What do you DISLIKE about your M9?

[tstermitz]

Originally Posted by Hosermage

Care to share? I'm still learning my ways... and I haven't dared to go pass 800. If I knew how to fix it in post, then it opens up a lot for me! Is it mostly tweaking the luminance slider?

Thanks in advance.

See the Luminous Landscape LR4 Tutorials, which are really excellent as they show best practices for many things. The Noise Reduction is worth the whole thing.

There is a trade off between sharpening and noise reduction, so you have to go back and forth a little. With noisy images, you don't want to sharpen the noise, so use a larger radius setting. Although it sounds counter-intuitive, you should add back in a touch of small-sized grain.

Color noise looks really artificial so I want to do a good job reducing it, but my big insight was that I can tolerate some amount of luminance noise. Accepting that I can't eliminate luminance noise at 100% pixels, my normal-sized, on-screen or printed images looks great.

[kanzlr]

I never had the M9, but I hated the M8 ergonomics. Hard to hold, etc. coming from an SLR...If it only had the body of the Hexar RF...a bit more rounded, slight grip, much grippier texture...

[x-ray]

My M9 arrived today and unfortunately have only had a chance to shoot around 90 frames. It has been raining off and on since the postman delivered it.

First impressions are very good. We all know the complaints but at this point other than the pathetic LCD I'm really liking the camera.

The skies have been heavy overcast but the color is superb and what I would call vibrant. (RAW / LR4.1) The color is true to form for a CCD camera and much like what I get from my Hasselblad digital. CCD's just have a different color than CMOS and CCD's are much more to my liking. Focus is dead on with my 35 Biogon and 50 Planar as well as my 21 Elmarit. I've shot all three lenses wide open and down two stops and am very impressed with the performance of both Zeiss lenses. First impressions are the 21 Elmarit will improve with stopping down. I haven't had a chance to shoot the 75 Summilux or 90 Apo Asph yet but there's tomorrow.

Like I mentioned the LCD is nothing more than a guide to see if you have the shot and a way to view the histogram. For my part they could have left it off for all the good it does. The noise doesn't bother me at all. It sounds a lot like my old v1 M winder and a lot quieter than my old SL MOT. I've tried with and without the lens profiles and can not see any difference with any of the three lenses. The 21 hasn't had much of a test yet so tomorrow we'll see.

Sometime down the road I'll compare it side by side to my D800 and Hasselblad digital.

[Ben Z]

Originally Posted by x-ray

Like I mentioned the LCD is nothing more than a guide to see if you have the shot and a way to view the histogram. For my part they could have left it off for all the good it does.

It's not as bad as you suggest. I was able to use the LCD fully-zoomed to fine-tune my rangefinder. I confirmed this by then viewing at 100% on the computer. But I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I've used any LCD on any camera (aside from those without a viewfinder of course) for anything except accessing menus. I have often thought about making a thin plastic or aluminum plate upholstered in matching vulcanite vinyl to use as a cover/protector for the LCD, but I can't figure an elegant way of making it easily removable. I wish Leica had made such a cover and provided tabs around the LCD for it to clip. I really liked the look of the Epson R-D1 with the LCD turned inward, but it did cause added thickness to the body which would not be welcomed on the M9.

[LeicaTom]

Hmm well after reading all this and seeing that statement saying that the 50mm frame lines are lousy (do they flare out?) or are very hard to work with and the camera's images have less of
a "film like" look than he M8 was, sounds like the M9 isn't the camera for my needs of a PinUp/Retro photographer?

I mostly shoot 50mm's in all my work, I rarely need wide angles, so the 50mm frame lines are very important to me, plus it would stink if you would have to add a SBOOI or a Canon 50MM finder all the time in the hot shoe just to compensate for a bad factory frame job. ~ Please Note: I like my digital work to resemble film, I try to shoot stuff *in-camera* that looks old with lighting and makeup and styling and the M8 has pretty much fallen into place, even considering all the IR/Cut filters I have to drag around on various lenses to keep the Black Lingerie looking Black......

What's the REAL FACTS on the 50mm frame lines in the M9/M9P?

Also the M9/M9P cracking/busted sensors thing is something I wouldn't want to worry about........I have read some horror stories and something like that unwarranted would give someone a heart attack after seeing the bill!

Maybe I need to find a *unregistered-unwarranted registered* M8.2 and save that for my "back up" digital and just keep on using my M8 which only has a little bit less than 18,000 clicks.

I really haven't been impressed with any shots I've seen from the M9/M9P, despite the use of "vintage" lenses, the M8 seems to be/or have to have been a more *creative* Digital Leica than all the newest ones?

Tom

[furcafe]

I've had both the M8 & M9, & own pretty much every M body other than the M4-P & M6 "classic." The 50mm frames on the M9 are no worse than those on any modern M body (other than the M8.2 & forthcoming new digital M), showing coverage @ the minimum focus distance of the modern lenses, typically 0.5m or less. The sensor is basically a larger version of the M8's w/stronger IR filter. Neither the M8 or M9 are ideal for 50mm & longer because of the low magnification of the VF (I use a VF magnifier when shooting the fast 50s & teles).

Not sure what you're talking about re: the M8 producing more "retro"-looking images than the M9 w/identical lenses. Again, I've shot extensively using both cameras w/modern & vintage lenses & in my experience, the only difference is the M9's full frame (also means slightly less noise/grain @ identical print sizes) & lack of a need for UV-IR filters. Maybe the extra flare produced by the UV-IR filters make M8 files look more retro?

Examples: The attached file was shot w/my M9 (ISO 1250) + dexdog's 1933 experimental LTM 5cm/1.5 Sonnar (@ f/1.5). I apologize for the small image (w/weird compression artifacts introduced by RFF's upload system), but I think the Sonnar's uncoated, vintage character comes through loud & clear. Similarly, most of the shots taken for this item were w/the 5cm/3.5 Elmar you sold me (all @ f/4): http://www.brightestyoungthings.com/...collection.htm. Larger files can be seen here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/brighte...7631562336781/. Again, I think it's pretty easy to tell which shots were taken w/the Elmar.

Originally Posted by LeicaTom

Hmm well after reading all this and seeing that statement saying that the 50mm frame lines are lousy (do they flare out?) or are very hard to work with and the camera's images have less of a "film like" look than he M8 was, sounds like the M9 isn't the camera for my needs of a PinUp/Retro photographer?

I mostly shoot 50mm's in all my work, I rarely need wide angles, so the 50mm frame lines are very important to me, plus it would stink if you would have to add a SBOOI or a Canon 50MM finder all the time in the hot shoe just to compensate for a bad factory frame job. ~ Please Note: I like my digital work to resemble film, I try to shoot stuff *in-camera* that looks old with lighting and makeup and styling and the M8 has pretty much fallen into place, even considering all the IR/Cut filters I have to drag around on various lenses to keep the Black Lingerie looking Black......

What's the REAL FACTS on the 50mm frame lines in the M9/M9P?

Also the M9/M9P cracking/busted sensors thing is something I wouldn't want to worry about........I have read some horror stories and something like that unwarranted would give someone a heart attack after seeing the bill!

Maybe I need to find a *unregistered-unwarranted registered* M8.2 and save that for my "back up" digital and just keep on using my M8 which only has a little bit less than 18,000 clicks.

I really haven't been impressed with any shots I've seen from the M9/M9P, despite the use of "vintage" lenses, the M8 seems to be/or have to have been a more *creative* Digital Leica than all the newest ones?

Tom

[Richard G]

The inferior 50mm frame line is so vestigial that it is difficult to get an instant sense of the edge of the 50 field, and especially as the more complete 75mm frame line sits right there. This is doubly disappointing as it seems to be unnecessary. That is what is wrong with the M9 50 frame lines.

[gdi]

Originally Posted by furcafe

I've had both the M8 & M9, & own pretty much every M body other than the M4-P & M6 "classic." The 50mm frames on the M9 are no worse than those on any modern M body (other than the M8.2 & forthcoming new digital M), showing coverage @ the minimum focus distance of the modern lenses, typically 0.5m or less. The sensor is basically a larger version of the M8's w/stronger IR filter. Neither the M8 or M9 are ideal for 50mm & longer because of the low magnification of the VF (I use a VF magnifier when shooting the fast 50s & teles).

Not sure what you're talking about re: the M8 producing more "retro"-looking images than the M9 w/identical lenses. Again, I've shot extensively using both cameras w/modern & vintage lenses & in my experience, the only difference is the M9's full frame (also means slightly less noise/grain @ identical print sizes) & lack of a need for UV-IR filters. Maybe the extra flare produced by the UV-IR filters make M8 files look more retro?

Examples: The attached file was shot w/my M9 (ISO 1250) + dexdog's 1933 experimental LTM 5cm/1.5 Sonnar (@ f/1.5). I apologize for the small image (w/weird compression artifacts introduced by RFF's upload system), but I think the Sonnar's uncoated, vintage character comes through loud & clear. Similarly, most of the shots taken for this item were w/the 5cm/3.5 Elmar you sold me (all @ f/4): http://www.brightestyoungthings.com/...collection.htm. Larger files can be seen here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/brighte...7631562336781/. Again, I think it's pretty easy to tell which shots were taken w/the Elmar.

I agree with this, I used both cameras for years and the only image aspect of the M8 that is better is shooting IR. When it comes to B&W, neither have a "film look". Maybe those seeing better film look for the M8 are just seeing the added digital noise?

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by gdi

Maybe those seeing better film look for the M8 are just seeing the added digital noise?

Yep. I think this is it. Some even go as far to say the noise looks more like grain than other digitals. Just looks like noise to me.

[LeicaTom]

Hmm no it has nothing to do with flare, I don't use flare or shoot flaring styles in my work at all.

The inferior M9 50mm frame lines sound like a real issue, a camera that costs more than $6,000 shouldn't have any issues with a 50mm lens and it's frames.

I think after my M8 I'm done with digital Leica - period.

My LHSA TTL 0.85 has amazing 50mm frame lines and I haven't any issues composing in real film, just that it's getting harder and harder to get my film finished where I live and getting high res scans is nearly impossible as well.

I think that I might have to rethink another digital camera system and sell off ALL my Leica lenses, I haven't been 100% happy with the M8 and how it works/doesn't work, sadly it is too expensive to run my business and shoots with shooting just real film all the time and I hate to give up the vintage look of the pre 1970 lenses I use, but it looks like there's no other way out of it. :/

It's really too bad that Leica doesn't make like a 14 or a 18MP Digital full-frame back for the M6, while that with the 0.85 mag that would be just perfect to shoot with.

Or just another company with a full frame digital camera that would accept M-mount lenses............

[Richard G]

My M9-P looked so beautiful and now it is gathering dust on the shelf. I used my M2 yesterday. I figured I'd better be using something properly out of date. I miss nothing with my M2, only seven models superseded. But suddenly the sharpness of the Monochrom, or the anthracite and clear preview lever-lessness of the ME, or the cyclops red eye of the M and its thumb tab leave me looking at the future, holding a digital M (sorry, can't use that term now), a camera which is SIX MONTHS out of date.

But of course i am kidding and will be out with the M9 today shooting in the way I have been doing for years, with one lens or maybe two, and if I switch back from the Sonnar to the Summicron, staying with the 50 again today, all I will be wondering about the new M is whether the 50 frame lines are more complete, not hoping of course that they could possibly be a patch on the M2.

With black and white I have taken some good shots at ISO 1250 and I have seen colour from others here at that speed and even 1600 with a bit of noise but still great shots. I can see myself adding a Monochrom at some point, but the M is a refreshingly major step that while I admire the camera and what it offers, I am less tempted than if the M10 had just been a colour Monochrom.

So, it's still just the inferior 50 frame line with me. Picky aren't I.

[ChrisN]

I think in several years time we'll be looking back at the M9-P and thinking of it as the last of the true Leica rangefinders.

[raid]

Originally Posted by raid

I hesitate making the Leica experience a digital one.
I am glad the camera is so expensive.
This way, I may stay away from it.

I said this last July. Now I have an M8 and an M9 is in the mail.

[LeicaTom]

Originally Posted by raid

I said this last July. Now I have an M8 and an M9 is in the mail.

I respect your opinion Raid, I'll wait to see what you think of the M9, before I say anything more about it, there's no dealers close to me I have to make a special trip just to see a new Leica......