t024484 Posted October 17, 2009 Share #141 Posted October 17, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) It really makes no sense to compare DR with JPEGs. The applied tone curve & white balance have a huge impact on DR. A raw file "developed" with neutral uniWB and linear response will usually have a much higher DR than a version for normal viewing. Plus the point of clipping can be moved up at the expense of color accuracy and/or tonality. With the M9, that is - the M8 gave that up through its raw compression. This is is Greek to me, maybe you can translate it. Hans Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 17, 2009 Posted October 17, 2009 Hi t024484, Take a look here Erwin Puts: The Leica M9: part 5: M8/9 noise and dynamic range. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Angelos Viskadourakis Posted October 17, 2009 Share #142 Posted October 17, 2009 t024484(Hans) tgray mjh (Michael J.Hubman) i need to thank you for your excellent contribution in that thread ,your input was highly enlightening and help me and others-i hope- to understand deeper some tech aspects that affect the creative work of a photographer,hope you will continue to contribute with your deep knowledge and will to help us demistify the secrets of digital imaging. i deeply hope that you will support the M8 manufacturer corrections effort-at a cost-as i believe is a productive attitude and the feedback to LEICA benefits the evolution of trading strategy and tech content of the camera system that we all here like so much.;)I insist on that because i believe M8 story is not like one model and just a next one came,i believe that M8 is a center that the M system is evolving around it and the M8 photographers contribute the highest in the survival of the system.M8 is an excellent tool and need some minor improvements to become close to perfect, those who needs bigger files they can go on with the upcoming M models but M8 is quite adequate for most publishing and art and documentation and personal photography and is too early to be abandoned. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicaiste Posted October 17, 2009 Share #143 Posted October 17, 2009 I don't want 24x36 the so called FF(????? FF of what ,of the film format???snip Personally i see M9 as an intermediate step that i don't need to participate as the benefits are very minor and i like to wait for the actual M SYSTEM STEP when it comes,or i can participate with some serious incentives from LEICA just to support the company as i consider M9 not a major step but more of a sales trick that works and good for all,but at the same time i can create profits to the company paying the cost of the M8 corrections. i believe M8 story is not like one model and just a next one came,i believe that M8 is a center that the M system is evolving around it and the M8 photographers contribute the highest in the survival of the system M8 is an excellent tool and need some minor improvements to become close to perfect,those who needs bigger files they can go on with the upcoming M models but M8 is quite adequate for most publishing and art and documentation and personal photography and is too early to be abandoned. IMO, it is exactly the reverse. I had to bought the M8 because it was the only solution for my Leica M lenses, and I liked it, but what I was waiting for was the M9. And I don't understand how you can believe that the "M8 is a center that the M system is evolving around it and the M8 photographers contribute the highest in the survival of the system M8 is an excellent tool and need some minor improvements to become close to perfect," The center of the Leica M system was the 35 mm format and now is the so called FF. The lenses were and still are designed to cover it and their sizes are dependent of it. The camera body was designed around it. If the M8 sensor format was the center of that system, the new lenses would be smaller and the handling of the camera different. The Leica M system is like it is because of 35 mm format. What is the point to defend a format that as an example force you to pay 5.000 Euros for a 24/1,4 which is like a 32 mm but with more DOF. For half of that with the M9, you can have a much smaller 35/1,4 with less DOF and which block much less the finder. And why is it like that ? Because the M8 sensor was not what the M system was designed for. Another proof of that is that Leica never produced one single lens for the M8 format only. All of the 11 new lenses made since the M8 release were designed to cover also FF. All of them! Even the finder of the WATE can be used with the FF. For Leica the goal was perfectly clear since before the release of the M8. A Full Frame M camera ASAP. And I don't think that the "M8 photographers contribute the highest in the survival of the system". It will be the M9 buyers and new lenses buyers who will do that. Not the nostalgics of a sensor format that lived for 3 years, an accident in the 54 years of the M history. Lucien Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angelos Viskadourakis Posted October 17, 2009 Share #144 Posted October 17, 2009 IMO, it is exactly the reverse. It will be the M9 buyers and new lenses buyers who will do that. Not the nostalgics of a sensor format that lived for 3 years, an accident in the 54 years of the M history. Lucien Good luck.We get what we deserve.. I dont want 24x36 the so called FF(????? FF of what ,of the film format??? i use lenses of various formats in various other formats many years now with great success ) for the M8 what i think should be done is : A//ergonomics correction with the button functions similar to those in M9 B//to assign protect for iso use and make faster the EV changes C//to make uncompressed RAW available-supposly it was but we discover the compression after we bought the body(LEICA was saying 14 bits and then try to rephrase) D//improvement in the noise level -even minor.Alternate solution is to present faster lenses at normal LEICA prices not ballon inflated styleJUST FOR THE M8 PHOTOGRAPHERS. E//lens recognition system similar to M9. All those SHOULD BE IN M8 AT LEAST ONE YEAR EARLIER as a correction of MISTAKES of the manufacturer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pnoble Posted October 17, 2009 Author Share #145 Posted October 17, 2009 You are surely 100% right, Lucien. It in no way negates the value of the M8 as a fine camera but it surely only came about due to the very urgent need for Leica to get a digital M to market balanced against the unavailability of a suitable FF sensor. I imagine that the success of the M8 enabled Leica to make the necessary commitments to Kodak and gave Kodak the time necessary for them to develop the custom offset micro-lens layer that makes a FF M camera possible. There is nothing magical (only historical!) about 24mm x 36mm but the entire range of M optics, not to mention the M body were, from 1925 until today, designed around it. 35mm film was first created by William Dickson in Thomas Edison's lab in 1892 by splitting in half 70mm film provided George Eastman and adding perforations. By 1913 there were two 35mm still cameras on the market: the stereo Homeos and the American Tourist Multiple. In the same year Oscar Barrack created his first prototype 35mm camera for Leica, though a production model was not introduced until 12 years later. The Lumiere brothers shot and projected the first ever movie in 1895, using 35mm film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angelos Viskadourakis Posted October 17, 2009 Share #146 Posted October 17, 2009 IMO, it is exactly the reverse. a sensor format that lived for 3 years, an accident in the 54 years of the M history. Lucien Dearest Lucien even if someone accepts that you are right dont you think that when we create an accident we have to accept the liability and pay for the damages we cause????????????????????????????? How would you react if someone damage your vehicle and instead of paying the damages ask you to buy a new car. if what will make your photography of a higher content is the 24x36 sensor is ok to get an M9 but the thread is about a comparison in noise levels between 3 cameras and the jugment of the improvement or not improvement in that field between the two models.Also i like 24x36 but also like bigger and smaller formats,depends on the job and the mood. As you said the M8 is the platform that Kodak and others involved study to see how they can do things better-some day and that day is not here yet-,exactly that is the point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicaiste Posted October 17, 2009 Share #147 Posted October 17, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I dont want 24x36 the so called FF(????? FF of what ,of the film format??? i use lenses of various formats in various other formats many years now with great success ) for the M8 what i think should be done is : A//ergonomics correction with the button functions similar to those in M9 B//to assign protect for iso use and make faster the EV changes C//to make uncompressed RAW available-supposly it was but we discover the compression after we bought the body(LEICA was saying 14 bits and then try to rephrase) D//improvement in the noise level -even minor.Alternate solution is to present faster lenses at normal LEICA prices not ballon inflated styleJUST FOR THE M8 PHOTOGRAPHERS. E//lens recognition system similar to M9. All those SHOULD BE IN M8 AT LEAST ONE YEAR EARLIER as a correction of MISTAKES of the manufacturer. A// ergonomics correction with the button functions similar to those in M9 Other than ISO / Delete, I don't see what you mean. B// to assign protect for iso use and make faster the EV changes Same as A// then. C// to make uncompressed RAW available-supposly it was but we discover the compression after we bought the body(LEICA was saying 14 bits and then try to rephrase) If you want to make the M8 even slower ... D// improvement in the noise level -even minor. Again, the improvement comes from the bigger sensor, not from the software as far as I can see. Alternate solution is to present faster lenses at normal LEICA prices not ballon inflated style JUST FOR THE M8 PHOTOGRAPHERS. Yes. Sure. E//lens recognition system similar to M9. It would be nice. All those SHOULD BE IN M8 AT LEAST ONE YEAR EARLIER as a correction of MISTAKES of the manufacturer. Sorry, but what you are asking are improvements, not correction of mistakes. My advise, if all this is really important for you, buy yourself an M9. Lucien Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest EarlBurrellPhoto Posted October 17, 2009 Share #148 Posted October 17, 2009 The M8 was a stopgap needed to keep Leica alive until full-frame technology arrived. However the M9 still suffers from higher IR sensitivity and worse noise performance than current offerings from Canikon. IMHO M9 completely solves only one of the M8's 3 major shortfalls (crop factor), partially solves the IR issue (but ought to have a setting in firmware to correct cyan drift when IR filters are still needed), and whilst there is a bit of improvement in noise, it still falls far short of the current state-of-art. Thus the M9 is another stopgap, albeit as the M8, needed to keep Leica alive. What Leica seems to bank quite successfully on is the willingness, even eagerness, of cash-rich brand-fans to keep accepting these incremental steps. Some say now that they have the full-frame M9 they're set indefinitely, however I'd bet the farm that once the next model arrives with a couple more stops of NR (and probably the resurrection of the sapphire glass and top display) they'll be salivating once more. Good on Leica for knowing their market. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicaiste Posted October 17, 2009 Share #149 Posted October 17, 2009 Dearest Lucien even if someone accepts that you are right dont you think that when we create an accident we have to accept the liability and pay for the damages we cause????????????????????????????? if what will make your photography of a higher content is the 24x36 sensor is ok to get an M9 but the thread is about a comparison in noise levels between 3 cameras and the jugment of the improvement or not improvement in that field between the two models.Also i like 24x36 but also like bigger and smaller formats,depends on the job and the mood. As you said the M8 is the platform that Kodak and others involve study to see how they can do things better-some day and that day is not here yet-,exactly that is the point. Dear Angelos, What damages ? The history of Digital cameras from Nikon, Canon, Kodak is full of failures and improvements. Their first DSLR are barely useable today. The M8 is fully useable like it is IMO. What is your problem with it ? Best, Lucien Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
graeme_hutton Posted October 17, 2009 Share #150 Posted October 17, 2009 Anyone fancy a pint? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted October 17, 2009 Share #151 Posted October 17, 2009 I'm already having one, in fact a half-liter, even better than a pint. The full extent of how much Leica apparently owes me is just beginning to hit me and I need to sit down. I love the M8 to death and have made so many great images with it to put my previous camera, a Canon 5D, to shame, but reading this thread, I realize that without a firmware update, it is absolutely useless and I need to start thinking about hiring a lawyer to get what I truly deserve. In fact, my beer is already empty and I am beginning to think of a Scotch. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
diogenis Posted October 17, 2009 Share #152 Posted October 17, 2009 Hey, I want $$$ too. I will try asking them 100000$ for starters.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgray Posted October 17, 2009 Share #153 Posted October 17, 2009 The M8 was a stopgap needed to keep Leica alive until full-frame technology arrived. However the M9 still suffers from higher IR sensitivity and worse noise performance than current offerings from Canikon. IMHO M9 completely solves only one of the M8's 3 major shortfalls (crop factor), partially solves the IR issue (but ought to have a setting in firmware to correct cyan drift when IR filters are still needed), and whilst there is a bit of improvement in noise, it still falls far short of the current state-of-art. Thus the M9 is another stopgap, albeit as the M8, needed to keep Leica alive. If you think about it, all digital cameras are a stopgap, needed to keep the makers alive. If Nikon never released another digital camera model, and just sold what is currently on the market, it would only be a matter of time before Canon and others surpassed them. But enough semantics. From what I've seen, the M9 solves the IR issue reasonably well enough that it's not a problem any more. All digital cameras are a bit IR sensitive, the magnitude varying by the model. If the M8 was released with the M9's IR sensitivity, or lack thereof, I don't think we'd even be having this conversation with respect to IR - the M9 would just be another camera in the pool. As to offering IR filter correction on the M9, I thought the filters affected the image bad enough on FF frame that good correction was not possible. As far as state of the art, well, it is true that it doesn't have the noise characteristics of the current SLRs out there. On the flip side, it IS the state of the art when it comes to RF cameras. While I'm sure Nikon/Sony/Canon could offer a chip+electronics to Leica if they wanted, at this point in time, that's not happening. And there are other obstacles that need to be overcome for a FF RF as we all know, so it's not like Sony could just offer up a current chip to use in an M right now; more R&D would be needed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angelos Viskadourakis Posted October 17, 2009 Share #154 Posted October 17, 2009 Hey, I want $$$ too.I will try asking them 100000$ for starters.... i'm having a Gin and RESTING MY CASE,really joyfull talk dearest Leica lovers,this forum is quite usefull and real fun. . http://www.flickr.com/photos/viskadourakis/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
diogenis Posted October 17, 2009 Share #155 Posted October 17, 2009 i'm having a Gin and resting my case,really joyfull talk dearest Leica lovers,this forum is quite usefull and real fun.. Flickr: Angelos Viskadourakis' Photostream Agreed. But you guys need to realize that Leica is not a charity. It's a company operating in a very harsh environ, competing the Japanese - the only one that does that from Europe in the FF format afaik. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angelos Viskadourakis Posted October 17, 2009 Share #156 Posted October 17, 2009 Agreed. But you guys need to realize that Leica is not a charity. It's a company operating in a very harsh environ, competing the Japanese - the only one that does that from Europe in the FF format afaik. i can tell you a lot on that-the world(BUSINESS) is not charity or fraud there are million gradations in between- but as i said i rest my case-in this thread. PS;LEICA is not competing the Japanese YET is competing only itself for THE MOMENT.The RF "market"??? is a league of its own. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest EarlBurrellPhoto Posted October 17, 2009 Share #157 Posted October 17, 2009 From what I've seen, the M9 solves the IR issue reasonably well enough that it's not a problem any more. "Reasonably well enough" is of course a subjective, and therefore impossible to disagree with. I would simply say that for me and several others whom I've spoken with, it is not enough to satisfy the demands of our work. If the M8 was released with the M9's IR sensitivity, or lack thereof, I don't think we'd even be having this conversation with respect to IR - the M9 would just be another camera in the pool. Perhaps not, unless they were compared side-by-side with the last 2 generations of Canon files. I can't speak for Nikon. As to offering IR filter correction on the M9, I thought the filters affected the image bad enough on FF frame that good correction was not possible. That's out of my area of knowledge. However as of PMA last March, according to Leica's management a full-frame M9 was also "not possible". I believe that if Leica feels compelled, they can and will develop algorithms to take care of the issue. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgray Posted October 17, 2009 Share #158 Posted October 17, 2009 "Reasonably well enough" is of course a subjective, and therefore impossible to disagree with. I would simply say that for me and several others whom I've spoken with, it is not enough to satisfy the demands of our work. Perhaps not, unless they were compared side-by-side with the last 2 generations of Canon files. I can't speak for Nikon. That's out of my area of knowledge. However as of PMA last March, according to Leica's management a full-frame M9 was also "not possible". I believe that if Leica feels compelled, they can and will develop algorithms to take care of the issue. I guess I was saying the M9 is in the normal variance of other digital cameras on the market that are not considered to have IR problems. I could be wrong - it could be more sensitive than others. I thought I read a comment by one of the Leica staff saying that the IR filters affect even more of the image since the chip is no longer a crop chip. Also, they affect more lenses than just than 35 or wider - it sets in at 75 of 50 mm. Something along the lines that correction wasn't possible for 28mm and wider. I read it here... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted October 17, 2009 Share #159 Posted October 17, 2009 Leica made a statement that the M9 is better than 2/3 of the cameras on the market (I presume DSLRs). I guess they would have made it the very best if they could, but the proximity of the rear lens element to the sensor does complicate matters. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcoombs Posted October 17, 2009 Share #160 Posted October 17, 2009 snipped...dont you think that when we create an accident we have to accept the liability and pay for the damages we cause????????????????????????????? How would you react if someone damage your vehicle and instead of paying the damages ask you to buy a new car... Interesting thread, especially the technical side of it. I can't let this comment go by unresponded to, though. This comment has absolutely no correlation with the introduction and sale of the M8. There were no false promises and no forced purchase. I bought my M8 three years ago knowing full well that it was not full frame, and have used it to take thousands of shots since, just like most of you. The fact that an improved version has been released has not diminished the camera's utility to me in the least. Would I like a FF DRF? Sure. But that doesn't mean I was misled into buying an M8. Nor does it mean that the M8 is less of a machine than it was two months ago. I expect to continue using it until it wears out (just like I do with my cars). Doug Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.