Archive 2009 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
brainiac Offline [X]
p.7 #1 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
jdee wrote:
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. ...Show more →
That was my experience exactly. I was expecting it to be small and light, but it was heavy and uncomfortable in the hand. It is significanlty thicker than a film M.
p.7 #2 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
To be fair, we can use the comparison between the M8 and the 5DII as a surrogate for an M9/5DII comparison. After all, the M8 and M9 are the same size. To be fair.
Oct 20, 2009 at 11:31 AM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.7 #3 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
Absolutely, but the 5D2 still has about a stop more juice in the sensor, so it would make sense to compare an f1.4 on the M to an f2 on the Canon or an f2 on the M to an f2.8 on the Canon (few of which exist, but Oly?). Or compare a 5D2 and ZF/ZE 35 f2 or Oly/Ultron 40 f2 with M9/35 f1.4 or 40 f1.4. To be fair ;-) Personally, I think a stop extra iso is more use than an aperture stop once you get into low light usage, as the iso advantage applies across all lenses so you can carry smaller ones, and it makes focus less critical.
p.7 #4 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
brainiac wrote:
Absolutely, but the 5D2 still has about a stop more juice in the sensor, so it would make sense to compare an f1.4 on the M to an f2 on the Canon or an f2 on the M to an f2.8 on the Canon (few of which exist, but Oly?). Or compare a 5D2 and ZF/ZE 35 f2 or Oly/Ultron 40 f2 with M9/35 f1.4 or 40 f1.4. To be fair ;-) Personally, I think a stop extra iso is more use than an aperture stop once you get into low light usage, as the iso advantage applies across all lenses so you can carry smaller ones, and it makes focus less critical....Show more →
I think if you compare fast glass, the size difference is still there. How big is the Canon 50mm f1.2 versus the Leica .95 Noctilux? That is about a stop slower; isn't it? If it is anything near the difference in size of the old f1 versions of these lenses, the Leica is still quite a bit smaller.
Even in not so fast glass, the slower Leica's are tiny. I the new 24mm f3.4 should be tiny compared to a Canon 24mm f2.8. Even the 50mm f2.8 Leica, is tiny compared to the Canon 50mm f1.8.
p.7 #5 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
"so it would make sense to compare an f1.4 on the M to an f2 on the Canon"
Well, yes and no. Not if one's primary intention is focus isolation. I used the 5DII 35/2 combo recently in Burma, and while I do like it very much, particularly when thinking of the bulk of the 35/1,4, I would have appreciated the increased focus isolation that the 35 lux asph gives on film.
p.7 #6 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
Depends. If you're shooting outdoors while trekking through the city all day, shooting ISO 100-400, I think it's a perfectly fine comparison, especially since, unlike half the people in this thread, this guy actually owns both systems and uses them, and this is how he uses them.
But you are right. The Canon is going to give you better high ISO, so you can pretty much always compensate for that one stop slower lens. Unfortunately though, Canon's slower offerings usually aren't stellar, but just ok, and don't really compete with their faster lenses.
One nice thing about rangefinders - for the most part, the 50/1.4 might be faster than the 50/2.0, but its not like the 50/2.0 (or 50/2.8 or 50/2.5) is significantly softer. A lot of times they are actually better performers - I think the 50/2.8 Elmar-M is better close in than any other current Leica 50. And I'm not just talking Leica there, but Zeiss and CV too. The ZM 21/4.5 is a better performer than the ZM 21/2.8. That just doesn't happen with any consistency on Canon (or Nikon).
And this is fredmiranda. Nobody uses fast lenses for low light, they use them for portraits where nothing is in focus but a nose hair or something, and then go on and on about bokeh
Oct 20, 2009 at 11:56 AM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.7 #7 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
kidtexas wrote:
Depends. If you're shooting outdoors while trekking through the city all day, shooting ISO 100-400, I think it's a perfectly fine comparison, especially since, unlike half the people in this thread, this guy actually owns both systems and uses them, and this is how he uses them.
But you are right. The Canon is going to give you better high ISO, so you can pretty much always compensate for that one stop slower lens. Unfortunately though, Canon's slower offerings usually aren't stellar, but just ok, and don't really compete with their faster lenses.
One nice thing about rangefinders - for the most part, the 50/1.4 might be faster than the 50/2.0, but its not like the 50/2.0 (or 50/2.8 or 50/2.5) is significantly softer. A lot of times they are actually better performers - I think the 50/2.8 Elmar-M is better close in than any other current Leica 50. And I'm not just talking Leica there, but Zeiss and CV too. The ZM 21/4.5 is a better performer than the ZM 21/2.8. That just doesn't happen with any consistency on Canon (or Nikon).
And this is fredmiranda. Nobody uses fast lenses for low light, they use them for portraits where nothing is in focus but a nose hair or something, and then go on and on about bokeh ...Show more →
Haha! All true...
Oct 20, 2009 at 11:58 AM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.7 #8 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
wolfloid wrote:
"so it would make sense to compare an f1.4 on the M to an f2 on the Canon"
Well, yes and no. Not if one's primary intention is focus isolation. I used the 5DII 35/2 combo recently in Burma, and while I do like it very much, particularly when thinking of the bulk of the 35/1,4, I would have appreciated the increased focus isolation that the 35 lux asph gives on film.
Yes, and the Canon 35 f2 has pretty sucky wide open corners and is probably far outperformed by any similar sized M lens from L|Z|CV. I really wish Canon would produce a no holds barred update 35 f2 L. The 24L2 shows they can produce spectacular wideangles when the pressure is on. At 28mm, 35mm and 50mm one is spoiled for choice on the M system.
p.7 #9 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
I have a question for you brainiac since you shoot a lot of manual lenses on new SLRs. What is focusing like? How accurate is it? I've thought of picking up a manual focus 50 for my SLR (new/old zeiss or a CV 58), and maybe a 28, but from playing around with my current lenses on camera, I'm not sure I have super confidence in seeing what the heck is in focus and what isn't.
p.7 #10 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
kidtexas wrote:
To be fair, we can use the comparison between the M8 and the 5DII as a surrogate for an M9/5DII comparison. After all, the M8 and M9 are the same size. To be fair.
p.7 #11 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
brainiac wrote:
Yes, and the Canon 35 f2 has pretty sucky wide open corners and is probably far outperformed by any similar sized M lens from L|Z|CV. I really wish Canon would produce a no holds barred update 35 f2 L. The 24L2 shows they can produce spectacular wideangles when the pressure is on. At 28mm, 35mm and 50mm one is spoiled for choice on the M system.
I wish they'd make a 28L. f/1.4 would be cool, but if it were a no holds barred 28/2 or 28/1.8, it'd be pretty sweet.
p.7 #12 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
Even though I love having super-high ISO--in fact, it's one of the reasons I switched my systems from Nikon to Canon in 2004--I still prefer to shoot the ISO as low as I can, and I suspect that is exactly what most people do. As such, I would guess that I shoot better than 95% of all my images at ISO 800 and below. Heck, even my long-exposure astrophotography is done at ISO 400.
To that end, the extra high-ISO performance of the 5DII isn't all that critical most of the time, and when it is, I take it with me and deal with the bulk.
Finally, as others have pointed out, focus isolation is one of the reasons to use a wider aperture, and its a very important part of how I like to shoot (look at the rangefinder thread I started in this forum in the wee hours of this morning while suffering from insomnia). To that end, I really can't subsitute the slower glass on the Canon to get better size without losing something important to me. I tried that for a while, and the other major drawback is the relative drop in quality on most of the smaller, cheaper, non-L lenses, such as the 35/2. Also, as kidtexas points out, the slower lenses on the M platform are also tiny, and tend to be much better performers as well. The CV 28mm f/3.5 Color Skopar comes to mind, as does the 35mm f/2.5 Color Skopar. Small and ridiculously good image quality and really cheap to boot.
Oct 20, 2009 at 12:16 PM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.7 #13 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
kidtexas wrote:
I have a question for you brainiac since you shoot a lot of manual lenses on new SLRs. What is focusing like? How accurate is it? I've thought of picking up a manual focus 50 for my SLR (new/old zeiss or a CV 58), and maybe a 28, but from playing around with my current lenses on camera, I'm not sure I have super confidence in seeing what the heck is in focus and what isn't.
It's hard work. I shoot the Eg-S screens, and it takes all my practice and experience to get the results that I want. I keep the camera on 4fps so that I can bracket focus easily, and consequently it's also hard work at the editing stage, when you're looking for the sharp one out of 4 or 5 images. Having said all that, it does work, and I do mostly get critical focus when I need to. Sometimes, with a subject who is moving a lot I'll opt for one of the less perfectly focussed ones. But honestly, it's not much different on rangefinder, or with AF. All these methods are a struggle in low light. AF needs careful calibration and it interferes with your composition just as badly as the rangefinder central patch. The way I am most comfortable is keeping the picture composed and focussing simultaneously by just watching glints carefully on the ground glass while constantly moving focus through the desired point and letting rip on the shutter release. Neither AF nor rangefinder can guarantee results in quite the same way.
It is useful being able to switch between manual and AF at will. I set my AF-ON button to be the only AF activation button, and I use servo. With lenses like the 135 f2 which is a full-time-manual-focus lens it's the best of both worlds. It's still hard work though. In the long run I'm excited about face recognition getting a lot faster. It seems to work very very well on the GF1. I do find focus-recompose really interferes with my framing, timing, and camera stability and that's one thing I think I will really struggle with if I start using a rangefinder again.
p.7 #14 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
Not what I wanted to hear. Haha. AF for me usually works pretty well, within the tolerances of the AF - after all the AF sensor does have some area to it so it can focus in on a slightly different feature or slightly miss the mark due to tolerances. But focus bracketing doesn't sound fun.
I mostly shoot film though, so I'm probably covered by the relative lack of detail compared to a 5DII. And focus recompose works fine for me, so that wouldn't be an issue. Maybe I'll stop by B&H the next time I go to NYC and try out some lenses in store.
Oct 20, 2009 at 12:45 PM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.7 #15 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
kidtexas wrote:
Not what I wanted to hear. Haha. AF for me usually works pretty well, within the tolerances of the AF - after all the AF sensor does have some area to it so it can focus in on a slightly different feature or slightly miss the mark due to tolerances. But focus bracketing doesn't sound fun.
I mostly shoot film though, so I'm probably covered by the relative lack of detail compared to a 5DII. And focus recompose works fine for me, so that wouldn't be an issue. Maybe I'll stop by B&H the next time I go to NYC and try out some lenses in store....Show more →
Yes - it's important to remember that 18 and 21 Mpixel full frame sensors are demanding lens performance and focus accuracy never before seen on the 135 format. When there are focus errors using my favoured ground glass method, they are small enough not to trouble a 6x4 or even 10x8 print. I like to use fast glass like the Rokkor 58 f1.2, and sometimes I have a moment to use liveview 10x which is really accurate. But most of my pictures are still taken at f8 with the distance guessed and set on the lens. Overall I don't see that rangefinder focussing would offer any improvement over my current methods, and in many cases it would be worse. Liveview at f1.2 rocks. I've said it before, but the M system needs liveview more than any other.
p.7 #17 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
Oh I'm fully aware of the difference in resolution between 21 MP and 135. I've not had any problems with that up to this point because I only really ever print to about 11x14, mostly 8x10. Once or twice bigger, but focus has been fine for those shots. RF's are pretty damn precise with wide angle lenses like 28mm.
However... one thing that I notice in some of your pics, and TWoK's too (to name names ), is using wider angle lenses in REALLY close. Heck, even 50mm lenses. Absolutely nothing wrong with it, but it does cut down DOF a bit and require more precise focus. I know some people really hate the whole .7m minimum focus distance limitation of rangefinders, but it's not the end of the world if it doesn't cramp your style too much. As a 'bonus', it tends to keep you out far enough that DOF is not something silly hard to manage like 1mm and for perspective distortion not to be *too* in your face on portraits with lenses like 28mm and 35mm. I know from looking at the photos I take, I almost always like the 28mm pics with my RF more than my SLR, because it keeps me at least .7m away, which tends to make my girlfriend look a lot better and in focuse. haha.
Obviously, if you want 1mm DOF and perspective distortion with a 35mm, then it's not going to work for you. And I'm not ragging on perspective distortion - its great when you want it.
p.7 #18 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
Actually, kidtexas brings up one thing I do miss on the RF, which is close focus with wide lenses. With my 5DII and my wides, I love to shoot as close as I can. You just can't get everything in one platform, darn it.
Oct 20, 2009 at 02:03 PM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.7 #19 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
kidtexas wrote:
...one thing that I notice in some of your pics, and TWoK's too (to name names ), is using wider angle lenses in REALLY close.
p.7 #20 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
Minimum focus distance with the Voigtlander 28mm f/2 Ultron works for the ladies. At least my wife allowed me to post this on the Internet, so it can't be too bad:
