The Leica M9 Experience

[Son of Daguerre]

All that writing and you comment about that?

Fixed

 

Yeah, 'cuz the review was otherwise good. 

[unfocused]

Excellent Review.

I have no problem with you posting things like this on a "Canon-Centric" website. It's good to know what other companies are doing and what the pros and cons of other products are.

It actually prompts me to ask a Canon-related question.

I've been thinking about getting a smaller, lighter camera to carry around when it's not practical to lug the full bag of DSLR and lenses. I want something less obtrusive but which will still yield good quality images.

The Fujifilm FinePix X100 is interesting, but the fixed 35mm (equivalent) focal length is a deal-breaker for me. I've never liked that focal length (years of shooting with a 24mm).

Ideally, Canon will come out with an EVIL camera at some point, but in the meantime, I've been looking at the "G" series. Someone on this blog mentioned the S90, but my personal preference is to have a viewfinder. I just hate trying to compose through a rear screen.

I recently saw a story in which all the photos were shot with a G9, including some that were printed nearly full page. The quality appears to be there.

What do others think? Anyone else have any actual experience with a second camera for casual shooting.

[roger]

Great review. Well done.

I have two small questions though. 1: How does M9 compare to EVILs like GF1 or EP2? 2: If I recall it right, M9 uses a Bayer matrix CCD, right? So it's possible that removing the anti-aliasing filter could introduce moire into the pictures. Did you see any visible moire in your shots?

[Canon Rumors]

Ideally, Canon will come out with an EVIL camera at some point, but in the meantime, I've been looking at the "G" series. Someone on this blog mentioned the S90, but my personal preference is to have a viewfinder. I just hate trying to compose through a rear screen.

I recently saw a story in which all the photos were shot with a G9, including some that were printed nearly full page. The quality appears to be there.

What do others think? Anyone else have any actual experience with a second camera for casual shooting.

I have an acquaintance that sells his travel stuff through Getty from a G9 and more recently a G11. In the right hand and right situations, the quality and usability of G files is excellent.

I love the S90, I will get an S95 as soon as I can. It's my 3rd option for a camera though, something truly pocketable.

[Canon Rumors]

Great review. Well done.

I have two small questions though. 1: How does M9 compare to EVILs like GF1 or EP2? 2: If I recall it right, M9 uses a Bayer matrix CCD, right? So it's possible that removing the anti-aliasing filter could introduce moire into the pictures. Did you see any visible moire in your shots?

I owned a GF1 for a little bit of time. It just never felt right for me. I cannot shoot with EVF's yet., the quality just isn't there. I know it's coming. I've never touched the Olympus counterpart.

There is going to be Moire in certain situations, there's nothing much that can be done about that. I have not noticed any yet, I'm sure I will in some shots one day.

[studio1972]

I thought that was a really interesting article, but as somebody who's never used a Leica it left me with a question in my mind:

Am I right in thinking that you focus the camera by judging the distance and setting the focus ring to whatever number you judged the distance to be?

If that's the case, how can you get a portrait sharp on the eyes when using these very fast prime lenses? It seems a shame there is no live view function as that would allow some kind of through the lens feedback at least.

I can understand that you might get quite good at this with practice, but when the depth of field is just a few mm surely there is no chance?

[jouster]

Studio1972:

There's a visual component too. It isn't just done by estimating the distance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rangefinder_window.jpg

[olav]

I thought that was a really interesting article, but as somebody who's never used a Leica it left me with a question in my mind:

Am I right in thinking that you focus the camera by judging the distance and setting the focus ring to whatever number you judged the distance to be?

If that's the case, how can you get a portrait sharp on the eyes when using these very fast prime lenses? It seems a shame there is no live view function as that would allow some kind of through the lens feedback at least.

I can understand that you might get quite good at this with practice, but when the depth of field is just a few mm surely there is no chance?
[/quoteThe guessing the distance part is only related to street photography where you don't want people to notice that you're taking pictures. In the other cases you look throug the rangefinder/viewfinder window and turn the focus ring until the pictures match exactly = picture is sharp

[able]

Canon did build rangefinders dating back to 1933. Nikon also built rangefinders over the same time period. The following link shows a bit of Canon history.

http://www.cameraquest.com/canon7sz.htm

[anthony11]

Were Canon to come out with a DSLR that omits the anti-aliasing smearer, would that change the equation at all for the OP?

I've seen some examples shot with bodies that had the AAF removed, and at modern pixel densities I don't see moire to be a significant issue.  IMHO it's time to dump the thing.

[dchan316]

Great review!  Recently, I dug out my old Minolta X-370 with a 50/1.7 lens, went on ebay and bought a 135/3.5 and a 28/2.8 for 10 and 20 dollars, respectively, put in a roll of Portra 160, and started shooting.  I gotta say, I loved the much smaller size (compared to my 2.8 autofocus zooms), and manual focusing primes is quite fun!  I'm able to slip it in a small bag and take it anywhere, and shoot more discreetly. 

This got me to giving the Leica M8 (used) a serious look, as its price is more realistic for me.  Throw in some quite affordable Voigtlanders, and I'm very tempted.  Your review put to rest some doubts or questions I may have had, so as soon as I'm able to, I'm gonna try out a Leica!  Thanks!

[dj]

Hi ,

Great article!!  Thanks.  Am really looking for a full sensor canon EVIL with m- mount adaptor.  For me this would be ideal.  No huge payment for a M-9 body that will be outmoded by an improved model in the relative hear future (relative to the length of time I'd be owning the Leica or Zeiss or Voitlander lenses).    I love the comments about simplicity and ease of transport of gear.

Question: 
one person referred to the need to take off glasses while looking into the viewfinder of the M-9.  I am in that category.  My diopter is 2.5 right now.  Pardon my ignorance of the rangefinders but......   if I were to be wearing the correct diopter glasses (or glasses that are over magnified like a diopter 3.0 to be used only when using the camera), wouldn't this auto correct the focusing problem allowing me to focus accurately using the rangefinder???

thanks to anyone with experience along these lines.

dj

[macfly]

I enjoyed your review and pix, and was most interested to hear that the image quality equal of the 1Ds lll. I didn't realize that Leica had got to be such a great digi-body.  Is there any way you'd do a couple frames out the window of the two units side by side, so we could see the same picture of both units. If it really can equal or better the EOS I'd be very inclined to get one for travel and fun.

[Rocky]

Hi ,

Great article!!  Thanks.  Am really looking for a full sensor canon EVIL with m- mount adaptor.  For me this would be ideal.  No huge payment for a M-9 body that will be outmoded by an improved model in the relative hear future (relative to the length of time I'd be owning the Leica or Zeiss or Voitlander lenses).    I love the comments about simplicity and ease of transport of gear.

Question: 
one person referred to the need to take off glasses while looking into the viewfinder of the M-9.  I am in that category.  My diopter is 2.5 right now.  Pardon my ignorance of the rangefinders but......   if I were to be wearing the correct diopter glasses (or glasses that are over magnified like a diopter 3.0 to be used only when using the camera), wouldn't this auto correct the focusing problem allowing me to focus accurately using the rangefinder???

thanks to anyone with experience along these lines.

dj

I have been using a M4 for more than  40 years. I am a glasses wearer. I have never have any problem using the view finder or the range finder. It does not have the same amount of eye releive as the modern DSLR. you should try it out yourself.