Reading mode: Light Dark

Why Leica M9?

Go to last post
R

rocklobster

Senior Member
Messages
1,403
Reaction score
0
Location
Melbourne, AU
Test at Imaging Resource views M9 through (highly saturated) rose-coloured glasses.

I looked at the gallery shots first before reading the text as many of us do to get a general idea of IQ. Then a few of the other samples and test shots. To be fair maybe the JPEG engine is not so good and NR is mild to non-existant. The 'Exposure' tests for DR back this up with poor performance for JPEG and OK performance for RAW although the reviewer says that it is not quite as good as the better APS-C sensors.

The 'Overview' page shows a shot with the M9 up against the NEX-7. The reviewer prefers the M9 because it is more 'luscious' to his eye. Reminds me of the old valve (tube) amplifier or vinyl versus more modern technology argument.

The Leica lens is certainly a good one and I suppose processing of RAW images may turn up something oustanding but at this point I am not convinced.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/M9/M9A.HTM

Cheers
 
I looked at that the other day and I'm another one thats confused by that. Tried to work it out, but just gave up thinking with what he said, the images got mixed up or he was looking at something totally different than what I was looking at.

Interesting huh :)

All the best.

Danny.
...........................
m4/3 macro
http://www.macrophotos.com/g2macro

m4/3 feathered flying gadgets
http://www.macrophotos.com/avian/avian.html

Worry about the image that comes out of the box, rather than the box itself.
 
in particular situations. With quality light I've made side-by-side print comparisons and the results are undeniable . 35mm film will often not "win" the resolution/sharpness war, but it totally kicks butt (with that quality light) for that POP/3D-look, with truly natural-looking grain, tonal gradations, and colors. I like my digital cameras and their convenience, but I love film.
rocklobster said:
Reminds me of the old valve (tube) amplifier or vinyl versus more modern technology argument.
Click to expand...
So if it's that tube amplifier look they're after they'd be better off with a Nikon FM2 w/ a few classic lenses. Now they can shoot/process/print with film for years and still save the money they would have dumped on that over-priced toy. And they get the real deal to boot!
 
appears to be that if you take the most tedious shot of a chair on a beach or suchlike, the people on the Leica forum will declare it to be wonderful, when it ain't.

The Emperor's New Camera.
 
I read that report and took a good look at the sample images. I cannot, for the life of me understand what makes that camera worth so much money. I have no idea what he's talking about when he describes his preference for the Leica images. The NEX images look better to me, in fact.

Bizarre.

--
-------------------------------------------------
No Signature.
 
Gearóid Ó Laoi said:
appears to be that if you take the most tedious shot of a chair on a beach or suchlike, the people on the Leica forum will declare it to be wonderful, when it ain't.
The Emperor's New Camera.
Click to expand...
I agree. I've observed this for several years now, with people sharing a disproportional numbers of lackluster Leica images (both film and digital) to the delight of closed-eyed Leica fans everywhere. I believe there's a simple explanation for it...that a good amount of Leica users are obsessed with equipment and not the art of photography. Most of the "you don't understand the Leica mindset" arguments are desperate attempts at justifying someone's expensive, gear-collecting sickness.

I remember browsing through a truly creative graphics design book at Borders around the time that digital was getting popular. The photography in the book was sensational, and I read in the fine print that it was all done with a Pentax consumer film P&S camera. Not a Leica. Not a Nikon F3. A consumer P&S camera! I noted the type of camera because I was picking up the hobby again, after years of being away from it.
 
You don't understand how expensive it is to create a red dot. I don't understand all of the processes involved, but it must be expensive. For example, take a Panasonic camera, put a red dot on it and it adds hundreds of dollars to the cost of the camera.
dmanthree said:
I read that report and took a good look at the sample images. I cannot, for the life of me understand what makes that camera worth so much money. I have no idea what he's talking about when he describes his preference for the Leica images. The NEX images look better to me, in fact.

Bizarre.

--
-------------------------------------------------
No Signature.
Click to expand...
 
Very well stated smallcams...

I recently acquired a film rangefinder ----- Zeiss Ikon with 35mm F2.0 film camera as I have gone back to do more b/w film photography...

In my research of this set, I graced thru different rangefinder forums dominated by Leica users....

Will not talk about critiquing their images.....as most of them were just your usual snapshots...

But what I gathered was the good number of Leica users that snaps a photo....mostly for web use or even a photo book such as 8x10.

There was nothing I saw that stood out with images captured by M9 that beats Canon/Nikon/Sony etc captures...

There are a good number of them that commented that using Leica M9 gave them the sense of being in control of the whole process of image capturing...

Not exactly sure what this meant using a digital medium.....

I could understand the b/w film process a bit better in regards to this...as there are a bit more variables involved....all the way to darkroom work.

Not enough experience with digital to understand what it they meant about 'more contol of creating an image using a digital Leica...
smallcams said:
I agree. I've observed this for several years now, with people sharing a disproportional numbers of lackluster Leica images (both film and digital) to the delight of closed-eyed Leica fans everywhere. I believe there's a simple explanation for it...that a good amount of Leica users are obsessed with equipment and not the art of photography. Most of the "you don't understand the Leica mindset" arguments are desperate attempts at justifying someone's expensive, gear-collecting sickness.

I remember browsing through a truly creative graphics design book at Borders around the time that digital was getting popular. The photography in the book was sensational, and I read in the fine print that it was all done with a Pentax consumer film P&S camera. Not a Leica. Not a Nikon F3. A consumer P&S camera! I noted the type of camera because I was picking up the hobby again, after years of being away from it.
Click to expand...
 
chopsteeks said:
Very well stated smallcams...

I recently acquired a film rangefinder ----- Zeiss Ikon with 35mm F2.0 film camera as I have gone back to do more b/w film photography...

In my research of this set, I graced thru different rangefinder forums dominated by Leica users....

Will not talk about critiquing their images.....as most of them were just your usual snapshots...

But what I gathered was the good number of Leica users that snaps a photo....mostly for web use or even a photo book such as 8x10.

There was nothing I saw that stood out with images captured by M9 that beats Canon/Nikon/Sony etc captures...

There are a good number of them that commented that using Leica M9 gave them the sense of being in control of the whole process of image capturing...

Not exactly sure what this meant using a digital medium.....
Click to expand...
Back in my film days, I got a chance or two to handle Leicas. I had always been fascinated by what I considered over-rated photos from the film cameras. They handled nicely, had the same faults all rangefinders had, and actually made the kind of photography I do worse in some instances. They are probably fantastic for street photographers, but that's not what I do.

But to have total control over a digital camera, particularly DSLRs, all you have to do is turn the knob to M and slip the focus switch to M also. Of course, you're not limited to lenses that fit the marks on the viewfinder, so maybe that's a problem for some.

Basically, in today's slang, I don't get Leica, I guess.

--
Charlie Self
http://www.charlieselfonline.com
 
Greenville said:
You don't understand how expensive it is to create a red dot. I don't understand all of the processes involved, but it must be expensive. For example, take a Panasonic camera, put a red dot on it and it adds hundreds of dollars to the cost of the camera.
Click to expand...
Ah. Finally, some info that makes complete sense. I wonder if I can steal a red dot for my GX1 and then double my money?

Seriously, this whole Leica "mystique" thing has become a joke. Sure, they're nice, but for over seven grand (US)? Joke. An even bigger joke was the M8/M8.2, the camera that couldn't take color pics without sticking an IR filter on each lens! Leica buyers blew it off by saying it was no big deal. Right. I guess Leica wanted to save their owners the cost of an IR conversion.

Kool-Aid. Plain and simple.
Kokopelli_Rocks said:
dmanthree said:
I read that report and took a good look at the sample images. I cannot, for the life of me understand what makes that camera worth so much money. I have no idea what he's talking about when he describes his preference for the Leica images. The NEX images look better to me, in fact.

Bizarre.

--
-------------------------------------------------
No Signature.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
-------------------------------------------------
No Signature.
 
I don't know. I sort of like some of these.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1038&message=40712009

He does need a little PP on some. At least with the better Leica equipment, you are capturing texture and shading that is just not there on the canikon stuff, especially Canon. It depends on what you like in IQ.

I personally do not like the Canon, wiped out textureless, smoothed over look. It is up to you, especially if yuo can tell the difference.
--
Variance is Evil!
 
hmmm.... my eyes must be deceiving me in regards to the texture Leica captures compared to other brands with their higher end prime lenses...
JoeDaBassPlayer said:
I don't know. I sort of like some of these.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1038&message=40712009

He does need a little PP on some. At least with the better Leica equipment, you are capturing texture and shading that is just not there on the canikon stuff, especially Canon. It depends on what you like in IQ.

I personally do not like the Canon, wiped out textureless, smoothed over look. It is up to you, especially if yuo can tell the difference.
--
Variance is Evil!
Click to expand...
 
JoeDaBassPlayer said:
I don't know. I sort of like some of these.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1038&message=40712009

He does need a little PP on some. At least with the better Leica equipment, you are capturing texture and shading that is just not there on the canikon stuff, especially Canon. It depends on what you like in IQ.
Click to expand...
I've heard that, but I've never seen a real example. Also, those shots you posted were film scans. So what you're seeing here is a demo of a scanner, not a Leica.
JoeDaBassPlayer said:
I personally do not like the Canon, wiped out textureless, smoothed over look. It is up to you, especially if yuo can tell the difference.
--
Variance is Evil!
Click to expand...
--
-------------------------------------------------
No Signature.
 
dmanthree said:
JoeDaBassPlayer said:
I don't know. I sort of like some of these.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1038&message=40712009

He does need a little PP on some. At least with the better Leica equipment, you are capturing texture and shading that is just not there on the canikon stuff, especially Canon. It depends on what you like in IQ.
Click to expand...
I've heard that, but I've never seen a real example. Also, those shots you posted were film scans. So what you're seeing here is a demo of a scanner, not a Leica.
dmanthree said:
I personally do not like the Canon, wiped out textureless, smoothed over look. It is up to you, especially if yuo can tell the difference.
--
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I know those were film shots but they were from the first thread I looked at with photos. They aren't bad as far as composition goes.

As far as the results from different manufacturer's euipment, there are differences. It depends if it matters to you or if you can even tell the difference. It is like pianos. Most people can not tell the difference in sound between a Yamaha and Steinway grand. There are even better pianos than Steinway.

--
Variance is Evil!
 
It is about Leica lenses. They cost more but out perform everything I have used.
--
Greg Gebhardt in
Jacksonville, Florida
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
  • Question Question
looking for allround camera as replacement for Sony Nex 7
Replies
14
Views
12K
Ruedon
R
Asherax
  • User review User review
Olympus C-210 1.9x TC
Replies
2
Views
13K
Asherax
Asherax
H
Used Sony Alpha 9m1 or Mint Canon R8?
Replies
12
Views
15K
NAwlins Contrarian
N
B
Neokinoooooos
Replies
1
Views
10K
simple-joy
simple-joy
P
Archetypes of Amateur Photographers
2 3
Replies
50
Views
127K
MyReality
MyReality

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top