M9 vs M8 Pix -- REDUX

[wparsonsgisnet]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

OK, this is the 3rd thread I've done (and maybe it will be the last).

 

The problem before, in addition to the image being blurred, is that my stupid assistant forgot that the M8 needed the IR-cut filter in place.

 

Here are 2 images from last night, from still ANOTHER dance that the bride is making. This is from the tech rehearsal for this weekend's performance.

 

The first is from the M9, positioned to the left of the M8. The second is from the M8, and it was positioned to the right of the M9. You can see the slight differences in the rotation of the dancers (this should dispell any suggestions that the images are the same.... ) I even got the 2 monpods at about the same height last nite.

 

Both cameras were set to Auto ISO, f 1.4, and 1/250. The cameras chose the iso; the M9 chose 1600; the M8, 1250 -- aka 1600, as we know. So I believe the iso settings are the same.

 

I processed both in C1 V5-Pro. I have done only 2 things: (1) cropped them to a similar image appearance, and (2) white-balanced the M9 pic to the setting from the M8 pic.

 

Any differences in the images come from the cameras. The M9 was sporting the 50 'lux-a; the M8, the 35 'lux-a -- WITH the IR-cut filter this time.

 

AND, for the record, because I was putting the 35 back on the M9 after this set of shots (carefully removing the IR-cut filter), I was accused of sticking my head in my *&^%$#@! camera bag instead of watching the dance. You guys owe me.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[mikelc]

hi Bill

 

 

...beautiful figure group and .they (pics) seem remarkably similiar to me...this to me does not comment negatively on the M9 which I'm finding to be remarkable but on the continuously surprising extrodinary quality of the M8....since the 9 has arrived many here seem to present matter of factly that the 8 was just a holdover until the 9 could be made...but it continues to hold it's remarkable own!!..I want to sell my M8.2 to ease the financial cost of the 9 but i continue to hesitate...anyway my 2 cents

 

mike

mikecettadotcom

[Jeff S]

Bill, what's your conclusion regarding actual prints between the two cameras...including B&W work?

 

BTW, going back to your response to one of my first posts on the forum on BW work, I've decided to get a separate dedicated BW printer (Epson 4880) with Cone ink set. That will be my indulgence this year in lieu of M9. I'm still not printing beyond A3, so for me this seemed the best use of funds. But, I'm curious about your experience.

 

Jeff

[wparsonsgisnet]

Jeff, congratulations on your b/w printer. Are you using a matte paper like Hahnemuhle rag?

 

I will print the two jpegs in this thread and comment on the results. I use an Epson 2400 with ImagePrint, so the calibration is not a problem.

 

I thot there might be some discussion of this subject -- let's hope I don't have to take more pix. What a pita this process is. My assistant is still here only because of great patience on my part.

[Alberti]

Bil,

Nice way of comparison.

Hard to assess though. Comparing, I'd say the M8 is better focussed (laid back) in a way that gives a psychologically more pleasing picture.

I like the way the atmosphere of the two pictures is similar!

alberti

[pklein]

Fascinating. The main difference seems to be that the M8 shadows fall into the noise a little quicker than the M9, where they stay clean a little darker, then go completely black. See the neck of dancer on the far left facing the camera, for example, and the But it really isn't that drastic. The eye of the dancer on the right seems a little sharper with the M8.

 

Looks like they are both very usable cameras. The M9 is a bit more highly evolved. But the M8 still has plenty to offer.

 

AND, beautiful shots, BTW. The bride should know how lucky she is to have you documenting her creations.

 

--Peter

[wparsonsgisnet]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Fascinating. ... AND, beautiful shots, BTW. The bride should know how lucky she is to have you documenting her creations. --Peter

 

Peter, tnx for the vote. I keep telling the bride how lucky she is. I'm waiting for confirmation.

 

Actually, the luck really runs my way. She busts her butt to make these incredible dances and finds such exceptional dancers. All I have to do is have them hang in the air while I take the pic.

 

The best part is I go to school every week.

 

BTW, I had the DR operated on by Don Goldberg. As you indicated the glass was chancey and Don said someone had "tried" to work on the lens before him. The result is that I have a DR foot with no close-focus cam with glass that is a big soft.

 

This is good. I need the foot to go with the M8/9 and have another DR with good glass. "It's the best of all worlds." Many thanks for assisting with the process.

 

Regards to all and apologies for the specific message,

[Jeff S]

Jeff, congratulations on your b/w printer. Are you using a matte paper like Hahnemuhle rag?

 

I will print the two jpegs in this thread and comment on the results. I use an Epson 2400 with ImagePrint, so the calibration is not a problem.

 

I thot there might be some discussion of this subject -- let's hope I don't have to take more pix. What a pita this process is. My assistant is still here only because of great patience on my part.

 

Thanks, Bill. I now print on Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Pearl and Photo Rag Baryta (both glossy) on my 3800. I actually plan to use these same papers in the 4880 using Cone's selenium inks with gloss optimizer. I may switch out one of the black cartridges from time to time to do matte papers, but I'm going to see how the gloss papers handle first.

 

Enjoy your M9. I look forward to any thoughts you have on the BW print aspect, whenever you have time...but please don't do any tests on my account.

 

Jeff

[noah_addis]

Thanks for posting.

 

The problem with comparing the M8 and M9 is no one seems to have a good solution for how to do so.

 

Using 100 percent crops is meaningless because the M9 has a much larger sensor and more pixels. So how well each one of those pixels compares to each pixel in an M8 is somewhat meaningless, unless all of your work is presented as 100% crops on internet sites:D

 

Posting reasonable size web jpegs, while better in my opinion since it conveys the overall look of the photograph, is also somewhat limiting, since even a cheap P&S can produce good output for a 700 px wide web photo.

 

As I've suggested before, the only really valid comparison is to compare prints at whatever size you wish to print, of course keeping in mind that differences in image quality and resolution may not be visible until you print quite large.

 

Don't make prints on my account, I've already done my own print tests and posted my opinions. But if you do make prints, I (and I'm sure others) would love to hear what you think.

 

For what it's worth I've been printing with the 4880 and Hahnemuhle fine art baryta with the epson inks. The prints, both in B&W and Color, are wonderful. I got the larger printer in anticipation of the M9, and I'm sure glad I did:D:D:D

[Jeff S]

Thanks for posting.

 

The problem with comparing the M8 and M9 is no one seems to have a good solution for how to do so.

 

Using 100 percent crops is meaningless because the M9 has a much larger sensor and more pixels. So how well each one of those pixels compares to each pixel in an M8 is somewhat meaningless, unless all of your work is presented as 100% crops on internet sites:D

 

Posting reasonable size web jpegs, while better in my opinion since it conveys the overall look of the photograph, is also somewhat limiting, since even a cheap P&S can produce good output for a 700 px wide web photo.

 

As I've suggested before, the only really valid comparison is to compare prints at whatever size you wish to print, of course keeping in mind that differences in image quality and resolution may not be visible until you print quite large.

 

Don't make prints on my account, I've already done my own print tests and posted my opinions. But if you do make prints, I (and I'm sure others) would love to hear what you think.

 

For what it's worth I've been printing with the 4880 and Hahnemuhle fine art baryta with the epson inks. The prints, both in B&W and Color, are wonderful. I got the larger printer in anticipation of the M9, and I'm sure glad I did:D:D:D

 

Can't agree more, Noah, on prints as the only real comparison, and the only one I care about, since that's my end product. Hence, my request above.

 

And, I like your choice of printer and paper (again, refer to my post)...plus, I can't wait to see what Cone inks can further lend to the BW results.

 

I like the way you think...and photograph, having seen your site.

 

Jeff

[Doc Henry]

Hi Bill

First of all, thank you for the post

As said PKlein, there is a light difference in definition and nothing else ,

colours are the same

Is it in that case necessary to keep filters IR when we use M9 ?

I had pointed out in my tests on this thread * , that the filter would give a little more sharpness to M8 in comparison with M9

and changes colour slightly

* http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/98684-m9-versus-m8-1-tests.html

Regards

Henry

I will make another tests when I will have my M9

[okram]

" first is from the M9, positioned to the left of the M8. The second is from the M8, and it was positioned to the right of the M9. You can see the slight differences in the rotation of the dancers (this should dispell any suggestions that the images are the same.... ) I even got the 2 monpods at about the same height last nite."

 

I am sorry about that- it was half a joke, half a question. Meant no disrespect.

Thanks for the comparison.

[wparsonsgisnet]

Okram, I took it as a joke. That thread had the bride and I rolling on the floor laughing.

 

Henry, there was no IR-cut filter on the M9, only on the M8.

[epand56]

I'm very unhappy to say (since I do not still have one) that IMO the M9 picture is quite better.

I like the slightly warmer light, the better grain and above all, the face in focus of the dancer on the right is damn more sharp and clean.

Don't know how much is due to the difference in the lenses (Lux 50 and 35 are very different in rendering) than the difference in cameras, but #1 is better than the other.

[Jager]

I'm very unhappy to say (since I do not still have one) that IMO the M9 picture is quite better.

I like the slightly warmer light, the better grain and above all, the face in focus of the dancer on the right is damn more sharp and clean.

Don't know how much is due to the difference in the lenses (Lux 50 and 35 are very different in rendering) than the difference in cameras, but #1 is better than the other.

 

I agree, Enrico. I don't know whether to attribute the difference to the camera, the lens, or simply to the minor focus/timing issues inevitably involved when dealing with multiple images - but I like the first one best. It seems richer and cleaner.

 

Lovely images, in any case.

[okram]

Yes, the difference in sensor size is clearly visible- bigger sensor=richer, smoother, denser.

I think these two lenses are too similar to make that difference.

Not a lot, but...

 

I am going to need M9 to replace my M8, I cannot find any more excuses not to do so.

[wparsonsgisnet]

I wanted to let others speak up about the images before I said anything.

 

I know they don't have much detail, as downsized jpg's, but I see the same differences.

 

What amazes me is how much the Leica glass has to offer. I used to read lots of bench tests of Leica glass and there is always a limit of xx lines/mm of resolution held up as a limit. In this case, the so-called limit seems unimportant.

 

I also think the M9 image is what I call "rounder."

 

The roundness of objects in Leica captures has always appeared notable to me. Here, all that happened is that more pixels got in the image and it has more of the look that I like about Leica glass.

 

Disclaimer: I am an unabashed Leica-phile -- nevertheless (1) step back a few years to where the official line was "Can't make a digital M camera; the back of the lens is too close to the sensor."

 

(2) Then, it was 3/4 frame is the best we can do.

 

(3) Now, we're seeing the M9 at FF and a hand-held (S2) medium format camera.

 

(4) And, we have a promise of sorts that the M9 sw will be ported to the M8. It may cost something, but I'm going to be there.

 

I said somewhere else that the M8 is the first camera that got out of the way of my image making, and that the M9 actually seems to be helping. I think what I am seeing with only a few weeks of M9 use is an step up in clarity, detail, color subtleties, a little more light (or shadow detail), and more "roundness."

 

What a deal.

[mikelc]

I wanted to let others speak up about the images before I said anything.

 

I know they don't have much detail, as downsized jpg's, but I see the same differences.

 

What amazes me is how much the Leica glass has to offer. I used to read lots of bench tests of Leica glass and there is always a limit of xx lines/mm of resolution held up as a limit. In this case, the so-called limit seems unimportant.

 

I also think the M9 image is what I call "rounder."

 

The roundness of objects in Leica captures has always appeared notable to me. Here, all that happened is that more pixels got in the image and it has more of the look that I like about Leica glass.

 

Disclaimer: I am an unabashed Leica-phile -- nevertheless (1) step back a few years to where the official line was "Can't make a digital M camera; the back of the lens is too close to the sensor."

 

(2) Then, it was 3/4 frame is the best we can do.

 

(3) Now, we're seeing the M9 at FF and a hand-held (S2) medium format camera.

 

(4) And, we have a promise of sorts that the M9 sw will be ported to the M8. It may cost something, but I'm going to be there.

 

I said somewhere else that the M8 is the first camera that got out of the way of my image making, and that the M9 actually seems to be helping. I think what I am seeing with only a few weeks of M9 use is an step up in clarity, detail, color subtleties, a little more light (or shadow detail), and more "roundness."

 

What a deal.

 

..really well put Bill...the difference between it and the m8 are not so discernable -as noted earlier- but they are there and are especially noticeable in print...which i think can be seen by the fact that there is even more what you are calling 'roundness'...which gives the objects and forms within the pic a more natural and realistic look...

 

btw...what do you mean by "M9 sw witll be ported to the M8"?

 

mike

mikecettadotcom

[wparsonsgisnet]

.... what do you mean by "M9 sw witll be ported to the M8"? mike mikecettadotcom

 

Mike a link to this thread was posted in the M8 forum, today

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/106332-new-q-session-stefan-daniel.html

 

At the top, we are being promised an M8 fix.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[danyves]

Mike a link to this thread was posted in the M8 forum, today

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/106332-new-q-session-stefan-daniel.html

 

At the top, we are being promised an M8 fix.

 

Which could be really interesting.