Leica M9

Rogdodge

Rogdodge

Suspended / Banned
Messages
258
Name
Roger
Edit My Images
Yes
I have a Canon 5D Mk2 and am getting more into Portrait photography. What would the M9 give me over the Canon? (I know it's hugely more expensive..!). Thanks
 
the joys of manual focussing and difficulty working with long focus lenses.
 
A big hole in your bank account. The 5d2 is already full frame, with superb colour and detail rendition, why would you change?
 
So why £5K instead of £2.5K - just the brand?
 
Rogdodge said:
I have a Canon 5D Mk2 and am getting more into Portrait photography. What would the M9 give me over the Canon? (I know it's hugely more expensive..!). Thanks
Click to expand...

Probably that awfull sinking feeling of having splashed out really serious money and not getting better results than before:'(
 
I suspect nothing, but you would need to say what you don't like about the 5d.
 
Someone on here has an M9 if I remember rightly. Leica glass will be what differentiates it as the M9 spec is hardly mind blowing. I wouldn't buy one if I was an autofocus junkie or be sucked in by the Leica hype. Try out a cheap rangefinder to see if you like it, but in regards to glass the Leica is widely regaded as on a different level to Canon/Nikon. Search for Steve Huff online he's a good resource.
 
Rogdodge said:
So why £5K instead of £2.5K - just the brand?
Click to expand...

Heretic! Stone him!

You don't want too many people hear you ask rude questions like that :nono: Leica ownership is a religious undertaking and must not be questioned.
 
The lenses are absolutely amazingly sharp especially the 75mm summilux. True sharpness as opposed to higher contrast Japanese lenses

I'm not sure I'd like doing portraits with any M camera unless they are of a unobtrusive nature in avaliable light, I'd much prefer working with an DSLR or even medium format.
 
Rogdodge said:
I have a Canon 5D Mk2 and am getting more into Portrait photography. What would the M9 give me over the Canon? (I know it's hugely more expensive..!). Thanks
Click to expand...

Probably nothing. What do you want it to give you?

Just get the EF 35mm f/1.4 and you're set.
 
Stick with the Canon. A Leica won't magically make your portraits better - it's just a different way of shooting.
 
Srsly, I would go and ask Leica users.

It's very very easy to say "ooo it's just a red dot" or "I think they are over priced" or "only mugs would buy them".

Ask people who use them. Look at the results.

On paper and in all the tests my Hasselblad is no better than a D3X. In many ways it's not as good as a D300. But a mate just bought a 2nd hand H2D. He's a pretty decent commercial photographer and knows the ins and outs of a D3. You could have heard him shouting from the rooftops when he dropped the first few frames on the 'blad.

I'd ask people who look beyond the spec sheet and the price tag. It may be rubbish, but I've never used one so I have no idea.
 
I agree totally Jonathan - specs mean very little, and I doubt Leica would still exist if their equipment didn't offer something more than most equipment.
Most of us here do not use our cameras to the full, yet most of us would like a better camera or longer lens etc.
To the OP - if you have the money then give it a try then come back and tell us just why it is worth every penny, if it is. I expect to feel very envious. If you can find a secondhand one then I doubt you'll loose anything if you don't rate it..
 
manualfocus-g said:
Ahh, the TVR of cameras :lol:

As I said before, the M9 is different in that it's full frame AND small :)
Click to expand...

They're not that bad ;)

Leica M-series are a bit like a classic sportscar, an Aston DB5 maybe - actually, the original James Bond also used a Leica M3. Imagine sticking a modern turbo-diesel in one of those. It doesn't work.

You get a Leica M for other reasons, the pleasure of owning and using something different and special. And that is all fine and good, but they are not very efficient picture taking machines by modern standards.

KC Leblanc said:
This might be worth a little lookie;

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18132209&highlight=startername_spie
Click to expand...

Comparing a Leica 50mm f/2 (one of the easiest lenses to design and manufacture) against a Canon 50mm f/1.2 and a 24-70mm f/2.8 zoom (two of the most difficult designs) doesn't seem very relevant to me. Put up a Leica 50mm f/1.0 Noctilux and then see which is better.

Leica lenses are very good, no question, but they are not any better than the best from Canikon. They used to be, like 30 years ago, when Leica employed the best physicists and chemists and had a small army of mathematicians doing the graft. And they had some unique recipes for exotic (for the time) glass types. Today, there are no optical secrets left and computers do the leg work.

When it comes to glass magic, Canon have the edge there with their unique fluorite production plant. Leica just couldn't make anything like the new set of fabulous Canon lenses announced yesterday - they simply haven't got the technology and TBH I think Nikon will struggle to match them now too.
 
HoppyUK said:
Leica lenses are very good, no question, but they are not any better than the best from Canikon.
Click to expand...

I guess you'd need to ask Leica owners why they prefer Leica lenses, or perhaps why some Canon users put Leica glass in front of their DSLRs. I have never used Leica lenses, so can't comment. However, the situation may be similar to mine :) I much prefer Carl Zeiss lenses to Canon's for character reasons - I find the rendering of Zeiss lenses far more exciting, with added pop power. They are also extremely sharp corner to corner on full frame at infinity.

Of course, some people may just like the snob factor :lol:
 
Last edited:
"Leica lenses are very good, no question, but they are not any better than the best from Canikon."

A lot of people say that Leica are better but if we assume that they aren't actually better for a moment much of it may actually be down taste due to lenses being optimised for centre or across frame performance, colour reproduction, contrast, rendering, the shape of sunstars and even the look, feel and operation.

If by better people just mean sharper then I'd imaging that that is pretty easy to test for but the other stuff is a bit more subjective.
 
I believe WuffStuff has an M9. Check out some of his pics. I'm pleased he has, because I got his 5D mk II :D

via TP Forums for iPhone
 
manualfocus-g said:
I guess you'd need to ask Leica owners why they prefer Leica lenses, or perhaps why some Canon users put Leica glass in front of their DSLRs. I have never used Leica lenses, so can't comment. However, the situation may be similar to mine :) I much prefer Carl Zeiss lenses to Canon's for character reasons - I find the rendering of Zeiss lenses far more exciting, with added pop power. They are also extremely sharp corner to corner on full frame at infinity.

Of course, some people may just like the snob factor :lol:
Click to expand...

You can call it a snob factor, or pop or whatever (some Canon L-series lens users are a bit like that) but it's an ellusive character that isn't immediately obvious to everybody. It doesn't show itself to non-believers.

You either get the whole German-Leica-Zeiss thing, or you don't. Leica have had stuff manufactured all over, in Portgual, Canada and in Japan under the Panasonic umbrella. Zeiss lenses are made by Cosina.

I've been there and done that, used M series and reflex Leicas (their old SLRs were frankly very average) been to the factory and had the treatment. In technological terms, it's history, which is where I'd like to leave it but it's a whole different picture-taking ethic which undoubtedly does give pleasure to a lot of folks. Good luck to them :)

This is where Leica went wrong. Take a look at this gold and green snakeskin limited edition :gag: http://www.kpraslowicz.com/2009/03/10/special-m6s/
 
Last edited:
MatW said:
I believe WuffStuff has an M9. Check out some of his pics. I'm pleased he has, because I got his 5D mk II :D

via TP Forums for iPhone
Click to expand...

Thanks to Matthew, I now have an M9. I had an M8 at one time but wasn't wholly happy with the requirement for IR filters. The M9 is a whole new ballgame.

Not to everybody's taste, it is small, but not light. Definitely unobtrusive and surprisingly easy to use. You always get the image that you focused on, unlike my other DSLR's that randomly focused where they wanted, and the images are very sharp when using Leica glass. It does look a bit old fashioned but it is beautifully engineered. No DSLR comes close in build quality. Forget the naysayers regarding negative build quality and rubbish images - they are a minority.

The difference for me would be the involvement in the photographic process. The necessity to think about aperture and speed, distance and fields of view. It's not possible to snap away and hope for the best - that doesn't compute for an M9.

For those with heavy cameras and glass, I have only 3 lenses with the M9 and they weigh little. I can carry them all day with no effort - that has to be worth something. It means you can literally never be without a camera, and a quality one at that.

I had the opportunity recently to have a Nikon D3S and some superior Nikon glassware in a swap deal for the M9. I couldn't do it.

Don't get me wrong though - there is loads of merit in DSLR's - I'm not knocking them. They all take great photos with the right eye behind the lens and there are some better photos than I'll ever take on here, all taken with DSLR's.

For reference though, I do have a Nikon D7000 for when I need a telephoto that is beyond the reach of my 75 Summilux.
 
HoppyUK said:
They're not that bad ;)

Leica M-series are a bit like a classic sportscar, an Aston DB5 maybe - actually, the original James Bond also used a Leica M3. Imagine sticking a modern turbo-diesel in one of those. It doesn't work.

You get a Leica M for other reasons, the pleasure of owning and using something different and special. And that is all fine and good, but they are not very efficient picture taking machines by modern standards.



Comparing a Leica 50mm f/2 (one of the easiest lenses to design and manufacture) against a Canon 50mm f/1.2 and a 24-70mm f/2.8 zoom (two of the most difficult designs) doesn't seem very relevant to me. Put up a Leica 50mm f/1.0 Noctilux and then see which is better.

Leica lenses are very good, no question, but they are not any better than the best from Canikon. They used to be, like 30 years ago, when Leica employed the best physicists and chemists and had a small army of mathematicians doing the graft. And they had some unique recipes for exotic (for the time) glass types. Today, there are no optical secrets left and computers do the leg work.

When it comes to glass magic, Canon have the edge there with their unique fluorite production plant. Leica just couldn't make anything like the new set of fabulous Canon lenses announced yesterday - they simply haven't got the technology and TBH I think Nikon will struggle to match them now too.
Click to expand...

There's a digitalrev video shows the M9 competes very favourably in regards to efficient focus speed etc vs a 5D MK II and EP1. It does particularly well in low light as well. What would you consider the best Canon and Nikon lens that could be compared with the best Leica lens? As for Nikon not keeping up with Canon I think that is a bit premature.
 
Wuffstuff said:
Thanks to Matthew, I now have an M9. I had an M8 at one time but wasn't wholly happy with the requirement for IR filters. The M9 is a whole new ballgame.

Not to everybody's taste, it is small, but not light. Definitely unobtrusive and surprisingly easy to use. You always get the image that you focused on, unlike my other DSLR's that randomly focused where they wanted, and the images are very sharp when using Leica glass. It does look a bit old fashioned but it is beautifully engineered. No DSLR comes close in build quality. Forget the naysayers regarding negative build quality and rubbish images - they are a minority.

The difference for me would be the involvement in the photographic process. The necessity to think about aperture and speed, distance and fields of view. It's not possible to snap away and hope for the best - that doesn't compute for an M9.

For those with heavy cameras and glass, I have only 3 lenses with the M9 and they weigh little. I can carry them all day with no effort - that has to be worth something. It means you can literally never be without a camera, and a quality one at that.

I had the opportunity recently to have a Nikon D3S and some superior Nikon glassware in a swap deal for the M9. I couldn't do it.

Don't get me wrong though - there is loads of merit in DSLR's - I'm not knocking them. They all take great photos with the right eye behind the lens and there are some better photos than I'll ever take on here, all taken with DSLR's.

For reference though, I do have a Nikon D7000 for when I need a telephoto that is beyond the reach of my 75 Summilux.
Click to expand...

What other lenses do you have for the M9? A 35mm and 50mm?
 
Laudrup said:
There's a digitalrev video shows the M9 competes very favourably in regards to efficient focus speed etc vs a 5D MK II and EP1. It does particularly well in low light as well. What would you consider the best Canon and Nikon lens that could be compared with the best Leica lens? As for Nikon not keeping up with Canon I think that is a bit premature.
Click to expand...

It's not a debate I want to get into really, arguing degrees of excellence. Leica lenses are extremely good, just not any better than the best of the rest. That time passed long ago. Then when you factor in the price - like thousands of pounds for a fairly basic spec manual focus prime lens - well, it's just not the same conversation.

Leica fans often talk about how wonderful rangefinder focusing is. Really, it's a wonder nobody else uses it. Personally, I have never got on with lining up that little square. And the viewinder is, well, let's just say it doesn't do it for me at all. And the new very-nice-in-theory little Leica X1 doesn't have a flippin viewfinder at all (optional extra). Or interchangeable lenses.

I think the closest attempt at a new-age digital Leica, in terms of fundemantal concept, is the Panasonic GF1. That at least has interchangeable lenses. Or the new Fuji X100 might be even better, here http://www.dpreview.com/previews/fujifilmx100/ That has a great new-tech viewfinder, but is fixed lens! So I'll stick my my DSLR for now.

Yes, I may be jumping the gun on Nikon vs Canon, but with their wonderful new range of upgraded long primes which are so important to professionals, it has been noted on here and other forums that they've got the beating of Nikon with these. The key to it I'm sure is fluorite glass, which is tricky stuff that has to be 'grown' in a special factory. It is magic stuff for long focal lengths and with a few bits of that you can make a lens better, shorter and quite a lot lighter.

Nobody else has fluorite, and it would take a big jump for any rivals do it. Only Nikon would ever bother, and they are a small company compared to Canon. Nikon is owned by Mitsubishi, and they are certainly on the larger side of enormous, but I don't know how that shakes out in practise.

All interesting stuff ;) :D
 
Wow! Didn't expect such a comprehensive response. I love to see some brand emotion in here as well as techie input. I genuinely wasn't clear but am much more informed now. My decision is not to splash out. I should rather use the money to buy a further lens for the 5d. Lightness and possibly a tad better image due to the glass is not worth the 5k! I confess I am a bit of a brand junkie but Leica can wait for retirement then.

Glad I joined this forum, have other questions to follow!

Thanks to all those who replied.
 
Overpriced rich man's toy.

If I had that kind of money to spend on photography, I would spend it on lighting, studio time, models...you know the stuff that actually improves your photography?:shrug:
 
salmoally said:
Overpriced rich man's toy.

If I had that kind of money to spend on photography, I would spend it on lighting, studio time, models...you know the stuff that actually improves your photography?:shrug:
Click to expand...

It can do!

Some people buy things just because they can or because they want them, otherwise we would all buy exactly the same because everybody says its the best.

I never thought I would own a digital Leica, but opportunity knocked and I bought an X1. I sold my GF1 shortly after because I much prefer the images and handling of the Leica.

Of course Leica's aren't everybody's cup of tea but with them usually comes brand loyalty and the knowledge that the body and lenses were assembled by hand. Of course they arent the best cameras in the world and the M9 probably wont replace a top range DSLR. But a Leica S2 would!

Allan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top