Thanks for the heads up Makron ... that line issue is why I sent my M8 back despite it being one of my all time favorite bodies to shoot with ever. After two trips I regrettably gave up. I'd hate to see this affect the M9. I wonder if its the kodak sensor?
kosmoskatten wrote:
The only thing holding me back is that if I got that set up Brainiac would be complaining about the lack of bokeh and threedee from the Leica lenses, and I can't bear that. I just can't.
;-) so use the also wonderful Zeiss ZM and Cosina Voigtlander lenses. There are lots of great lens options for the M even if, like me, the Leica lens design priorities aren't to your taste.
rico wrote:
...the M9 has turned everything around (AA filter excepted)...
I forgot to add AA filter to my list of things that Leica has got right at last in the 9. Look at that UWA building shot: very few instances of moire affecting edges. With the M8 that shot would have false colours along all the edges. This shot only shows red fringing in one or two very specific places. I'm not sure why, but it looks more like a sensor effect than CA. Certainly it looks like 18Mpixel and the correct scale of AA filtering is giving a much more polished result. Tin-foil hat wearers will bemoan the lack of pixel-grid crispness and claim that USM is heresy, but all in all it looks like M9 detail is way better than M8, and moire is all but gone. Nice work Leica.
Holy lack of moire filter Batman. The site is now back up, those are impressive resolution wise. I could live with the chroma noise at ISO 800+, that's not so bad to fix in post.
kosmoskatten wrote:
If the M9 had in body IS I could live with ISO 2500 knowing most of the Leica M glass perform great wide open.
If this had in-body IS (and perhaps Live-View, which should have be easy to do in a rangefinder) it would have made this much more competitive, especially given the price.
What jumps out at me from those comparisons is how good and crisp the iso 80 Leica file seems - and it is a "pulled iso". I sure like it ... though at other iso's the gap between the two are close enough for me not to get excited one way or another. But think about it this way ... how good it is to be close, never mind equal or better, to a sensor like that in the class leading D3x. Not bad. If only those lines stay out so it does not suffer a (deservedly) bad rap like the M8.
Ok, I don't know if I should make a new thread, but I should probably give people here a heads up that I'm parting with 4 of the best leica R lenses, 3 of which are commonly considered the zenith for their focal length in the SLR realm. This is on-topic for this thread since it's active and I'm using the acquired funds for an M9.
Lotusm50 wrote:
If this had in-body IS (and perhaps Live-View, which should have be easy to do in a rangefinder) it would have made this much more competitive, especially given the price.
Think about it, what is IS useful for? photography of static subjects without a tripod right?
If you're shooting landscape you have a tripod.
If you're shooting architecture you either have a tripod or you can usually brace against a hard wall or handhold at a much slower shutterspeed (1 stop I notice, some people will argue this) than an SLR.
Otherwise it's people, and you need higher ISO for this because you need the shutterspeed. Most of my people shots (unless they're holding still) need around 1/60s->1/180s unless shooting with an ultra-wide.
I have had IS lenses and while they're a great compensator for poor technique, they cannot replace a faster shutterspeed.
Not implying you have poor technique, I think you're a great photographer I'm just saying that IS has limited uses for a lot of genres to which the M series is suited. Leica probably wanted to minimise electronic moving parts.
Agreed, Thrice. While IS certainly wouldn't hurt, it seems a lot less necessary, since you can handhold a RF with a stop or two slower shutter speed compared to a DSLR. Oh man, I'm really thinking about trading in everything for this M9, because the RF style of shooting really fits what I do. Maybe I'll wait to see how you feel about yours when it arrives?
I'm really at a cross roads with this camera. I'd have to literally sell ALL of my A900 gear to fund it, and, although I'm not sure that I'd enjoy the output of the M9 much more than the A900, I know that I would enjoy working with the camera much more. Plus, I use a 50mm lens for a large majority of my shooting, so I wouldn't need to go out and blow $10K on a few new lenses (although my uncle has a bunch of M lenses sitting in a box, and he may let me borrow them indefinitely.) Heck, I may even consider the Zeiss lenses for the M9, as it's not so much the Leica look that I'm after, but rather the working style. Dang it Zeiss Ikon, where's the competitor?
thrice wrote:
Think about it, what is IS useful for? photography of static subjects without a tripod right?
If you're shooting landscape you have a tripod.
If you're shooting architecture you either have a tripod or you can usually brace against a hard wall or handhold at a much slower shutterspeed (1 stop I notice, some people will argue this) than an SLR.
Otherwise it's people, and you need higher ISO for this because you need the shutterspeed. Most of my people shots (unless they're holding still) need around 1/60s->1/180s unless shooting with an ultra-wide.
I have had IS lenses and while they're a great compensator for poor technique, they cannot replace a faster shutterspeed.
Not implying you have poor technique, I think you're a great photographer I'm just saying that IS has limited uses for a lot of genres to which the M series is suited. Leica probably wanted to minimise electronic moving parts....Show more →
I agree to the letter, though I happily admit that IS in the Sony has been useful on static subjects in dim light, enabling me to keep ISO levels lower.
I am no fan of hauling tripods so those borderline moments when IS can help has made a difference, of course only for static subjects.
Since I am quite used to RF cameras I think I could live without IS. As it stands now I could just (and scraping the bottom of the barrel, barely) afford the M9 but the price is holding me back for now since I have just invested in Sony dSLR and conversions and haven't even explored that system yet. But maybe next year when M9īs are out and about I could add one or switch. I am keen on the 28/2.8 asph but not sure on what 50mm to get, Summicron, Z or other. Also not sure on the 75mm APO, I think it would work wonders for me but I feel a bit anxious traveling around with such an expensive system. If the camera was $3000 + lenses I would feel slightly anxious and now it is twice that. I could never tell my girlfriend how expensive it is and eventually when she drops it on some concrete floor she will wonder why I am crying my heart out and stabbing myself with my lead pencil, wishing I would die swiftly from lead poisoning.
kosmoskatten wrote:
.... I could never tell my girlfriend how expensive it is and eventually when she drops it on some concrete floor she will wonder why I am crying my heart out and stabbing myself with my lead pencil, wishing I would die swiftly from lead poisoning.
Although in the 200-400 range the M9 seems to be pulling more detail, the halftone dot pattern in particular.
and I'm using the acquired funds for an M9.
