On Thursday morning I posted my Leica M9 review. I'd like to suggest that general discussion about the review and the M9 be made here rather than in multiple threads.
Of course if you have a specific new topic or question, go ahead and start one.
Michael
Full Version: M9 Review Discussion
QUOTE (michael @ Sep 10 2009, 02:00 PM) 
On Thursday morning I posted my Leica M9 review. I'd like to suggest that general discussion about the review and the M9 be made here rather than in multiple threads.
Of course if you have a specific new topic or question, go ahead and start one.
Michael
Of course if you have a specific new topic or question, go ahead and start one.
Michael
Hi Michael, I know it's hard to make any statement on image quality on the net without being ripped to pieces but can you tell us any more about the characteristics of the files at all, color accuracy, vibrancy, bite of the file, anything? Do they remind you more of a Phase file or a canon file?
Good question, but I don't want to go there yet, as a couple of hundred frames just isn't enough to base a firm opinion on.
I'm hoping to have my own M9 next week, and will start shooting with it in earnest under all sorts of conditions. I expect that I'll have a lot more to say and show here in a few weeks time.
For now, I'll just say that these are some of the sweetest images I've seen from anything short of a Phase back.
Michael
I'm hoping to have my own M9 next week, and will start shooting with it in earnest under all sorts of conditions. I expect that I'll have a lot more to say and show here in a few weeks time.
For now, I'll just say that these are some of the sweetest images I've seen from anything short of a Phase back.
Michael
QUOTE (michael @ Sep 10 2009, 03:00 PM)
Good question, but I don't want to go there yet, as a couple of hundred frames just isn't enough to base a firm opinion on.
I'm hoping to have my own M9 next week, and will start shooting with it in earnest under all sorts of conditions. I expect that I'll have a lot more to say and show here in a few weeks time.
For now, I'll just say that these are some of the sweetest images I've seen from anything short of a Phase back.
Michael
I'm hoping to have my own M9 next week, and will start shooting with it in earnest under all sorts of conditions. I expect that I'll have a lot more to say and show here in a few weeks time.
For now, I'll just say that these are some of the sweetest images I've seen from anything short of a Phase back.
Michael
Cool, thanks Michael.
It seems Leica has indeed delivered the product it should have delivered with the M8.
the one issue it now has it that here are clear full frame competitors to go head to head with, at similar, or much lower prices. Direct comparisons are now a lot easier to make, if still clouded by Red Dot Fever on occasions.
I suspect the following simple truths will come to bear:
No AA filter will mean good sharp images at base ISO.
No AA filter will also mean Moire issues on occasions (test it in sunshine in an urban setting, ideally with people in suits etc, at optimal aperture) Landscape workers should have little to worry about, but by no means is this an issue confined to textiles.
Poor high ISO performance, which does matter as working in low light with faster films, was one of Leica's strengths. All the competitors have good fast lenses too, but if they can do 800 or 1600+ ISO cleanly, and the M9 can't, then the Leica will not be the first choice in challenging light conditions - which will be a turn around from how it used to be.
the one issue it now has it that here are clear full frame competitors to go head to head with, at similar, or much lower prices. Direct comparisons are now a lot easier to make, if still clouded by Red Dot Fever on occasions.
I suspect the following simple truths will come to bear:
No AA filter will mean good sharp images at base ISO.
No AA filter will also mean Moire issues on occasions (test it in sunshine in an urban setting, ideally with people in suits etc, at optimal aperture) Landscape workers should have little to worry about, but by no means is this an issue confined to textiles.
Poor high ISO performance, which does matter as working in low light with faster films, was one of Leica's strengths. All the competitors have good fast lenses too, but if they can do 800 or 1600+ ISO cleanly, and the M9 can't, then the Leica will not be the first choice in challenging light conditions - which will be a turn around from how it used to be.
QUOTE (peegeenyc @ Sep 10 2009, 05:07 PM)
It seems Leica has indeed delivered the product it should have delivered with the M8.
the one issue it now has it that here are clear full frame competitors to go head to head with, at similar, or much lower prices. Direct comparisons are now a lot easier to make, if still clouded by Red Dot Fever on occasions.
I suspect the following simple truths will come to bear:
No AA filter will mean good sharp images at base ISO.
No AA filter will also mean Moire issues on occasions (test it in sunshine in an urban setting, ideally with people in suits etc, at optimal aperture) Landscape workers should have little to worry about, but by no means is this an issue confined to textiles.
Poor high ISO performance, which does matter as working in low light with faster films, was one of Leica's strengths. All the competitors have good fast lenses too, but if they can do 800 or 1600+ ISO cleanly, and the M9 can't, then the Leica will not be the first choice in challenging light conditions - which will be a turn around from how it used to be.
the one issue it now has it that here are clear full frame competitors to go head to head with, at similar, or much lower prices. Direct comparisons are now a lot easier to make, if still clouded by Red Dot Fever on occasions.
I suspect the following simple truths will come to bear:
No AA filter will mean good sharp images at base ISO.
No AA filter will also mean Moire issues on occasions (test it in sunshine in an urban setting, ideally with people in suits etc, at optimal aperture) Landscape workers should have little to worry about, but by no means is this an issue confined to textiles.
Poor high ISO performance, which does matter as working in low light with faster films, was one of Leica's strengths. All the competitors have good fast lenses too, but if they can do 800 or 1600+ ISO cleanly, and the M9 can't, then the Leica will not be the first choice in challenging light conditions - which will be a turn around from how it used to be.
It looks like I will need a new set of excuses for not buying a Leica with the introduction of the M9, what it boils down to is I can't spare the money right now, not until the World starts spinning again anyway.
I hope Leica sells bucket loads. The one thing that would scare me is the potential moire, I still have nightmares about that and my old SLR/n. Nitpicking a bit more, I like having two card slots so i can mirror each image for safety. Weather seal omission I think is a big mistake. And having to dismantle the camera to fit a new battery or card is just daft.
I would still have one given the chance.
Kevin.
From the review it is very encouraging that it appears leica are actually listening to people that use their products; something Canon and Nikon don't seem to want to do (direct to print button/mirror lockup comes to mind). They rushed a very critical product out of the door that simply wasn't ready for market which was a big mistake given the profile, price tag and the company's size but although their reputation has (rightly) taken a beating they say it still sold well. I don't know what the push was, perhaps to start to recoup the big r&d costs that must have been sunk into it due to cash flow issues.
It does sound like that this is the camera the M8 should have been and I hope for their sake they tested it properly this time! Great to see it is full frame, great to see 14 bit, great to see an iso button. Disappointing to see the silly bottom plate arrangement is still there, I'd also like to hear something about the turn on time was was a real deal breaker with the M8 - how are you meant to capture 'the decisive moment' (this is plastered all over their marketing) when it takes many seconds for the camera to turn on or you need to remove the bottom of the camera periodically?
For the kind of shooting this camera will be used for I'd take high iso performance over super sharpness which is probably never seen since the camera is used handheld but with lenses as good as theirs I can see why they did it. Fast lenses are NOT a substitute for high iso performance, just because I can get 2 eyelashes in focus doesn't mean all my low light problems are solved
The price is silly as expected. I still get the feel from their marketing they are cashing in on the brand and a slightly tarnished one at that. I guess the old leicas were a professional tool for PJs, press and some wedding photogs while the M series now probably fills the role of expensive plaything. I'd love to see Epson get back in the game and deliver something great at a reasonable price.
It is one heck of a good looking camera though, it must be said.
It does sound like that this is the camera the M8 should have been and I hope for their sake they tested it properly this time! Great to see it is full frame, great to see 14 bit, great to see an iso button. Disappointing to see the silly bottom plate arrangement is still there, I'd also like to hear something about the turn on time was was a real deal breaker with the M8 - how are you meant to capture 'the decisive moment' (this is plastered all over their marketing) when it takes many seconds for the camera to turn on or you need to remove the bottom of the camera periodically?
For the kind of shooting this camera will be used for I'd take high iso performance over super sharpness which is probably never seen since the camera is used handheld but with lenses as good as theirs I can see why they did it. Fast lenses are NOT a substitute for high iso performance, just because I can get 2 eyelashes in focus doesn't mean all my low light problems are solved
The price is silly as expected. I still get the feel from their marketing they are cashing in on the brand and a slightly tarnished one at that. I guess the old leicas were a professional tool for PJs, press and some wedding photogs while the M series now probably fills the role of expensive plaything. I'd love to see Epson get back in the game and deliver something great at a reasonable price.
It is one heck of a good looking camera though, it must be said.
QUOTE (peegeenyc @ Sep 10 2009, 05:07 PM)
No AA filter will also mean Moire issues on occasions (test it in sunshine in an urban setting, ideally with people in suits etc, at optimal aperture) Landscape workers should have little to worry about, but by no means is this an issue confined to textiles.
What is not mentioned if their DSP Moire removal is chroma moire or luma moire. Chroma moire is mostly removable by analysis of a higher resolution green image. However, luma, ie green moire is not removable, and that's what the OLPF is designed to reduce / eliminate. It's nice to think that a DSP could deal with luma moire, but according to basic sampling theory, it can't.
Graeme
Graeme,
How this work's out in practice remains to be seen. I haven't seen any moire yet, but that doesn't mean it's not lurking somewhere.
I think the approach though is that it's better to have it somewhat there occasionally, and have to deal with it in post, than to penalize every image just to make sure that it's completely squashed.
M
How this work's out in practice remains to be seen. I haven't seen any moire yet, but that doesn't mean it's not lurking somewhere.
I think the approach though is that it's better to have it somewhat there occasionally, and have to deal with it in post, than to penalize every image just to make sure that it's completely squashed.
M
On some digital cinema cameras, they have a removable OLPF which suits that need. The penalty for an OLPF is very small though (other than in manufacturer cost), but the pain of removing moire it when it occurs can be high indeed, and it's not always removable (and I'm talking luma here moire not chroma moire). I really wish OLPFs were not necessary.... With any sampled system it's always a balance of softness, ringing and aliasing. OLPFs don't ring, so you're balancing softness and aliasing. Softness is always a subtractive fault. Aliasing is an additive fault, so I always prefer the balance to be on the side of the softness as that looks more natural. There's also no need to have the pitch on the OLPF so strong as to make an overly soft image and never allow any aliasing at all. You can sensibly set the pitch so that under practical conditions you don't ever get a problem, but you still may see some on a brutally sharp test chart.
If the camera does not have an OLPF, there are (at least) three solutions when there may be an issue: 1) slightly defocus, 2) stop down until you're diffraction limited, or 3) shoot wide open where the lens might be a bit soft, and any background that may cause a problem is thrown out of the DOF.
Graeme
If the camera does not have an OLPF, there are (at least) three solutions when there may be an issue: 1) slightly defocus, 2) stop down until you're diffraction limited, or 3) shoot wide open where the lens might be a bit soft, and any background that may cause a problem is thrown out of the DOF.
Graeme
I of course defer to you on matters technical, but I've always found that when there's a bit of moire the tool in Capture One does a decent job, and in a pinch a slight blurring brush in LR or PS does a nice job.
I just don't like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak.
M
Ps: I guess we now know the approach that Scarlet / Epic are going to take.
I just don't like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak.
M
Ps: I guess we now know the approach that Scarlet / Epic are going to take.
I am no engineer, but I think the lack of an AA filter on an 18mp FF sensor should produce richer files than even the D3X (factoring in pixel pitch, etc).
Remains to be seen, naturally.
Remains to be seen, naturally.
I get very little Moire from my 18mp P21 and if I do then I use the tools in Capture One, it's never been a problem and I shoot all fashion. Moire is always a combo of aperture, shutter speed, lighting, how steady you hold your camera, sharpness of lens and subject distance so it's only natural that some people rarely see moire where as others see it all the time. Because I rarely see moire I naturally don't want my camera smudging my files for me. I'm really excited by this M9. I hate having such a big heavy cumbersome camera as my Mamiya and 18mp is perfect for my editorial work and if an advertising client wants something bigger then I'll do what I usually do and thats rent a P30.
QUOTE (Graeme Nattress @ Sep 10 2009, 04:06 PM)
On some digital cinema cameras, they have a removable OLPF which suits that need. The penalty for an OLPF is very small though (other than in manufacturer cost), but the pain of removing moire it when it occurs can be high indeed, and it's not always removable (and I'm talking luma here moire not chroma moire). I really wish OLPFs were not necessary.... With any sampled system it's always a balance of softness, ringing and aliasing. OLPFs don't ring, so you're balancing softness and aliasing. Softness is always a subtractive fault. Aliasing is an additive fault, so I always prefer the balance to be on the side of the softness as that looks more natural. There's also no need to have the pitch on the OLPF so strong as to make an overly soft image and never allow any aliasing at all. You can sensibly set the pitch so that under practical conditions you don't ever get a problem, but you still may see some on a brutally sharp test chart.
If the camera does not have an OLPF, there are (at least) three solutions when there may be an issue: 1) slightly defocus, 2) stop down until you're diffraction limited, or 3) shoot wide open where the lens might be a bit soft, and any background that may cause a problem is thrown out of the DOF.
Graeme
If the camera does not have an OLPF, there are (at least) three solutions when there may be an issue: 1) slightly defocus, 2) stop down until you're diffraction limited, or 3) shoot wide open where the lens might be a bit soft, and any background that may cause a problem is thrown out of the DOF.
Graeme
good points Graeme, thanks
I love this general assumption that Canon and Nikon and Sony have stuck AA filters on their top range Full Frame sensors for no particular reason whatsoever!
- they are there because of moire, plain and simple.
Yes, they all balance the filter strength differently according to their decisions and trade offs, much as Graeme implies, what Nikon decides is a fair balance of softeness:moire, Canon may err differently, and Sony yet another, but they all seem to feel one is required.
I doubt Leica has come up with a magic formula that eluded everyone in Japan, but lets see. we can all hope for miracles.
They probably can't put an OLPF in because it would be very close to the sensor and they might have real issues with defects in the OLPF being visible - just a guess.
An OLPF is a factor you have to juggle - it all goes into the decisions you make when designing a camera. And I'm not just taking an engineering stance that says "must be in there", but from an IQ pov, I really don't like edges that are unnaturally sharp that you can get with inadequate filtering. To me, that's unnatural. But it is a compromise, as is all design issues.
I reckon people would be very surprised at how little an OLPF actually effects the sharpness of an image. It's darn subtle. Put an OLPF up to your eye and it's like looking through glass - you just don't see the difference. I was shocked the first time I did that.
What is important though is that we all understand what they're for, why they're there and the design considerations that come into it. Then you can make an educated decision, rather than the "sharper = better" you get on some forums, without adequate understanding of the negative aspects.
Sharpness is also a factor of fill factor (and of how the micro-lenses work) because point sampling would give you a higher MTF at full resolution than the area sample of a photosite with 0% fill factor.
Graeme
An OLPF is a factor you have to juggle - it all goes into the decisions you make when designing a camera. And I'm not just taking an engineering stance that says "must be in there", but from an IQ pov, I really don't like edges that are unnaturally sharp that you can get with inadequate filtering. To me, that's unnatural. But it is a compromise, as is all design issues.
I reckon people would be very surprised at how little an OLPF actually effects the sharpness of an image. It's darn subtle. Put an OLPF up to your eye and it's like looking through glass - you just don't see the difference. I was shocked the first time I did that.
What is important though is that we all understand what they're for, why they're there and the design considerations that come into it. Then you can make an educated decision, rather than the "sharper = better" you get on some forums, without adequate understanding of the negative aspects.
Sharpness is also a factor of fill factor (and of how the micro-lenses work) because point sampling would give you a higher MTF at full resolution than the area sample of a photosite with 0% fill factor.
Graeme
QUOTE (Graeme Nattress @ Sep 11 2009, 12:43 AM)
They probably can't put an OLPF in because it would be very close to the sensor and they might have real issues with defects in the OLPF being visible - just a guess.
An OLPF is a factor you have to juggle - it all goes into the decisions you make when designing a camera. And I'm not just taking an engineering stance that says "must be in there", but from an IQ pov, I really don't like edges that are unnaturally sharp that you can get with inadequate filtering. To me, that's unnatural. But it is a compromise, as is all design issues.
I reckon people would be very surprised at how little an OLPF actually effects the sharpness of an image. It's darn subtle. Put an OLPF up to your eye and it's like looking through glass - you just don't see the difference. I was shocked the first time I did that.
What is important though is that we all understand what they're for, why they're there and the design considerations that come into it. Then you can make an educated decision, rather than the "sharper = better" you get on some forums, without adequate understanding of the negative aspects.
Sharpness is also a factor of fill factor (and of how the micro-lenses work) because point sampling would give you a higher MTF at full resolution than the area sample of a photosite with 0% fill factor.
Graeme
An OLPF is a factor you have to juggle - it all goes into the decisions you make when designing a camera. And I'm not just taking an engineering stance that says "must be in there", but from an IQ pov, I really don't like edges that are unnaturally sharp that you can get with inadequate filtering. To me, that's unnatural. But it is a compromise, as is all design issues.
I reckon people would be very surprised at how little an OLPF actually effects the sharpness of an image. It's darn subtle. Put an OLPF up to your eye and it's like looking through glass - you just don't see the difference. I was shocked the first time I did that.
What is important though is that we all understand what they're for, why they're there and the design considerations that come into it. Then you can make an educated decision, rather than the "sharper = better" you get on some forums, without adequate understanding of the negative aspects.
Sharpness is also a factor of fill factor (and of how the micro-lenses work) because point sampling would give you a higher MTF at full resolution than the area sample of a photosite with 0% fill factor.
Graeme
Hi Graeme,
do you know why there aren't any OLPF screw on filters? (Or are there any?) I guess it has to occur after the optics, but why?
Christian
Hi,
AFAIK the AA filter works as a finely controlled beam splitter, it splits the incoming light in a few paths a few microns apart. So it needs to be close to the sensor and also aligned with the Bayer pattern.
Best regards
Erik
AFAIK the AA filter works as a finely controlled beam splitter, it splits the incoming light in a few paths a few microns apart. So it needs to be close to the sensor and also aligned with the Bayer pattern.
Best regards
Erik
QUOTE (Christian Miersch @ Sep 11 2009, 01:02 AM)
Hi Graeme,
do you know why there aren't any OLPF screw on filters? (Or are there any?) I guess it has to occur after the optics, but why?
Christian
do you know why there aren't any OLPF screw on filters? (Or are there any?) I guess it has to occur after the optics, but why?
Christian
i got the m8 when i compared its files to the 5d files.....and got a 5dII when i compared them to the m8 files....
i would love to "switch" over again....i have collected several raw dngs from the m9 so far from the web...but the files don't seem to have that obvious advantage over the canon files at lower iso....the canon is obviously in a different league in terms of noise and price (and video, af,.....)
the DR of the m8 was a little less then the 5DII and fell off pretty quickly (unlike the 5DII).....
i would really like to know if the m9 shows more DR at lower iso and how it falls off at higher iso....
there is nothing like actually seeing the moment you take the shot.....RF rules....also with manual focus....
i would love to "switch" over again....i have collected several raw dngs from the m9 so far from the web...but the files don't seem to have that obvious advantage over the canon files at lower iso....the canon is obviously in a different league in terms of noise and price (and video, af,.....)
the DR of the m8 was a little less then the 5DII and fell off pretty quickly (unlike the 5DII).....
i would really like to know if the m9 shows more DR at lower iso and how it falls off at higher iso....
there is nothing like actually seeing the moment you take the shot.....RF rules....also with manual focus....
OLPF is basically two layers of crystals. The first splits the light in two vertically, the second horizontall, making each ray of light into 4 slightly spread out rays of light. The thickness of the OLPF governs the spread of the 4 beams. That thickness is usually related to the spacing of the photostites (and should also take into account micro-lenses and fill factor).
There seems to be very little measured effect, if any, from moving the OLPF closer to the sensor or further away - because the current RED Ones have the OLPF much further away from the sensor, so as to ensure any dust or dirt that gets on the OLPF is usually completely out of focus and practically invisible. If the OLPF was much closer to the sensor, it would be much easier to see any dust or dirt on it. Similarly, if the OLPF or coatings on it have any defects, they are much more visible if the OLPF is close to the sensor. So no, it doesn't need to be close to the sensor - just between the back of the lens and the sensor is fine.
Graeme
There seems to be very little measured effect, if any, from moving the OLPF closer to the sensor or further away - because the current RED Ones have the OLPF much further away from the sensor, so as to ensure any dust or dirt that gets on the OLPF is usually completely out of focus and practically invisible. If the OLPF was much closer to the sensor, it would be much easier to see any dust or dirt on it. Similarly, if the OLPF or coatings on it have any defects, they are much more visible if the OLPF is close to the sensor. So no, it doesn't need to be close to the sensor - just between the back of the lens and the sensor is fine.
Graeme
QUOTE (ErikKaffehr @ Sep 10 2009, 11:11 PM)
Hi,
AFAIK the AA filter works as a finely controlled beam splitter, it splits the incoming light in a few paths a few microns apart. So it needs to be close to the sensor and also aligned with the Bayer pattern.
Best regards
Erik
AFAIK the AA filter works as a finely controlled beam splitter, it splits the incoming light in a few paths a few microns apart. So it needs to be close to the sensor and also aligned with the Bayer pattern.
Best regards
Erik
Thanks Erik and Graeme!
The reason why buying a Leica is expensive is that you need one or more lenses, and there is no point using anything but the most expensive there is. You may need more than one body.I have known both PJ and event photographers to use three Leicas, each with a different focal length lens. More importantly you need an SLR system as well. It's a bit like a carpenter needing a hammer and a saw. They are that different. The Leica is a highly specialized crafted precision instrument. It is not an all in one workshop or whole body gym. Of course another way of looking at price is to say the cost of an M9 camera body is about the same as the mass produced, top of the line Canon or Nikon. It's more expensive than a lot of other highly featured cameras. So what? Do you want a Porche or a Daiwo? It's much easier to fit the kids in the Daiwo. Isn't it?
In most cases the M9 will be owned by people who truly love it and what it is capable of.
Another point for pixel peepers. The sensor will hopefully extract a lot of what Leica lenses can produce. That is not just resolution. The Leitz glass has traditionally been somewhat lower in contrast than the Japanese designed lenses. This goes with smoother tonality and better separation of colours and tones. I don't know if this can be measured but it sure can be seen.
And then there is the bokeh...
Cheers,
Brian
In most cases the M9 will be owned by people who truly love it and what it is capable of.
Another point for pixel peepers. The sensor will hopefully extract a lot of what Leica lenses can produce. That is not just resolution. The Leitz glass has traditionally been somewhat lower in contrast than the Japanese designed lenses. This goes with smoother tonality and better separation of colours and tones. I don't know if this can be measured but it sure can be seen.
And then there is the bokeh...
Cheers,
Brian
Lenses themselves to add a lot to the image in many way. How a lens deals with contrast is certainly part of that. I'm told it's the magic in the lens coatings that does a lot of that, but I'm not a lens guy so don't take my word for that. There is indeed vastly more to a lens than resolution / MTF - that's only part of the story.
Graeme
Graeme
Hi,
Coating is important as it reduces the amount of light bouncing about in the lens. The dominant factor used to be aberrations, however. Aberrations are deviations from ideal imaging. Ideally a point would be imaged as a point, surrounded by a series of diffraction rings. This is never achieved. There are different aberrations that cause the point to be rendered as a disc. A very usual one is chromatic aberration which means that different colors don't converge at the same plane or same point. This depends on optical glass having different index of refraction for different colors (wavelengths) but there are many others.
Aberrations can be kept at minimum by choosing combinations of different glasses and using different surfaces. Leica is quite aggressive in their choice of materials, surfaces and number of lenses. Also some construction need very close tolerances. All this makes the lenses expensive.
If you are really interested in Leica lens quality you may check Erwin Puts pages: http://www.imx.nl/photo/
Best regards
Erik
Coating is important as it reduces the amount of light bouncing about in the lens. The dominant factor used to be aberrations, however. Aberrations are deviations from ideal imaging. Ideally a point would be imaged as a point, surrounded by a series of diffraction rings. This is never achieved. There are different aberrations that cause the point to be rendered as a disc. A very usual one is chromatic aberration which means that different colors don't converge at the same plane or same point. This depends on optical glass having different index of refraction for different colors (wavelengths) but there are many others.
Aberrations can be kept at minimum by choosing combinations of different glasses and using different surfaces. Leica is quite aggressive in their choice of materials, surfaces and number of lenses. Also some construction need very close tolerances. All this makes the lenses expensive.
If you are really interested in Leica lens quality you may check Erwin Puts pages: http://www.imx.nl/photo/
Best regards
Erik
QUOTE (Graeme Nattress @ Sep 11 2009, 03:16 AM)
Lenses themselves to add a lot to the image in many way. How a lens deals with contrast is certainly part of that. I'm told it's the magic in the lens coatings that does a lot of that, but I'm not a lens guy so don't take my word for that. There is indeed vastly more to a lens than resolution / MTF - that's only part of the story.
Graeme
Graeme
Hi,
I'd just point out a few issues.
1) Colours and tonality is probably dominated by raw conversion and the Bayer filter array and it's transmission characteristics.
2) One of the major strength of Leica lenses i that they perform near optimally at full aperture.
3) To utilize the sensor and lenses fully you need exact focus (and may need focus bracketing to achieve it) and have the camera on a stable tripod.
The rangefinder on the Leica is AFAIK good enough for the sensor resolution (around 70 LP/mm) but if you want your pictures sharp you need to do very careful focusing and avoid vibrations, and better forget about zone focusing.
Best regards
Erik
I'd just point out a few issues.
1) Colours and tonality is probably dominated by raw conversion and the Bayer filter array and it's transmission characteristics.
2) One of the major strength of Leica lenses i that they perform near optimally at full aperture.
3) To utilize the sensor and lenses fully you need exact focus (and may need focus bracketing to achieve it) and have the camera on a stable tripod.
The rangefinder on the Leica is AFAIK good enough for the sensor resolution (around 70 LP/mm) but if you want your pictures sharp you need to do very careful focusing and avoid vibrations, and better forget about zone focusing.
Best regards
Erik
QUOTE (Brian Gilkes @ Sep 11 2009, 03:08 AM)
The reason why buying a Leica is expensive is that you need one or more lenses, and there is no point using anything but the most expensive there is. You may need more than one body.I have known both PJ and event photographers to use three Leicas, each with a different focal length lens. More importantly you need an SLR system as well. It's a bit like a carpenter needing a hammer and a saw. They are that different. The Leica is a highly specialized crafted precision instrument. It is not an all in one workshop or whole body gym. Of course another way of looking at price is to say the cost of an M9 camera body is about the same as the mass produced, top of the line Canon or Nikon. It's more expensive than a lot of other highly featured cameras. So what? Do you want a Porche or a Daiwo? It's much easier to fit the kids in the Daiwo. Isn't it?
In most cases the M9 will be owned by people who truly love it and what it is capable of.
Another point for pixel peepers. The sensor will hopefully extract a lot of what Leica lenses can produce. That is not just resolution. The Leitz glass has traditionally been somewhat lower in contrast than the Japanese designed lenses. This goes with smoother tonality and better separation of colours and tones. I don't know if this can be measured but it sure can be seen.
And then there is the bokeh...
Cheers,
Brian
In most cases the M9 will be owned by people who truly love it and what it is capable of.
Another point for pixel peepers. The sensor will hopefully extract a lot of what Leica lenses can produce. That is not just resolution. The Leitz glass has traditionally been somewhat lower in contrast than the Japanese designed lenses. This goes with smoother tonality and better separation of colours and tones. I don't know if this can be measured but it sure can be seen.
And then there is the bokeh...
Cheers,
Brian
The purely practical, non-technical question I have is, How do M9 images compare to M8 images of the same subject under identical conditions? The 1.3x crop never bothered me -- in fact, I kind of like it. I bought the filters for all my lenses. I already use Lightroom. Given all that, is there really any reason to buy an M9? Shooting hand-held, would I gain anything that you could see in a 17-inch print?
To follow up on Erik's last point, it seems to me that the purpose of an M camera and the emphasis on super-quality and resolution in some ways conflict with each other. If you're going to haul around all the gear needed for tripod shots, why buy a camera with serious technical limitations (especially with macro and telephoto) whose basic physical design is optimized for hand-held work? Might as well buy a D3x or a 1DsIII or a digital back. If you're mostly shooting handheld, why 18mp and do you really need to worry about the tiny degradation created by moire filters?
To follow up on Erik's last point, it seems to me that the purpose of an M camera and the emphasis on super-quality and resolution in some ways conflict with each other. If you're going to haul around all the gear needed for tripod shots, why buy a camera with serious technical limitations (especially with macro and telephoto) whose basic physical design is optimized for hand-held work? Might as well buy a D3x or a 1DsIII or a digital back. If you're mostly shooting handheld, why 18mp and do you really need to worry about the tiny degradation created by moire filters?
QUOTE (John Camp @ Sep 10 2009, 09:17 PM)
The purely practical, non-technical question I have is, How do M9 images compare to M8 images of the same subject under identical conditions? The 1.3x crop never bothered me -- in fact, I kind of like it. I bought the filters for all my lenses. I already use Lightroom. Given all that, is there really any reason to buy an M9? Shooting hand-held, would I gain anything that you could see in a 17-inch print?
To follow up on Erik's last point, it seems to me that the purpose of an M camera and the emphasis on super-quality and resolution in some ways conflict with each other. If you're going to haul around all the gear needed for tripod shots, why buy a camera with serious technical limitations (especially with macro and telephoto) whose basic physical design is optimized for hand-held work? Might as well buy a D3x or a 1DsIII or a digital back. If you're mostly shooting handheld, why 18mp and do you really need to worry about moire at all?
To follow up on Erik's last point, it seems to me that the purpose of an M camera and the emphasis on super-quality and resolution in some ways conflict with each other. If you're going to haul around all the gear needed for tripod shots, why buy a camera with serious technical limitations (especially with macro and telephoto) whose basic physical design is optimized for hand-held work? Might as well buy a D3x or a 1DsIII or a digital back. If you're mostly shooting handheld, why 18mp and do you really need to worry about moire at all?
It always depends on the conditions. I do sometimes shoot on the street with my P65 and the results are as sharp as with any tripod ... So it is not question between tripod and hand held. It is about weather and light conditions.
Hi John,
Your question is a good one. I've been looking for an answer to that question myself.
My thought is that the cropped sensor is really optimizing the qualities of your wide angle glass as it is eliminating the soft (er) edges that all lenses have. There are already lots of posts stating that the Tri Elmar is looking soft at the edges with the M9, as well as other lenses. One of the advantages of the M8 sensor is that you won't see this as much.
Over on the getdpi forum: fultonpics asked David Farkas of Dale Photo "are you saying that up to 20 X 30 printed image (with proper light) they will not look significantly different if from an M8 and M9?" http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10124
David responded with: "The overall look and feel of the prints do look the same, but there is a bit more detail and sharpness in the M9 print. Carlos might want to chime in as well... he was at our event yesterday. I had the sample 20x30 M9 prints on display.
David"
I wouldn't worry about moiré at all. I shoot with the DMR and the longest modular APO glass and nothing produces moiré like hummingbird feathers. I process my files in Aperture (I'm in the process of switching to FlexColor and Phocus as the detail rendition is far superior with the latter) and moiré cleans up extremely well in Aperture. I've heard the same for Phocus after the 3f file is brought in from Flex Color. It's a non issue for me.
I think Michael said it best with his comment above: "I think the approach though is that it's better to have it somewhat there occasionally, and have to deal with it in post, than to penalize every image just to make sure that it's completely squashed."
I couldn't agree moire!
Given the premium you'll have to pay for the M9 and the beating you'll take when you sell your M8, only you can decide whether the cost can be justified. Think of the glass you could buy with the cost of moving to the M9!
__________
Your question is a good one. I've been looking for an answer to that question myself.
My thought is that the cropped sensor is really optimizing the qualities of your wide angle glass as it is eliminating the soft (er) edges that all lenses have. There are already lots of posts stating that the Tri Elmar is looking soft at the edges with the M9, as well as other lenses. One of the advantages of the M8 sensor is that you won't see this as much.
Over on the getdpi forum: fultonpics asked David Farkas of Dale Photo "are you saying that up to 20 X 30 printed image (with proper light) they will not look significantly different if from an M8 and M9?" http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10124
David responded with: "The overall look and feel of the prints do look the same, but there is a bit more detail and sharpness in the M9 print. Carlos might want to chime in as well... he was at our event yesterday. I had the sample 20x30 M9 prints on display.
David"
I wouldn't worry about moiré at all. I shoot with the DMR and the longest modular APO glass and nothing produces moiré like hummingbird feathers. I process my files in Aperture (I'm in the process of switching to FlexColor and Phocus as the detail rendition is far superior with the latter) and moiré cleans up extremely well in Aperture. I've heard the same for Phocus after the 3f file is brought in from Flex Color. It's a non issue for me.
I think Michael said it best with his comment above: "I think the approach though is that it's better to have it somewhat there occasionally, and have to deal with it in post, than to penalize every image just to make sure that it's completely squashed."
I couldn't agree moire
!Given the premium you'll have to pay for the M9 and the beating you'll take when you sell your M8, only you can decide whether the cost can be justified. Think of the glass you could buy with the cost of moving to the M9!
__________
QUOTE (John Camp @ Sep 11 2009, 03:17 AM)
The purely practical, non-technical question I have is, How do M9 images compare to M8 images of the same subject under identical conditions? The 1.3x crop never bothered me -- in fact, I kind of like it. I bought the filters for all my lenses. I already use Lightroom. Given all that, is there really any reason to buy an M9? Shooting hand-held, would I gain anything that you could see in a 17-inch print?
To follow up on Erik's last point, it seems to me that the purpose of an M camera and the emphasis on super-quality and resolution in some ways conflict with each other. If you're going to haul around all the gear needed for tripod shots, why buy a camera with serious technical limitations (especially with macro and telephoto) whose basic physical design is optimized for hand-held work? Might as well buy a D3x or a 1DsIII or a digital back. If you're mostly shooting handheld, why 18mp and do you really need to worry about the tiny degradation created by moire filters?
To follow up on Erik's last point, it seems to me that the purpose of an M camera and the emphasis on super-quality and resolution in some ways conflict with each other. If you're going to haul around all the gear needed for tripod shots, why buy a camera with serious technical limitations (especially with macro and telephoto) whose basic physical design is optimized for hand-held work? Might as well buy a D3x or a 1DsIII or a digital back. If you're mostly shooting handheld, why 18mp and do you really need to worry about the tiny degradation created by moire filters?
QUOTE (John Camp @ Sep 11 2009, 03:17 AM)
To follow up on Erik's last point, it seems to me that the purpose of an M camera and the emphasis on super-quality and resolution in some ways conflict with each other. If you're going to haul around all the gear needed for tripod shots, why buy a camera with serious technical limitations (especially with macro and telephoto) whose basic physical design is optimized for hand-held work? Might as well buy a D3x or a 1DsIII or a digital back. If you're mostly shooting handheld, why 18mp and do you really need to worry about the tiny degradation created by moire filters?
I totally agree with this, while I'd always want the best lenses/sensor for a camera, used handheld I'd happily take one at a lower price that had say a D3 sensor. The super quality and how/where rangefinders have been traditionally used seem to be at odds with each other; the pixel peepers will love it though.
If I had an M9 I don't think I would ever shell out for leica lenses for the same reason, I guess perhaps I don't get 'it'. Still, it doesn't stop me wanting one though
You can get screw on filters that stop moire, http://www.caprockdev.com/antimoire.htm
QUOTE (Christian Miersch @ Sep 10 2009, 07:02 PM)
Hi Graeme,
do you know why there aren't any OLPF screw on filters? (Or are there any?) I guess it has to occur after the optics, but why?
Christian
do you know why there aren't any OLPF screw on filters? (Or are there any?) I guess it has to occur after the optics, but why?
Christian
Moire would be a real concern for me, I shoot aerials often over Cities, a clear day and views across a city at infinity will produce the right frequency for moire somewhere. I proved that with the Kodak SLR/n.
I have never owned a M of any kind but I do have a desire to own one, not because I can make a list of things it does better or worse than another camera, but because of the sum of what it is. I can appreciate the things Leica gets right, maybe because after too many decades of using film and digital my priorities are the basics and not the add ons. I'm sure you could get a degree in understanding the pro's and con's of Canons AF system, when to use this setting or that setting, God knows I've spent a year working on the permutations and hours standing out in the street at low light figuring when it will or will not deliver a focused image and to be honest I don't know much more now than I did when I started.
I am at least now pleased with Canons range of wide angle lenses and after weeks of searching I now own a 24mm mkII.
If I was a Leica owner the choice is much wider of decent optics.
I like the size, I like the control, I like the simplicity, I like the quality, I like the lens choice, I like there not being a mirror, I like the history of the Leica. I don't like the price, neither do I think it is over priced. Wether point for point a Nikon or Canon can beat the M9 on file quality is neither here nor there, they are completely different tools.
kevin.
I have never owned a M of any kind but I do have a desire to own one, not because I can make a list of things it does better or worse than another camera, but because of the sum of what it is. I can appreciate the things Leica gets right, maybe because after too many decades of using film and digital my priorities are the basics and not the add ons. I'm sure you could get a degree in understanding the pro's and con's of Canons AF system, when to use this setting or that setting, God knows I've spent a year working on the permutations and hours standing out in the street at low light figuring when it will or will not deliver a focused image and to be honest I don't know much more now than I did when I started.
I am at least now pleased with Canons range of wide angle lenses and after weeks of searching I now own a 24mm mkII.
If I was a Leica owner the choice is much wider of decent optics.
I like the size, I like the control, I like the simplicity, I like the quality, I like the lens choice, I like there not being a mirror, I like the history of the Leica. I don't like the price, neither do I think it is over priced. Wether point for point a Nikon or Canon can beat the M9 on file quality is neither here nor there, they are completely different tools.
kevin.
Hi,
On the other hand: The Leica is perfectly capable of exact focusing, has fast and small lenses. Using moderately high ISO and careful work may be possible hand held.
So you have a small kit that you can easily carry about. It's probably very good at street photography.
But there is a but, could be the case that the Panasonic G1 does the same job at one tenth of the price? That's a real question, some of those Micro 4/3 lenses are very good and the Panasonic is quite small.
Best regards
Erik
On the other hand: The Leica is perfectly capable of exact focusing, has fast and small lenses. Using moderately high ISO and careful work may be possible hand held.
So you have a small kit that you can easily carry about. It's probably very good at street photography.
But there is a but, could be the case that the Panasonic G1 does the same job at one tenth of the price? That's a real question, some of those Micro 4/3 lenses are very good and the Panasonic is quite small.
Best regards
Erik
QUOTE (MarkL @ Sep 11 2009, 09:22 AM)
I totally agree with this, while I'd always want the best lenses/sensor for a camera, used handheld I'd happily take one at a lower price that had say a D3 sensor. The super quality and how/where rangefinders have been traditionally used seem to be at odds with each other; the pixel peepers will love it though.
If I had an M9 I don't think I would ever shell out for leica lenses for the same reason, I guess perhaps I don't get 'it'. Still, it doesn't stop me wanting one though
If I had an M9 I don't think I would ever shell out for leica lenses for the same reason, I guess perhaps I don't get 'it'. Still, it doesn't stop me wanting one though
QUOTE (ErikKaffehr @ Sep 11 2009, 10:24 AM)
But there is a but, could be the case that the Panasonic G1 does the same job at one tenth of the price? That's a real question, some of those Micro 4/3 lenses are very good and the Panasonic is quite small.
Best regards
Erik
Best regards
Erik
You could use the same argument against any of the top cameras, not just the Leica.
Kevin.
My opinion...
The image quality of the M9 with Leica lenses will be more than good enough for most prints, even quite large ones. It was truly excellent with the M8 and there's nothing (yet) to suggest that the M9 image quality will be anything less.
The point (for me) about the M-series cameras is that it doesn't have many features, it's just a camera and me. No computing power to get in the way and take control of the picture taking. It becomes so much easier to connect with the subject using a rangefinder. Then there is the look of images taken using Leica glass. They have some magic that others don't have and which is almost impossible to measure or even describe.
Having used an M8 (and sold it, but kept the glass) and using Canon 5D and 1Ds3 since, I still miss the experience of using the Leica. There are serious limitations, telephoto and macro in particular, and the cost is high, yet the M9 is very tempting. Sadly my own piggy bank needs some replenishment first!
The image quality of the M9 with Leica lenses will be more than good enough for most prints, even quite large ones. It was truly excellent with the M8 and there's nothing (yet) to suggest that the M9 image quality will be anything less.
The point (for me) about the M-series cameras is that it doesn't have many features, it's just a camera and me. No computing power to get in the way and take control of the picture taking. It becomes so much easier to connect with the subject using a rangefinder. Then there is the look of images taken using Leica glass. They have some magic that others don't have and which is almost impossible to measure or even describe.
Having used an M8 (and sold it, but kept the glass) and using Canon 5D and 1Ds3 since, I still miss the experience of using the Leica. There are serious limitations, telephoto and macro in particular, and the cost is high, yet the M9 is very tempting. Sadly my own piggy bank needs some replenishment first!
Hi,
I'd probably not treat my Sony Alpha 900 with 5/6 lenses for a Panasonic GS1. That equipment weighs about 11 kg and may be cumbersome to carry on a lot of European flights. For that reason it would be interesting to have a lightweight but competent equipment. The GS1 seems to be competent and with good lenses. Also a big camera with a big lens may be less than optimal for street shooting.
In a way I may see the GS1 as a contemporary alternative to the M9 at a much lower price.
I'd probably not treat my Sony Alpha 900 with 5/6 lenses for a Panasonic GS1. That equipment weighs about 11 kg and may be cumbersome to carry on a lot of European flights. For that reason it would be interesting to have a lightweight but competent equipment. The GS1 seems to be competent and with good lenses. Also a big camera with a big lens may be less than optimal for street shooting.
In a way I may see the GS1 as a contemporary alternative to the M9 at a much lower price.
QUOTE (KevinA @ Sep 11 2009, 02:31 PM)
You could use the same argument against any of the top cameras, not just the Leica.
Kevin.
Kevin.
I picked up an M9 on Friday (they've been available here in London for a few days now) together with a compact travel outfit of a wide Angle Tri-Elmar, a Zeiss ZF 35mm 2.8, and a 75mm Summarit.
After a couple of hundred frames my first reaction is complete delight. If the M9 proves reliable (I abandoned the M8 after it failed on a few occasions, mainly in humid tropical conditions) then here at last is a full-frame digital solution that's light enough to take everywhere and fit easily into an aircraft overhead locker along with all the other travel paraphenalia!
However, this morning using the Zeiss ZM 35mm 2.8 manually coded as a 35mm 2.0, I noticed some strange artifacts. In the far distance the girders and wire of a crane were rendered blue or yellow on the viewing screen at full magnification, instead of black silhouttes against the sky. Similarly the white framework of a window (again at the edge of resolution) were also rendered yellow or blue. As this shot was nearby I repeated the shot at all apertures from f2.8 to f22. Interestingly at f2.8 the effect was very much reduced, and at f22 it was gone completely, but at all other apertures it was present and most strongly at the highest resolving apertures of f5.6 to f11.
I wonder if this is moire related, a function of the camera viewing screen, or possibly due to "approximate" manual coding?
After a couple of hundred frames my first reaction is complete delight. If the M9 proves reliable (I abandoned the M8 after it failed on a few occasions, mainly in humid tropical conditions) then here at last is a full-frame digital solution that's light enough to take everywhere and fit easily into an aircraft overhead locker along with all the other travel paraphenalia!
However, this morning using the Zeiss ZM 35mm 2.8 manually coded as a 35mm 2.0, I noticed some strange artifacts. In the far distance the girders and wire of a crane were rendered blue or yellow on the viewing screen at full magnification, instead of black silhouttes against the sky. Similarly the white framework of a window (again at the edge of resolution) were also rendered yellow or blue. As this shot was nearby I repeated the shot at all apertures from f2.8 to f22. Interestingly at f2.8 the effect was very much reduced, and at f22 it was gone completely, but at all other apertures it was present and most strongly at the highest resolving apertures of f5.6 to f11.
I wonder if this is moire related, a function of the camera viewing screen, or possibly due to "approximate" manual coding?
QUOTE (Gary Ferguson @ Sep 14 2009, 10:48 AM)
If the M9 proves reliable (I abandoned the M8 after it failed on a few occasions, mainly in humid tropical conditions) then here at last is a full-frame digital solution that's light enough to take everywhere and fit easily into an aircraft overhead locker along with all the other travel paraphenalia!
That's my biggest fear ... 'toughness' ...
Is the M9 supposed to be 'tougher' than the M8? I'm definitely intrigued by the M9 ... but I can't spend that kind of money on something that needs to be babied.
QUOTE (Jeremy Payne @ Sep 14 2009, 03:53 PM)
That's my biggest fear ... 'toughness' ...
Is the M9 supposed to be 'tougher' than the M8? I'm definitely intrigued by the M9 ... but I can't spend that kind of money on something that needs to be babied.
Is the M9 supposed to be 'tougher' than the M8? I'm definitely intrigued by the M9 ... but I can't spend that kind of money on something that needs to be babied.
I've read nothing in the reviews to suggest any materially higher levels of weather proofing in the M9 versus the M8, however talking to Leica UK they emphasised that there's three years of practical manufacturing experience built into the new design, implying that it's evolved into a more robust camera even if it's not guaranteed as weather proof. I agree it's an ambiguous assurance for what's an expensive purchase, but I'm sure that as the months go past there'll be lots of user feedback to fill out the gaps in our knowledge!
QUOTE (Gary Ferguson @ Sep 14 2009, 03:41 PM)
I've read nothing in the reviews to suggest any materially higher levels of weather proofing in the M9 versus the M8, however talking to Leica UK they emphasised that there's three years of practical manufacturing experience built into the new design, implying that it's evolved into a more robust camera even if it's not guaranteed as weather proof. I agree it's an ambiguous assurance for what's an expensive purchase, but I'm sure that as the months go past there'll be lots of user feedback to fill out the gaps in our knowledge!
So tell us what are the characteristics of the files, my experience is with phase files and canon files, how does it compare would you say, I know it's hard to compare like this.
QUOTE (woof75 @ Sep 14 2009, 05:29 PM)
So tell us what are the characteristics of the files, my experience is with phase files and canon files, how does it compare would you say, I know it's hard to compare like this.
It's pretty much impossible to put the differences into words, in terms of simple resolution the results I get with my P65+ and a tripod mounted 120mm Macro are so far beyond what the M9 can deliver that there's simply no competition. However, versus Canon the results are far less clear cut. My current travel camera is a 5D MkII with the 24-105 IS. It delivers dependably great results out to the edges at f8 and f11, but corner quality is poor at any aperture, and at f4 or f5.6 I'm often a little disappointed right across the frame, consequently getting the results I want from the 24-105 requires taking liberties with the IS and using the ISO setting aggressively!
The M9 just provides more options at lower weight, but with the inconvenience of lens changes on the fly. Overall I prefer the look and feel of an M9 shot, it tends to have less of that "processed" digital feel (ie distant grass turning to uniformly coloured astro-turf!) or a slightly "smeared" look. Then there's the prime versus zoom question, as a huge generality (that's I'm sure more respected in the breach than the observance) zooms deliver outstanding definition in the central part of the frame, and perform well in both the near and far ranges. But the usual downside is poor performance out towards the edges and an intrusively "wirey" look to the out of focus areas. Hey, who's to say what's better, you pay's your money and you takes your choice!
QUOTE (Gary Ferguson @ Sep 14 2009, 05:00 PM)
It's pretty much impossible to put the differences into words, in terms of simple resolution the results I get with my P65+ and a tripod mounted 120mm Macro are so far beyond what the M9 can deliver that there's simply no competition. However, versus Canon the results are far less clear cut. My current travel camera is a 5D MkII with the 24-105 IS. It delivers dependably great results out to the edges at f8 and f11, but corner quality is poor at any aperture, and at f4 or f5.6 I'm often a little disappointed right across the frame, consequently getting the results I want from the 24-105 requires taking liberties with the IS and using the ISO setting aggressively!
The M9 just provides more options at lower weight, but with the inconvenience of lens changes on the fly. Overall I prefer the look and feel of an M9 shot, it tends to have less of that "processed" digital feel (ie distant grass turning to uniformly coloured astro-turf!) or a slightly "smeared" look. Then there's the prime versus zoom question, as a huge generality (that's I'm sure more respected in the breach than the observance) zooms deliver outstanding definition in the central part of the frame, and perform well in both the near and far ranges. But the usual downside is poor performance out towards the edges and an intrusively "wirey" look to the out of focus areas. Hey, who's to say what's better, you pay's your money and you takes your choice!
The M9 just provides more options at lower weight, but with the inconvenience of lens changes on the fly. Overall I prefer the look and feel of an M9 shot, it tends to have less of that "processed" digital feel (ie distant grass turning to uniformly coloured astro-turf!) or a slightly "smeared" look. Then there's the prime versus zoom question, as a huge generality (that's I'm sure more respected in the breach than the observance) zooms deliver outstanding definition in the central part of the frame, and perform well in both the near and far ranges. But the usual downside is poor performance out towards the edges and an intrusively "wirey" look to the out of focus areas. Hey, who's to say what's better, you pay's your money and you takes your choice!
Yes, it's that smeared look that really bothers me about dslr's, it's not resloution that makes me use a back, it's the feel and depth and inherent sharpness, I'm hoping that the M9 may get up to the level of my P21 in these respects, we'll see I guess.
QUOTE (Gary Ferguson @ Sep 14 2009, 05:00 PM)
It's pretty much impossible to put the differences into words, in terms of simple resolution the results I get with my P65+ and a tripod mounted 120mm Macro are so far beyond what the M9 can deliver that there's simply no competition. However, versus Canon the results are far less clear cut. My current travel camera is a 5D MkII with the 24-105 IS. It delivers dependably great results out to the edges at f8 and f11, but corner quality is poor at any aperture, and at f4 or f5.6 I'm often a little disappointed right across the frame, consequently getting the results I want from the 24-105 requires taking liberties with the IS and using the ISO setting aggressively!
The M9 just provides more options at lower weight, but with the inconvenience of lens changes on the fly. Overall I prefer the look and feel of an M9 shot, it tends to have less of that "processed" digital feel (ie distant grass turning to uniformly coloured astro-turf!) or a slightly "smeared" look. Then there's the prime versus zoom question, as a huge generality (that's I'm sure more respected in the breach than the observance) zooms deliver outstanding definition in the central part of the frame, and perform well in both the near and far ranges. But the usual downside is poor performance out towards the edges and an intrusively "wirey" look to the out of focus areas. Hey, who's to say what's better, you pay's your money and you takes your choice!
The M9 just provides more options at lower weight, but with the inconvenience of lens changes on the fly. Overall I prefer the look and feel of an M9 shot, it tends to have less of that "processed" digital feel (ie distant grass turning to uniformly coloured astro-turf!) or a slightly "smeared" look. Then there's the prime versus zoom question, as a huge generality (that's I'm sure more respected in the breach than the observance) zooms deliver outstanding definition in the central part of the frame, and perform well in both the near and far ranges. But the usual downside is poor performance out towards the edges and an intrusively "wirey" look to the out of focus areas. Hey, who's to say what's better, you pay's your money and you takes your choice!
i am not surprised that the 24-105 will give you smeared results....even the 24-70 has no real chance compared to pretty much any canon prime....and compared to leica primes....there is no contest....
i have been looking at m9 raw files and so far have not found the P21 look i was hoping for.....the files look a little sharper (as is to be expected) then canon files, but by far not the obvious difference between the m8 and the 5D.....high iso looks better then expected (for a ccd)....pretty good up to 1000, but no comparison to the canons or nikons....
i have not seen a good DR comparison, leica is saying that the high iso will be imrpoved with firmware and the conversion profiles are still not quite "there" (or so the leica fanatics say....)
i was really hoping for a m camera with a DMF look....but this does not seem to be it....and we will probably never see one....if i had the cash to just buy one for fun, i might, but 7000 is a lot.....
in a way this really showed me how amazing the 5dII is and how really amazing the files are that come out of it....and the 7d looks amazing as well....the combination of the 2 (with some other advancements i haven't even thought of yet) will be on the market in less then a year.....for about a 1/3 of the price of the m9....it is just hard to justify on any level....
i think the m9 looks like a great camera and i am sure it will make a lot of people very happy....and it really looks like leica did their homework this time.....
as much as i love RF....it is not worth that much to me.....
also: there are still SOME issues with IR (and UV as well?) and there are some corrections in software going on....some superwides still show cyan shifts and such.....much, much,much less then the m8....much improved....but still....
and then you just pick up the canon and shoot.....without any problems at all....
QUOTE (pschefz @ Sep 15 2009, 02:14 AM)
i am not surprised that the 24-105 will give you smeared results....even the 24-70 has no real chance compared to pretty much any canon prime....and compared to leica primes....there is no contest....
i have been looking at m9 raw files and so far have not found the P21 look i was hoping for.....the files look a little sharper (as is to be expected) then canon files, but by far not the obvious difference between the m8 and the 5D.....high iso looks better then expected (for a ccd)....pretty good up to 1000, but no comparison to the canons or nikons....
i have not seen a good DR comparison, leica is saying that the high iso will be imrpoved with firmware and the conversion profiles are still not quite "there" (or so the leica fanatics say....)
i was really hoping for a m camera with a DMF look....but this does not seem to be it....and we will probably never see one....if i had the cash to just buy one for fun, i might, but 7000 is a lot.....
in a way this really showed me how amazing the 5dII is and how really amazing the files are that come out of it....and the 7d looks amazing as well....the combination of the 2 (with some other advancements i haven't even thought of yet) will be on the market in less then a year.....for about a 1/3 of the price of the m9....it is just hard to justify on any level....
i think the m9 looks like a great camera and i am sure it will make a lot of people very happy....and it really looks like leica did their homework this time.....
as much as i love RF....it is not worth that much to me.....
also: there are still SOME issues with IR (and UV as well?) and there are some corrections in software going on....some superwides still show cyan shifts and such.....much, much,much less then the m8....much improved....but still....
and then you just pick up the canon and shoot.....without any problems at all....
i have been looking at m9 raw files and so far have not found the P21 look i was hoping for.....the files look a little sharper (as is to be expected) then canon files, but by far not the obvious difference between the m8 and the 5D.....high iso looks better then expected (for a ccd)....pretty good up to 1000, but no comparison to the canons or nikons....
i have not seen a good DR comparison, leica is saying that the high iso will be imrpoved with firmware and the conversion profiles are still not quite "there" (or so the leica fanatics say....)
i was really hoping for a m camera with a DMF look....but this does not seem to be it....and we will probably never see one....if i had the cash to just buy one for fun, i might, but 7000 is a lot.....
in a way this really showed me how amazing the 5dII is and how really amazing the files are that come out of it....and the 7d looks amazing as well....the combination of the 2 (with some other advancements i haven't even thought of yet) will be on the market in less then a year.....for about a 1/3 of the price of the m9....it is just hard to justify on any level....
i think the m9 looks like a great camera and i am sure it will make a lot of people very happy....and it really looks like leica did their homework this time.....
as much as i love RF....it is not worth that much to me.....
also: there are still SOME issues with IR (and UV as well?) and there are some corrections in software going on....some superwides still show cyan shifts and such.....much, much,much less then the m8....much improved....but still....
and then you just pick up the canon and shoot.....without any problems at all....
I may buy one from amazon, shoot a few frames every shot with it and return it, have a good look at the files and prints from the files and see if it's "there". I'm still hopeful.
QUOTE (woof75 @ Sep 15 2009, 08:32 AM)
I may buy one from amazon, shoot a few frames every shot with it and return it, have a good look at the files and prints from the files and see if it's "there". I'm still hopeful.
Please post here when and if you get to test an M9. I have the same concerns.
QUOTE (TMARK @ Sep 15 2009, 03:04 PM)
Please post here when and if you get to test an M9. I have the same concerns.
Certainly will, don't hold your breath though, it'll be a few weeks.
Just watched the interview with Stephan Daniel. I can't believe how open and candid Mr Daniel is, it is unique in the business (or any business). For example the change from C1 to Lightroom was just to avoid Phase One getting the whole list of S2 clients as they registered their software... He is also pretty open about Jenoptik's involvement: "the S2 is made by Leica and the M9 by Jenoptik...". Also "we started the M9 development April last year". It is not often that you get that sort of insight. Some of the sales numbers are very interesting and worth spending the time to watch the video "we can't supply all the M7 and MP ordered". Note that the candid approach stopped when the interviewers started talking about Panasonic. Leica is obviously not entirely comfortable with the collaboration.. Really fascinating stuff.
As for the M9 itself, if you were born before the 80's, you'll just want one and getting one or not will just be a budget issue (I'm negotiating with my banker...). The M8 was not quite right but the M9 is a proper digital M7 so if you've sniffed enough darkroom chemicals in your time, now you can move on. To me, the most interesting part is that ongoing lens development suggests Leica has very long term plans for the rangefinder range. That is odd as their appeal to the younger generation is pretty much nil and it will not take long before that generation becomes the whole market.
As for the M9 itself, if you were born before the 80's, you'll just want one and getting one or not will just be a budget issue (I'm negotiating with my banker...). The M8 was not quite right but the M9 is a proper digital M7 so if you've sniffed enough darkroom chemicals in your time, now you can move on. To me, the most interesting part is that ongoing lens development suggests Leica has very long term plans for the rangefinder range. That is odd as their appeal to the younger generation is pretty much nil and it will not take long before that generation becomes the whole market.
I just had a look at one in adorama and I hate that the frame line isn't a solid line at the bottom, how do you know your not chopping people's hands off, any way of customising that?
QUOTE (woof75 @ Sep 15 2009, 08:52 PM)
I just had a look at one in adorama and I hate that the frame line isn't a solid line at the bottom, how do you know your not chopping people's hands off, any way of customising that?
the framelines are "guide lines" at best anyway....if you want to make sure the hands are in, take a step back....there are a lot of different factors to consider, i think the frame lines with the m9 are optimized for about 6ft? but i could be wrong....leica fixed the lines with the m8.2, the m8 was a joke....there was just no way to tell because even the lines you saw were totally off....
anyway...i also have one on order from amazon....i might just go to samy's and shoot a couple of frames compared to the 5DII out the window....the more i see and hear about it , the more i am disappointed though....i still haven't heard anything or seen anything concrete about DR performance.....crispness and depth, "3D" look are there but by far not as pronounced (compared to the 5DII) as was the case with the m8/5D comparison....
in other words: my P20 at one point made me VERY happy.....if i compare the files today with the files from the 5DII....color, DR, detail.....the canon wins easily....
I watched the interview as well and it seemed very open and honest to me.
However, the difficulty with deciding whether it was or was not honest is that it took me all my time to drag my eyes off the camera and watch the guy doing his thing.
Now, I have never owned an M camera because I always figured rf sytems to be flawed for my sort of work, despite the fact that people like Jeanloup Sieff used them to great advantage. But, watching that damn thing sit there on the desk, I realised why I coveted it so much: simplicity. It looked like a camera and not something else. I couldn't lose the thought that it was a camera that would take one right back to the pre-digital age where the camera, once you'd bought it, was something that never crossed your mind during the work - it just was there and did what you wanted it to do, mainly not get in the way. Unfortunately, even in retirement, the thing and its glass are just too expensive - more so in retirement with no business against which to write it - than ever they were.
A very important and probably overlooked point was made by an earlier writer when he said that today's market for these Ms is with the older, experienced people; whence the next generation of buyer and what would create one sans the pulling power of nostalgia which the young can't share?
A lady at the 'interview' made a remark about refurbished Ms being available to 'students' at lower costs... what an odd idea that a private company (often short of cash) could take up that notion and subsidise a section of the community! Why? It seems to me that subsidies do little but propagate the wrong ideas about life's realities. Leica's guy didn't make that mistake when talking about your first 911! (I say yours because I ain't got one.)
Rob C
However, the difficulty with deciding whether it was or was not honest is that it took me all my time to drag my eyes off the camera and watch the guy doing his thing.
Now, I have never owned an M camera because I always figured rf sytems to be flawed for my sort of work, despite the fact that people like Jeanloup Sieff used them to great advantage. But, watching that damn thing sit there on the desk, I realised why I coveted it so much: simplicity. It looked like a camera and not something else. I couldn't lose the thought that it was a camera that would take one right back to the pre-digital age where the camera, once you'd bought it, was something that never crossed your mind during the work - it just was there and did what you wanted it to do, mainly not get in the way. Unfortunately, even in retirement, the thing and its glass are just too expensive - more so in retirement with no business against which to write it - than ever they were.
A very important and probably overlooked point was made by an earlier writer when he said that today's market for these Ms is with the older, experienced people; whence the next generation of buyer and what would create one sans the pulling power of nostalgia which the young can't share?
A lady at the 'interview' made a remark about refurbished Ms being available to 'students' at lower costs... what an odd idea that a private company (often short of cash) could take up that notion and subsidise a section of the community! Why? It seems to me that subsidies do little but propagate the wrong ideas about life's realities. Leica's guy didn't make that mistake when talking about your first 911! (I say yours because I ain't got one.)
Rob C
QUOTE (pschefz @ Sep 15 2009, 09:55 PM)
the framelines are "guide lines" at best anyway....if you want to make sure the hands are in, take a step back....there are a lot of different factors to consider, i think the frame lines with the m9 are optimized for about 6ft? but i could be wrong....leica fixed the lines with the m8.2, the m8 was a joke....there was just no way to tell because even the lines you saw were totally off....
anyway...i also have one on order from amazon....i might just go to samy's and shoot a couple of frames compared to the 5DII out the window....the more i see and hear about it , the more i am disappointed though....i still haven't heard anything or seen anything concrete about DR performance.....crispness and depth, "3D" look are there but by far not as pronounced (compared to the 5DII) as was the case with the m8/5D comparison....
in other words: my P20 at one point made me VERY happy.....if i compare the files today with the files from the 5DII....color, DR, detail.....the canon wins easily....
anyway...i also have one on order from amazon....i might just go to samy's and shoot a couple of frames compared to the 5DII out the window....the more i see and hear about it , the more i am disappointed though....i still haven't heard anything or seen anything concrete about DR performance.....crispness and depth, "3D" look are there but by far not as pronounced (compared to the 5DII) as was the case with the m8/5D comparison....
in other words: my P20 at one point made me VERY happy.....if i compare the files today with the files from the 5DII....color, DR, detail.....the canon wins easily....
Suprised to hear that about the P20, have you tried reprocessing the raw files in the latest capture one?
QUOTE (Gary Ferguson @ Sep 14 2009, 03:48 PM)
IHowever, this morning using the Zeiss ZM 35mm 2.8 manually coded as a 35mm 2.0, I noticed some strange artifacts. In the far distance the girders and wire of a crane were rendered blue or yellow on the viewing screen at full magnification, instead of black silhouttes against the sky. Similarly the white framework of a window (again at the edge of resolution) were also rendered yellow or blue. As this shot was nearby I repeated the shot at all apertures from f2.8 to f22. Interestingly at f2.8 the effect was very much reduced, and at f22 it was gone completely, but at all other apertures it was present and most strongly at the highest resolving apertures of f5.6 to f11.
I wonder if this is moire related, a function of the camera viewing screen, or possibly due to "approximate" manual coding?
I wonder if this is moire related, a function of the camera viewing screen, or possibly due to "approximate" manual coding?
Loaded the shots into Lightroom and the artifacts have gone, clean as a whistle, the "moire" look was only on the M9's viewing screen. Looking carefully through a couple of hundred M9 shots I can't see a single example of moire...yet! But as that's using a mix of tripod and handled; wide apertures and stopped down; fabrics, buildings, and trees; daylight and artificial light; I'm starting to conclude that the lack of an AA filter isn't compromising the camera's abilities.
Incidentally, leaving work tonight I saw John Lennon's Rolls Royce in the car park I use. With fading light and a sleazy Soho in the background it was perfect rangefinder territory! Here's the scene with the M9.
Click to view attachment
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.