Leica M9 Links

Commercial links
A few commercial links first, in case you are intending to pre-order three M9s (two for yourself and one for your spouse) and you want to shoot us a little lucre too! Woot-woot.

 

B&H Photo and Amazon.co.uk are not taking pre-orders yet, so these links are limited to Amazon.com.

Leica M9 black from Amazon.com
Leica M9 steel gray from Amazon.com

Published reviews so far
Links limited to sites and writers who have evidently seen, handled, and shot with the camera. One nice side effect of the camera's simplicity is that these "first looks" are mostly mercifully brief (with the exception of Sean Reid's).

• Michael Reichmann's Leica M9 Review on The Luminous-Landscape. Sample: "At about $6,000 the now discontinued M8.2 seemed very expensive. But, because the M9 is a higher resolution full frame camera, at about $7,000 it no longer is priced that far out of line with other top-of-the-line full-frame 35mm cameras such as the Nikon D3x at $8,000 and the Canon 1Ds MKIII at $6,500. One can argue that one gets 'more' camera for the money with these Nikon and Canon models, but does one get a 'better' camera or 'better' image quality? That's a question that only each photographer can decide based on his or her own needs and experience."

Michael's Leica S2 review will be posted on L-L tomorrow.

• Phil Askey''s Leica M9 and Hands-On Preview on DPReview. Sample: "Full disclosure—personal bias: Before the M8 review I had no experience of rangefinder photography, something I considered relegated to history. During the review process (and thanks to input from those who had used rangefinders before) I gradually began to ‘get’ the advantages, being better ‘connected’ to the subject thanks to the huge bright viewfinder, and being forced to focus manually, always select the aperture, and think more about the shot. Not to mention in the case of the M8, the look from those gorgeous prime lenses (amazingly sharp at the point of focus fading smoothly to silky bokeh). Hence not long after posting my review I bought an M8 for myself (along with a bunch of lenses), and ever since (and unconsciously) all of my personal favorite photographs have come from the M8."

Full props to Askey for being up-front with this, by the way. A mark of a mature reviewer, in my opinion. The audience needs to know where you stand in order to judge how you view things.

• Sean Reid's Leica M9: Part One on Reid Reviews. (Note that Reid Reviews is a pay site, so the review won't be available to you unless you already subscribe or are willing to start.) The longest of the initial reviews—Sean does go on (like I should talk)—but also has the best sample pictures and several comprehensive tests of things such as IR sensitivity the other reviewers only mention in passing or else put off for the future. Features a short section by Yale's Tod Papageorge at the end.

Sample: "...A camera exists to make photographs, and the most consistently available way of making strong and, possibly, remarkable photographs (at least for those interested in drawing a possible poetry out of the rush and pleasures of our daily lives) is with a Leica—which, as of today, effectively means the M9." (Tod Papageorge)

• Jono Slack's Leica M9 Words and Pictures. Starts off disclaiming that it's a review at all. Jono used an M9 disguised as an M8 all over Europe for a month prior to the launch, despite which, you might find his pictures quite uneven.

Sample: "I was in a shopping centre in Norwich, and a small but elegant elderly man came up to me and said 'I’ve never even held an M8, please could I?'—of course, I had to say yes, at which point he thrust out his wallet...'just in case I run off with it,' he said! It had a 35mm lens on. He held it to his eye, and immediately said 'but this seems to be full frame,' I had to tell him that it wasn’t, and he looked confused and a bit miffed. It turns out that he worked for many years taking measurably accurate large format shots of cathedrals and other public buildings marked up for stone masons to work from, so it was hardly surprising that he could recognise full frame when he saw it! At any rate, he fell in love with the camera, and said that he planned to buy one later in the year. If he ever reads this I’d like to send him my best wishes, and apologise for not telling him what he was holding on to!"

• Erwin Puts' Leica M9: the digital M7? Written with Erwin's usual deep insight into Leica history and the Leica line as a whole. Sample: "The M8 camera versions can be interpreted as a bridging act between the M7/MP and the future digital versions of the M line. In the evolution of the M line the M8 is a necessary step, and required for learning the engineering and software requirements for solid-state cameras. But as biology dictates the environment changes and then you have to adapt or die. Does this imply that the M8 buyer has been used as money and experience suppliers for the Leica R&D department. In a sense this question has to be answered affirmative, but we may with some justification also state that the Leica community is used to small evolutionary steps and is very quality conscious. In 2006 the M9 would be impossible to manufacture and to be honest I like the M8 sensor size as it forces me to be very critical about scene selection and composition."

• Focus Numerique's Leica M9: Catch in Hand. A hands-on in French, but with some illustrations including an ISO comparison.

None of the other usual suspects seem to have seen the camera yet, although I'm sure I'm missing a few who have.

A bit of an iconoclastic perspective from our friend John C. will be posted here tomorrow (...he mentions casually, twirling the ends of his Snidely Whiplash moustache and laughing his evil laugh...).

Mike

Send this post to a friend

Featured Comment by Andy: "Another review posted yesterday." [Note: The author of the linked review is a Leica dealer. Which doesn't make it uninteresting or not valid, but it's why I didn't post it with the journalistic reviews. —Ed.]

Featured Comment by Howard French: "What must said about this early group of 'reviews' is that the writers were all most assuredly very carefully selected by Leica, presumably on the assumption that they would write 'friendly' dispatches about the new camera. Leica will not have been disappointed by all of the present gushing, either.

"I do not say this out of churlishness. For better and worse, I am an M8 owner. I want very much for the M9 to be a success. I also, however, keenly remember how this murky business of what I'll call 'in-group' reviewers steered a lot of people badly wrong about the not-inexpensive M8.

"There were few if any adequate warnings and in most cases no warnings at all from this crowd about the very substantial shortcomings of the M8.

"When some of these very same reviewers were subsequently forced to acknowledge major issues, such as the handicapped IR design, requiring outboard filters for lenses, software issues, shutter noise, battery issues, frameline woes—and I could go on and on—they expended a great deal of energy on their sites and on other forums essentially making allowances for Leica and for the M8, judging that these problems were a small price to pay for this great new camera, with its great 'files quality.' Would that their readers have been placed in a position to make such judgments for themselves, fully armed with thorough and objective reviews prior to purchase. This should not be construed as an attack on Leica, on the M8 (or M9) or even on the reviewers, whom one deliberately leaves unnamed.

"It is, however, an attack on the troubling coziness that exists in this business that often passes off self-interested boosterism for journalism.

"As a start, one would like to see much greater disclosure about the relationships between these reviewers and their subjects, in this case, Leica."

Mike adds: I don't have much to add to what Howard has said, except to point out that a) I wrote a very skeptical review of the M8, and b) Leica didn't so much as email me a press release about any of the new products. Coincidence? Quite possibly....

By the way, Howard, whose work we have featured in the past, is a former Senior Editor of The New York Times and is now an Associate Professor at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. His weblog is here.

Featured Comment by Erwin Puts: "Howard French is indeed absolutely to the point with his comments. Truly independent reporting is a scarce element in the current internet information explosion.

"The M8 had and has its problems, but the current analysis is about the M9, where a number if problems (IR, frame lines, etc.) have been reduced or even eliminated. The M9 is a definite improvement in functionality and handling flexibility. As I received my M9 much later than the American/British delegation who were on that three-day visit, I had only limited time to assess the quality of the camera. As my report notes: the basic quality of the M8 and M9 sensors on axis is the same. I also note that the off-axis performance needs to be studied, and so do other characteristics of the sensor. A lab report is required; I will provide one in two weeks' time. In the short time I had, I can only reflect on the more philosophical aspects of the M9. That the IR problem is not fully resolved is no surprise to me, as several high-end DSLRs also exhibit this problem. I also have to note—and this is really an important issue—that is it quite easy nowadays to show defects of whatever order of magnitude without anyone posing the question of their relevance. In the old days of AgX photography, the same and even more severe problems went unnoticed, as you could not seen them in print.

"The main question now is: you can seen defects on the screen at 100% and higher magnifications, but do we really see this also in print? All testers I am aware of look at screen images, not print images. The focus on analysis of screen images at high magnification is not necessarily the best method of assessment of image qualites at the printing stage. Assuming that a print is the final stage of the photographic process! My experience shows that many defects visible on screen are not relevant when printing the image."

Comments

[Dan]

Mike,

I would love to have enough resources available to lay my hands on a Leica M9. But, not being Scrooge McDuck, a wealthy retired doctor, or a professional photographer, I will have to settle for the more spartan "drool all over keyboard" approach; at least until the next great camera comes along and my eyes get diverted once again.

[Manish]

Also add this:

http://dfarkas.blogspot.com/2009/09/leica-m9-review-shooting-in-wetzlar.html

[juze]

Oh, but the Leica has such lovely noise.

(I'm serious, I'm a noise fetishist, and Kodak noise, which I remember well from my E-1, is just so yummy and soft and organic. I want one. Not likely to happen, of course.)

[beuler]

All this M9 talk has me lusting for a Cosina/Voigtlander R4A with 25mm f/4 Color Skopar (because the M9 is way out of my reach). Is this silly for someone who has never used a rangefinder camera before? Sure, the E-P1 and 17mm lens could quench this desire for less money, but somehow I don`t think it is quite the same thing.

[Nevin]

Mike,
There's also a nice review by David Farkas. He was in Wetzlar with the other fellas.
http://dfarkas.blogspot.com/2009/09/leica-m9-review-shooting-in-wetzlar.html

[Michael]

Mike, your use of Scrooge McDuck shows you to be a person of refined taste. As a kid I sometimes dreamed I was in a Scrooge McDuck epic. Wonderful! As a result, though -- and I don't know if it's the McDuck or the Leica publicity -- I actually find myself rethinking the family finances to see if I can pull it off. If I do, TOP is where I'll do it.

[David Anderson]

Mike, I'm not sure what you mean by Jono's photos being "uneven"?
Can you explain?

Would love an M9 - the only RF camera I have ever shot was a Ricoh 500G way back.

Presently I have the wonderful Sony A900 and assorted Sony Zeiss and Minolta lenses, but of course this is a large and obtrusive bundle to carry around and I would like a smaller camera at times, provided it has good IQ and is responsive.

Perhaps foolish, but I may try the Panasonic GF1 when it is available. I say foolish because if it turns out I don't like the GF1, then that is just more money wasted that could have been put towards an M9 further down the line. Kind of like buying all the small tripods until you eventually buy the proper one that you should have got in the first place and saved a lot of money in the process.

Your recent article on "What Does 'Expensive' Mean?" really hit the nail on the head. Unfortunately, though I could afford to buy an M9, I cannot justify it when I have a wife who kindly goes out to work everyday and brings in more income than I make in my self employment. I just could not handle the guilt.

[Bill Lewis]

Mike,
This is a worthwhile read on M9.

http://dfarkas.blogspot.com/2009/09/leica-m9-review-shooting-in-wetzlar.html

[Jeff Glass]

"...is with a Leica--which, as of today, effectively means the M9." (Tod Papageorge)

Well, all due respect to Mr. Papageorge, for me and many others, shooting with a Leica, as of today, means the M4. There are thousands of affordable Leicas out there that won't cost you a thing (as Mike pointed out, emphasizing resale value). You can buy a lot of film, processing and neg holders for that extra $6000.

And the image quality is actually better, in black and white anyway.

Several high ISO choices available too!

[twitter.com/hofrench]

What must said about this early group of "reviews" is that the writers were all most assuredly very carefully selected by Leica, presumably on the assumption that they would write "friendly" dispatches about the new camera. Leica will not have been disappointed by all of the present gushing, either.
I do not say this out of churlishness. For better and worse, I am an M8 owner. I want very much for the M9 to be a success. I also, however, keenly remember how this murky business of what I'll call "in-group" reviewers steered a lot of people badly wrong about the not inexpensive M8.
There were few if any adequate warnings and in most cases no warnings at all from this crowd about the very substantial shortcomings of the M8.
When some of these very same reviewers were subsequently forced to acknowledge major issues, such as the handicapped IR design, requiring outboard filters for lenses, software issues, shutter noise, battery issues, frameline woes -- and I could go on and on, they expended a great deal of energy on their sites and on other forums essentially making allowances for Leica and for the M8, judging that these problems were a small price to pay for this great new camera, with its great "files quality."
Would that their readers have been placed in a position to make such judgments for themselves, fully armed with thorough and objective reviews prior to purchase.
This should not be construed as an attack on Leica, on the M8 (or M9) or even on the reviewers, who one deliberately leaves unnamed.
It is, however, an attack on the troubling coziness that exists in this business that often passes off self-interested boosterism for journalism.
As a start, one would like to see much greater disclosure about the relationships between these reviewers and their subjects, in this case, Leica.
Howard French

[Simon Griffee]

Hate to be a pixel peeper, but this has bothered me with the M8, and I'm curious whether it is still present with the M9's sensor:

The lines visible in dark areas at high ISOs, like the ones in Sean Reid's shot above. Look at the top-left of the picture. There is a line leading to the head of the woman in the frame on the wall.

[Robert Noble]

I know what Howard French is saying (in the Featured Comment) and he's right: it would be naive to assume that the reviews linked above are completely impartial, seeing that all of these reviewers got to party in Germany with Leica officials three weeks ago.

On the other hand... Thanks to the Internet, most of the problems that Howard mentions were public knowledge within a few days of when the M8 started landing in customers' hands. Only those who bought one of the very first batches to ship -- always a gamble, but one that first adopters knowingly and willingly take -- can blame the reviewers for anything, and even then one has to think the buyer of any breakthrough product should know enough to be initially cautious.

Considered against the pre-Internet days when true "consumer reports" were almost impossible to find, being able to read dozens or even hundreds of user reviews for free, online, within a month after a product ships pretty much places most of the blame for product disillusionment on the buyer.

(I also feel that antagonists of one popular web reviewer circulated unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about his agenda that only fed the flames of discontent.)

For those who want the straightest dope on the M9 at this point in the game, I think Sean Reid's review uniquely and thoroughly addresses head-on the issues that surfaced with the M9.

Anyone who plans to spend several thousand dollars on any Leica product is being penny-wise and pound-foolish if they are unwilling to shell out 33 bucks for a year of reading Sean's extremely detailed reviews of cameras and lenses.

For example, Sean makes very clear in his M9 report that the IR problem is not fully cured in every lighting situation -- thanks to a deliberate design decision by Leica -- but those who don't subscribe are unlikely to learn for weeks yet the nuances of how significant that is and whether it will affect them in their style of shooting.

Otherwise, caveat emptor.

[Jason]

Has David Farkas done a review on this camera yet? ;)

[Charlie H]

@ Howard French

I think what you have pointed is one of the problems with the brave new world of the citizen journalist.

[Ron W]

Michael Reichmann's initial write-up of the S2 is now up. Am I wrongly impressed by the amount of detail that camera is capable of capturing. I refer to the picture of the model taken with the 180/3.5 lens and the 100% crop of one of themmodel's eyes. The sharpness and clarity of every hair and the reflection of the photographer in the model's eye.

[Eric Ford]

Self-interested boosterism parading as journalism? Howard French has hit the nail on the head right there -- and not only in regards to equipment reviews...

[MM]

If reviewers who get to play with free cameras aren't going to be candid, and reviewers who are candid don't get to play with free cameras, seems to me there's a simple solution:

When one of us TOP readers gets a new camera early in its product cycle, we can email Mike to see if he's interested in it and if so we can ship it to him with an appropriate lens or two. (He's always free to say "No, but thanks!")

Mike would then use it to photograph dogs and trees (but not dogs with trees) and whatever else he wants for a week or 10 days before sending it back to us.

That's long enough for Mike to generate some informal "user impressions" (with no pretense of it being a comprehensive "review"). And it's short enough that even with shipping we won't have to do without our new toy for more than a couple of weeks, a personal short-term sacrifice that's well worth it for the long-term good of the common.

Hordes of new TOP readers and donors will soon follow as word spreads of this new resource of informal-but-informed impressions, a resource that is not beholden to any manufacturer.

This "Send it to Mike" program would be fine with you, right Mike? Or am I missing something?

[ctein]

Dear Charlie H,

We both agree with Howard's comment, but you're wrong about it being something new.

Professional reviewers and critics have (collectively) always had a cozy relationship with manufacturers. Look at the history of luminaries like Norm Rothschild, Herb Keppler and Arthur Kramer. Or lowly me, when I put in the effort to maintain such relationships (I don't much, any more).

Indeed, this gets us lots of perks and early (or even exclusive) access to information and equipment outsiders couldn't.

Almost every time you read a magazine product test or review that appears within two months of the product's official announcement, it's because the magazine/reviewer got special and cozy treatment from the manufacturer. (I've written only two 'scoops' in my entire career that didn't depend on such largesse, one was a source within a company who leaked product to me and the other was very, very lucky timing.)

There's indeed a psychological risk involved-- humans are inclined to view efforts of friends more favorably than those of strangers. It's a known source of bias.

Buying products off the shelf, sans manufacturer involvement doesn't solve the problem. First, as I mentioned, it creates what many readers consider unacceptable time delays. (You think dpreview or DxO waits in line at B&H to get review cameras?) Second, it's also well-established that people who've spent serious money on a product are disinclined to want to believe that they've truly wasted their money (although they will nitpick like mad). Not an issue if it's a corporate purchase, but when an individual reviewer buys a product to review, they risk falling into 'consumer bias.' Being wealthy, by the way, doesn't reduce that bias.

The solution, in both situations is well-known. It's called professional discipline. You disclose the factors that you think could lead to bias, and you train yourself to be influenced by those as little as possible.

How well you do this determines how good a reviewer you'll be. Doesn't matter if you're 'corporate' or 'citizen,' 'cozy' or 'hands-off.' If you get good at this discipline, you can write trustworthy reviews. If you don't, you can't.

pax / Ctein
==========================================
-- Ctein's Online Gallery http://ctein.com
-- Digital Restorations http://photo-repair.com
==========================================

[fjf]

Simon mentions a line on the wall in the Sean Reid image of a woman.

If you examine the frame you can see that this same line extends from the wall surface directly into the adjoining empty space where there is no wall. This suggests that it is not some attribute of the wall surface but is more likely an artifact introduced by the image capture system.

[Stephen Gilbert]

I noticed three or four mentions of David Farkas' "review." David Farkas sells Leicas. Calling his reporting a review is like calling Leica's sales video journalism.