returning to the Leica

[fredjeang]

M9...
Some time ago I had to do post prods in wich where involved M9 files and I was absolutly astonished by the quality of those being a small format. I had almost anything in my work except the D3x and to my taste the M9 files are on the very best I've seen. Maybe the lack of AA filter, the lens quality, whatever the reason is, such a quality in such a small package deserves a bravo to the german company.

It only lacks a video mode...I'm kidding.

Ps: I re-read the Russell's essay on the M8 after a thread where Cooter was talking about the skin tones of the M8 and to my surprise I saw that the beast can tether...oh well.

 

[JohnBrew]

Excellent review. After three years with an M8 I gave it up for FF. I miss it something fierce. Unfortunately an M9 was beyond my means at the time. I look forward to an M10 with live view and a self contained sensor cleaner (absolutely the worst drawback to the M8 was dust on the sensor) and perhaps enough money in the bank account to cover my share of Leica's development costs.

[Bill Caulfeild-Browne]

Excellent review. After three years with an M8 I gave it up for FF. I miss it something fierce. Unfortunately an M9 was beyond my means at the time. I look forward to an M10 with live view and a self contained sensor cleaner (absolutely the worst drawback to the M8 was dust on the sensor) and perhaps enough money in the bank account to cover my share of Leica's development costs.

Thank you, John. I can well imagine how you miss the M8 - the feel of the camera alone is worth some of the price! I have not found the M9 bad for dust - in the first month or so there seemed to be a couple oily spots on the sensor which I've since been informed were probably thrown off by the shutter. They were easily cleaned with a swab and Eclipse and since then I've only need the Arctic Butterfly about once a month.
Bill

[Rob C]

M9...
Some time ago I had to do post prods in wich where involved M9 files and I was absolutly astonished by the quality of those being a small format. I had almost anything in my work except the D3x and to my taste the M9 files are on the very best I've seen. Maybe the lack of AA filter, the lens quality, whatever the reason is, such a quality in such a small package deserves a bravo to the german company.

It only lacks a video mode...I'm kidding.

Ps: I re-read the Russell's essay on the M8 after a thread where Cooter was talking about the skin tones of the M8 and to my surprise I saw that the beast can tether...oh well.

 

Hi Fred

The last place where I was an employee was in a studio where the owner had both lllG and M3 Leicas as well as Nikon F and Mamiya, Rolleiflex and Sinar.

He ended up keeping the Leicas in a glass case. Seems that he found the Nikkors much better and the cameras just so much more versatile. I remember making prints of BBC tv room sets from the Leica and a 21mm lens of some kind – the quality was very different to Nikkor quality in its black/white tonality. I thought it much richer, but that was all it ever got used for that I can remember.

I never did have an M of my own, but often wished it worth while to buy one; now, I’d like an M9 but not on my money, thanks.

Rob C

[Noel Greene]

Lovely review Bill, a pleasure to read .. I like you am getting tired of lugging large DSLR's around .. and recently bought a GH2 and the relief in not having to carry large zoom Lens etc is palpable .. I would really consider buying the M9 but from what I read photographers wearing spectacles can have problems with focusing .. I have never owned a Leica but it seems it is really one of the best in the world

[dng88]

Try M8 and for the one year I have it, I think I have 2 photo I like out of 10k+ taken.  I think different people have different taste of the process.  One thing mention is that you get older you want that.  Not sure.  I get older I want more deliberate focusing. 

For general picture and if I can carry it, my 8x10 is better.  For day-to-day, I carry a Nex3 with my Hessy/Pentax67/Nikon lens.  The slow process of focusing manual lens using the back (zoom in) is enjoyable.  I like the rendering of an old 1960s 50F4, cosmetic challenge ... but just feel I am taking a picture.  Also, whilst not macro, they can take picture close.  I use a bit Leica lens but they cannot focus as close as 19 inches (the 50F4 etc.) and I cannot use a Nikon Kenko adapter to shorter it further (my Pentax67/Hassey adapter is too big to carry).

Of course, from time to time, I may try my Nikon chasing the eagle flying in front of my balcony -- they are < 100 feet and you have to use the short end of the tele. zoom.  But for the last 4 year they avoid me when they saw the camera! 

No desire. 

BTW, I can imagine those pictures posed should be very great but the web cannot exhibit it. 

[Bill Caulfeild-Browne]

Lovely review Bill, a pleasure to read .. I like you am getting tired of lugging large DSLR's around .. and recently bought a GH2 and the relief in not having to carry large zoom Lens etc is palpable .. I would really consider buying the M9 but from what I read photographers wearing spectacles can have problems with focusing .. I have never owned a Leica but it seems it is really one of the best in the world

Noel, I wear glasses and have no problem, though I will admit the frame-lines for 28 mm lenses are very close to the edge of the viewfinder and do require a bit of "peering". But the 35-135 range is just fine.

Thank you for your kind comment!

Bill

[JeanMichel]

Hi Bill,
I enjoyed your "Returning to the Leica" contribution to this site and visiting your own site. If I purchase an M9 now rather than later it will be partly your fault! I now use a Canon 5D2 and I am quite happy with it but miss working with M cameras -- 3 film bodies relegated to a camera bag and since I moved and no longer have a darkroom they may be there for quite some time yet. I resisted getting an M8 then and M9 as I was (is) worried that my rather old lenses (1960 35 Summicron with goggles; 1967 50 Summicron; 1973 135 Tele Elmarit and a recent VC 21) would not perform too well on an M9. Seeing your work, although I am more of an urban photographer, does make me itch to reach for a Leica.

As for glasses, Noel, I wear glasses too and in the past have worn ground-glass circles into my eyeglass lenses as I do a kind of round the frame head movement in order to see all corners of the frame. I actually mostly 35 with goggles on the M4 or M6 in order to use the 50 frame, and kept my 50 on the M3 (the goggles were designed in order to use the 35 on the M3 which does not have framelines for a 35). To protect my glasses I eventually glued on a rubber washer around the viewfinders, effective. The beauty of using an M primarily with a single lens is that you have the frame imprinted in your retina and that you only have to lift the camera and press the shutter -- exposure and focus pretty much already predetermined.

Jean-Michel

[Noel Greene]

Thanks Jean Michel .. but I am so used to autofocus now that I cannot see myself moving to a rangefinder system .. but I know from friends and from the many many posts on forums that the M9 is a classic .. 

[Bill Caulfeild-Browne]

Hi Bill,
I enjoyed your "Returning to the Leica" contribution to this site and visiting your own site. If I purchase an M9 now rather than later it will be partly your fault! I now use a Canon 5D2 and I am quite happy with it but miss working with M cameras -- 3 film bodies relegated to a camera bag and since I moved and no longer have a darkroom they may be there for quite some time yet. I resisted getting an M8 then and M9 as I was (is) worried that my rather old lenses (1960 35 Summicron with goggles; 1967 50 Summicron; 1973 135 Tele Elmarit and a recent VC 21) would not perform too well on an M9. Seeing your work, although I am more of an urban photographer, does make me itch to reach for a Leica.

As for glasses, Noel, I wear glasses too and in the past have worn ground-glass circles into my eyeglass lenses as I do a kind of round the frame head movement in order to see all corners of the frame. I actually mostly 35 with goggles on the M4 or M6 in order to use the 50 frame, and kept my 50 on the M3 (the goggles were designed in order to use the 35 on the M3 which does not have framelines for a 35). To protect my glasses I eventually glued on a rubber washer around the viewfinders, effective. The beauty of using an M primarily with a single lens is that you have the frame imprinted in your retina and that you only have to lift the camera and press the shutter -- exposure and focus pretty much already predetermined.

Jean-Michel

Thanks Jean-Michel. Leicas certainly aren't for everything and as Noel points out, autofocus is mighty handy. I couldn't conceive of doing bird photography, for example, without (a) a tele longer than 135 mm and (b) autofocus. Nonetheless, others have done it - even if their hit ratio was pretty small.

The M9 is really a light compact way of getting full frame pix of the highest quality. Once one starts adding things like autofocus and bells and whistles, you might as well go full-frame DSLR because your weight/size savings will vanish.

It's a tool for certain tasks in certain conditions. It is not as versatile as a DSLR but it's extremely good at what it does do.

Please note, other readers of this thread, that I will not be able to respond to further posts for while as I'm on my way overseas for a month - with my M9!

Cheers,
Bill

[James R]

Good article.  I added the M9 late in '09.  It is such a joy to use. 

[John Camp]

I just sold off all my digital Leica equipment (an M8 and a half-dozen lenses and ancillary gear) keeping only an M7 and two lenses. The image quality was good, but my hit rate was too low, and I never did get all my lenses working the same way with the body. I also began moving away from Nikon at the same time, looking for something small and fast. I've landed with Panasonic and with the Pentax K5. The Pentax is actually a bit smaller than the Leica in frontal area, though it's twice as thick -- the weight is close, with the Pentax about 3 ounces heavier (but it's also weather-proofed.) What I'd really like to see sometime is not a pixel-peeping sensor comparison, but prints (not monitor images) from a very serious printer, doing his best with images from the major brands, in a few standard-sized large prints. I suspect the result would be that most people wouldn't see any difference, at least below 24 inches or so. To me, Leica was really mostly about the camera and its handling and the process, which in itself may make some people better photographers, and other people worse.

[DaveCurtis]

Great article Bill!

The more I use manual focus Zeiss lenses on my Canon 1DS3 the more I wish I had a M9 with Leica glass. For some types of photography the M9 must be the way to go. The Leica glass interests me as much as the camera.

Perhaps I'll wait to the M10

[Rob C]

Great article Bill!

The more I use manual focus Zeiss lenses on my Canon 1DS3 the more I wish I had a M9 with Leica glass. For some types of photography the M9 must be the way to go. The Leica glass interests me as much as the camera.

Perhaps I'll wait to the M10

That'll be even more expensive, if that matters to you.

I suspect that in the end, all this minute diffence between A, B and C comes down to next to nothing. The real differences are as John says: matters of personal adaptability to different styles of mechanical usage. Ergonomics. I do think that in film days it did make a difference: I was able to see differences between prints that I made, coming off Leica negs and Nikon. As far as trannies went, never saw any from the M3 or 111G that lived in the boss's studio, but I did once have to print a Ciba from a trannie that I was assured had come from a Leica, and I'm not sure if the 'better' look of the original was only in my mind or not. That I remember this may be as much a result of the expected/perceived Leica magic that is built into photo history.

But, transport the experience into digital and who really knows? So many things seem to depend on events post-exposure that it's a brave man indeed that sticks his head above the parapet and makes a definitive claim.

Rob C

[DaveCurtis]

Yes, good points Rob.

I was just looking at a 35mm lens comparison over at Fred Miranda - Alternative gear forum. A M9 +35mm lux against 5D with various Zeiss 35mm and others.

The 35mm f1.4 lux. is just amazing even at f1.4. And I not just talking about pixel peeping.

But as you say, a fair amount of $$ come into play here. One can only dream!