p.6 #1 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
James R wrote:
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.
p.6 #2 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
PhotoMaximum, here's a link that shows you something similar to what you want: linky link.
It's somewhat misleading because the M9 is shown with a 50/1.4 head-on and a 35/1.4 for the side shot. The other two are shown with 50/1.4's, but a 5DII with a 35/1.4 would be a lot... bigger. Mind you, the 50 and 35 ASPH Summiluxes are not exactly small Leica lenses. I really like the photo of the 35/1.4's further down the page. You can get pretty compact lenses for RF at 90mm, 50mm, 35mm, 28mm, 25mm, 21mm, and 15mm.
Oh, and you don't need a grip. Many people never use them. I don't. Not that they are that big.
p.6 #4 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
PhotoMax,
I like the layout of your website, very easy to navigate. The photos are equal to the site. I did get a smile from your logo with its vintage 1924 Leica.
p.6 #5 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
My Leica is the Leica oddity that does not officially exist: the early 1950's IIIF Black Dot with self timer. The self timer never came with the camera and does not match any of the factory serial numbers. The trick was that there was a period then where new owners could send their camera back to the Leica factory to have the self timer installed.
Thats the cool thing about these cameras: there is always some interesting story.
My Leica was given to me by my father-in-law. It is is wonderful condition. When I received it the range finder mirror had lost all its shine. I found a guy in Wisconsin who redid the mirror and did a full CLA service for me.
As camera as art object I find the Leica IIIF to be the most beautiful camera ever made. It feels wonderful in one's hands. I also take it out for a "spin" every now and then.
p.6 #6 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
James R wrote:
PhotoMax,
I like the layout of your website, very easy to navigate. The photos are equal to the site. I did get a smile from your logo with its vintage 1924 Leica.
James, I am moving on from this discussion. I am probably tainted by my colder feelings towards gear. I have to figure in costs, depreciation, versatility, taxes, etc. It takes the fun out of it sometimes. This is why I enjoy this forum and alt lenses: I get to have fun and explore more. It keeps me interested. Sometimes the weight of shooting commercial pictures can suck the life out of the enjoyment one has for photography. Maybe subconsciously I really want an M9? But there is no way I can make one fit into what I need to do.
Thanks for the comments. My big project for the winter will be redoing my site(s) using an Ajax driven CMS...
Oct 19, 2009 at 03:50 PM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.6 #7 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
James R wrote:
That made me wonder is the problem RF or cost?
It's the combination. At some point one needs to draw a line and say "although I would like to use this particular piece of kit in an ideal world, it's too expensive to justify". That line is in a different place for everyone. That's why I completely understand anybody who is plunking down $7000 for an M9. It's a full frame rangefinder, and for many, that means it Hallelujah time. But we all come here to share our perspectives and think out loud. The price and the limitations put a lot of people off, even people who emotionally would like to shoot an M9 for the simplicity and build quality and so on. That's just the way it is.
Personally I think it's rude to suggest someone uses M as jewellery. Even if it's true, it doesn't need to be said, and there's no evidence that it is true of anyone anyway. People enjoy shooting rangefinder and the M system is the one. OTOH, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't discuss real shortcomings of any camera. I am pretty vociferous about the difficulties I have with my current kit, and about its strengths. There's no reason why discussing the shortcomings of M system should be taboo.
p.6 #9 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
brainiac wrote:
It's the combination. At some point one needs to draw a line and say "although I would like to use this particular piece of kit in an ideal world, it's too expensive to justify". That line is in a different place for everyone. That's why I completely understand anybody who is plunking down $7000 for an M9. It's a full frame rangefinder, and for many, that means it Hallelujah time. But we all come here to share our perspectives and think out loud. The price and the limitations put a lot of people off, even people who emotionally would like to shoot an M9 for the simplicity and build quality and so on. That's just the way it is.
Personally I think it's rude to suggest someone uses M as jewellery. Even if it's true, it doesn't need to be said, and there's no evidence that it is true of anyone anyway. People enjoy shooting rangefinder and the M system is the one. OTOH, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't discuss real shortcomings of any camera. I am pretty vociferous about the difficulties I have with my current kit, and about its strengths. There's no reason why discussing the shortcomings of M system should be taboo....Show more →
I think we are on the same page. When price becomes the overriding issue, then the pros and cons get lost. I noticed this on the Nikon forum when the D3X was released. The sticker shock overwhelmed discussion. It takes time for the shock to fade.
p.6 #10 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
It's a gestalt thing. I've used M6's for years and am now (or was) using a 5DII (in for repair. Slooow turnaround).
To me the 5D is just a lump. It may not be more than twice the size, but it feels it. It transforms a relatively svelte, discrete tool into something physically awkward.
I like the 5D, it has great files, and great high ISO. It is quick and responsive, with a great LCD and easy controls. But it is ergonomically crap. I can't count the number of times the aperture/speed dial has moved on taking out of the bag in a hurry, (or even just dangling on my shoulder) leaving me momentarily wondering why the mirror clunks down - aha, on B. And this in a €2500 camera. Not acceptable.
More to the point, I enjoyed carrying the Leica around with a 40/2, which believe me is much smaller than the 5D with the CV40/2 that I also have, and also much easier to focus, especially in low light - even with the S screen. I like carrying and using the 5D a lot less. If I want to use the 35/1.4 on the Leica, the increased size is not great, something that can't be said of using the 5D with a 35/1.4.
As for the idea of rangefinder limitations, I find this a bit of a red herring. When I just used film and the M6's I never felt the need to use anything else apart from a larger format occasionally. I just didn't feel the need for large lenses/macro/motor drive, flash etc., since I only relate photography to reportage, or maybe landscape at a pinch. I would imagine that many who do use rangefinders are in the same boat, so these 'limitations' are not something we recognise. Anyway, who are these people that need such versatility? Do they actually use it? If your photography really needs macro/large teles etc, then obviously a rangefinder is going to seem a pretty limited peculiarity.
I totally agree with those who are hesitant about the entry cost of the M9, especially when thinking of also buying a few core lenses such as the 50/1.4, 35/1.4 and 28/2. It's a lot of dosh. I'm also hesitant, and I already have the lenses. Yes, it would be nice to have a cheaper entry, but it's not going to come from Leica.
p.6 #11 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
James R wrote:
It seems this thread has been an assault on Leica and Leica owners,
An assault? Really? I apologize if anyone feels I have threatened them with physical attack! I was simply speaking of the difference between slr's and rangefinders. Nothing personal at all.
p.6 #12 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
Tariq Gibran wrote:
An assault? Really? I apologize if anyone feels I have threatened them with physical attack! I was simply speaking of the difference between slr's and rangefinders. Nothing personal at all.
In retrospect the used of the verb "assault" was too strong. However, I suspect you don't feel accused of threatening physical violence. So, l'm for toning down this thread, but, you might prefer to press on.
p.6 #14 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
wolfloid wrote:
It's a gestalt thing. I've used M6's for years and am now (or was) using a 5DII (in for repair. Slooow turnaround).
To me the 5D is just a lump. It may not be more than twice the size, but it feels it. It transforms a relatively svelte, discrete tool into something physically awkward.
I like the 5D, it has great files, and great high ISO. It is quick and responsive, with a great LCD and easy controls. But it is ergonomically crap. I can't count the number of times the aperture/speed dial has moved on taking out of the bag in a hurry, (or even just dangling on my shoulder) leaving me momentarily wondering why the mirror clunks down - aha, on B. And this in a €2500 camera. Not acceptable.
More to the point, I enjoyed carrying the Leica around with a 40/2, which believe me is much smaller than the 5D with the CV40/2 that I also have, and also much easier to focus, especially in low light - even with the S screen. I like carrying and using the 5D a lot less. If I want to use the 35/1.4 on the Leica, the increased size is not great, something that can't be said of using the 5D with a 35/1.4.
As for the idea of rangefinder limitations, I find this a bit of a red herring. When I just used film and the M6's I never felt the need to use anything else apart from a larger format occasionally. I just didn't feel the need for large lenses/macro/motor drive, flash etc., since I only relate photography to reportage, or maybe landscape at a pinch. I would imagine that many who do use rangefinders are in the same boat, so these 'limitations' are not something we recognise. Anyway, who are these people that need such versatility? Do they actually use it? If your photography really needs macro/large teles etc, then obviously a rangefinder is going to seem a pretty limited peculiarity.
I totally agree with those who are hesitant about the entry cost of the M9, especially when thinking of also buying a few core lenses such as the 50/1.4, 35/1.4 and 28/2. It's a lot of dosh. I'm also hesitant, and I already have the lenses. Yes, it would be nice to have a cheaper entry, but it's not going to come from Leica....Show more →
What you say mirrors my experience, too.
I shot Leica M2 then an M6 for many years and then moved to Canon, 5D then 5D2. I find the Canon just way too obtrusive for certain types of shooting. I just can't get any discretion or intimacy with it when shooting people in public environment.
p.6 #15 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
kidtexas wrote:
go buy a used Ikon and a CV lens to see if they like the system
Two problems with this, one if they get an Ikon they're never going to be happy to shoot a Leica with all of it's 'issues'. Problem number two is that most of these people completely refuse to touch a roll of film, especially when their 100% crops a 'noisy' !
p.6 #16 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
I also think the M9 has what most of us want, a small camera with a full-frame sensor. The problem is that no one is going to make a MF only small FM3a, FE2, or OM2n style DSLR with a good sensor anytime soon. While rangefinders aren't my favorite thing in the world they tend to be small and sneaky. The M9 more than any other digital camera is that right now.
p.6 #17 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
I won't weigh in here on the whole RF vs. DSLR thing, but I am attaching two quick snaps I just took to visually demonstrate why I recently (July) picked up an M8.2 and a small family of Voigtlander and Leica glass. It is all about the largest possible sensor in the smallest possible package, with the widest variety of glass selections. FWIW, I also use all of this manual glass on an Olympus PEN E-P1.
Behold, the M8.2 and a 5D Mark II, both with the best 35/1.4 lenses you can get for each, both with the hood, because that's how I shoot them, always:
I find the difference in bulk and weight to be substantial when I want to shoot the two platforms with similar glass (focal length and speed), and when I want tiny, there are some absolutely minute (albeit slow) lenses for the M platform, such as the CV 28mm f/3.5 Color Skopar.
EDIT: Replaced the snaps I took with the PEN kit lens with two nicer shots I took with the Voigtlander 40mm f/1.4 Nokton on the PEN. First shot was at f/1.4, second was at f/2.8.
p.6 #18 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
Just thought I'd weigh in here. I was extremely interested in a used m8 or maybe just the idea of one. I have a d700 which I use with a 35mm f/2 a good portion of the time. I really like the d700 kit, but it is very bulky and I find I don't take it a lot because of this. I was about to purchase a used m8 on the forums but came to my senses and figured I should go play with one at a store before making such an expensive decision
After using one at the store for about an hour, I came away somewhat unimpressed. The lenses are just amazingly small, but the actual body of the M8 is surprisingly large, thick and heavy. While it's certainly a good deal smaller then my d700 and lens, I don't think there's a huge size advantage compared to some of the smaller crop dslrs and prime lenses. The focusing was much easier to nail then my old Pentax ME super was, but I was actually disappointed with the frame lines and viewfinder. I really wanted to use a 28mm lens to keep the full frame 35mm equivalent that I like, but the 28mm frame lines are almost impossible to see unless you jam your eyeball into the finder. I also think I'd have a pretty hard time with the longer focal length frame lines since they are such a small portion of the viewfinder. Add to this the high price, questionable reliability, poor high iso and I just couldn't bring myself to like it as much as I thought I would.
Anyway, moral of the story...anyone considering an M8 or M9 really needs to use one before they sink the cash into it. I think a lot of people like the idea of a rangefinder, but there's a reason SLRs became more popular. Now if only Canon or Nikon could make an dslr that's the size of my old Pentax Time to look at the micro 4/3s cameras...
p.6 #19 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
I'm going to hold off on picking up an M9. Even without the heap of problems I am sure it will have, it already has a few issues that cause me to hesitate. I'd much rather pick up a similarly priced camera from an Asian maker with a long history of good customer support and repair.
Oct 19, 2009 at 11:26 PM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.6 #20 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
jhapeman wrote:
I won't weigh in here on the whole RF vs. DSLR thing, but I am attaching two quick snaps I just took to visually demonstrate why I recently (July) picked up an M8.2 and a small family of Voigtlander and Leica glass. It is all about the largest possible sensor in the smallest possible package, with the widest variety of glass selections. FWIW, I also use all of this manual glass on an Olympus PEN E-P1.
Behold, the M8.2 and a 5D Mark II, both with the best 35/1.4 lenses you can get for each, both with the hood, because that's how I shoot them, always:
To be fair, the lens you have mounted on the M8 here is closer to the 50mm angle of view on full-frame, so you could make your Canon kit much smaller by using the Sigmalux or even a 50 f1.8 or Leica R 50 f2. Also, the m8's quality isn't anywhere near the 5D2 in terms of resolution and especially high iso. The 5D2 could use a 50 f4 to match your M8 rig in image quality. To match this Canon setup your M8 would need to be sporting a 28 f0.75 and you would have a devil of a time affording it, focussing it, and seeing past it. It would be interesting to see 5D2/Oly40f2 next to an equivalent M8 rig, and also to compare image quality. The M9 is another matter of course, because it does compete with 5D2 image quality, if not iso.
Personally I find the combination of an f2 pancake and iso 6400 to be quite a good compromise between size, weight and performance. Not getting noticed is all about preparedness and how you shoot, not which camera you use. I think a silver M8 attracts more attention to itself than a 5D2 with pancake lens, no red strap, and the logo taped over. Liveview is a great boon to the surreptitious shooter too.
