50mm is a lens that can tell a story, it can make people stand out from the environment. The Leica Noctilux 50 1.2 is good at separating people from their surroundings, but it’s best for full-body portraits. This lens is not ideal for half-length portraits. Due to lack of clarity, the boundary between the half-length portrait and the environment is not clear, not as good as summicron 50f2 v4 and summilux 50 1.4 pre-asph. I think shooting full-body portraits is the correct way to use Noctilux 50 1.2.
LEICA NOCTILUX-M 50 f/1.2 ASPH
At first I was disappointed with the Leica noctilux 1.2 replica. When setting the aperture to 1.2, it was not as good as the noctilux 50 0.95. But later I discovered that when shooting full-body portraits with the noctilux 50 1.2 asph, a vortex composed of clarity and blur was formed in the center of the picture. It gives you a sharpness that cannot be ignored in the focus, and gives you a quiet and mysterious blurred background in the out of focus. This is a style that no other Leica lens has. The lens is set at a distance of 4 meters and the aperture is set to 1.2. I can even use it to estimate the focus and take blind shots. I can get relatively clear full-body portraits and get dreamy bokeh, which is sweet. “You say life is like a dream, and I say life is like honey. What’s the difference? They’re not all hazy. You are there in the haze, and you and me are enough… Simply love what you love, all the flowers are for you Open, all the scenery is arranged for you.”
LEICA NOCTILUX-M 50 f/1.2 ASPH
I have been practicing photography for several years, and I have a little experience. Beginners must not be looked down upon. It is easier to see the Buddha nature with a beginner’s mind. This is also the reason why many people pursue the original Leica lenses. Even if Leica officially reproduces this Noctilux, it will not weaken collectors’ pursuit of the original Noctilux at all, because the original intention is priceless.
This is a forgotten Leica lens that is rarely mentioned specifically. The first generation Leica Elmarit 28mm f2.8 was favored by collectors and photographers for its exceptional style, solid workmanship, and sparse production. The current version of the Leica Elmarit 28mm ASPH is again recommended by more photographers because of its compact size. That’s how the third generation version is rarely recommended, and that’s why it’s so reasonably priced. In fact the third generation is still in Leica’s style with excellent optical performance.
I love using this lens for close up street snaps, it does a great job at close range with great sharpness. It has high color contrast, which gives me the illusion that it was designed for digital cameras. But it is indeed a lens from 1980.
In fact, I prefer the v3 version to the ASPH version, because the colors of v3 seem to be a little warmer and belong to the classic Leica. More importantly, v3 seems to have more depth of field, making it easier to capture clear photos, especially at close range. I think this is because the classic Leica bokeh blur is a gradual pattern from clear to blurry. The ASPH version does not have this gradual blurring process. Therefore, once the ASPH version makes a slight mistake in blind shooting at close range (about one meter), the entire picture will be blurry.
But V3 also has a fatal shortcoming, that is, it is relatively large, especially with the lens hood installed. Compared to the ASPH version, V3 is easier to spot in street shots, which is where it is inferior to the ASPH version. Overall I love it, the V3 is probably the cheapest Leica lens with the best optical quality.
If you go to a Leica store, you will find that this lens is the most popular star. 35mm has always been Leica’s most popular lens, and many newbies to Leica will choose this lens with the Leica M10p as their preferred configuration. One of the best 35mm prime lenses in the world.
The Leica asph lens is sharp, high contrast, beautiful blur, and has almost no shortcomings. The quality of f1.4 can reach the sharpness and contrast of f4 lenses of other brands. Narrowing the aperture is no longer a way to improve image quality. It achieves similar image quality from minimum to maximum aperture, and the only thing you have to think about is the depth of field change. However, it has also been said by many that it lacks personality, and the style barely changes at each aperture.
The second version of Summilux 35 1.4ASPH is warmer in color, and many people like it wide open. Although it is not as sharp as the third version, the bokeh is more charming.
The summicron 35mm f2 ASPH is similar in size to the summilux 35 1.4 asph, just shorter, and the first piece of glass is also recessed. Actually summicron ASPH is derived from summilux. But in use, I feel that summilux’s anti-glare ability is actually better than summicron. I don’t know if it’s an illusion.
The last Kodak train quietly took away the CCD of the M9. It couldn’t be kept, nor could it be saved. Leica has entered the mature CMOS era. Youth must eventually bid farewell. Farewell, youth, that pure happiness gradually stings memories.
Remembering the Leica M9
In 2009, Leica released the M9. How many people dream of having one? The world’s first full-frame rangefinder digital camera. Holding such a camera, like Henri Cartier Bresson, wandering the streets, how many fantasies could it evoke? How many people only knew about this brand because of the Leica M9? At that time, it was the most expensive 135 full-frame digital camera. Hanging it around your neck, you would become the center of attention wherever you went.
How many people have tried various settings in Photoshop, trying to force their Canon or Sony colors onto Leica? In the end, they failed, not because of Photoshop, but because of impatience. Time flies… Enjoying it on one hand, shedding tears on the other, ten years ago, I didn’t know you, and you didn’t belong to me. Walking through the familiar streets, ten years later… Looking back, I found classics all over the ground. Leica’s old users have always blamed Leica for its shrinking history. From M3 to M6, until M7 used an electronic shutter. Looking back, M6 is still quite classic! When Leica released the digital M8, users said Leica had fallen, making digital cameras. At this time, looking back, the M7 was still a film camera, still quite classic! When Leica released the M10 without a framing window, users said the bald front face was ugly. At this time, looking back, the M9 is still quite classic!
Looking back, there are always classic things to pick up.
Classic Elements of the Leica M9
The viewfinder frame of the M9 is physically lit, just like the film M cameras. Film users will feel comfortable looking at the front face of the M9, while the bald front face of the M240 and M10 may feel a bit awkward. In addition, the M-E and M240, which were introduced after the Leica M9, lack the preview lever, making them look less classic in appearance. Therefore, when looking back at the M9, its classic elements appear more dazzling. Nowadays, the M10 also lacks the light window, and Leica designers realized this. If we continue to simplify it like this, can we still call it a Leica? Therefore, Leica M10 quickly introduced the most classic rewind knob of the M3, making it into an ISO dial. In order to maintain its classic elements, it can be said that they put in a lot of effort.
Leica users are interesting. On one hand, they say that Leica is becoming less and less classic, but on the other hand, they look forward to seeing what new products Leica will release slowly. This shows that Leica M has always had some kind of tacit understanding with its users, which can only be explained by mysticism. But in any case, it is now a consensus that there is no light window after the M9. From today on, the Leica M9 is officially classified as a classic camera!
M8 and M9
APS-H and full-frame are the differences in film size, but in terms of operation, the M8 and M9 belong to the same type. Once you get used to the operation of the M8 and M9, it will feel a bit awkward to switch to the M240 and M10 in terms of settings menu. The menu contents of the M8 and M9 are few, which makes them seem simpler.
M8: black and white negative film, M9: color reversal film
The colors of the M8 are light, and it can take infrared photos through filters. It can also take rich black and white grayscale photos with the texture of black and white film. The M9, on the other hand, has increased color contrast and color correction that leans towards the Kodak legendary Kodachrome.
The Color of the M9
Film is good, digital lacks character. No matter what data you use to prove the high pixels and accurate colors of digital, it can never replace the premium texture of film. To say that the color of the Leica M9 is close to film is actually the biggest compliment to the M9.
Thanks to the power-hungry CCD from Kodak, the Leica M9 produces photos with a special texture, of course, when paired with Leica lenses. Many people switched from CCD to CMOS, but still missed the color and texture of the M9. The solid and slightly overexposed blue, the pure and glossy red, and occasionally the greenish tone throughout the entire photo…they always give you some unexpected surprises, isn’t that the characteristic of film?
Of course, don’t mythologize the CCD of the M9. Some people can even process a CMOS photo to have a CCD-like texture, it just takes some time. And the color of Leica’s CMOS is also not to be underestimated, it is not something other brands can easily catch up with.
CCD vs. CMOS
You can list a lot of parameters and say how advanced CMOS is these days, but when it comes to adapting to the Sony A7, it lacks the Leica flavor. Even compared to the M10, the images lack a certain something compared to the M9. Why is the CCD in the M9 so special? Is CCD more advanced than CMOS in terms of technology? I cannot find a convincing explanation. Whether it’s scientific principles or sample images, nothing can objectively prove anything. I can only find answers by looking at the problem itself: Why is everyone discussing “CCD is better than CMOS” instead of “CMOS is better than CCD”? The problem itself seems to provide the answer.
The general public never pays for image quality. They prefer simplicity and convenience, just as digital cameras with only a few million pixels ended the era of better film quality. In fact, the aesthetics of most users tend to be self-healing, where a beautified phone is better than anything else.
So even though CCD has better low-sensitivity image quality, the general public won’t pay for it. CCD has advanced low-sensitivity image quality, poor high-sensitivity image quality, and limited video capability. CMOS has average low-sensitivity image quality, normal high-sensitivity image quality, and strong video capabilities. This is not an inference, it is a fact.
After the M9, Leica finally realized how rash it was to use CCD to pursue low-sensitivity image quality, like the acne of adolescence. Finally, by using CMOS sensors, the problem of acne was solved. Although CMOS sacrifices a bit of low-sensitivity image quality, it gets good high-sensitivity image quality in return, and what’s even more valuable is its better compatibility with old lenses, where many film lenses don’t have as much red shift. Most importantly, how many of those who say CCD is better have actually paid for it?
It’s difficult to say whether choosing an M9 in 2023 is a wise decision or not, as it depends on individual preferences and priorities. The M9’s CCD issue is a known problem, but as you mentioned, it can be resolved with a CCD replacement. It’s also worth noting that the M9 is a classic camera with a loyal following, and it’s still capable of producing great images. Additionally, its price has dropped significantly over the years, making it a more accessible option for those who want to own a Leica.
However, there are also newer models available, such as the M10 and M11, which use CMOS sensors that are less prone to the CCD problem. These cameras also offer newer features and technology that may be more appealing to some users. Ultimately, the decision to choose an M9 or another Leica model depends on individual needs, preferences, and budget.
It’s also important to consider the source of the camera and whether it’s been properly maintained. As with any used camera, it’s possible that the M9 may have other issues or wear and tear that need to be addressed. It’s best to purchase from a reputable dealer or individual seller who can provide information about the camera’s history and condition.
Overall, the M9 is still a capable and desirable camera for many photographers, and with proper care and maintenance, it can continue to provide great results for years to come.
About the parameters of the Leica M9:
The screen has 230,000 pixels, is it low? First of all, I think it’s a bit lame to take a photo and immediately look down at the screen, it shows lack of confidence, people from the film era were more confident than you. Besides, what can you see with high pixels on a small camera screen? If you have time, why not upgrade to a retina display Mac computer from Apple?
Slow continuous shooting. If you need to take a series of shots quickly, it’s better to switch to Canon or Nikon, it’s not very elegant with the Leica.
Slow storage speed. Why do you need it to be so fast? If you were using film, would you take ten continuous shots for a newspaper article? Don’t forget, although SD cards are free, every extra photo you take is a burden for post-processing. At the same time, if you use a low-speed card, are you not doing a disservice to Leica? Please switch to the SanDisk 95-speed extrame pro professional card, don’t just look at the parameters like class 10, the pro version of SD is professional, it’s expensive for a reason.
The maximum supported card size is only 32GB. I would rather have several small cards than one big one, it’s safer to spread your eggs across multiple baskets.
CCD is power-hungry. The M9 does consume more power than a CMOS camera, but Leica is also expensive, is being power-hungry a reason not to buy it?
The top LCD screen of the M8 has been removed. Leica is still quite traditional, thinking that people are still in the film era, isn’t 999 shots enough for a while? A roll of film has 36 shots, 27 rolls are enough for a themed shoot, right? No, modern people use very large SD cards, taking thousands of photos on every trip. The M8’s shoulder screen always showed 999 because it can only display three digits at most. This design is not very modern, so the M9 removed it altogether. However, removing the card and battery level display is a bit of a pity, you have to go into the menu to check the status, it’s a shame if the camera suddenly dies while you’re shooting. However, the M10 also doesn’t have this LCD screen.
Raw Dynamic Range
Underexposure of up to 4 stops can be salvaged, while overexposure can be recovered up to 3 stops. This is quite impressive, especially for retaining highlights, which has made many people obsessed and claiming that highlights cannot be recovered well in CMOS cameras.
Conclusion
I don’t want to judge other people’s opinions about the Leica M9. For me, it will always be a camera that inspires admiration. It was in the past, it is now, and it will be in the future. Because I have never denied those whimsical thoughts from my youth.
For the previous generation, owning an M3 was a happy thing. For those who were interested in Leica ten years ago, owning an M9 was a beautiful thing. Don’t say that I’m trying to persuade you to buy a Leica M9. Maybe the M11 and M10 are the ones you are thinking about, and my song won’t be in your dreams.
