# Leica M9 + Noctilux-M 50mm f/0.95 ASPH



## DScience (Nov 2, 2009)

Man, I would do almost anything for this set up. It would be heaven for me. Bokeh everywhere all day long...

Leica Camera AG - Photography - NEW: LEICA NOCTILUX-M 50 mm f/0.95 ASPH.

Leica Camera AG - Photography - M9


Full framed camera, with that lens...  

I am just curious, is the reason why this is just not talked about here simply because of the price? I see some people on flickr who have these set ups, with other lenses, the M8...And just the camera and lens alone cost more than a whole pro set up, top of the line for either Nikon or Canon.


----------



## Antithesis (Nov 2, 2009)

So... Expensive... but my gosh, looks like fun.


----------



## chip (Nov 2, 2009)

The Leica M9 is a $7000 camera. It is expensive but I don't think worth it. It has manual focus only so don't plan on using it for any action shots. It is a range finder camera so what the sensor sees is not what you see in the finder. Basically that means you simply cannot use it for telephoto shots or macro shots. I doubt Leica sells any telephoto lenses anyhow. The functionalities of this camera is highly limited. Yes Leica lenses are supposed to be super sharp but only if you can focus fast enough manually. They are also expensive. I mean this is simply a rich man's camera. It is almost like a status symbol. I think it is over rated and it under performs. If I were to buy a $7000 camera I would rather have a Nikon D3x. Now that's a real camera. That said, I do like they way Leica places the controls - very simple and direct.


----------



## usayit (Nov 3, 2009)

chip said:


> ...
> They are also expensive. I mean this is simply a rich man's camera. It is almost like a status symbol. I think it is over rated and it under performs. If I were to buy a $7000 camera I would rather have a Nikon D3x. Now that's a real camera. That said, I do like they way Leica places the controls - very simple and direct.



Chip pretty much sums up the general consensus side.....  to understand the other side you could ask questions at l-camera-forum.com or rangefinderforum.com.  

<< Shoots with an M8 w/ Earlier version of the noctilux.   Slowly saving up for an M9.  Not rich just have very specific "vices" and very few "other" expenses.  

btw... Besides the aperture ring and shutter dial which have been in the same place since the 50s, the "other" controls are my least favorite part of the M8 design.  If you want to see a sample of a "simple and direct" design, you should look up photos of the long discontinued Epson R-D1. 

Even among the Leica community, the Noctilux f/0.95 isn't well received because of the price.  Most are happier putting the $$ towards summicrons or summilux lenses.  The Voigtlander Nokton 50mm f/1.1 is a reasonably priced alternative.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 3, 2009)

DScience,
 Since you like selective focus shots so,so much, what you need to do is move to an FX format camera. The shallow depth of field effects you like are much easier to achieve with a larger sensor, especially at longer distances. Depth of field increases and decreases are not strictly linear; at closer ranges, FX will have a DOF around 2.5 times shallower than DX; at longer ranges, the FX DOF will be only 1.6x shallower. It's hard to qualitatively describe or categorize the differences between FX and DX; it is very easy to go to an online depth of field calculator and quantify the depth of field differences, but he "numbers" in feet and inches in an online DOF calculator do not tell the story as well as actual pictures. But suffice it to say, in the real world, the selective focus you like, the shallow depth of field you like--that is EASY to achieve simply by moving up to an FX format camera.

The issue is pretty simple. You already own a 50mm f/1.4 lens. If you make your camera's sensor 2.5 times larger by buying a D700, you'll be able to render the same types of shallow depth of field images you can now create only at close ranges--those same effects could be created at longer distances with your curent 50mm f/1.4. 

And if you were to buy an 85mm 1.8 lens this month: your D90 would crop off the edges of the 85/1.8's field of view AND it would force you to stand back farther to compensate for the 1.5x narrowed angle of view of DX versus FX, and you would LOSE very much of the shallow depth of field effect an 85mm lens can create on an FX sensored camera.

Leica lenses are some of the most carefully designed, carefully built,and highest-precision lenses ever made. Lenses are tested individually for centering after assembly; Japanese,Chinese, and Vietnamese-made lenses for Nikon are not tested. Many Leica lenses that are 40 to 50 years old are still in fine form,and in great shape,and still shooting good. A $3,500 50mm lens with aspherical design and hand-assembly is a better-made lens than a $109 Canon 50mm EF-II cheapie plastic-barrel, pop-riveted, plastic mount lens. Leica lenses have been built for lifetime use since the 1920's. Most Japanese designed lenses are price-point built. It's hard to understand just how well-made Leica equipment is until you've actually held it in your hands.


----------



## usayit (Nov 3, 2009)

Also... Leica has long been a company creating little mechanical wonders... just like those amazing hand built timepieces.  This shows in their lenses.  Unfortunately, electronic giants now rule the camera industry and it isn't easy for a small company to reinvent itself.  The market is completely opposite of what Leica is used to:

* Mechanical wonders built to be heirlooms versus obsolete disposable electronics
* Hand built versus price pointed manufacturing
* Long production cycles in terms of years (plural) versus Annual release of new models (M3 and M2 had 10+ year production runs)
* Niche market versus Large market

They are making up for these via a laundry list of partners; kodak and panasonic being the obvious two.  I will also state that it is my opinion that the company has made some awful business decisions that they are paying for (pushing third party lens manufacturing, M8 upgrade program, migration path for R system users, previous CEO, micro 4/3rds presence.. etc..)   But I digress...

the reason why I post this is that all of these translate to a more expensive product.  But why do I and thousands others buy into the system... simply because their outstanding quality, history and dedication to a classic design.  Yes.. because of their price we get clumped into the rich man's category.  If you spend some time perusing through the forums above and a hand full of others that do attract Leica shooters, you'll discover that no one is more critical of Leica than Leica shooters.... and those shooters are some extremely talented ones.


----------



## Antithesis (Nov 3, 2009)

You guys both have very valid points, but that doesn't change the fact that electronics have always been treated as disposable. I have no doubt that the Leica M9 or M8 will last for many years, but compared to a film body, they will be close to obsolete in much less time. Granted, the M9 is at a point in the technology where it won't be obsolete so fast, but if you spend $7000 on a camera body, you better hope you can get a decade or more of use out of it (assuming your not a professional). 

There are likely still quite a few people using the M3 but I doubt there will be people using the M9, 60 years in the future. The lens on the other hand will probably last a lifetime or six.


----------



## usayit (Nov 3, 2009)

Antithesis said:


> I doubt there will be people using the M9, 60 years in the future.  The lens on the other hand will probably last a lifetime or six.



This was exactly why I was hoping that the next iteration of Leica wouldn't be so focused on the M-mount body as opposed to the M-mount lenses....   In my opinion, a full frame Pany GF-1'ish type product in an M-mount flavor should have been part of their line by now...


----------



## Derrel (Nov 3, 2009)

Well Antithesis, the point you bring up and add further emphasis to is,and has been for some time now, the crux of the profitability problem for the makers of Leica camera gear; electronics HAVE indeed been treated as disposable, and to a very significant extent, so were 35mm SLR bodies made over the last few years. At one time a "Nikon" meant a professionally specified tank like an F or F2, and the lower cost bodies were called Nikkomat or Nikkormat (depending), to differentiate from a Nikon. Rolleiflex made the high-end f/2.8 and f/3.5 models, but also had the knob-wind Rolleicord models. By the mid-1980's 35mm SLR bodies were, in large part, "affordable" and I think it was 1984 that the most 35mm SLR cameras were sold, in huge part due to popular models like the anon AE-1 Program, Pentax Super Program, and Nikon FG,and other "consumer" models.

Leica has always been a maker of high-end precision cameras. True story; in the 1980's I was working at a camera store when an old German-American man from my home town made a roughly 50-mile drive to the "big city" camera store where I was working. He had with him an OLD black-painted Leica from the early 1930's with a 35mm and a 50mm. The body had almost no black paint left on it. The top plate and bottom plate were basically shiny, golden-hued bare brass. The lenses were uncoated. He had decided it was time to get a "modern camera". I asked him how long he had owned the outfit he wanted to trade in, and he said, "I got it before the war when I was a young man, must have been round '33 or 34 I guess." His last name was Gruse, and he was a proud German-American, and he was in his 70's at the time,and he asked if there were any good "German cameras" still available. I told him, no, not any more, just Leica was left. he asked me to check over the two lenses and cameras and I did. I picked up the ancient body and put it to my eye and focused and shot a frame. The shutter whispered. I wound the knob. The mechanism was smooth. I took of the 35mm and put on the 50mm. It focused like a dream.
     I told him we could only offer $200 in trade in value,and that it would be far,far better to pass the cameras along to somebody who could appreciate
the fine craftsmanship. I ended up selling him a NEW, but somewhat old-stock Contax 35mm SLR with a Zeiss 50mm 1.4 on it, which he kind of grooved on because of his familiarity with the Contax name and the Zeiss lens, which actually was a kick-butt 50mm lens. What amazed me most as that this guy was a somewhat serious amateur snapper,and had owned ONE Leica and two lenses for something like 56 to 57 years,and when I checked the stuff out, it was in amazing working condition. Tight, yet smooth. Silky and precise focusing,film advance, and shutter release! One owner and over five decades of use! The two lenses he had were silver-barreled models with the old "European" f/stop sequence scales on the front of the lens.
    Here is what model it was, only with almost NO black paint left on it!
File:Leica-II-p1030002.jpg - Wikimedia Commons

    Leica's I and II and III series and then the M3 and newer cameras were all made for LIFETIME use,and built,tested,and priced accordingly. Same with the lenses. I actually got to see one man's lifetime of wear on one pre-war II series,and it left me honored to have seen and experienced the still-fine condition of a Leica that was made 30 years before I was born, still in fine shape. I'll never forget the old man's dismay as I handed him a Nikon N8008s and 35-70 as a potential camera..."It sounds kinda tinny," he said as he shot a few demo frames, "and feels kind of cheep." I told him, "all the Japanese cameras feel that way now--they're not German made." And in the late 1980's, bodies and lenses had a VERY plasticky feeling to them.
     "Nee-cone...hmmmph...." he asked me again if I had anything 'German'.
A light went off in my head....at the far end we had some Contax stuff! it was not autofocus, so it was hard to sell,and it was relegated to far-end display. I unpacked and set up the body and a 50mm Planar and handed it to him. He was sold! "Oh,goot,goot,goot, he said, it doesn't have that out-o-fogus,". I can still remember that he called autofocus "out-oh-fogus".
      Yeah, I'll never forget that experience, seeing an handling a one-owner, 55+ year old, two-lens Leica system. The 8008 Nikon I showed him is already probably in a junk heap, and the Leica II is probably still in working order.


----------



## Antithesis (Nov 3, 2009)

I totally agree. Everything I have ever read about Leica's and everything I've ever heard has said that they are some of the best built and most reliable cameras you can get. They seem totally geared toward absolutely amazing build quality, at the cost of... expense. 

I almost inherited an old M3 that my grandfather used to shoot press photos on, but it sort of vanished after he passed away. I was more excited about that camera than any other camera I've purchased to date and was super bummed out when my grandma couldn't find it for me. I would have freakin' cherished that thing.


----------



## Markw (Nov 4, 2009)

That is completely insane.  $10,000 for a 50mm lens.  I would find an aperture of anything as low as F/.95 almost completely useless.

Mark


----------



## Derrel (Nov 4, 2009)

Yeah, it is "insane". As insane as $65 steaks in a fine restaurant. As insane as $500 bottles of champagne. As insane as $1,300 Italian dress shoes. As insane as $4,000 Armani suits. As insane as $19,000 Rolex watches. As insane as $140,000 Italian sports cars. As insane as $2.9 million dollar Florida houses. As insane as $12.8 million dollar yachts. The price goes along with a lot of other insanely priced products in the world.

Considering the "value" and the investment of say a $4,000 Armani suit versus a a $10,000 Leica lens, my money would be on the Leica lens. Not saying the lens is worth as much as the price tag. A cheap Casio quartz timed watch keeps time better than a $5,000, mechanical Swiss watch.

Flickr has a couple of real lens-aholics who manage to get a hold of and shoot a TON of odd, high-end glass. Here's a short set of on with the f/0.95 Noctilux. There is also an f/1.0 model as well if I am not mistaken. 

Noctilux 50mm f0.95 (E60, 4th) - a set on Flickr


----------



## usayit (Nov 4, 2009)

Derrel said:


> There is also an f/1.0 model as well if I am not mistaken.



As well as the first version which is f/1.2 max aperture... and its highly collectible as well (if that's your thing).


----------



## Antithesis (Nov 4, 2009)

Holy COW! I didn't realize it was 10 _grand_. That is a crazy amount of money for one lens, I must say. I think I'd rather have a full line-up of L's and a nice body or two, but that's just me. Maybe one day when I'm sipping $500 champagne in my $4000 armani suit, I'll think otherwise.

And I'm curious... have Leica lenses always been as that proportionately expensive? Like, as compared to other brands? I know they're pretty steep... but 10 large for a 50mm prime?


----------



## usayit (Nov 4, 2009)

Antithesis said:


> And I'm curious... have Leica lenses always been as that proportionately expensive? Like, as compared to other brands? I know they're pretty steep... but 10 large for a 50mm prime?



Expensive ... yes... 
in those proportions... NO...
Leica is in Euro.. we are talking USD's which is tanking...

I bought my Noctilux f/1.0 only a few years ago... used.. at $2000 USD.  Looking at the used market now, the same exact lens the same condition is well over $5000 USD.  My only wish was that my stocks performed as well...


Oh bye the way.... I think this is even more insane:

Photo Arsenal

from Photo Arsenal of Germany.. look at their website and you'll see other "insane" priced camera goodies and collectables.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 5, 2009)

Well, yeah, Leica cameras have _always_ been much more costly than cheaper cameras. Many years ago I had a 1940 Bass Camera catalogue, filled with hundreds of cameras. As I recall, a Leica IIIb with a 50mm f/2 Summar was around $395 US dollars. A Contax II with a 50mm f/1.5 Sonnar was even more expensive, at $425 US dollars. Remember, these were the "Nikon D3x" and "Canon 1Ds Mark III" of their era, and there was a tremendous amount of precision casting, milling,engraving,and hand-fitting.
See Zeiss Contax II and III  for an idea of mid-1936's technology's zenith.

As my grandfather told me, at that time you could buy a used Model A Ford car for around $75. At the time, 1940, there were a number of American-made 35mm cameras like the Kodak Retina that had high-quality adjustable lenses and variable aperture lenses, and the price was around $48.50 or so. "Cheap" or consumer-grade 35mm cameras in the Bass catalog were $7.50 to $15 or so as I recall

Around the same time, the Kodak Duo, a 620 film rollfilm folder with high-quality adjustable lens and shutter was retailing for around $57.50, which according to one article is equated as being worth $793 US dollars in 2006 dollars. kodak classics - mischa koning

So yeah, in many ways, Leica and their contemporary cameras, the Zeiss-Ikon Contax 35mm rangefinders were VERY expensive. As one poster here writes, "In my BJP Almanac of 1939, a IIIb with 50 f/2 is listed at 43 GBP (a Contax II with 50 f/2 is 50.5 GBP). This was at a time when you could pick up a decent quality folding camera with a Zeiss lens for well under 10 GBP, a farm worker might be earning less than 2 GBP per week, and a skilled industrial worker perhaps double that. According to this page:

Measuring Worth - Purchasing Power of British Pound

43 GBP in 1939 is worth about 1,910 GBP (going by the retail price index) or as much as 7,305 GBP (going by average earnings) in 2007 currency. "
have leica always been expensive? - Photo.net Leica and Rangefinders Forum


----------



## John Thawley (Nov 28, 2009)

Antithesis said:


> Holy COW! I didn't realize it was 10 _grand_. That is a crazy amount of money for one lens, I must say. I think I'd rather have a full line-up of L's and a nice body or two, but that's just me. Maybe one day when I'm sipping $500 champagne in my $4000 armani suit, I'll think otherwise.
> 
> And I'm curious... have Leica lenses always been as that proportionately expensive? Like, as compared to other brands? I know they're pretty steep... but 10 large for a 50mm prime?




I have a full line up of L glass... from 16-35 f/2.8 on up to 500mm f/4. If I didn't need the stuff for work, I'd sell it all for an M9 and a few Leica primes.

It's just a different way of shooting. It's relaxing, satisfying and everything that's fun about making pictures.

I won't use the word "hate"... but I have to shoot high-speed dslr with long and fast glass. I shoot race cars for a living. It's a great job and I love it. But I seriously don't like what happens to my head when I pick up a DSLR. Honestly, you become a manufacturer of images. You immediately going into production mode. You've got auto focus, you've got burst rate, I'll zoom from 70-200 or swing the other body up and start firing the with 500mm. 

I have several old Leica Digilux 2 cameras. They're about 5 years old. They're 5 megapixel, the glass is 28-90 f/2 - f2/4 The cameras are a dream to shoot with. The images are out of this world. The entire experience of making a picture is totally different. 

Here are a couple of pages on my Leica's and a couple of sample galleries. I love these cameras and I love shooting with them. 

The Leica Digilux 2 - Journal - Motorsports Photographer ~ John Thawley :: Photography of American Le Mans, Grand Am, SPEED World Challenge

Pimp My Ride!!! - Journal - Motorsports Photographer ~ John Thawley :: Photography of American Le Mans, Grand Am, SPEED World Challenge


----------



## asila (Nov 28, 2009)

cool


----------



## usayit (Nov 28, 2009)

John Thawley said:


> I have a full line up of L glass... from 16-35 f/2.8 on up to 500mm f/4. If I didn't need the stuff for work, I'd sell it all for an M9 and a few Leica primes.



John, 

I remember you and your very well put together Leica Digilux 2 webpage from another forum (not too active over there though).  Welcome to my part of the internet world...

By the way, that is exactly what I did.  Sell my entire line of L-glass and went from an M3 to an M8 (and M3) complimented with a few primes.  In a way, I am fortunate photography is a hobby so I didn't have to take into consideration requirements to complete a job.... it is for pure enjoyment.  Your explanation is bang on....

Hope you stick around.


----------



## John Thawley (Nov 28, 2009)

usayit said:


> John Thawley said:
> 
> 
> > I have a full line up of L glass... from 16-35 f/2.8 on up to 500mm f/4. If I didn't need the stuff for work, I'd sell it all for an M9 and a few Leica primes.
> ...



It's my "off" season... so I should get to participate a bit. Still stay pretty busy though. This is the time of the year I get to shoot with my Leicas and more for my own enjoyment. That said, however, I will be shooting a vintage race in December and possibly a few test sessions. 

I'll try to limit my on-track shooting at the vintage race. It's a little bit redundant... and they wear modern helmets, so it kind of spoils some of the shots. I like to shoot black and white for vintage. Depending on the weather and light, I'll probably wait and shoot as late as possible... they do a four-hour race... so I'll be able to shoot some high-iso (3200-6400) and get things a little gritty. We'll see what happens.

Hopefully, it will play-out where I can do a lot of background / paddock stuff with the Leicas though.

JT


----------

