Roland Karlsson
Forum Pro
Reading careful I see that. It was Boris.
You missed to use the DPReview quotation standard though!
--
Roland
support http://www.openraw.org/
X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Not impressed by M9 samples
- Thread starter EasyClick
- Start date
You missed to use the DPReview quotation standard though!
--
Roland
support http://www.openraw.org/
X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html
Digital Coast Image
Leading Member
Actually, I've yet to see a review here on dpreview that did NOT have sub par samples. That is true for every camera I've seen them review.
I use dpreview for stats and overall comments, but the random use of f-stops (like an f2 landscape) and other oddities has me ignore the sample shots.
I don't know if it is a result of the compression they are using to upload smaller file size images or not, but they are consistently not the best work from the cameras they review.
--
Michael James - DigitalCoastImage.com - Destin, FL U.S.A.
I use dpreview for stats and overall comments, but the random use of f-stops (like an f2 landscape) and other oddities has me ignore the sample shots.
I don't know if it is a result of the compression they are using to upload smaller file size images or not, but they are consistently not the best work from the cameras they review.
--
Michael James - DigitalCoastImage.com - Destin, FL U.S.A.
Zone8
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 17,276
- Solutions
- 12
- Reaction score
- 1,001
Hi Roland. I find that whether the quoted bit is in red or not seems to be hit and miss. I always delete as much as possible (as asked by dpreview) and can never guarantee the end result. It would perhaps help if one could change the text colour when such change of quoted from red to black occurs.
Most times - I do get fed up with the time wasted trying to sort such things. Am far more interested really in making pictures.
At least this time it stayed red. So, I can say I really red it! :-D
--
Zone8
The photograph isolates and perpetuates a moment of time: an important and revealing moment, or an unimportant and meaningless one, depending upon the photographer's understanding of his subject and mastery of his process. -Edward Weston
http://www.photosnowdonia.co.uk/ZPS
The Leica has always been considered a professional photographers camera. The M-series was developed to be a work horse for professional photojournalist - to go out in the trenches and foxholes of the war and never miss a shot even if the camera was used as a defensive weapon in hand to hand combat you knock the enemy out then take a picture of him with a gash in his head for Life
. When you are a working professional - you write off your equipment. When you are a hobbies - you can't.
You pay for that. Leica rolled this build quality around the finest engineering and finest optics to produce a masterpiece of a camera.
They never were for the faint of heart when it came to getting our your billfold. However, if and were going to buy a FF camera and you laid the the FF offerings of Canon, Nikon and Sony side by side - I'd spend the extra and go with the M-9 in a heartbeat. You get what you pay for.
Truman
http://www.pbase.com/tprevatt
. When you are a working professional - you write off your equipment. When you are a hobbies - you can't.You pay for that. Leica rolled this build quality around the finest engineering and finest optics to produce a masterpiece of a camera.
They never were for the faint of heart when it came to getting our your billfold. However, if and were going to buy a FF camera and you laid the the FF offerings of Canon, Nikon and Sony side by side - I'd spend the extra and go with the M-9 in a heartbeat. You get what you pay for.
--MR is apparently in the fortunate position to be able to dip his hand in his pocket and purchase a Leica or a Phase One whenever he feels like it.
Good luck to him but it must skew his world view of what it reasonable or not for people in a less strong financial position!
Everyone has there own financial considerations to factor in to the equation and Leica prices will always restrict the products to a small market.
Personally, even the price of a Canon Rebel demands careful consideration about value for money and a leica wouldn't even be something that would cross my mind despite the fact I could theoretically afford one. Just too expensive to take seriously when you can get most of the performance for 1/10th the price. But very nice luxury product for those who can run to one...
--See "The Price Equation" part:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/m9-first.shtml
--
Igor Tulaev
St.Petersburg, Russia
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/mainindex.htm
Truman
http://www.pbase.com/tprevatt
1. ISO1600 is very noisy - compared to other FF and even cropped bayer sensors.
2. Clearly visible strong aliasing. Expect moire mess on subjects like fine cloth.
These two (at least) things are not caused by the photographer. They will persist no matter who does the shooting.
The Kodak sensor is the weakest part of the Leica system - as opposed to Foveon sensor which is the strongest part of the Sigma system.
2. Clearly visible strong aliasing. Expect moire mess on subjects like fine cloth.
These two (at least) things are not caused by the photographer. They will persist no matter who does the shooting.
The Kodak sensor is the weakest part of the Leica system - as opposed to Foveon sensor which is the strongest part of the Sigma system.
Thisjustin
Senior Member
Remember that Leica relies on their name ALOT. If that SAME camera said "Jims Brand" on it would it be $6k? If it were identical, made the same, everything, would it? no.
Leica is like Harley-Davidson. They don't make BAD products but alot of their products are over priced and alot of people will buy them simply because of the name stamped on the front.
Leica is like Harley-Davidson. They don't make BAD products but alot of their products are over priced and alot of people will buy them simply because of the name stamped on the front.
john120588
Senior Member
I will rather buy a lecia MP or M6, i will never buy any digital M8/9, the reason people buy lecia for it over priced product because they want it last maybe pass the camera to their grandson. a digital M8/9 will never last, the electric parts, like sensor and lcd screen will fail after 3-4 years of year and it will be a big cost to repair, and those special designed recharge battery will be hard to find after a few years, just like my sonyr800 cell phone.
at the point of iew of lecia, they have no choice, no one use film now, and they out source all the digital and electric parts hence the over priced
The more I look at the photos, the more I agree with Gene. Those are very good images. Note that there is no AA filter in the M9, which makes the images sharper. The fuzzy areas are all simply out of focus. And those are 18 MP photos we're looking at -- the DP1 or DP2 couldn't come close to capturing as much detail. If I had $7,000 to plunk down, I might get the M9.
richard stone
Senior Member
It is pretty impressive that the camera manages to use the short registration distance lenses and gets these results. That is a real accomplishment.
My wish (before the DP1) was always that Sigma would find a way to produce a camera that would be a small package with excellent results with a wide angle. One could hope that Sigma has learned enough to make its own version of the M9. But at this point I think Sigma may have to enlarge the sensor to keep pace with the best Bayer cameras, because the Bayer cameras are gradually getting better by simply going with ever larger MP numbers.
And one advantage of the M9 is the lack of the blurring filter, which ends one issue with Bayer sensors. That is where some of the Foveon sharpness comes from.
Can Sigma/Foveon can produce a (DP3?) with an M mount? A camera with a full frame sensor? Or even an improved SD14 sensor? Does it want to or care?
Or one could take the view that if the DP series is just about as good as the M9 it still only costs one tenth as much, or something like that, so it's still a pretty good deal. It is not exactly the same market, as some of the posters above have made clear by their comments.
Richard
--
My small gallery: http://www.pbase.com/richard44/inbox
richard stone
Senior Member
Cynical.
True.
On the other hand, the Leica cameras are really very good. Maybe not $7,000 good, but really good. You can get those prices if you have a history of producing cameras and lenses of extremely high quality and that are easy to use.
And these are full frame cameras (in theory) for professionals, so the idea is that they will be a business expense, not just a burden or indulgence taken out of household expenses. For amateurs, the idea is somewhat similar to investing: if you can't afford to lose the money you shouldn't buy one.
Richard
My small gallery: http://www.pbase.com/richard44/inbox
True.
On the other hand, the Leica cameras are really very good. Maybe not $7,000 good, but really good. You can get those prices if you have a history of producing cameras and lenses of extremely high quality and that are easy to use.
And these are full frame cameras (in theory) for professionals, so the idea is that they will be a business expense, not just a burden or indulgence taken out of household expenses. For amateurs, the idea is somewhat similar to investing: if you can't afford to lose the money you shouldn't buy one.
Richard
--
My small gallery: http://www.pbase.com/richard44/inbox
Actually, it was the fabulously perfect and pristine Las Vegas gallery that DP Review took with the DP1 that got me interested in Sigma cameras. The DP2 gallery was awful. But that first DP1 gallery was the best bunch of images I have ever seen from a camera. If the DP1 didn't have that magenta problem, I might have gotten it.
light_reaction
Veteran Member
Hard to "fall in love" with a camera just based on dpreview samples. Which is good so - it is the manufacturer's and the fanboys' job to cherrypick attractive images. Dpreview's job is to try and set the camera into relation with all other, formerly tested ones (must be the most boring job in the world to shoot the same scenes every time a new casio P&s is released).
OTOH - not sure they were fully awake when doing the Leica samples. Using F2 for cityscapes on a sunny day? Hmm..
o.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ollivr/
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/ollivr/popular-interesting/
http://seen.by.spiegel.de/ollivr-1
OTOH - not sure they were fully awake when doing the Leica samples. Using F2 for cityscapes on a sunny day? Hmm..
o.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ollivr/
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/ollivr/popular-interesting/
http://seen.by.spiegel.de/ollivr-1
spalbird
Senior Member
Hrrmmm, hrrmmm, professionals are also compromising quality for price. I have the impression that Leica is more for collectors and enthusiasts and some artists.
Top quality is always times more expensive compared to very good quality. Leicas are produced uncompromised quality in mind, tightest tolerances for all lenses and cameras and long durability.
Contrary to a Leica, a Nikon D300 does not need to live longer or keep their quality more than over 3 years. I know it does, but the buyer who pays the $$$ for a new camera will always have the latest model, and the follower will compromise when buying cheaply.
Did somebody make the calculation? What did you pay for your digital DSLRs and lenses until now over the last 10 years? Take this price and hold it against that 6000 Euros the Leica will cost. Also for lenses, you can rely that it is a top end decade lasting product which will not be out-classed by any other manufacturer soon. No need to jump from lens to lens and read through reviews, open the Leica catalog, pay that lot of money, think about your next cam 20 years after. The latter, I think, is most challenging for us, no discussions about which lens is better any more, too much time left for being alone outside taking our artwork...
6000 Euros are 1.65 Euros for 10 years every day btw. Much cheaper than a gf btw
Especially lenses will be very saleable even after 10 years, reducing loss even more...
br
wolfgang
spalbird
Senior Member
They have this f1.0 lens which compensate for very noisy ISO1600...
http://lensbuyersguide.com/de/lens/show/Leica/NOCTILUX-M_50mm_f1.0
so this lens alone covers all possible use-cases?
richard stone
Senior Member
I think I agree...Hrrmmm, hrrmmm, professionals are also compromising quality for price. I have the impression that Leica is more for collectors and enthusiasts and some artists.
Top quality is always times more expensive compared to very good quality. Leicas are produced uncompromised quality in mind, tightest tolerances for all lenses and cameras and long durability.
Contrary to a Leica, a Nikon D300 does not need to live longer or keep their quality more than over 3 years. I know it does, but the buyer who pays the $$$ for a new camera will always have the latest model, and the follower will compromise when buying cheaply.
Did somebody make the calculation? What did you pay for your digital DSLRs and lenses until now over the last 10 years? Take this price and hold it against that 6000 Euros the Leica will cost. Also for lenses, you can rely that it is a top end decade lasting product which will not be out-classed by any other manufacturer soon. No need to jump from lens to lens and read through reviews, open the Leica catalog, pay that lot of money, think about your next cam 20 years after. The latter, I think, is most challenging for us, no discussions about which lens is better any more, too much time left for being alone outside taking our artwork...
6000 Euros are 1.65 Euros for 10 years every day btw. Much cheaper than a gf btw
Especially lenses will be very saleable even after 10 years, reducing loss even more...
br
wolfgang
There is no doubt that Leica wants to style itself as a camera for professionals, and yet it is probably more of a status symbol for more people.
Obsolescence? For the camera, yes, and not the lenses, as you mention. And if Leica wants to sell lenses it has to sell cameras.
I don't know how the math would work for figuring out if it was a good business investment. I have a number of businesses, but not a photography business. You would like to see some money that you could attribute to the camera, but why not use a DSLR? Would there be something unique about the images from the Leica, or does it it do something no other camera can do?
And I have some film rangefinders, too. Several. I like them, but they don't see much use these days.
Or one could just try to appreciate it for being a beautiful machine. That could work, too.
Richard
--
My small gallery: http://www.pbase.com/richard44/inbox
spalbird
Senior Member
No, obviously it is not that tele lens for a safari, also it is not a wide angle lens for landscape/city/party shots but it is perfect for available light street and indoor/pub/... photography where a tripod is not of much use. Why need ISO1600 if you can use a tripod? The M9 is certainly not a good Safari companion....
Yes, for some photographers it covers most use cases....
Compared to a fixed focal length with slower open aperture light sensitivity of this combo is adorable. It is a 3 stops difference to the DP2 and 4 stops to the DP1. Furthermore, better bokeh and much much shallow DOF (one reason is the 3 times larger sensor, the second reason is a real 50mm, the third that fast lens).
Light-wise, this combo can do things DP1 and DP2 are inferior... FF sensor, interchangeable lenses, probably more easy to operate and more. And it is not a heavy high end DSLR, and lenses are light weight, and shrinking for wide angle. Nowadays in a world where down-sizing is sexy, a camera like the M9 has more sex appeal than big sized DSLRs. As a result of less weight a smaller and lighter tripod will suffice. Makes the photographer feel different from a mule, or gives him more reach than that 500m around his SUV concerning a complete high end DSLR equipment...
Just my opinion, of course, for some those benefits are priceless
wolfgang
spalbird
Senior Member
I looked at the samples and inspected the blue sky. This is where I was most annoyed prior to buing the dp2, because it always is grainy. Even so in the M9 samples. I have seen grainfree skies on sample photos taken by CMOS sensors, but M9 uses CCD. Can that be the explanation?
Regards
Johan
Regards
Johan
spalbird
Senior Member
A rangefinder is is better for people photography than a DSLR because it is unobrusive. There are two reasons for this, first it is not so bulky, then it has a quite old-fashioned look. P&S are even more unobrusive, but people are alarmed of ruthless P&S photographers. DSLR is too official, professional and threatening. Rangefinders are just right for the impression of the nice dad.I think I agree...Hrrmmm, hrrmmm, professionals are also compromising quality for price. I have the impression that Leica is more for collectors and enthusiasts and some artists.
Top quality is always times more expensive compared to very good quality. Leicas are produced uncompromised quality in mind, tightest tolerances for all lenses and cameras and long durability.
Contrary to a Leica, a Nikon D300 does not need to live longer or keep their quality more than over 3 years. I know it does, but the buyer who pays the $$$ for a new camera will always have the latest model, and the follower will compromise when buying cheaply.
Did somebody make the calculation? What did you pay for your digital DSLRs and lenses until now over the last 10 years? Take this price and hold it against that 6000 Euros the Leica will cost. Also for lenses, you can rely that it is a top end decade lasting product which will not be out-classed by any other manufacturer soon. No need to jump from lens to lens and read through reviews, open the Leica catalog, pay that lot of money, think about your next cam 20 years after. The latter, I think, is most challenging for us, no discussions about which lens is better any more, too much time left for being alone outside taking our artwork...
6000 Euros are 1.65 Euros for 10 years every day btw. Much cheaper than a gf btw
Especially lenses will be very saleable even after 10 years, reducing loss even more...
br
wolfgang
There is no doubt that Leica wants to style itself as a camera for professionals, and yet it is probably more of a status symbol for more people.
Obsolescence? For the camera, yes, and not the lenses, as you mention. And if Leica wants to sell lenses it has to sell cameras.
I don't know how the math would work for figuring out if it was a good business investment. I have a number of businesses, but not a photography business. You would like to see some money that you could attribute to the camera, but why not use a DSLR? Would there be something unique about the images from the Leica, or does it it do something no other camera can do?
And I have some film rangefinders, too. Several. I like them, but they don't see much use these days.
Or one could just try to appreciate it for being a beautiful machine. That could work, too.
What can a Rangefinder do what another camera can't do? Just what I mentioned before, is more easy with a range finder. For people photographer not only light and the equipment is important, but the interaction of the photographer and the persons.
For example, what can't a PC do what a sliderule can do? The PC is not limiting but lazyness of the people. The PC and heavy computer gaming has made a majority of the people in their 20s to practically and logically unskilled persons but better consumers. Once automatic functions and face detection do decisions for the photographer, either there is the point where some ppl get red by anger or they need much much longer to reach a mature level. For many situations, a rangefinder is fast enough and leaves some time for the photographer for using his brain.
With a split screen it was once easy to get the picture in focus. As the AF was not refined enough for hitting the spot, first what the manufacturers did is not disable the split screen focussing. Even with a split screen today's lenses are difficult to operate because of tiny movements for reaching focus and slackness. Without sufficient MF capabilities a better AF from generation to generation is a strong motivator for upgrading, and it seems this strategy was successful.
Btw, what can a analog camera do what a digital can't?
So many amateurs here around, with such high requirements...
Just my thoughts
wolfgang
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum