innerimager Posted November 22, 2009 Share #1 Posted November 22, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) A steel grey M9 came my way on Friday. I had a event to shoot on Saturday, informal enough that I could try the M9 out without time to get to know it. It was a fundraiser to get new pianos for a school of music in NY (graduate level). I used a 50/1.4 asph and 28/2 asph only, no flash, usually at f2, and iso values between 800 and 1250. Here's my stream of conscious impressions 1. Image quality is superb. I use Raw Developer as my converter. Brian has 2 profiles for the M9 in the current version. I found colors, especially skin tones to be extremely satisfying requiring almost no adjustments. I used a custom white balance in camera. 2.The old saw that the full frame let's you use a lens as it was meant to is a big reason I love the M9, and that's because I consider the 50/1.4 asph the best lens I own, and like this FL. I use it 95% of the time on film, but rarely used it on the M8 as the 66mm FL didn't work for me. I'm sure it will be the most used lens on the M9, and my pre-asph noctilux will also get used much more than on the M8. 3. It's a bit more demanding of focus technique when using shallow DOF than the M8. I attribute this to the narrower DOF of the full frame sensor (for the same image size), and I think I missed a few shots using the 50 at 1.4 because my technique was not on. I've read that others find it easier to focus than the M8, not sure I agree in practice, I think it requires a bit more care. But the results when the user gets it right are wonderful. 4. Auto WB in incandescent light seems off (too high K) where the M8 was fairly accurate in my experience. I prefer custom (I use an expodsic), but there can be times that is not easy (like when I forget the disc!), so I hope the next firmware tweaks this. I have read the thread here on this. My testing before the job, using the same converter (RD), proved instantly that auto WB was off, while colors were great using a custom WB. 5. as others have said, the slower card read times are a bit of a pain. It's nice to quickly check for critical focus with a 100% view, and it's been a long time since I used a camera that takes so long to do this, especially using uncompressed raw. I actually used compressed raw for this reason. 6. I wasn't sure how I'd like the look of the steel grey, but I do a lot. Chrome lenses go very well, and since my 50 lux s chrome (and my 24/2.8 and 90/2) I went grey. Also, I find my chrome grip from the M8 looks just fine on the M9, a little accent, so no need to get a new grip. 7. One freak out that may save you acute high blood pressure. When practicing, I loaded a custom white balance. Took a few dozen shots, and then asked the camera to delete them all (about 50 total). This was taking forever. I took the battery out, reloaded it, and found about 10 images were left. I then took another image and got a black frame. Repeated several times, all black. Blood pressure rising, I considered all my steps and realized I tried to reload the custom WB, by pressing "set" twice under custom WB, and maybe something went wrong. Changing WB in fact restored normal function. So it seems the camera can in unusual circumstance, load a custom WB value that results in a black frame. Thought I'd pass that along! 8. Lastly, as others have said, the camera DNG read out blocks shadows a bit in RD as it seems to in other converters but the information is all there. I ended up opening them after JPG conversion using shadow/highlights with a very small shadow opening (6-9%) and retrieved the detail I wanted very easily. Here's the pics from Saturday Zenfolio | Peter Halperin | Piano Initiative and one for now...... best...Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 22, 2009 Posted November 22, 2009 Hi innerimager, Take a look here My go at first M9 impressions. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
ShyTot Posted November 22, 2009 Share #2 Posted November 22, 2009 3. It's a bit more demanding of focus technique when using shallow DOF than the M8. ,,,,,,,,,,,, others find it easier to focus than the M8, not sure I agree in practice, I think it requires a bit more care. I can take anything else, but not that ! Lordy, not that. Please clarify :confused:. If you're right on that, there'll be an unused M9 on ebay next week. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bo_Lorentzen Posted November 22, 2009 Share #3 Posted November 22, 2009 Peter, Congrats on your M9, agree that gray is a sweet color on the M. Puzzled about your focusing experience, my feeling was based on shooting a few jobs the last two weeks. Im not sure if the practical dof is thinner, since the magnification of the area is less also.? Basically I find the focusing to be pretty identical to a film camera, where the M8 I found harder. But am in no way disputing your experience, Im very interested to see how you get on with that camera forward. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
innerimager Posted November 23, 2009 Author Share #4 Posted November 23, 2009 Let me, please, remove any concerns. I am talking of the most subtle sense, and my keeper rate at 1.4 was still very high. I just didn't experience what others have, that is a noticeably easier focusing experience than my M8, is seemed similar, and I wonder if the slight reduction in DOF may then mean a few unhappy results. To be clearer, my keeper rate was well over 90% at 1/4. Also, I like a high mag view finder. I have 2 M7's a 0.72 and a 0.85, and I find them both easier to focus than the M8-M9 with their 0.66 magnification. heck, I love using an M3 for it's 0.9 finder! On my M8 I often used a 1.33 magnifier for shallow DOF shooting, and I may do so for F1 and F1.4 shooting with the M9 at least onoccasion. But absolutely don't forgo an M9 based on what I was reporting! best...Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
innerimager Posted November 23, 2009 Author Share #5 Posted November 23, 2009 I should also add that where I rarely shot the M8 above 640, I used 800-1250 for this event as noted, and was very happy with the look of the files, especially the detail maintained at higher iso values. Just saying what everyone else does here, but it's an important reason for me to like the M9 as I do mostly low light work. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaques Posted November 23, 2009 Share #6 Posted November 23, 2009 I am a bit confused by this idea of a shallower depth of field on the m9 to m8. I would have thought the DOF was identical. that is: if you cropped an M9 image to the same 2/3rd ratio as the M8 -other than the pixel differences- the image would be identical as far as DOF is concerned? Same lenses- same distance from the focal plane- etc? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bo_Lorentzen Posted November 23, 2009 Share #7 Posted November 23, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) that is correct - if you crop the image to match a M8 file, then the dof is identical. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
innerimager Posted November 23, 2009 Author Share #8 Posted November 23, 2009 Let's say you want to fill the M8 sensor with a given object, say s ruler. To fill the M9 with the same ruler you must get closer (by 33%) which results in a shallower DOF because distance between the sensor and the subject effects DOF, the farther away, the larger the DOF. So when we capture the same image, relative to the frame in size, DOF is narrower on the M9. If I shot the image with the M9 with enough space around it that a 33% crop would be the same size as with the M8, I'd be at the same distance from the subject as with the M8, and DOF would be the same.That's how I understand it. best...Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted November 23, 2009 Share #9 Posted November 23, 2009 I can smell the "crop factor DoF" swamp rising again as regards ease of focusing with an M9 vs. an M8. I'll cut to the chase - practically speaking, what sharpness or blurriness a given lens projects on the sensor is identical for either camera, assuming same aperture and subject distance. There will be the same focus errors or lack of them (assuming both cameras have correctly aligned RFs). At 100% pixels, one is effectively looking at a 133% larger print with an M9 image than with an M8 image. At the SAME final print size, or with both images enlarged to just fill the screen, rather than to 100% pixels, the focus errors in the M9 image will be smaller blurs, thus less noticeable, thus allowing more focus leeway or apparent DoF. One can wander deeper into the swamp by introducing other factors, such as changing shooting location, or using different lenses to approximate the same FoV from the same position with an M8 vs. an M9. My practical experience is that I'm getting more shots in focus with my M9 and the same fast or long lenses (75 f/2, 75 f/1.4, 135 f/4) that gave me trouble with my M8s. And Peter is seeing something different. And there we have it. On the other points: 1) yes, I'm now using Adobe's "standard" profile for the M9 as published in ACR 5.6 (and I guess LR3) and they substantially improve the "pink skin tones" that bothered many in the first round of M9 pictures. 2) Almost too obvious to repeat. 4) probable - it took several FW upgrades before the M8 AWB finally behaved, as I recall. 5) I see it more as a firmware structure problem than a data read rate problem. The M8 also takes a while to read in the hi-res image on review, but it does it automatically in the background, so that by the time one starts to zoom, the zooming is then instantaneous. I suspect Leica was trying to save some processor power (= battery life) by only loading the hires image when demanded, rather than for every shot reviewed. I also suspect they will see the error of their ways based on our feedback, and revert to the M8 technique. The little "jump" in the LCD image when the M8 loaded the hi-res was occasionally irritating - but practically speaking, the faster zoom was worth it. 7) Haven't had the WB "lockup" problem, but it wouldn't show up in my workflow because I set WB in the raw converter and just leave the camera WB on "Auto." 8) Can't comment on the technicalities, but yes, there is more shadow detail there than one sees on the LCD or at default raw converter (ACR) settings that worked OK for the M8. Takes some changes in workflow to dig it out. For a while I was using a default +1/3 exposure comp because the shadows and shots overall seemed heavier and darker. Then I clipped a couple of skies through overexposure - especially at "Pull 80" ISO - and rethought things. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 23, 2009 Share #10 Posted November 23, 2009 I find the M9 more basically tolerant of focussing error, which tallies with Leica information. But the DOF changes. It is the same if you use the same lens at the same camera-subject distance. In practice, however, if you want the same field of view on the M9 as you had on the M8, you will either have to move forward (and change the perspective) or use the next longer lens. Both actions result in a more narrow DOF because you change the enlargement. Those two effects together make for a camera that is just as easy or difficult to focus as the M8 in my experience. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Ash Posted November 23, 2009 Share #11 Posted November 23, 2009 Sorry Jaap, from your words I would suspect that your M8 has a focusing issue which you might have compensated intuitively. Otherwise I have difficulties to follow your experience. I would expect that your and all other M9's are spot on as is my M8.2 with all my lenses due to tighter tolerances in production adopted by Leica following the focusing issues of the early M8s . You are refering to Leica information and we know that you had a chat with Mr Daniel. But as far as I know there is nothing more than a common statement from him and we do not know what he was refering to. I would suspect he was relating to the issues of the very first M8s only. Or it could be that they have further narrowed their tolerances which is not confirmed. But if you compare a M9 -even one with lower production tolerances- to a M8 with spot on focusing any M9 cannot do "better". From physical point of view the dof of a m9 is more shallow than the one of a m8 if you consider the same frame, i.e. less distance to the focus point. Thus one or another might find it more difficult to have the target focus point within dof under more difficult situations like closer distance, wider open lens, longer focal length of the lens and quickly moving subject. BTW, this is an "issue" I would love to have. Regards Steve I find the M9 more basically tolerant of focussing error, which tallies with Leica information. But the DOF changes.It is the same if you use the same lens at the same camera-subject distance. In practice, however, if you want the same field of view on the M9 as you had on the M8, you will either have to move forward (and change the perspective) or use the next longer lens. Both actions result in a more narrow DOF because you change the enlargement. Those two effects together make for a camera that is just as easy or difficult to focus as the M8 in my experience. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
2Bébèrt Posted November 23, 2009 Share #12 Posted November 23, 2009 Keep in mind that the circle of confusion is larger on the M9, so DOF is in fact bigger with the same lens and the same distance. If you want the same reproduction scale, the DOF will be the same on the M8 and the M9. (I think) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 23, 2009 Share #13 Posted November 23, 2009 Sorry Jaap, from your words I would suspect that your M8 has a focusing issue which you might have compensated intuitively. Otherwise I have difficulties to follow your experience. I would expect that your and all other M9's are spot on as is my M8.2 with all my lenses due to tighter tolerances in production adopted by Leica following the focusing issues of the early M8s . You are refering to Leica information and we know that you had a chat with Mr Daniel. But as far as I know there is nothing more than a common statement from him and we do not know what he was refering to. I would suspect he was relating to the issues of the very first M8s only. Or it could be that they have further narrowed their tolerances which is not confirmed. But if you compare a M9 -even one with lower production tolerances- to a M8 with spot on focusing any M9 cannot do "better". From physical point of view the dof of a m9 is more shallow than the one of a m8 if you consider the same frame, i.e. less distance to the focus point. Thus one or another might find it more difficult to have the target focus point within dof under more difficult situations like closer distance, wider open lens, longer focal length of the lens and quickly moving subject. BTW, this is an "issue" I would love to have. Regards Steve I can assure you none of my M8 or M9 have a focussing error. All errors are mine - and I make the same number on the M9 as I did on the M8. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted November 23, 2009 Share #14 Posted November 23, 2009 Keep in mind that the circle of confusion is larger on the M9, so DOF is in fact If the focussing ability of a user with this camera needs another discussion on Circles Of Confusion, it's doomed. If you need a calculator to tell if an image is critically sharp, I'm in BIG F'n trouble ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted November 23, 2009 Share #15 Posted November 23, 2009 If the focussing ability of a user with this camera needs another discussion on Circles Of Confusion, it's doomed. Which . . . the camera or the user? In my case it's definitely me If you need a calculator to tell if an image is critically sharp, I'm in BIG F'n trouble ! Cm'on it's the measured procedures that make for a good photo: 1. tape measure to subject's eyes (careful not to get the nose instead) 2. reading COC and depth of field tables (where were those glasses?) 3. checking distance 4. checking tables (still can't find the glasses) 5. focusing camera . . . oops, the distance marks ARE a bit vague (just pray you aren't using the WATE). 6. take shot. lovely . . . . just hope that your subject has IS Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted November 23, 2009 Share #16 Posted November 23, 2009 Cm'on it's the measured procedures that make for a good photo: lovely . . . . just hope that your subject has IS Always regret throwing my Faber Slide Rule away. CoC's are so much easier to calculate with that old boy ! Old Man From the Age of Log Tables and other Anal things Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 23, 2009 Share #17 Posted November 23, 2009 Jono- you forgot the last step: USM 300%..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted November 23, 2009 Share #18 Posted November 23, 2009 Always regret throwing my Faber Slide Rule away. CoC's are so much easier to calculate with that old boy ! Old Man From the Age of Log Tables and other Anal things Hmmm . I think I still have my Faber slide rule. There were also some splendid metal hand held things where you turned a handle, and out popped the COC . . . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted November 23, 2009 Share #19 Posted November 23, 2009 Jono- you forgot the last step: USM 300%..... Yes Jaap - I also forgot the vital 3rd check of the distance I must pull myself to gether Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted November 23, 2009 Share #20 Posted November 23, 2009 tape measure to subject's eyes (careful not to get the nose instead) I thought Leica made a digital rangefinder for that sort of thing;). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.