Anyway, your thoughts may very well vary from mine. I totally see where you are coming from on this M9 dilemma! I look forward to reading this thread. The CL is my daily camera, the M9 or MM1 or M6 the one to go to when I "go colour rangefinder" The image quality is still as stunning as it was a decade ago.
I think it time for you to move on, Alfonso. Buy your friends M9 and sell the M I never bonded to mine. I don't recognise the colour casts - they may not be there with the new sensor but it is difficult getting the true capability from any digital camera unless you record as RAW files and post process.
Even just hitting the 'auto' button in LR will make a huge difference. Good luck with you decision making! Now, if Zeiss produced a digital version of the wonderful Ikon film rangefinder camera, I would be the first in the queue. Then, camera color. Is it all about matching your purse? If you have load of money to use film camera as main while paying for lab all the time, you simply have enough to pay for custom repainting.
Thank you, pedaes - I agree about moving on. I'll be the first to admit I'm horribly rancorous, and I should know better, as it's been a rather problematic personal fault in my life! As for the M9's green colour casts along the corners and far sides, this is the sort of thing I'm getting.
And you're right that hitting the auto button in LR thank you for the tip! The first image is unprocessed - the second 'auto' LR. The lens is the Elmarit version The cast on the Summilux is similar but less pronounced. The problem is even worse outdoors. Same lens.
This time, 'auto' in LR has worsened the problem! Just a comparison of the M9 and M , respectively, if only just to assure everybody that walls in my house are not painted a light shade of green! Sadly, only the M gives me usable results with this lens. I'm sure I could learn to improve the M9 yield in PP, but am frankly unwilling to put in the time.
I also like the lens, so am not keen to blame it. If you do want to share your thoughts and have a nice conversation amongst friends please join in though. I'm not in Asia. I'm at LUF longer than you are. If you prefer forums where people do not exchange honest opinions, ask questions, but call each other as "friends", this is not what I see at LUF. Please, learn about this forum more. Here is m9 pictures thread which I asked for to be opened and where I contribute including bw.
You could always put me in ignore list if you not get used to people asking questions straight. There is a big difference between "honest opinions" and your crass and critical comments. Cheers, jc. You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.
Paste as plain text instead. Only 75 emoji are allowed. Display as a link instead. Clear editor. Upload or insert images from URL. Is the M9 still worth it in ? Reply to this topic Start new topic. Recommended Posts. Posted January 5, Prosophos , a5m and JMF 3. Link to post Share on other sites.
If I got Type or - there was a chance that I wouldn't fully like the output and would still yearn for the M9. And M9's aren't getting any younger. Might as well enjoy them while they exist. To me it seems like a no-brainer. Save a few hundred moneys and get a camera that you know you like.
I'm very glad of my choice - at least unless the camera dies in the next 2 years. The M9 I got was also in a pretty minty condition which was pleasantly surprising. I don't care much about visual problems but it's still nice to have something in mint condition.
It even has plastic wrap on the bottom plate and LCD. The only downside is that it's not a black model. The first M9 I had was a black model and I do prefer black cameras in general. Not a huge issue though. There's always spray paint! Do you need autofocus? If yes then you shouldn't get a M9. Get a camera with autofocus and save some money at the same time.
Have you ever shot a rangefinder? If no then you shouldn't get a M9. Try a film rangefinder first. Do you prefer SLR type focussing over rangefinder focussing? Do you have to take a loan to buy it? No camera is worth getting into debt for. Especially these days when you can get older used cameras for very cheap that will still deliver amazing photos.
From a usability perspective it's a dream if you like manual control or aperture priority. Aperture control is always on the lens.
Shutter control is on the top of the camera. I tend to set ISO and use it for the duration of the shoot so a lack of a dedicated ISO control doesn't bother me although it would be nice. Nothing else matters. The menus are short and there's no need to go there anyway. Just set it to shoot RAW and live life carefree. You can change EV as well but I tend to not do it - if I need to tweak the exposure I will just manually set it.
And there's the hot shoe. Not sure what you use it for - I guess external viewfinders I have never used a flash. LCD is bad - but it doesn't matter. It's good enough to roughly see whether the picture is exposed correctly. Theoretically you can check for focus if you zoom in the picture but realistically you shouldn't use it for that. I have turned the LCD off completely.
I only occasionally use it to check if the picture is exposed decently or to set ISO. ISO button allows to set Hold it and then turn the dial on the right of the screen. Once the desired ISO is highlighted - click Set. Info button shows some general information about the state of the camera. Like battery info and other things. I have only used it for battery information so don't remember what's there.
And a huge rotating dial and d-pad combo. It doesn't feel too good to use and is a plastic blob but it's usable. Overall the buttons are clickly but don't feel too good to use. They are also made from plastic. I guess Leica ran out of brass. The viewfinder is good but not as good as Leica M3 in my opinion. Rangefinder patch is slightly smaller on M9 and it also seems to be impacted by flaring on certain circumstances which M3's patch never is.
There is also less magnification which allows you to use wider lenses there are framelines for 28mm lenses on M9 whereas M3 taps out at 50mm but you will get worse experience if you prefer 50mm or longer.
It's still the second best rangefinder viewfinder that I have used so it's really good. Ergonomically it's slightly worse than M3 as it's slightly fatter. Whilst it would benefit from a grip I just can't make myself even consider one as it makes the camera look ugly With a strap it doesn't matter though.
And I might try a grip accessory that attaches to the hot shoe. Weight is nice and hefty although M3 wins here again in my opinion. The one thing that I prefer on M9 vs M3 is the shutter speed dial. I have the GRD III and a GX mm zoom equivalent, in effect and the user interface is fantastic, somehow finding an ideal balance between depth of features and instinctive simplicity in use.
I have been very tempted by the latest versions too — the images out of those things have a really nice look to them. As for the market for simple cameras — this is what I keep saying… did you read my thoughts about the Fuji xf. But sometimes end up pleasing no-one! Like Leica. Kind of ironic that they make some of the simplest cameras, and cost so much.
Just thinking about the huge section of people who are maybe a technology resistant anyway, introducing cameras that were highly capable but simple to use would surely be a winner, putting aside professional photographers for a moment. Something as simple as an iPhone most people basically point it and press a single button but with a proper camera shape and feel.
I guess it just comes down the the simple need to cater for the biggest audience — you can see why they choose that road. I am now crying salt tears because you have just informed me that I have missed the boat for the free sensor replacement should it be necessary in my Leica M-E, which is just an M9 lite. Having the sensor cleaned and checked for corrosion was one of the many things I was going to get round to and never did. I knew about the replacement programme but not the fact that they had introduced a cut off date.
This is exactly the opposite of my Sigma DP3 Quattro where things rapidly go wrong if too much processing is required. I really must try a Sigma again — I dip my toe once in a while, always enjoy it, but hate the software — I hear they now do massive DNG files that work in LR — that makes me very interested again!
While I find with the film stuff is actually getting a bit more attention on the processing side of things, than my straight out of camera jpgs, its the starting point I love.
The look the film gives me at the starting point, before edits. Much like film, musicians while recording are often trying to hard to recapture the feel of older recordings, when everything was recorded to tape rather than digitally on computers. There is a vibe and character to tape, that digital just doesnt quite have.
At the end of the day, to me anyhow, they just kiiiiiind of miss the magic. BUT, much like in the way most peoples film workflow is take film, scan, edit on computer, so too is the way a lot of people record to tape, bring that audio into the computer, and edit digitally. Broadly, I sort of agree with you — but then what you are seeing here specifically is probably my preference for contrasty colours.
To my mind, film and digital both have a look — or indeed sound. I am also into my hifi, and I can tell you for free some of the best sounding music I have listened to on it is digitally produced, mastered, and streamed to my hifi via I system called MQA. Yes it doesnt have the character an analogue system can impose, but does that make it better, worse, or just different? I mean it more on the recording side of things than the listening side of things though.
I loved my M-E for the look of the images, but its simplicity was lovely too. However, I decided to check out the new Leica M10 at my local store and whilst there played with the M with screen, the M-D with no screen and the M10 of course. I came out of that store with the M-D minus my M-E.
So those of you who are thinking of the M-D I say you will never be disappointed. The battery life is long.. The sound of the shutter is addictive. No chimping my bad habit I could never shake off.
Hamish, will you be replacing your M9M in the near future for the later CMOS sensor model or holdout for a Monochrom M10 derivative perhaps sometime in the not too distant future? Canon had ugly color rendering. Fuji had paintbrush like results in some situations. It is all I have now, and it is all I need. The colours and blacks are simply awesome perfect.
The imperfections are also perfect! I rented a Leica M10 for a wedding because my ME was being maintanced. It was also impressive, but I missed the unique awesome colors of the CCD sensor. Horses for courses I guess… I can see your attraction though.
However it was really only the M10 […]. It happened with the M8, M9, more recently the M and now the M Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Notify me of follow-up comments by email. Notify me of new posts by email. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed. All photographs and text appearing on 35mmc. The Leica M9 represents a far different perspective when it comes to photography. In a world where photographers take a million shots to get a single good one, there is a more significant emphasis on not having skill.
But the Leica M9 requires skill to use. There is zone focusing involved, carefully paying attention to a scene, shooting a frame and then waiting for the shutter to recock, not overusing the battery, etc.
You really need to get the shot in a single frame. This mentality is the same idea that chrome film shooters had. In one single photo you needed to get the highlights, the shadows, and the composition perfect. Part of what made the Leica M9 so special was the sensor. It was a CCD sensor that delivered images that looked like they were made on chrome film.
0コメント