[Digitalis]

All I want is a focus ring, shutter button, aperture dial, shutter dial and ISO dial.

and it has to be digital? why don't you get a Leica M3 or a Nikon SP and shoot film?

[pjtn]

I've been considering film, but if I do it'll probably be the Mamiya 7 II. I would rather it's digital though, I also know I ask too much. It's amazing you have to pay so much to get 'less' features!

[tooppy]

HI Steve


Toopy - I'm really sorry to have misread you - big apologies - but I stick to my point that the M9 makes a splendid landscape camera, and there are lots of splendid landscape shots out there to prove it!

Sure Jono, I am not saying you cannot get wonderful landscape pictures from the M9, I do shoot landscape with my M6, but it is not an ideal camera for the purpose, and a bit outdated.
The K5 is much better in that respect and far cheaper, the new sensor placing it right to levels not seen before in APS, the best being the 645D of course.

[FullertonImages]

And that's something that hasn't been mentioned yet. When we're talking about the prices of of the M9 and one of the Summilux/cron lenses in the wide angle area, we're pretty much bordering on 645D+55/2.8 price range territory. And if we're talking about ultimate landscape IQ, I think the 645D wins. I, at least, would certainly rather have that over the M9.

[jonoslack]

Sure Jono, I am not saying you cannot get wonderful landscape pictures from the M9, I do shoot landscape with my M6, but it is not an ideal camera for the purpose, and a bit outdated.
The K5 is much better in that respect and far cheaper, the new sensor placing it right to levels not seen before in APS, the best being the 645D of course.

I quite agree that the M6 is not ideal - but it's a different animal altogether. The point being that with a film M you really can't be sure 'what you've got', and poor though the LCD of the M9 may be (is), you can at least see whether the composition and exposure is right, and a little common sense can deal with the focus as well.
I really like the K5, but the AA filter and the smaller sensor definitely amount to less resolution when compared to the M9 . . . .
But I'm not here to criticise the K5 - I think it's a great camera . . . not a great camera 'for what it is' simply, it's a great camera - eye popping dynamic range, splendid colour , and my little 35 f2.8 limited is certainly making my wallet shrink away in terror!

[jonoslack]

And if we're talking about ultimate landscape IQ, I think the 645D wins. I, at least, would certainly rather have that over the M9.

Yes, but you wouldn't rather carry two bodies and 6 lenses on a 20 mile trek at 40C . . . at least, I suppose you might, but most people wouldn't.
The beauty of the M9 is not that it's 'the best', but that it's the best way of getting a small package with fine lenses - the K5 doesn't do too bad in the same area!

[FullertonImages]

Yes, but you wouldn't rather carry two bodies and 6 lenses on a 20 mile trek at 40C . . . at least, I suppose you might, but most people wouldn't.
The beauty of the M9 is not that it's 'the best', but that it's the best way of getting a small package with fine lenses - the K5 doesn't do too bad in the same area!

I do carry 2 bodies and 6 lenses on 20 mile treks...

I think that is the beauty of the Pentax system in general. Everything is significantly smaller than it's canikon equivalent. Which I don't think results in me carrying less weight than if I were with another brand, but at least I get to have more stuff with me...

[robgo2]

and it has to be digital? why don't you get a Leica M3 or a Nikon SP and shoot film?

Because if you shoot film, even with the best lenses, you are still left with the tedious chore of scanning. Believe me, I know what that is like. For years, I shot with a Contax G2 rangefinder and superb Zeiss prime lenses, but the burden of scanning finally became too much to bear, and I made the jump to digital with a K10D. Being able to open images immediately in a digital editor was like being let out of jail. Moreover, the IQ was better than the best scans that I could make (and I was quite skilled at using a high-end desktop film scanner.)

That's why so few people return to film once they have gone digital.

Regarding a Leica M9 system, clearly one is pushing up against the law of diminishing returns with a camera such as that. Despite the excellent glass, IQ will probably not be very much better than with a high end Nikon/Pentax/Canon camera and their best lenses. If you truly want a quantum increase in IQ, you have to go to MF with all of its size, weight and cost limitations.

Rob

[Canada_Rockies]

I do carry 2 bodies and 6 lenses on 20 mile treks...

I think that is the beauty of the Pentax system in general. Everything is significantly smaller than it's canikon equivalent. Which I don't think results in me carrying less weight than if I were with another brand, but at least I get to have more stuff with me...

I've got you tied. Maybe I should start carrying the S-M-C Tak 55/1.8 just to top you!
K10D
MZ-S
DA 12-24
DA 16-50
FA 24-90
DA* 50-135
M 100/4 macro
M 400/5.6

This all fits in an ancient but very functional Phototrecker with the AF 540 FGZ, a 50mm tube, 1.4X-S converter, and 1.7X AF converter. I am afraid to weight it.

[Digitalis]

Regarding a Leica M9 system, clearly one is pushing up against the law of diminishing returns with a camera such as that. Despite the excellent glass, IQ will probably not be very much better than with a high end Nikon/Pentax/Canon camera and their best lenses

you're missing the fact that the Leica M9 doesn't have a sharpness killing AA filter. my canon 1DS MKIII requires a fair amount of sharpening to match the unsharpened output from the M9. Yes, I am using L series lenses.

[Clarkey]

The film idea is a good one, except for the previously mentioned "I can't see immediately what I got/am going to get" instant gratification of digital.

Newer films have been optimised for digital (I'm thinking of Kodak Portra here).
The issue is now the scanner, and the issue of enthusiast scanner technology dying a slow death.

Still, I quite often take a GA645 fuji out with the K-7 and two primes.

As to Digitalis' point, I've seen images from the sigma DP-1 (not a fair comparison I know), that are way better than they have any right to be - again due to no AA filter. However, forget about shooting architecture with regular patterns. Moire is not your friend.

[pjtn]

I'm actually starting to consider the Sony A850 more now. It's a trade off between image quality and size and weight. The Pentax system is just so beautiful and small, those Limited lenses are so very nice. But the larger sensor, higher resolution and Zeiss lenses on the A850 should provide some pretty awesome quality.

Either way I think I'll be happier than with my 5D MKII. The files just don't look right at all.

[Digitalis]

the larger sensor, higher resolution and Zeiss lenses on the A850 should provide some pretty awesome quality.

would you make up your mind? first you want a leica M9, compare it to the Canon 5DMKII* then mention you might want the K-5 after all, obsess over the M9 again, and then mention the Sony A850 which have zeiss lenses, that are really rebaged Minolta lenses.

In the course of this discussion I have shot and developed 20 frames of 8X10 film which can easily beat the output of any digital camera at 16X20 when printed on platinum.

If I were you I would just get a roll of T-max 100 a pentax 67II a 55mm f/4 (a lens that beats zeiss in every way) instead of obsessing over what camera is best. and just go out and take pictures.

*IMO it really isn't a fair comparison at all

[pjtn]

All I want to do is consider all options. I'm sorry if I offended you Digitalis. I have been still taking photos with my 5D MKII while thinking about it too.

[ozlizard]

it's a great camera - eye popping dynamic range, splendid colour

Great shots, was waiting for someone to post some good landscape shots. Any pp on those? The DR looks inredible and certainly my K20 coudn't take those!