quote from: Paul Roark

Live view -- TLR -- viewing with the M lens mount might be the new platform to beat. I'd guess Zeiss and Cosina will get there before Leica.

To add the Erik's reply, M mont lenses can also be used on m4/3 bodies ... but with a heavy crop that kills the wide options.

Hopefully the forthcoming Samsung NX ("Micro DX format") will likewise have a short enough registration distance to allow M mount adaptors: the side view images of NX prototypes show a quite shallow body. So you gain a little more wide angle coverage, but still ...

Maybe the question is if and when a company that truly understands the digital side of cameras (e.g. Canon or Nikon, not Leica) will launch an E.V.I.L. (mirrorless) full 35mm format system with registration distance compatible with an M mount adaptor.

Or maybe the time will come for someone like Zeiss or Cosina or even (swallowing its pride as a formerly very important camera maker) Leica to make high quality third party prime lenses for EVIL systems, in the Four Thirds to APS-C format sizes which I expect to dominate that type of camera. I agree with your guess above, as Zeiss has been far quicker at swallowing its pride and offering lenses in Nikon and Canon mounts.

stever · « **Reply #17 on:** November 18, 2009, 02:41:34 pm »

unfortunately i don't think it's quite that easy

in order to use rangefinder-type lenses, the senso must have tilted microlenses like the M9 or something equivalent and to get the most out of lenses of Leica quality, it would be nice to have a full-frame 25-30 mp sensor. right now only Sony-Nikon and Canon have both technology and resources to do this (some others like Dalsa may have the technology but not the resources). Sony, Nikon, and Canon are not going to make bodies for Leica lenses, and they're probably not going to introduce a new system format with family of top quality lenses in the near future - or probably at a price much different from Leica

i'm afraid we may have to wait for the M10 and hope that Leica stays healthy

there are a lot of good reasons why rangefinder cameras are a niche product for a limited range of conditions and subjects compared to SLRs - a really high quality mirrorless camera would put Leica back in the main stream

Dan Wells · « **Reply #18 on:** November 18, 2009, 03:29:53 pm »

It's too bad the new Samsung will use Optrontec lenses - an unknown Korean manufacturer that lacks an English website. The camera itself looks interesting, but I would assume that, at best, this is the lens manufacturer who does Phoenix and store-brand lenses - hardly as reassuring as if the lens partner had been Pentax or Schneider (or Canon, Nikon, Leica, Zeiss, even Tamron, Sigma or Tokina, etc...). Some speculation says that they also do the low-end Samsung compact lenses (the better ones are Schneider). It may adapt to take M lenses (although they are tricky, because they have shallow back focus themselves), but more likely is that it will take just about any SLR lens as a manual lens, but not an M lens, due to back focus issues.

-Dan

BJL · « **Reply #19 on:** November 18, 2009, 04:55:17 pm »

Quote from: stever

in order to use rangefinder-type lenses, the senso must have tilted microlenses like the M9 or something equivalent ...

True at least for getting good wide angle coverage with current microlenses ... though some of the newer CMOS sensors such as Panasonic's LiveMOS are apparently fairly good at accepting off-perpendicular light, and Dalsa says that its new microlens design essentially eliminates the off-perpendicular problem without needing the off-set fanciness. Makers of EVIL camera systems might follow Dalsa by refining sensor and microlens designs to accept highly off-perpendicular light, to allow greater flexibility and compactness in EVIL wide-angle lens designs. Already, the Panasonic 20/1.7 m4/3 lens is far more compact than its 25/1.4 SLR lens despite being only slightly slower and significantly wider, but that is only slightly wide.

My money is still on a middle way: EVIL wide angle lens designs that do not need to be as severely retro-focal as for SLRs, but with exit pupil high enough for the sensors to handle off-perpendicular light adequately, so maybe not the simplest, smallest classic rangefinder designs.

Given the enthusiasm for using all kinds of 35mm format legacy lenses on m4/3 bodies, despite the heavy FOV crop, I see a market for high quality third-party prime lenses here.

Author Topic: Diglloyd reviews the M9 (Read 13461 times)