fredmiranda.com

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1 2 3 … 5

7 … 10 11 end

Archive 2009 · M9 or something else?

James R
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #1 · M9 or something else?

Size is one element, but weight is a bigger difference to me. With batteries, the D700 weighs 2X the M9. The Canon 5D2 is 3/4 of a pound heavier without its battery. I won't bother mentioning my D3's weight. Now add a lens equivalent in IQ to Leica's lenses to the D700 or 5D2 and the weight diff really goes up.

Nov 13, 2009 at 04:55 PM

PhotoMaximum
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #2 · M9 or something else?

Just jumping back into this whole M9 vs DSLR debate once again and I see its still raging.

A lot of the discussion is on micro comparisons over size. I really do not find the 5D II that big that I would not carry it with me on a picture outing. I have a 5D mk I with battery grip and metal RRS L bracket and it gets slung on my shoulder without a thought as well. A 28 or 50 lens with the lens hood folder back in a bag is no big deal. The M9 is smaller for sure, but we are talking about a few cm and a couple hundred grams in weight. For the average outing not exactly a huge deal.

I know the appeal of the Leica, its coolness and size and all. But the thing is just so darned expensive. What happens if you are used to shooting with a wide range of lenses and more than one body at a time? You can buy two 5D II bodies and a kit of great versatile lenses for the price of one M9 body alone. I shoot a lot of stuff with two or three bodies at once, with a kit of lenses, including a 70-200 and its nice to have all the flexibility with all my Canon and alternative glass...

My statement here is in the spirit of "or something else" topic and not an attack on Leica fans...

Nov 13, 2009 at 05:22 PM

Makten
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.6 #3 · M9 or something else?

PhotoMaximum wrote:
What happens if you are used to shooting with a wide range of lenses and more than one body at a time?

Then an M Leica is not the camera for you.

Nov 13, 2009 at 05:36 PM

atufte
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #4 · M9 or something else?

atufte wrote:
It's all about the lenses, the camera body does not matter that much... my choice is small MF for personal work, and large a bulky AF for commercial work...and the best of all, i only need one camera..

By this i mean, 5D MKII with manual lenses for personal work, and large bulky L lenses for commercial work...

And this is not flaming of Leica as some suggest, i have used Leica for decades and still do...

Nov 13, 2009 at 05:38 PM

brainiac
Offline
[X]

p.6 #5 · M9 or something else?

Makten wrote:
How about a REAL comparsion? An M with 40/2 and a D700 with 40/2, side by side:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v621/Makten/PB130237.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v621/Makten/PB130239.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v621/Makten/PB130240.jpg

The Voigtl�nder 40/2 Ultron is the smallest lens available for Nikon F mount. Yet it's large compared to the little Summicron-C 40/2.
The M is an M8 in this case, which is a 1,33x crop camera. But the M9 is identical in terms of size and weight.

D700 with battery: 1074 grams
Ultron 40/2: 200 grams
Total: 1274 grams

M9 with battery: 585 grams
Voigtl�nder 40/1.4 (just for fun): 175 grams
Total: 760 grams

And that's still one full stop advantage for the M9, if we're talking about DOF. When it...Show more →

Thanks Makten - that's a great insight.

Nov 13, 2009 at 08:04 PM

thrice
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #6 · M9 or something else?

Collapse that summicron and the difference becomes bigger still. How do you find the collapsible summicron? I'm looking for a very sharp portable 50 for daylight, carrying the 50/1.1 nokton only to shoot at f/4 seems a little ridiculous, I can use ND filters but still very heavy.

That's one thing that wasn't really mentioned in previous SLR vs Rangefinder debates, using high power ND filters on a rangefinder doesn't impede your focusing/viewfinder.
I have an ND1.8 (6 stop) that I use on the Nokton, I tried it on a 50/1.4 on my 5D and couldn't see jack, no pretty shallow DOF during bright sunlight with that combo, I tried with an ND0.9 (3 stop) and it was still very frustrating.

Got my thumbs up CSEP-4 today, pretty sweet using the 25mm auxiliary finder and CPL finder at the same time

A total of 3 finders to look through to accurately focus, expose and frame the shot! Rangefinders definitely aren't quicker in that situation, but a heck of a lot of fun.

Nov 13, 2009 at 09:13 PM

James R
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #7 · M9 or something else?

Thrice,

Just received a Thumps Up CSEP-1 from Tim yesterday. Well made, but, like all things Leica, a tad expensive. I'll probably regret not getting the 4.

Nov 13, 2009 at 09:52 PM

ulrikft2
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #8 · M9 or something else?

A M8/M9 with a small, f/1.4 normal (CV 35 1.4/40 1.4/50 1.4) is... tiny compared to a d700 + sigmalux 50 1.4 or even a rokkor 58 1.2 or nikon 50 1.4 af-s. Especially if you want to go holding it an entire day, being ready for that magic shot. But taste differs. I realized how heavy my 24/50/85+d700 kit was this summer, walking 10-18 hour days photographing. It makes photography less fun, and that just.. ain't right

the d700 rocks, I just have to get something else as a smaller... in-hand-camera.

Nov 13, 2009 at 09:55 PM

thrice
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #9 · M9 or something else?

I had aches in my middle finger for a couple of days after shooting a whole day non-stop (wedding) with the 5D-II + flash + small lens ... I can't imagine how pros do it day in day out. Every time I took a grab shot with the M6 + flash + 35/1.4 it was so relieving

The IQ out of my 5D-II was amazing though

Nov 13, 2009 at 10:01 PM

Pindy
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.6 #10 · M9 or something else?

Interesting discussion. Using a borrowed M6 (own a D700) and I'm simply falling in love. I like manually focusing, which is the biggest surprise. It's not for everything but I like being in control again. My biggest gripes about the D700 (and all the Canon DSLRs I've owned previously) are the size and the way bringing along a body and a couple extra lenses becomes this commitment and also the paparazzo factor. I have the wonderful 14-24mm but have put off, for the past 9 month, buying the 24-70 or the 70-200 because of the sheer scale and something in me cries foul when I see how big these hulking AF lenses have become.

Apart from that, I love the D700 and everything it stands for. But the M6 is gonna be very hard to give back. It is the most discrete camera I have ever used and that is my primary goal�to not attract attention.

Nov 13, 2009 at 10:12 PM

orangefirefish
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #11 · M9 or something else?

Pindy wrote:
Interesting discussion. Using a borrowed M6 (own a D700) and I'm simply falling in love. I like manually focusing, which is the biggest surprise. It's not for everything but I like being in control again. My biggest gripes about the D700 (and all the Canon DSLRs I've owned previously) are the size and the way bringing along a body and a couple extra lenses becomes this commitment and also the paparazzo factor. I have the wonderful 14-24mm but have put off, for the past 9 month, buying the 24-70 or the 70-200 because of the sheer scale and something in...Show more →
I feel you- the D700 is awesome and it's not going anywhere. It does all that a digital camera should and is a very powerful tool. I don't feel constrained by the size because when I need to use it, I am prepared for it and I know its image quality and function are absolutely crucial- much more important than weight/size. If the M9 could produce high ISO IQ like the D700, I would consider it even at $7k.
There are times for DSLRs, and moments for RFs. Choose the tool that fits the type of work you do.

Nov 13, 2009 at 11:31 PM

thrice
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #12 · M9 or something else?

orangefirefish, I see we both have the 25/2.8 Biogon, great lens

I used to own the fantastic 35mm summarit and see that you have the 50, is it as good as Sean Reid's review implies? It apparently has a little focus shift but that doesn't bother me too much (I have a 35 lux asph).

EDIT: what a coincidence I see you're selling it ha! Of course you're going to say nice things about it now

hmm your price is very good, damn if the payment for my 5D-II comes through quickly I might be in trouble!

Cheers,
Dan

Nov 14, 2009 at 12:31 AM

atufte
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #13 · M9 or something else?

thrice wrote:
Collapse that summicron and the difference becomes bigger still. How do you find the collapsible summicron? I'm looking for a very sharp portable 50 for daylight, carrying the 50/1.1 nokton only to shoot at f/4 seems a little ridiculous, I can use ND filters but still very heavy.

That's one thing that wasn't really mentioned in previous SLR vs Rangefinder debates, using high power ND filters on a rangefinder doesn't impede your focusing/viewfinder.
I have an ND1.8 (6 stop) that I use on the Nokton, I tried it on a 50/1.4 on my 5D and couldn't see jack, no pretty shallow DOF...Show more →

The collapsable lens is a Elmar 50/2.8, and it's a very nice lens if you can live with the speed (or lack off) the downside with the collapsable lenses is that they won't focus closer than 1m...which i hate because it makes close portraits impossible...

BTW! I never use a ND filter with my DSLR camera, because of the 1/8000 shutter i rarely feel the need for it, but for my film M's with it's 1/1000 shutter it's very important...

So that's not a big problem after all....

Nov 14, 2009 at 04:41 AM

carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #14 · M9 or something else?

brainiac wrote:
I'm not proselytising, I'm considering the alternatives like the thread title says.

You? Mwahahaha, Brainiac, we all know that *you* aren't *considering* anything. You've got what you want, a Canon.

If you want to do comparisons, put equivalent lenses on.

Nov 14, 2009 at 05:34 AM

carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #15 · M9 or something else?

brainiac wrote:
Scale looks good to me. But the SLR's should be wearing their f1.8 standards to compete, or better still, Ultrons.

Actually, for this comparison, they should be wearing 35mm f/1.4 lenses, unless you want to change the Leica lens too. There are some lenses available for the 5D2 (with adapter) which compare well in size and quality with the M lenses. However, there are loads more which just don't. The 35mm f/1.4 focal length is one. If you want to get an SLR lens with similar quality (Contax, Leica R), it will be huge in comparison, somewhere between 2-3x times as large, depending on how you measure.

Anyway, the size discussion is silly. No one buys an M just because of size. Ultimately, if one doesn't need (or want) the wider range of focal lengths, the highest ISOs or the fast AF (not an issue for Alt'ers), there is no particular reason to buy a DSLR, other than price or personal preferences (and in that case, there is nothing to discuss), but there are good reasons to buy an M, starting with the accurate focusing with wide angles, the discretion of the camera and the excellence of the lenses, both Voigtl�nder, Zeiss and Leica.

Nov 14, 2009 at 05:45 AM

kosmoskatten
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #16 · M9 or something else?

James R wrote:
My proselytizing comment was more of a general comment and should not have been directed at you. However, a fair size comparison should be made using lenses of the same focal length and aperture, and those lenses should be somewhat equal in IQ. Hence, Canon's top 35 L against Leica's top 35. You mentioned the Leica 50 f0.95, which is a monster. I would consider it fair to compare it against Canon's 50 f0.95. Oh, that's right, Canon doesn't have an f0.95 lens, so any comparison would be misleading. BTW, how big would an f0.95 be if Nikon or...Show more →

I also think that when comparing the RF to SLR size for size one should definitely compare equivalent lenses and not factor in "one stop advantages in ISO performance" either way. And even if I do the Leica kit turns out much smaller than the equivalent SLR kit.
There is no way of getting around the fact that the M9 is a smaller package by some margin.

Richard; stick a 45/2.8 on a 5D and call it pocketable? Well, you must have some big pockets on you, or maybe you like baggy pants.

I don't think the M9 is pocketable either but it is smaller still.

I can easily fit the M9 (if I had it, still waiting...), a 28/2 a 50/2 and 75/2.5 and small flash plus spare battery in a Lowe Pro medium sized Binocular bag. Same bag would house only the 5D with a small pancake or 28/2.8 lens and spare battery. Maybe a charger. But I never bring a charger out on photo sessions.

Ok, so I could buy a bigger bag (well, already have one) but I hate lugging stuff around and think it is great to tote a small bag, sometimes in the comfort of the interior of my messenger bag.

A more practical approach (for me) is that when I have chosen my lenses for the M9 they are all relatively small in size (the 28 Summicron is very very small, the 28 Elmarit that I considered is tiny) and bringing three lenses bears a relatively small weight/bulk penalty. The faster lenses have a smaller weight/size penalty than equivalent SLR lenses but for me the f2 lenses are a "perfect compromise" for my style of shooting with RF taking sensor performance and size into account.

Even with the SLR (the A900 in my case) and the f2.8 lenses they are all larger and the whole kit is significantly larger. I really like the A900 but size wise it is a no contest. I get one stop faster lenses that are smaller in a body that is significantly smaller with the M9. And both are full frame.

I am not interested in comparing the M9 to crop cameras as I am not interested in crop cameras so even if they are quite small I don't consider them an alternative for me though I think some of them look pretty nice.

We have a Photo Fair here in Stockholm this weekend and I handled some of the stuff for fun and I kind of liked the Panasonic GF1 for size but got lost in the menus. The Ricoh modular system was ... interesting, but not for me. There was en exhibition of photos taken with the Oly EP1 but it was disappointing and the prints (around A3) were lacklustre. Played around with the M9 some and I look forward to receiving it but it is still just a box to me.

On a side note there were plenty of great photos on the open exhibition and it sifting through them was inspiring for sure. Not only is the quality higher than usual but there were first and foremost many great shots on display.

I spent two hours browsing photos, 30 min of browsing gear and another 30 min catching up with some old colleagues and people in the biz. A good ratio.

Nov 14, 2009 at 09:00 AM

kosmoskatten
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #17 · M9 or something else?

Oops, I didn't read Maktens post so my previous post feels redundant. Apologies.

Nov 14, 2009 at 09:07 AM

brainiac
Offline
[X]

p.6 #18 · M9 or something else?

thrice wrote:
I had aches in my middle finger for a couple of days after shooting a whole day non-stop (wedding) with the 5D-II + flash + small lens ... I can't imagine how pros do it day in day out.

Sometimes I will carry 3 EOS bodies for 12 hours or more, and my fingers, arms, shoulders, back and feet ache, but that's the job. I try to keep the weight down by avoiding 1 series bodies and using small flashes and the smallest lenses I can get away with. But the problem with M system is that it just can't compete. There is no AF, no liveview, no off-centre focussing, inaccurate framing, too poor a high iso performance, too slow a frame rate, no video, and the bodies are too expensive for me to carry three.

Honestly, the 500D is a far more effective tool for shooting a wedding. It's absurd to suggest that the M9 is suitable for this purpose purely on account of its size and weight. By that argument an IXUS is the best tool for shooting weddings.

Nov 14, 2009 at 09:15 AM

ulrikft2
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #19 · M9 or something else?

Noone is claiming that M-cameras are nice for weedings "purely on account of its size and weight"... that kind of strawmen is why I don't bother "arguing" with you on leicas RIchard

Nov 14, 2009 at 09:39 AM

brainiac
Offline
[X]

p.6 #20 · M9 or something else?

carstenw wrote:
You? Mwahahaha, Brainiac, we all know that *you* aren't *considering* anything. You've got what you want, a Canon.

If you want to do comparisons, put equivalent lenses on.

No Carsten - I'm a switcher. Over the years I have used gear made by Leica, Hasselblad, Mamiya, Rollei, Schneider, Zeiss, Nikon, Canon, Contax, Pentax, Bronica, Minolta and Fuji, to name a few. I have no brand loyalty whatsoever. I look at the tools, and how they perform the tasks I have to carry out, and how much they cost. I would have no hesitation in using M system if it made sense. But cost is a big issue, and if I can get the same job done while spending less, then that's the route I'll take. I would love to be able to use smaller and lighter cameras than the EOS kit that I use now, but I have to assess the utility of the gear in an unsentimental way. For example, I am much more enthusiastic about the M9 than I was about the M8, for the obvious reasons that it is now full frame, with better resolution and better high iso performance.

But the competition does not stand still, and I have to compare the camera with much cheaper and more feature-packed alternatives. That's what this thread is about. "M9 or something else." Wide apertures only really matter to me when there is little light, and so for my uses an f2 lens on a 5D2 competes directly with an f1.4 lens on an M, due to the sensor difference. Given that constraint, the M9 just isn't $5000 smaller and lighter than a 5D2 with an Ultron. If you're happy with an f2.8 lens, iso 2500 iso and no built-in flash then the M9 really is a bit smaller, for a price. I'm just saying that if you choose your lenses carefully on D700 or 5D2 you can get pretty close to the M9's size/weight, save $5000, and enjoy the benefits of a more versatile system.

As regards 'pocketability' as a threshold for size, for me it needs clarification. There are three kinds of pocket that I use:
- jeans
- suit breast pocket
- coat/parker side-pocket

The reality for me is that the M9 fails on the first two counts, and succeeds on the third. But so does my 5D2, so all that money spent on the comparatively modest reduction in size doesn't really represent good value, for me:
http://cyberphotographer.com/5d2/oly28pocket.jpg

Nov 14, 2009 at 09:46 AM

1 2 3 … 5 6 7 … 10 11 end
FM Forums \| Leica & Alternative Gear \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 5 6 7 … 10 11 end