Leica M9

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...
How does this stuff improve your photography?

Maybe an understanding of aperture, speed and light would be more helpful and those skills are free.

Leica M9's may be judged by some who lack objectivity as more expensive but they cost less than the original prices of a 3dx or a 1ds3.

There are some who have done with the peripherals mentioned above and who wish to focus on their personal photography. Isn't that what we're about - choice.

I'm no Leica fanboy but I take issue with someone who doesn't know me suggesting I might be rich. I wish I was but these Leica's and the expensive lenses have made me poor.
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
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...

I have a feeling Leica know well enough how to make very good lenses already! They have been making binoculars and spotting scopes with pure fluorite crystal objective lenses for some time and their camera lens technology is pretty amazing. Have a look HERE and download the "Know How" brochure.

Allan
 
allanm said:
I have a feeling Leica know well enough how to make very good lenses already! They have been making binoculars and spotting scopes with pure fluorite crystal objective lenses for some time and their camera lens technology is pretty amazing. Have a look HERE and download the "Know How" brochure.

Allan
Click to expand...

That's an interesting link, thank you, but glass containing fluoride is not the same stuff as fluroite crystal.

Various manufacturers have dabbled with fluorite over the years but it's extremely hard stuff to produce economically in big enough chunks for long, fast lenses where it is most beneficial. Canon built their dedicated fluorite plant many years ago now, where this stuff is actually 'grown' and now it really seems to be paying off.

I think you can come close to the performance of fluorite by using two or three elements of exotic conventional glass, but the extra weight is substantial. For example, Nikon's current 300mm and 400mm f/2.8 lenses, full of their latest ED glass, are about 25% heavier than the new Canon equivalents which both have two big fluorite elements - that's getting on for a full kilo weight difference on the 400. And I would bet good money that the Canons will be sharper, to the point where they will deliver very good performance even with an extender.

These are big benefits. Leica doesn't even make its own glass these days. To be blunt, they can't hold a candle to the best Japanese technology. They make up for it in other ways, but the result is an entirely different kind of product that appeals in different ways.
 
HoppyUK said:
And I would bet good money that the Canons will be sharper
Click to expand...

With respect, this sharpness claim is completely unsubstantiated; betting good money is not the same as finite proof. I do think other manufacturers could knock out top quality glass as good, if not better, than Leica and Zeiss but fact is always an improvement over guesswork.

As a Leica M9, Nikon D7000 and Sony NEX 5 owner I can honestly say it is horses for courses in photography. There are many times when I don't care if my picture is sharp as long as I got the picture. In fact, sometimes I'll induce a lack of sharpness deliberately to make a shot.

At the same I do love a sharp landscape and Canon do make some quality lenses - I've yet to match the quality of the 50/1.2L, 85/1.2L and the 135/2L. I can forget the weight though;)
 
HoppyUK said:
That's an interesting link, thank you, but glass containing fluoride is not the same stuff as fluroite crystal.
Click to expand...
Good point, but I didnt say they used fluorite in their camera lenses, just their binoculars and spotting scopes; they use some sort of exotic soft glass made by Schott. It could be fluorite, it could be something better, after all, using calcium fluorite for optical instruments is old technology and has been used in telescope manufacture since 1977.
Leica must have a reason for apparently not using fluorite in their lenses and i wouldnt imagine it is the cost. I suppose the most convincing way to tell if Canon lenses are any better than the rest is by testing them and looking at their specifications and performance.
Now that would be a convincing arguement!
Leica may not make their own glass but its what they do with it that counts. I dont suppose Canon make their own metals or paint but I dont think anything less of them.

Allan
 
Wuffstuff said:
With respect, this sharpness claim is completely unsubstantiated...

<snip>
Click to expand...

Not quite. Canon have published MTF graphs for their new lenses and they have always been a good indicator of performance.

I have never seen graphs as good as these - they are practically off the scale! Even with a 2x extender they are better than most lenses without. Here's the 300L 2.8 MkII http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_300mm_f_2_8l_is_ii_usm
 
HoppyUK said:
Canon have published MTF graphs for their new lenses and they have always been a good indicator of performance.
Click to expand...

Of course, MTF's are the indicator of quality. However, I haven't noted any comparisons of the Canon V Leica glassware. If you have please point us in the direction.

That technical issue aside, we don't always require/desire maximum quality from our lenses. I love the old soft Leica 'look', whatever it is. I see it in the Canon 135L but I can't reproduce it in my Leica M9.

Never mind I'll just continue to plough my lonely furrow on TP with my rich mans toy. Going out to play now.:exit:
 
Wuffstuff said:
Of course, MTF's are the indicator of quality. However, I haven't noted any comparisons of the Canon V Leica glassware. If you have please point us in the direction.

That technical issue aside, we don't always require/desire maximum quality from our lenses. I love the old soft Leica 'look', whatever it is. I see it in the Canon 135L but I can't reproduce it in my Leica M9.

Never mind I'll just continue to plough my lonely furrow on TP with my rich mans toy. Going out to play now.:exit:
Click to expand...

MTF is the measure of sharpness, but there are other things - vignetting, distortion etc, and flare is often overlooked but can have a huge impact on contrast.

There are some Leica MTF graphs linked above. Here http://en.leica-camera.com/photography/m_system/lenses/2183.html click on the Know-How button.

They are only an MTF snapshot and you have to be careful exactly what you're looking at. The Leica graphs are at 5, 10, 20 and 40lppmm, whereas Canon (Nikon and Sigma too I think) present only 10 and 30lppmm.

That's one thing, and also those values are an old standard TBH, relating more to film that digital. For example, the sensor on a 7D with 18mp is capable (in theory) of resolving 116lppmm :eek: but is overlaid with an AA filter at an unknown level.

Radiohead's point about the Leica M9 having a very mild AA filter is an interesting one and the M9 should therefore be able to get closer to its theoretical maximum than other cameras with a stronger cut filter, but that is one thing that manufacturers never quantify (because it makes a nonsense of their marketing rhetoric about high pixel counts).

So at the end of the day, all the manufacturer's MTF graphs are only an indicator of lens potential in actual use. You have to read between the lines (haha :D). IMHO what is significant about these new Canon lenses is that they are now paying much more attention to very high resolution levels, both to better exploit the potential of the 30-40mp sensors that are around the corner, and also to make extenders/teleconverters an increasingly viable option.
 
HoppyUK said:
Not quite. Canon have published MTF graphs for their new lenses and they have always been a good indicator of performance.

I have never seen graphs as good as these - they are practically off the scale! Even with a 2x extender they are better than most lenses without. Here's the 300L 2.8 MkII http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_300mm_f_2_8l_is_ii_usm
Click to expand...

Really? Canon publish something that "proves" Canon products are good? Shocker.
 
fixedimage said:
Really? Canon publish something that "proves" Canon products are good? Shocker.
Click to expand...

They publish MTF graphs for all their lenses, which prove that some are better than others, and also that some are not so good at all.

As all reputable manufactuers do, including Leica.
 
Last edited:
mikeyt said:
wait for me! Youre not the only one on here with an M9, you know... :)
Click to expand...

Not jealous, not jealous, not jealous, not jealous, not jealous, not jealous, not jealous, not jealous, not jealous, not jealous, not jealous, not jealous, not jealous, not jealous, not jealous, not jealous, not jealous,
Di I mention I wasnt jealous of your M9's?

Allan, with just an X1.... :'(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top