M9 versus M8 picture quality

[Guest Essemmlee]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm dithering a bit over purchasing but...........

 

Maybe we have a member with both cameras who can upload a 100% crop of the same shot taken with both cameras. In fact, shots with different light would be even better.

 

I believe if I had both cameras it would have been one of the first tests I carried out.

[scott kirkpatrick]

You've heard this before, but subscribe to Reid Reviews and look at his ISO studies. He reaches a quite conservative but believable conclusion about how to position the M9 alongside the M8's image qualities.

 

scott

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[jackal]

i did such a test

 

at the same iso the picture quality/resolution looks identical to me

 

(ir colour issues aside)

[microview]

Would it not be the case that on screen and given that the pixel density is unchanged ypu would see nothing; but larger file printed to, say, A4 could conceivably look 'sharper' etc?

[plasticman]

Would it not be the case that on screen and given that the pixel density is unchanged ypu would see nothing; but larger file printed to, say, A4 could conceivably look 'sharper' etc?

 

Perceived sharpness of two files with differing amounts of pixels would not necessarily be greater for the file with more pixels when printed at the same size - the reverse could be true, in fact. More pixels should however give you the option of printing at a larger size for the same sharpness as the smaller sensor printed to a proportionately smaller size.

 

As for sharpness at 100% screen resolution - my impression of side-by-side shots I did is that the M8 has very, very slightly better detail rendition at lower ISOs, but nothing that would have any significance in the final print. YMMV of course (esp on the M9 forum - if this is transferred to the M8 forum then you'll probably wholeheartedly agree)

[Guest Essemmlee]

So it's fair to say that it's difficult to tell the difference between the two camera images side by side, and it may be that the M8 provides a better result?

 

That is really helpful as I believe my dithering has been useful. I'll wait for the M10.

[plasticman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So it's fair to say that it's difficult to tell the difference between the two camera images side by side, and it may be that the M8 provides a better result?

 

Eh? Hang on no-one said that.

My own position is:

 

1. I'd love a full-frame digital M.

2. I really don't want to spend this amount of money at the moment to replace my camera that's only six months old

3. There are definitely things I personally preferred about my M8 files compared to the M9 files - but they were personal preferences for the most part

4. I do think a lot of rationalization is going on where M9 buyers are convincing themselves that certain things are 'improved' in the new camera which one could really say is just 'different' instead (such as color for instance), and my input is just to balance some of the statements

5. Go out and buy the M9 - Leica needs your cash, otherwise there may never be an M10 for us...

 

Well, I guess number 5 you can decide for yourself.

PS: Go on and buy it - you know you want to.

[lct]

...my impression of side-by-side shots I did is that the M8 has very, very slightly better detail rendition at lower ISOs...

Got the same feeling from unsharpened files but i cant' seem to view a significant difference out of C1 v4 with default sharpening and NR settings. I did not compare side by side shots though. Did you keep yours?

[plasticman]

Got the same feeling from unsharpened files but i cant' seem to view a significant difference out of C1 v4 with default sharpening and NR settings. I did not compare side by side shots though. Did you keep yours?

 

I don't want other people to make judgements on my images - that's why I went out and did my own test. There are plenty of demo units out there now, so my suggestion is everyone should test for themselves and come to their own conclusions.

Or otherwise look at a reliable reviewer like Sean Reid. Plenty of people were oohing and ahhing over some distinctly awful jpegs at dpreview, so I consider those people already convinced without really looking at any evidence, but Sean's reviews can be relied on (I'm not currently a subscriber though).

I hope this response doesn't sound rude, but in my experience as soon as comparison shots are posted by anyone, one side or the other (or both) will start ripping apart your methodology or lens or focus or metering or all the above.

 

No substitute for trying it yourself.

 

Having said all this - pixel-level definition is really just a fetish imho. I love blowing the M8 shots up to 100% and studying the little tiny details, but has anyone ever seen those in print really? It's just for kicks to be honest.

[lct]

...No substitute for trying it yourself...

You're right, never mind, it'll help me to resist GAS a bit longer

[futureancient]

Side by side at 100% crop, not a lot of difference.

 

Side by side, image rendered to same size - a considerable difference imo.

 

I'm not a pixel peeper, all I'm interested in is making images which will be printed or viewed online in the same sizes I've always printed them.. the M9 is superior in this regard imo. I'm taking shots at ISO1000 and above which I would have found tricky to deal with before, no problem at all on the M9.

[noah_addis]

So it's fair to say that it's difficult to tell the difference between the two camera images side by side, and it may be that the M8 provides a better result?

 

That is really helpful as I believe my dithering has been useful. I'll wait for the M10.

 

I'm not saying you should get one. In fact, when it comes to spending $7k on a camera, my feeling is that if you can't decide if you need it, you don't need it. Of course if you want one simply for the enjoyment, well that's ok too.

 

I've only tested the M9 for a brief time, but there are certainly differences. I'd say the M9 has about a stop better high-iso performance at the pixel level. And as I and others have mentioned before, that may translate into a much bigger advantage depending on your print size.

 

In terms of sharpness at the pixel level that the cameras were very close, any tiny difference won't show up in print. But for large prints or reproductions the higher resolution is definitely an advantage.

 

Also, for a given print size, you'll be enlarging the original 'negative' less, so flaws in your lens or technique will show up to a lesser extent. Of course the one exception is that if you lens has poor corner performance, that will show up more in a full-frame camera. But many leica lenses won't have much problem there.

 

If you don't print larger than A3, and don't often shoot at speeds higher than ISO 320, then I'd say there is very little reason to choose an M9 over an M8. The M8 classic still represents a great value for street photographers, students and even pros who don't often shoot in low-light conditions.

 

If your career depends on making images in any kind of lighting situation, and you need to deliver 50MB files to your agency, or if you shoot for fun but really miss the full-frame character of your lenses, then the M9 seems far ahead of the M8.

[futureancient]

Noah said it better. I agree with what he says, apart form there being a stop difference at pixel level, I don't think it's quite that.. at print size it is at least a stop however and his point regarding enlargement is very valid. I couldn't be happier upgrading.

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped}

If you don't print larger than A3, and don't often shoot at speeds higher than ISO 320, then I'd say there is very little reason to choose an M9 over an M8. The M8 classic still represents a great value for street photographers, students and even pros who don't often shoot in low-light conditions.

{snipped}.

 

...and if you don't need your wides to be wide and fast I keep saying this, but when you're trying to take a group shot indoors with a 24mm 2.8 that's effectively a 32 mm lens, it's a bit tricky. You literally run out of room quite quickly

 

It will be nice to have 21 and 24 FOVs from Leica again.

[Guest Essemmlee]

when you're trying to take a group shot indoors with a 24mm 2.8 that's effectively a 32 mm lens, it's a bit tricky. You literally run out of room quite quickly

 

This is very true and very appealing but doesn't help with picture quality. I can see loads of reasons to buy an M9 but it's 3 x more expensive than a used M8 and seemingly no better pictures will result.

[noah_addis]

This is very true and very appealing but doesn't help with picture quality. I can see loads of reasons to buy an M9 but it's 3 x more expensive than a used M8 and seemingly no better pictures will result.

 

The quality of the pictures has very little to do with the camera.

[lars_bergquist]

I do buy Sean Reid's argument. Both luminance and chrominance noise occur on the single pixel level. It is mostly a case of single pixels generating a signal that is out of proportion to the surrounding ones (and interpolation means that this can influence neighbouring pixels too, of course).

 

The M9 has 33 percent more pixels per picture width/height/diagonal than the M8 has. Now, if noise would be the same in both cameras >on the pixel level<, then obviously you can print to a 33 percent larger size (linear) from a M9 file before you see the same level of noise. Or you will see correspondingly less noise, if you print to the same size from both cameras' files.

 

This is not different in principle from shooting Tri-X in a 35mm camera and in a MF camera, printing to comparable sizes, and you do indeed see a difference! I have done that a lot. Results are hanging on the wall in front of me as I write this. Dou you want to claim that there should be no difference because it is the same film? If so, we would have been running around with Minoxes ...

 

Sharpness? There is no such thing. (Or rather, it is a psychological experience and not a measurable parameter.) There is resolution, and contrast. Together, we call them definition, and MTF is a good measure, as regards lenses; there is nothing comparable for prints or displays. Historically, Leica lenses have been better than all general use films of the same vintage. The film was the limiting factor. In the digital age, this may no longer be the case -- even with Leica lenses. So now lens quality is decisive.

 

BUT say that the lens can resolve x line pairs on one millimeter of sensor. To obtain a print of a certain size from a M8 file, we may have to enlarge that millimeter by ten times, to ten millimeters. A M9 file would have to be enlarged to where the sensor millimeter is just 7.5mm for the same print size. There is a good chance that fine detail that would be fuzzed out at 10x will survive at 7.5x. So it is the same small format/larger format again. A print from a 6x6cm Tri-X neg looks not only less grainy, but has better definition, than one from a 35mm Tri-X neg, given lenses of comparable quality.

 

Sorry, but you can't get around it: size makes a difference.

 

The old man from the Age of the Super Ikontas

[arminw]

I have the M8.2 & M9 and I love both cameras ... ! I said it before in another thread it's a good combination and the two work well together for whatever you want to use it . If you want to shoot full frame and you have been waiting for a full frame M camera then you have to get the M9 if not use the M8 . The quality is good with either of those cameras ...

[piero]

 

M9 with 1970's 50 Summicron "Wetzlar" ƒ2.0

 

One shot taken at a 'test drive' with an M9 10th of September.

I like the results, very. My feeling is that somehow this sensor is more gentle than the one of the M8.2, contrast wise. Or maybe it delivers better the kindness of the Wetzlar.

Onother shot taken with the 35 Summilux Asph is a bit harsher in tonal separation, as expected with an asph lens, but non as much as the M8.2 would do.

My personal feeling, with an half hour testing.

More serious testing in the future I hope.

Edited September 14, 2009 by piero

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[piero]

this one is taken with the 35 'Lux Asph ƒ1.4, not my lens, focus was on the metal cap of the vinegar bottle.

 

Edited September 14, 2009 by piero