Dwig
Well-known
+1
My vote is to pickup an m43 body (I prefer the eyelevel finders in Pany's G and GH series or the Oly OM-D) with a 20mm f/1.7 Panasonic lens (probably the best lens that is a rough equivalent of the 35mm you've been using) along with a handfull of modestly priced (~$20) M>m43 adapters and start out using your existing lenses along with the new 20mm. It'll give you a starting place for image quality and handling and put you in a better position to decide if it's "good enough" or whether to sell the farm and get a digital M.
ChrisN
Striving
Full-frame digital is to micro four-thirds as medium format film is to 35mm film. (IMHO)
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I'd have to agree with that. When I got an OMD I was impressed that the files appeared to compare very well to my D700.
Then I took both cameras into an extreme environment that pushed both sensors to their limits ... only then did I realise how wrong I was. The full frame files had so much latitude and flexibility that was really lacking in the M4:3 examples.
flyalf
Well-known
IMO no m43 is close to the Ms in handling and photo pleasure although they can be good tools. The main problem and limitation with the m43 is the tiny tiny sensor, and the cameras aimed at advanced shooters are not even that small in size compared to the M and NEX that both have larger sensors.
On the other hand I see that the prices on SH Leica lenses are quite high now, so from a financial perspective it would make sense to sell the lenses.
Although we pretend to act rational it very often comes down to how we feel about choices
. So think again how you feel. If I were in your position I would certainly go for a M (and have done with a M9).
Best of luck!
On the other hand I see that the prices on SH Leica lenses are quite high now, so from a financial perspective it would make sense to sell the lenses.
Although we pretend to act rational it very often comes down to how we feel about choices
. So think again how you feel. If I were in your position I would certainly go for a M (and have done with a M9).Best of luck!
maitani
Well-known
100% agree
ChrisLivsey
Mentor
Longevity wise the M8 I bought new still produces remarkable files but I live in fear and trepidation when I use it as a sole camera that it will fail. It does exhibit "strange" battery behaviour and some of the LEDs in the viewfinder have failed, this after about 5 years usage?
Longevity digital = no
I just put a roll of Portra (SOTA colour) though the 1934 Leica III with absolute confidence. All that tool being an eye extension etc
I would look at another digital with less investment, (because digital bodies are not an investment, they are money spent forever) you have the glass, say nex7 or any of the cameras that take M glass. You can upgrade as the performance improves, several times for the price of an M9. Yes the M9 is special but digital, putting aside the shooting experience, is all about the sensor and the M9 was OOD when launched. (just put it up against the D3 sensor)
Longevity digital = no
I just put a roll of Portra (SOTA colour) though the 1934 Leica III with absolute confidence. All that tool being an eye extension etc
I would look at another digital with less investment, (because digital bodies are not an investment, they are money spent forever) you have the glass, say nex7 or any of the cameras that take M glass. You can upgrade as the performance improves, several times for the price of an M9. Yes the M9 is special but digital, putting aside the shooting experience, is all about the sensor and the M9 was OOD when launched. (just put it up against the D3 sensor)
Lss
Well-known
These are two very different cameras, but they are both certainly good options. For anyone coming from a film rangefinder, the M9 seems like the obvious choice. The only reasons to go with MFT in my opinion are price and getting features that the M9 lacks.
Richard G
Mentor
That Constanine Manos podcast is interesting. The man can talk. I gave up in the first third. The comparison of the M digital color with Kodachrome fits with others' statements about the M9 colours and Leica's goal for this. I love the M9 colours.
willie_901
Mentor
Large sensor areas provide much more flexibility with regard to lens options. To get the same amount of light to the sensor (keeping camera shutter speed and position constant) your m4/3 lens aperture must be one stop wider. The increased aperture compensates for the smaller sensor area. This is why extremely fast and expensive m4/3 lenses like the Voigtlander Nokton 25mm f/0.95 exist. The same goes for DOF control. With a fast enough lens, the reduced sensor size is offset by the larger aperture. Photographers who require wide angles of view have even less options. It is difficult and expensive to manufacture fast short focal length lenses with adequate corner performance. The increased size of large aperture lenses tends to compromise the size and weight advantage of the m4/3 concept.
flash
Member
I have both an M9 and an E-M5. To ISO 640 the M9 files are superior. After that the EM5 files are better. At all ISOs the EM5 has more dynamic range. I have directly compared my Olympus 75mm 1.8 to my Leica 135 APO telyt and the Olympus lens is as good as the Leica and 1/5th the cost. In almost every other way (metering, weather proofing, IBIS etc) the EM5 is superior to the M9. The files at base ISO and the ability to have more narrow DOF with fast primes are the only technical advantages of the M9.
However, regardless of how good the EM5 is, if I were keeping one it would be the M9. Not because of any technical aspects but simply because I prefer to shoot with the M9. It's feels better in the hand (to me) and I apprecaite the simplicity of the M. The EM5 doesnt feel like a camera I'll own in 5 years. It feels kind of disposable. The M9 will probably stay with me, even if I purchase a newer body.
Gordon
However, regardless of how good the EM5 is, if I were keeping one it would be the M9. Not because of any technical aspects but simply because I prefer to shoot with the M9. It's feels better in the hand (to me) and I apprecaite the simplicity of the M. The EM5 doesnt feel like a camera I'll own in 5 years. It feels kind of disposable. The M9 will probably stay with me, even if I purchase a newer body.
Gordon
teleparallel
Established
Sorry dude, but it's not true. For same focal length theres is no difference. In absolute sense, it's correct, more light hits the sensor, but, in density terms(hitting light divided by sensor area) nothing changes. You don't need more film speed/relative aperture for the same exposure time. regarding depth of field, as commonly sad, nothing changes as well. What changes is the field of view for a given focal length. The idea is that, for a given field of view, say 75 degrees(around 28mm in 35mm film photography), you need to increase aperture(1 stop for APS-C, 2 for M43), because depth of field is determined by the absolute aperture of the lens(not the F number).
willie_901
Mentor
Density is not relevant. The signal-to-noise ratio is relevant. More light = more signal. Contemporary CMOS sensors have very similar noise levels. This is because the dominant noise sources are shot noise and read noise. The shot noise is inherent to the nature of light. the read noise is essentially similar for high quality, contemporary CMOS sensors, as is the bit depth. Neither is a function of sensor size. Thermal noise could be a function of sensor size, but apparently camera engineers are able to minimize heat build up for larger sensors.
This means all we can do to increase IQ is increase the signal. When exposure is optimal, there are two ways to increase the signal: increase the lens' glass area and increase the sensor area.
The physics of signal to noise and it's relationship to dynamic range and IQ is explained here:
http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/index.html
The camara position solely determines persepective. So DOF and angle of view comparisons require a fixed camera position. Smaller sensor areas require shorter focal lengths and larger apertures to be equivalent to a camera with a larger sensor area, i.e. it is impossible to know the sensor size by looking at the photographs when the camera positions are fixed.
The mathematics of sensor area/lens equivalence is presented here:
http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/equivalence/
The current physical limitations and practicalities of lens manufacuring and sensor fabrication mean large sensor areas are advantageous. This is especially true if you can not find/afford lenses with short focal lengths, optical excellence (especially at the corners) and very large maximum apertures. But increasing sensor area could not provide a fundamental advantage if ideal lenses and sensors designs were practical.
This means all we can do to increase IQ is increase the signal. When exposure is optimal, there are two ways to increase the signal: increase the lens' glass area and increase the sensor area.
The physics of signal to noise and it's relationship to dynamic range and IQ is explained here:
http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/index.html
The camara position solely determines persepective. So DOF and angle of view comparisons require a fixed camera position. Smaller sensor areas require shorter focal lengths and larger apertures to be equivalent to a camera with a larger sensor area, i.e. it is impossible to know the sensor size by looking at the photographs when the camera positions are fixed.
The mathematics of sensor area/lens equivalence is presented here:
http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/equivalence/
The current physical limitations and practicalities of lens manufacuring and sensor fabrication mean large sensor areas are advantageous. This is especially true if you can not find/afford lenses with short focal lengths, optical excellence (especially at the corners) and very large maximum apertures. But increasing sensor area could not provide a fundamental advantage if ideal lenses and sensors designs were practical.
teleparallel
Established
You said that you need to have wider apertures for same exposure earlier, and that's not right, and in this case light density over a certain region of film is determinant to set all the camera settings(believe me, I know, I'm a physicist).
I was just pointing out th mistake, sorry if it sound insulting or something.
Signal noise ratio and stuff are the limits of the designs and technology applied to it. Some day it may or not be overcome. And that's not the discussion. Finally these data don't apply here. Small sensors limits are true and might disappear, but, in any case, the OM-D sensor has a much better noise signal ratio, and likely dynamic range at high ISO, compared to the M9, to the point that it's images are cleaner.
Also, It's not correct for us to say about lens designs. For instance, the article says that glass' refractions index can't be change. Yet, glass has no crystalline structure, and likely to be sensitive to manufacture condition such colling and pressure that may change it's macro properties, such refraction index. Also, glass is not the only nor the most transparent medium. It's just abundant and cheap(to make). Since we don't know the first thing about it, we can't really say anything. Another conflicting data, is that small image circles lenses are smaller and easier to make, to the point that voigtlander to make three 0.95 lenses for m43.
The thing is, market(us) choose properties that sounds better and chooses certain qualities over others, and manufactures here us, but it's hardly the only way to make things better. For instance, go back a few years, and no one would choose a CMOS over CCD. Now, any new camera uses CMOS or variations of it, exactly to overcome problems with small photocell designs. So who are we to say?
I was just pointing out th mistake, sorry if it sound insulting or something.
Signal noise ratio and stuff are the limits of the designs and technology applied to it. Some day it may or not be overcome. And that's not the discussion. Finally these data don't apply here. Small sensors limits are true and might disappear, but, in any case, the OM-D sensor has a much better noise signal ratio, and likely dynamic range at high ISO, compared to the M9, to the point that it's images are cleaner.
Also, It's not correct for us to say about lens designs. For instance, the article says that glass' refractions index can't be change. Yet, glass has no crystalline structure, and likely to be sensitive to manufacture condition such colling and pressure that may change it's macro properties, such refraction index. Also, glass is not the only nor the most transparent medium. It's just abundant and cheap(to make). Since we don't know the first thing about it, we can't really say anything. Another conflicting data, is that small image circles lenses are smaller and easier to make, to the point that voigtlander to make three 0.95 lenses for m43.
The thing is, market(us) choose properties that sounds better and chooses certain qualities over others, and manufactures here us, but it's hardly the only way to make things better. For instance, go back a few years, and no one would choose a CMOS over CCD. Now, any new camera uses CMOS or variations of it, exactly to overcome problems with small photocell designs. So who are we to say?
flyalf
Well-known
Great discussion. But I believe we could split the discussion into fundamentals of large versus small sensors, and M9 / 240 versus other cameras.
IMO a m43 sensor has the disadvantage compared to FF. However good the OMD-5 and similar are claimed to be they are not in the same league as a same generation FF. The M9 holds up quite good but is a much older sensor design. Llets wait for the the new M and then compare.
In my book the larger senors have the advantage except for price. The above discussions seems to disregard pixel density? But in mine understanding trying to cram the same number of pixels into a smaller sensor have its own challenges. Do we need the mega-pixels? Well, at least we want them. Looking at DXOmark comparing sensors one can see that larger sensors "wins", and that without even taking pixel densiity, that is potential for resolution/large prints into account.
The OMD-5 has been compared favorable with M9. For me this shows that even a 2 generation newer m43 sensor is barely better than the M9 sensor, and in objective terms does not show significant low light advantage.
If you compare the OMD-5 with a newer FF sensor you will see that however good user claims the Oly to be its simply not in the same league. Please see:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/793%7C0/(brand)/Olympus/(appareil2)/792%7C0/(brand2)/Nikon/(appareil3)/640%7C0/(brand3)/Leica
So lets wait for the M-240 before comparing again
IMO a m43 sensor has the disadvantage compared to FF. However good the OMD-5 and similar are claimed to be they are not in the same league as a same generation FF. The M9 holds up quite good but is a much older sensor design. Llets wait for the the new M and then compare.
In my book the larger senors have the advantage except for price. The above discussions seems to disregard pixel density? But in mine understanding trying to cram the same number of pixels into a smaller sensor have its own challenges. Do we need the mega-pixels? Well, at least we want them. Looking at DXOmark comparing sensors one can see that larger sensors "wins", and that without even taking pixel densiity, that is potential for resolution/large prints into account.
The OMD-5 has been compared favorable with M9. For me this shows that even a 2 generation newer m43 sensor is barely better than the M9 sensor, and in objective terms does not show significant low light advantage.
If you compare the OMD-5 with a newer FF sensor you will see that however good user claims the Oly to be its simply not in the same league. Please see:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/793%7C0/(brand)/Olympus/(appareil2)/792%7C0/(brand2)/Nikon/(appareil3)/640%7C0/(brand3)/Leica
So lets wait for the M-240 before comparing again
willie_901
Mentor
First, there's nothing insulting in what you wrote. Speaking for myself, it is difficult to rigorously decribe this sort of thing using words only. Of course my post and the links I provided did not address film surface area effects.
Second, the OP was thinking about cameras with a factor of two difference in total sensor area. This difference is irrelevant if the smaller sensor receives twice as much signal. By irrelevant I maintain any meaningful comparison requires idenical perspective or camera positions.
However the M9 sensor has a lower signal to noise ratio than the OMD5. This is not a criticism of Leica. It is not meant to denigrate or agitate M9 owners. It is simply a fact. Besides, people don't buy M9s to get the best possible SNR. The concept of camera equivalence, or what if any advantage increased sensor areas brings, assumes the sensors' read noise properties are similar. A M8 owner will enjoy a SNR increase if they switch to a M9 because they are using the same lenses and the increase in surface area increases the signal (the read noise could be a bit lower too). The differences in perspective and/or DOF to achieve similar angles of view and enjoy the improved SNR with the same lenses is another matter.
The SNR of the new CMOS Leica Ms are likely to significantly outperform the best m4/3 cameras unless the m4/3 lenses have maximum apertures of 0.7 or wider. One last time, the contribution of SNR to digital image quality depends on both the sensor area and the number of photons that reach the sensor.
In the future, sensor and lens design, manufacturing advances may completely negate the current fact that larger sensors are not only more convenient than smaller sensors but outperform them in some circumstances as well. I would never underestimate the impact of future innovations when large profits are at stake.
Finally, I worked in magnetic resonance for 28 years. I have professional experience in digital signal processing and would be pleased to provide you with a list of my peer reviewed publications in private.
Second, the OP was thinking about cameras with a factor of two difference in total sensor area. This difference is irrelevant if the smaller sensor receives twice as much signal. By irrelevant I maintain any meaningful comparison requires idenical perspective or camera positions.
However the M9 sensor has a lower signal to noise ratio than the OMD5. This is not a criticism of Leica. It is not meant to denigrate or agitate M9 owners. It is simply a fact. Besides, people don't buy M9s to get the best possible SNR. The concept of camera equivalence, or what if any advantage increased sensor areas brings, assumes the sensors' read noise properties are similar. A M8 owner will enjoy a SNR increase if they switch to a M9 because they are using the same lenses and the increase in surface area increases the signal (the read noise could be a bit lower too). The differences in perspective and/or DOF to achieve similar angles of view and enjoy the improved SNR with the same lenses is another matter.
The SNR of the new CMOS Leica Ms are likely to significantly outperform the best m4/3 cameras unless the m4/3 lenses have maximum apertures of 0.7 or wider. One last time, the contribution of SNR to digital image quality depends on both the sensor area and the number of photons that reach the sensor.
In the future, sensor and lens design, manufacturing advances may completely negate the current fact that larger sensors are not only more convenient than smaller sensors but outperform them in some circumstances as well. I would never underestimate the impact of future innovations when large profits are at stake.
Finally, I worked in magnetic resonance for 28 years. I have professional experience in digital signal processing and would be pleased to provide you with a list of my peer reviewed publications in private.
raid
Dad Photographer
I always feel bad about using 35mm after getting back results from MF. MF shows more details. This is a fact .... I think!
As for digiral versus film, it used to be that only film was acceptable, but now digital is also acceptable, so I use both. Once in a while, I use MF. To force myself to use MF, I got a SWC with its 38mm lens. It is a unique camera which is unmatched by 35mm, so I an use both.
In the end, use what you want to use.
As for digiral versus film, it used to be that only film was acceptable, but now digital is also acceptable, so I use both. Once in a while, I use MF. To force myself to use MF, I got a SWC with its 38mm lens. It is a unique camera which is unmatched by 35mm, so I an use both.
In the end, use what you want to use.
Mcary
Well-known
I've been thinking about this question for the last few day's as I'm looking to possible get an M9 or M-E later this year. For me , just me no one else, I feel that if I can get one months usage out of each $100 spent, then getting an M9 or M-E is worth the cost to me.
Carterofmars
Well-known
You only live once. Do as your heart tells you.
aeturnum
Established
What does your ZM not do, right now, that you want to do? What made you pick it over the other options available (M6 / M7 / MP / SLR / etc)? M4/3 and the M9 are very different camera systems and will provide very different advantages and disadvantages.
There's no replacement for having and holding a camera. Try renting an M9, or a M4/3. Carry your ZM and the rental around. What do you notice? What do you miss? Buying a new system or a M9 is a major undertaking, and you should investigate both avenues.
Both camera systems will go down in value in the next 5-10 years. The M8 debuted at $4800 around 7 years ago. You can find them for $1500 now - ~$480(~10%) a year in degradation. The M9 debuted at $7000 ~3.5 years ago and can now be gotten for $4000 - ~$850(~12%) a year in degradation. The OM-D still sells for $940, but you can get it used for $770 - a drop of ~$170(~17%). These prices will stabilize as time goes on, but they are worth considering. Could someone pay you $850 to wait a year on the M9? Would you lease one for $850 a year? Can you afford a $4000 deposit? The anecdote involving rolls of film for $4k is useful, but the reality is a bit more complex.
No matter how much a camera costs, if it's not the right camera for you, you're wasting time and money on it. Buy the camera you want, if you can afford it. If you can't afford it, seriously consider if your 2nd choice is worth it. It often is, but it also often isn't.
P.s. From personal experience. I saw an irresistible deal on an M9 last week and got it. It's a good camera, but I like my ZM much better. At this point I'm leaning towards flipping the M9.
There's no replacement for having and holding a camera. Try renting an M9, or a M4/3. Carry your ZM and the rental around. What do you notice? What do you miss? Buying a new system or a M9 is a major undertaking, and you should investigate both avenues.
Both camera systems will go down in value in the next 5-10 years. The M8 debuted at $4800 around 7 years ago. You can find them for $1500 now - ~$480(~10%) a year in degradation. The M9 debuted at $7000 ~3.5 years ago and can now be gotten for $4000 - ~$850(~12%) a year in degradation. The OM-D still sells for $940, but you can get it used for $770 - a drop of ~$170(~17%). These prices will stabilize as time goes on, but they are worth considering. Could someone pay you $850 to wait a year on the M9? Would you lease one for $850 a year? Can you afford a $4000 deposit? The anecdote involving rolls of film for $4k is useful, but the reality is a bit more complex.
No matter how much a camera costs, if it's not the right camera for you, you're wasting time and money on it. Buy the camera you want, if you can afford it. If you can't afford it, seriously consider if your 2nd choice is worth it. It often is, but it also often isn't.
P.s. From personal experience. I saw an irresistible deal on an M9 last week and got it. It's a good camera, but I like my ZM much better. At this point I'm leaning towards flipping the M9.
hepcat
Former PH, USN
Yes. You are missing something.
All the techno-speak aside, do you like shooting a rangefinder? Does a rangefinder camera fit better with your style of shooting? If so, then your answer is clear. If not, then do what's least expensive.
Digital and film are not mutually exclusive. It's actually quite satisfying to have the option to use either digital or film and use the same lenses and accessories for both.