p.5 #1 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
Well, if you shot with a FF 5D series the body is 810g which is only 225g more. If you are carrying this on your shoulder or in a belt bag that is not that much of a difference. I can see accounting for every gram if I was hiking the Andes but for bopping about the city or taking a two hour walk the weight difference is not going to kill me. If I am intent on going out to shoot photos then I will bring whatever I think I will need to get the job done.
I am aware of camera bulk though. The reason I prefer the 5D series to the 1D series (other than the cost) is that I can choose to add my battery pack to the 5D or not. The weight is not that big of a deal for me but the 5D becomes more compact with the battery off. I prefer to use the battery pack on most of the time as the balance and access to the camera controls feels WAY better when shooting vertical pictures.
p.5 #2 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
I found that my RF camera plus a lens or two was significantly less bulky than my DSLR (rebel) + a lens or two. Definitely smaller than the 1V. For me it was enough of a difference in size that I always bring it with me if I'm unsure as to whether or not I feel like bringing a camera, and never regret it, where history has taught me that when I was unsure before, the right move was to usually leave the (D)SLR at home. This makes more of a difference for the times when I'm not intent on making photos. I travel a lot for work and having an RF makes it easy to stash in my small carry on bag.
Oct 19, 2009 at 11:38 AM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.5 #3 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
slungu wrote:
If the SLR stays at home because I do not feel like going out with some kg of gear, then it is significant...
We've been over what an M9 can do that a 500D/Oly21 can't, but don't forget that there are quite a lot of useful features that the 500D has that are lacking in the M9, like pop-up flash, and 720p video.
While I would love to use an M9, and have plenty of experience with rangefinder (especially Mamiya 6), and ought to be Leica's target market because I shoot events and can live with the rangefinder limits, digital Leica is too expensive, too far behind the cutting edge, and the vaunted advantages are not significant enough compared to the limits and want of useful features, to persuade me to jump in. I really do appreciate the rangefinder way of shooting, because that's how I shoot. The problem is that the rangefinder way works just as well on a DSLR, whereas the converse isn't true.
Still, I think it's great that M system users now have a full-frame body to stick behind all those fine lenses, and I can understand why any M user would get this camera and continue in the rangefinder way. It's just not such an attractive proposition if you don't already have some investment in that system.
p.5 #4 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
The reason for the M9 is the rangefinder, IMO, nothing else. With everything I've seen (including playing with one in-store), I don't believe it is a serious challenge overall to my 5DMII. However I *really really* want a digital rangefinder -- and the Leica's are way more than I can spend, and the old Epson is to low MP and IQ for the price.
If the M9 was $2,500 I'd buy one yesterday. I just wish someone would make a good digital rangefinder I could afford
Oct 19, 2009 at 11:43 AM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.5 #5 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
akilah wrote:
The reason for the M9 is the rangefinder, IMO, nothing else. With everything I've seen (including playing with one in-store), I don't believe it is a serious challenge overall to my 5DMII. However I *really really* want a digital rangefinder -- and the Leica's are way more than I can spend, and the old Epson is to low MP and IQ for the price.
If the M9 was $2,500 I'd buy one yesterday. I just wish someone would make a good digital rangefinder I could afford
p.5 #6 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
akilah wrote:
If the M9 was $2,500 I'd buy one yesterday. I just wish someone would make a good digital rangefinder I could afford
I doubt anybody around here would refuse such a camera if there would be somebody to deliver such a thing. For the time being, there is nobody on the horizont, but who knows what future will bring...
p.5 #7 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
slungu wrote:
I doubt anybody around here would refuse such a camera if there would be somebody to deliver such a thing. For the time being, there is nobody on the horizont, but who knows what future will bring...
Actually, I bet people would still complain.
Just remember, one size does not fit all. People prefer to use whatever it is that they prefer, and when they state their preferences and reasoning, you have people come back and say, "But an SLR can do that tooo!!!!". Kind of pointless. But heck, I'm itching for a TLR which is totally obsolete, and has been for years.
I'm out.
Oct 19, 2009 at 11:54 AM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.5 #8 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
kidtexas wrote:
Just remember, one size does not fit all. People prefer to use whatever it is that they prefer, and when they state their preferences and reasoning, you have people come back and say, "But an SLR can do that tooo!!!!". Kind of pointless. But heck, I'm itching for a TLR which is totally obsolete, and has been for years.
We've been over what an M9 can do that a 500D/Oly21 can't, but don't forget that there are quite a lot of useful features that the 500D has that are lacking in the M9, like pop-up flash, and 720p video.
While I would love to use an M9, and have plenty of experience with rangefinder (especially Mamiya 6), and ought to be Leica's target market because I shoot events and can live with the rangefinder limits, digital Leica is too expensive, too far behind the cutting edge, and the vaunted advantages are not significant enough compared to the limits and want of useful features, to persuade me to jump in. I really do appreciate the rangefinder way of shooting, because that's how I shoot. The problem is that the rangefinder way works just as well on a DSLR, whereas the converse isn't true.
Still, I think it's great that M system users now have a full-frame body to stick behind all those fine lenses, and I can understand why any M user would get this camera and continue in the rangefinder way. It's just not such an attractive proposition if you don't already have some investment in that system....Show more →
First of all, that setup is very noticeably larger, than a m9/m8 with a similar lens, I know you refuse to aknowledge this, and that is ok, but for me, the size difference is a big problem.
Secondly, I have yet to see anyone do size, compactness and good manual focus from 25-90mm as good as I did with the M9 and do with other rangefinders on a daily basis. Your example over just does not cut it, not even close. Manual focus with the focus screen on that camera? please.
p.5 #10 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
brainiac wrote:
I'm with you 100%
As would I, and I suspect many others. An opportunity for another manufacturer, perhaps? $7K for the M9 really doesn't represent value for money.
I would further say, however, that a 5D or a 5Dll with a Oly 40mm lens (or anything similarly sized) is far from a viable alternative - nearly twice the volume, less convenient (need to manually stop down, much more limited lens choice, etc.
p.5 #12 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
brainiac wrote:
I'm with you 100%
So this whole RF onslaught of negativity is because you guys can't afford the M9? This is too funny.
Oct 19, 2009 at 12:41 PM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.5 #13 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
ulrikft wrote:
First of all, that setup is very noticeably larger, than a m9/m8 with a similar lens, I know you refuse to aknowledge this, and that is ok, but for me, the size difference is a big problem.
It's not that I refuse to acknowledge it, it's just that I think it's overstated. The M digitals are actually quite heavy for their size, and the amount of shrink you get for your extra $6000 seems kind of expensive. Here are the cameras to scale - sorry about the lenses - couldn't find a vertical image of the M9 with a smaller lens: http://cyberphotographer.com/m9/450dm9toscale.jpg
Of course, once you put a grip on the M it's closer still. And you will need the grip ($250).
p.5 #14 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
"you will need the grip" is... maybe right for you, the image still shows that the huge grip on the small compact, that is useless for manual focus, is a problem, and it is not a full frame sensor either.. AND it has a viewfinder hump.. AND the lenses you get for it are mainly huge.
The size is an important issue, no matter how often you want to downplay it to suit some weird agenda.
Oct 19, 2009 at 12:57 PM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.5 #15 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
ulrikft wrote:
"you will need the grip" is... maybe right for you, the image still shows that the huge grip on the small compact, that is useless for manual focus, is a problem, and it is not a full frame sensor either.. AND it has a viewfinder hump.. AND the lenses you get for it are mainly huge.
The size is an important issue, no matter how often you want to downplay it to suit some weird agenda.
I don't think looking for a way to build a serviceable lightweight kit for $1000 instead of $8000 is a weird agenda.
p.5 #16 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
You won't get a fullframe lightweight, high quality kit for $1000. The nearest we got now, a850, d700 etc, are BIG machines, with good technology, but it will cost to downsize them, not the other way around. If you had said 2999,- or 3999,-, you could have been taken seriously, but 1000...? comeon.
p.5 #17 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
James R wrote:
So this whole RF onslaught of negativity is because you guys can't afford the M9? This is too funny.
I am not casting any stones at any particular person but this is one of the subliminal aspects I dislike about the whole Leica scene. Years ago I used to be a starving newspaper shooter in Greenwhich Connecticut, one of the wealthiest communities in the world. Very upper crusty "old money" haven. I used to encounter guys who carried their Leicas as fashion accessories just because they could afford them. Kids at high school basketball games would wave their BMW keys at the opposing team bleachers if the apposing school came from poorer communities. So glad I left...
I don't see this as negativity, just a great discussion is all. I have been buying and using cameras and lenses for years. I also shot with company gear for years. Every photographer has to make their own considerations when it comes to investing in gear. What does the camera offer? Does it offer reliability and performance? How will it depreciate? Can I get it repaired? How versatile is the whole system? Can I rent components I do not have when needed? What is the cost of ownership say over three years? These are just a few of MY considerations. I do this for a living so my concerns might not be relevant to others.
I do think its a good question to ask if saving a few hundred grams in weight is worth thousands of dollars extra though.
Botom line: if you enjoy your equipment then good for you...
p.5 #18 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
brainiac wrote:
It's not that I refuse to acknowledge it, it's just that I think it's overstated. The M digitals are actually quite heavy for their size, and the amount of shrink you get for your extra $6000 seems kind of expensive. Here are the cameras to scale - sorry about the lenses - couldn't find a vertical image of the M9 with a smaller lens:
Of course, once you put a grip on the M it's closer still. And you will need the grip ($250).
I think your image comparison is a bit deceptive. First the real comparison should be with the 5D not a cheap 500D -- there is nothing competitive about the 500D (which is still taller and deeper than the M9).
500D dimensions are: 129 x 98 x 62 mm
5Dll dimensions are: 152 x 114 x 75 mm
M9 dimensions are: 139 x 80 x 37mm
Compare a f 3.5 pancake lens on the 500D, with a large fast f1.4 lens on the Leica is decpetive? More to the comparison would be to have this near flat 35mm f2.5 lens on the M9 (and it's still significantly faster than the 500D combo): http://www.cameraquest.com/jpg6/35_2.5_P_a.jpg And there are lots of compact lens options available for the M9. Fitted with lenses like this, the volume of an M9 with lens is probably close to half that of 5D with an fiddly adapted lens -- and alot less bulky.
p.5 #19 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
Here is the size relationship between the M9 and the 5D II. Keep in mind the height difference is due to the top centered prism bubble that the 5D has.
This could be considered a big difference or it could be considered much to do about nothing...
p.5 #20 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
PhotoMaximum wrote:
I am not casting any stones at any particular person but this is one of the subliminal aspects I dislike about the whole Leica scene. Years ago I used to be a starving newspaper shooter in Greenwhich Connecticut, one of the wealthiest communities in the world. Very upper crusty "old money" haven. I used to encounter guys who carried their Leicas as fashion accessories just because they could afford them. Kids at high school basketball games would wave their BMW keys at the opposing team bleachers if the apposing school came from poorer communities. So glad I left...
I don't see this as negativity, just a great discussion is all. I have been buying and using cameras and lenses for years. I also shot with company gear for years. Every photographer has to make their own considerations when it comes to investing in gear. What does the camera offer? Does it offer reliability and performance? How will it depreciate? Can I get it repaired? How versatile is the whole system? Can I rent components I do not have when needed? What is the cost of ownership say over three years? These are just a few of MY considerations. I do this for a living so my concerns might not be relevant to others.
I do think its a good question to ask if saving a few hundred grams in weight is worth thousands of dollars extra though.
Botom line: if you enjoy your equipment then good for you... ...Show more →
Since it is directed at me...I don't own a Lecia, just considering one. All of your equipment considerations are valid, but only valid for you or others in your situation. It seems this thread has been an assault on Leica and Leica owners, not Canon shooters. It seems they are not allowed to draw their own conclusions because some people don't agree with that conclusion.
I'm retired and assess value from a different perspective than you. That assessment is right for me. Life-tme warranties are getting shorter for me. I'll keep my D3 and D2Xs for a few more years and maybe add a Leica. But, my comment you quoted is directed at those whose criticize the RF system, yet would pay 2.5K for the same system they disparaged. That made me wonder is the problem RF or cost? If cost, then they should move on because the M9 isn't going to sell for 2.5K for a few years, or buy another camera.
