It looks like I was lucky. It wasn't a dramatic fall, but the rangefinder is very sensitive. You don't have to actually drop the camera to get it misaligned. However, I've checked now and the focus with the 90 Cron is spot on.
Yep, now after being used to routinely PP:ing my M9 files, I'm unpleasantly surprised when I try to do the same to a 5DII file. Fortunately it isn't usually required but you don't have the same latitude with the Canon files. The shadows are an especially weak area. In good light and with good lenses on both, I've found the detail to be comparable, perhaps with a slight advantage to the M9. Since you have the same amount of detail in an 18 megapixel shot instead of a 21 megapixel, the per pixel detail is higher and the M9 images look much crisper at 100%.
I paid about €1,100 =~ 1600 USD. It's a relatively old lens - made in 1984 according to the serial number - but in excellent shape. The glass is perfect and there are virtually no scratches or marks on the body. I'm not sure it is useful as a reference though as lenses are as a rule quite a bit more expensive in Sweden than in the US. Ours is a very small market and you take what you can get. ...Show more →
You have to correct that. YOU take everything available :-)
denoir wrote:
As for a magnifier, I've never used one and it's not a practical option for me. I have a diopter correction lens on the viewfinder and using a magnifier would mean having to constantly having to remove the diopter and put it back. It's tiny, and a finger print magnet so it's not something you'd want to do on a regular basis.
There is an aftermarket magnifier with 1.15x magnification and a built-in diopter. Perhaps this is low enough magnification to leave on, but high enough to help?
Doh, my M9 + 90 Cron just fell to the floor from my desk (assisted by my elbow). It looks OK, and at a first glance the range finder seems still to be correctly calibrated. Stupid. Well, it was bound to happen sooner or later. It's the first tumble the M9 has taken so far.
Anden wrote:
You have to correct that. YOU take everything available :-)
Yeah, I seem to be a black hole for lenses. This was however my first lens purchase in over two months.
carstenw wrote:
There is an aftermarket magnifier with 1.15x magnification and a built-in diopter. Perhaps this is low enough magnification to leave on, but high enough to help?
I think a 1.4x is the way to go if you are going to use a magnifier with a 90. That should enlarge the 90mm framelines to the size of regular 50mm lines. And precise focusing can be a bit difficult at 50 mm as well.
carstenw wrote:
Ouch. I hope it is fine. Are there marks on it?
No, no marks but now that I've been shooting with it in daylight I've discovered that the vertical rangefinder alignement is slightly off. Not enough to make focusing impossible but enough to make it annoying. I've emailed a guy here in Stockholm who is a retired Leica specialist and that still services cameras to see if he can fix it quickly. I really don't want to send the M9 back to Solms again - especially since I have the Lofoten trip coming soon.
Nice set KL, you make me want to go back to Asia for the delicious food!
Luka, I kind of like the M9 test shot without pp , more natural looking to me. Sorry, but I never liked the Canon colors, too much red... but I don't really like the Nikon green either, I do miss Kodachrome, oh well, might as well shoot more B&W
denoir wrote:
I think a 1.4x is the way to go if you are going to use a magnifier with a 90. That should enlarge the 90mm framelines to the size of regular 50mm lines. And precise focusing can be a bit difficult at 50 mm as well.
Due to the progressive movement of the rangefinder while focusing, you can actually get more accuracy while focusing than you could if you were only using your eyes to judge one position. I am currently focusing my APO 90 with my M8, and while my keeper rate isn't as high, it works well enough for non-critical shots. The higher resolution of the M9 would be counter-balanced by the lower magnification. I am not sure which would "win" out in the end to make it harder or easier to focus than the M8 though...
No, no marks but now that I've been shooting with it in daylight I've discovered that the vertical rangefinder alignement is slightly off.
Oh, that is annoying. The adjustment is under the top plate, which takes perhaps 10 minutes to remove, and is normally fastened by a dab of lacquer, which needs to be removed and re-applied. A specialist should have no trouble with this, if they have the instrument to make the adjustment easily.
carstenw wrote:
Oh, that is annoying. The adjustment is under the top plate, which takes perhaps 10 minutes to remove, and is normally fastened by a dab of lacquer, which needs to be removed and re-applied. A specialist should have no trouble with this, if they have the instrument to make the adjustment easily.
Indeed. I just got a response from the guy I hoped could do it but he refuses to touch digital cameras... So I guess I'll have to pay for the Leica express service thing in Solms. Really stupid, but I've guessed I've learned a lesson - bringing along the M9 on a trip as an only camera is risky.
Anyway, I took the opportunity today for a brief walk with the 90 Cron. Here are some assorted shots at different apertures and distances to show its rendering style:
@MFD:
Stopped down near infinity:
Overall, I'm happy with what I'm getting from the lens. It seems to be quite different from the 75 Cron, almost an inverse. Whereas the 75 Cron is excellent stopped down at medium distances, while not as good at infinity the exact opposite seems to be the case with the 90 Cron.
Wide open the 75 is much sharper but the 90 has a more pleasing OOF rendering. The 75 has purple fringing under tight control and LoCA under some sort of control while the 90 Cron suffers pretty heavily from purple fringing in high contrast regions and there is more LoCA in the OOF areas. Still I find the bokeh of the 90 Cron more pleasing.
So wide open the 75 wins on technical performance while the 90 wins on style. I'll have to do more testing though so the above are just initial impressions.
Focusing the 90 was somewhat more difficult than the 75, but that could just be because my vertical rangefinder alignment is slightly off.
I love this lens, for about 1250 delivered, I got a bargain even if I paid to much, it's beautiful with box, Leica filter, and mint- condition lens. Focus is stiff but smooth, aperture blades are snappy quick, pull out hood in nice shape, I could not be happier! I started to try and bid at last minute on it to save a bit, and I said, what if I loose it over 100 bucks? not worth it, so I did buy now. :-) My best ebay buy in years!
charles.K wrote:
I agree,the PP workflow is critical to getting the most from the M9. Since the WB with the M9 can be variable at times, having a really well calibrated monitor is also crucial. The colours and detail obtainable exceeds that of my 5DII CR2 file, IMO, but there are a lot more workflow steps required to getting it right with the M9. I have recently re PP some of the old 5DII files for magazines, and I feel the images just don't have the bite or clarity that I am now getting from the M9. I must qualify this statement, as the lenses then being used were the L series lenses. ...Show more →
denoir wrote:
Yep, now after being used to routinely PP:ing my M9 files, I'm unpleasantly surprised when I try to do the same to a 5DII file. Fortunately it isn't usually required but you don't have the same latitude with the Canon files. The shadows are an especially weak area. In good light and with good lenses on both, I've found the detail to be comparable, perhaps with a slight advantage to the M9. Since you have the same amount of detail in an 18 megapixel shot instead of a 21 megapixel, the per pixel detail is higher and the M9 images look much crisper at 100%. ...Show more →
It might be too broad a statement to say Canon files don't have the same latitude as M9 files if your primary experience is with the 5DII, which exhibits shadow banding at low ISOs and is the exact opposite behaviour of the M9. Do you also find the 7D files restrictive? I haven't used either so can't comment first hand. My experience with Canon files is from the 1D series, and with the 1DIV you can definitely push the files around a lot without serious concern. I haven't done a side by side comparison with the M9 yet, and while I feel the M9 at base ISO (160) is very pliable and excellent for shadow recovery, even at ISO 320 that margin decreases somewhat as shadow banding becomes more apparent (might be specific to my camera). And at high ISOs, I can definitely push the 1DIV files a lot more than the M9 and still retain good colour fidelity.
There are definitely differences in the 'look' Canon and Leica give their respective RAW files. With Canon I find I'm frequently trying to remove reddishness to achieve a neutral look. In this respect the Leica files are better, however I feel that yellow hues are often excessively strong. Since my only PP experience with M9 files is in LR, it could also be an Adobe issue. I use the Adobe M9 profile rather than the one from Leica...
Lunch with some friends - their bored son played games on a BlackBerry to keep himself amused.
M9 & ZM35C
P.S. This thread has been moving along very quickly - great to see so many excellent images and new contributors!
Ron, you are right - I was talking about the 5DII and not necessarily Canon in general. The 7D is somewhat better when it comes to noice banding at low ISO. Generally however neither the 5DII nor the 7D comes close to the M9 when it comes to headroom in the shadows at low ISO.
rsolti13 wrote:
What is your keeper rate with the 90? Pretty accurate?
Well, I missed focus a couple of times but nothing extreme. I also lost a few shots to camera shake blur. I have an unfortnate tendency to press the whole camera down when I press the shutter...
Yeah, I seem to be a black hole for lenses. This was however my first lens purchase in over two months. 
