User experience with my new M9

[Overgaard]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Congratulations!

 

On the buffer, the interesting part is how fast after the first 7-8 shots has filled the buffer, it's ready to shoot again.

[Jeff S]

Jeff, I am using a separate Epson 1400 for b/w, with the K7 ink set from Cone (InkJetMall). This works very well for me. Cone uses the Quad RIP under his ink set. Highly recommended.

 

Yes, thanks. I think you were kind enough to give me this recommendation when I first made the digital transition earlier this year. I've kept it in mind.

 

A good friend of mine (coincidentally someone I met at the '92 Picker workshop) also has a separate printer with Cone inks, and he is much better versed than I on all technical matters. He's helping me upgrade my gear in increments...once he's sure that I've "mastered" the basics. Cone inks could be in the future, but for now, I'm using the 3800, to which he's going to help install the RIP using the Epson inks.

 

One other possibility is the ColorByte ImagePrint RIP...George DeWolfe recommends this as his top driver for bw work, having also used the Cone/Quad approach. I'll have to get my photo bud to experiment with this one, too...saves me a lot of time and money!

 

Jeff

[wparsonsgisnet]

Yes, thanks. I think you were kind enough to give me this recommendation when I first made the digital transition earlier this year. I've kept it in mind.

 

A good friend of mine (coincidentally someone I met at the '92 Picker workshop) also has a separate printer with Cone inks, and he is much better versed than I on all technical matters. He's helping me upgrade my gear in increments...once he's sure that I've "mastered" the basics. Cone inks could be in the future, but for now, I'm using the 3800, to which he's going to help install the RIP using the Epson inks.

 

One other possibility is the ColorByte ImagePrint RIP...George DeWolfe recommends this as his top driver for bw work, having also used the Cone/Quad approach. I'll have to get my photo bud to experiment with this one, too...saves me a lot of time and money!

 

Jeff

 

Jeff, I use IP on my 2400 for color work. I'll look forward to hearing what you decide to do.

[Jeff S]

Jeff, I use IP on my 2400 for color work. I'll look forward to hearing what you decide to do.

 

Interesting...guess you feel the Cone system gives better bw results than the IP?

 

Sorry to take this off topic. I think I'll lay low after this post and let you enjoy your M9 discussion!

 

Jeff

[arnold kaufman]

Arnold, my error. The number is about 215 with no compression.

 

Bill

Interesting my M-9 shows 290 images in thw DNG & JPG fine mode.

Thank you for your reply.

Arnold

[delander †]

Interesting...guess you feel the Cone system gives better bw results than the IP?

 

Sorry to take this off topic. I think I'll lay low after this post and let you enjoy your M9 discussion!

 

Jeff

 

Jeff have you looked here: Epson Stylus Pro 3800 Printer Notes and Resources

 

for B&W prints using the Epson 3800 with Epson inks. Sorry to take the thread further OT

 

Jeff

[wparsonsgisnet]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Interesting...guess you feel the Cone system gives better bw results than the IP?

 

Sorry to take this off topic. I think I'll lay low after this post and let you enjoy your M9 discussion!

 

Jeff

 

Jeff, it's a great hijak. I don't have the 3800, which is reported to do good b/w, so I opted for a separate printer when Jon Cone sent an email last summer about the 1400 and his special ink set.

 

I use Hahnemuhle matte rag in the thick version. With Cone's K7 inks I get a print that is rated for a 200-year life. That's what I was aiming for.

 

The inks from Epson are only rated "archival" by Wilhelm and others because they claim that a fade factor of ONLY 30% is not noticeable to a viewer.

 

So, Epson's archival is defined diferently than what I get (only in BW) with Cone's 100% carbon black pigment ink. For b/w I was going for archival. My view is that we can't get there with color -- but we have never been able to do so. Archival and Color occupy different universes.

[D&A]

Hi Bill,

 

First congradulations on the new M9. I too shoot a considerable amount of professional performing arts with both Leica and Nikon, and do miss Boston having lived there for a number of years.

 

When I first looked at the M8 and M9 images you posted for comparison, I was a bit perplexed. Putting aside differences in noise, detail etc., upon first gaze I assumed available lighting of images taken with M8 and M9 respectively was completely different...not just white balance, but amount/direction quality/quantity of lighting was quite different. I assume your post-processing concentrated on the dances themselves and the resulting images reflected that, but if as you mentioned, the lighting for the dancers for both cameras was fairly similar, its hard to images such striking differences in stage lighting and exposure unless I'm overlooking something?

 

Thanks for any additional info you can provide.

 

Dave (D&A)

[Jeff S]

Jeff, it's a great hijak. I don't have the 3800, which is reported to do good b/w, so I opted for a separate printer when Jon Cone sent an email last summer about the 1400 and his special ink set.

 

I use Hahnemuhle matte rag in the thick version. With Cone's K7 inks I get a print that is rated for a 200-year life. That's what I was aiming for.

 

The inks from Epson are only rated "archival" by Wilhelm and others because they claim that a fade factor of ONLY 30% is not noticeable to a viewer.

 

So, Epson's archival is defined diferently than what I get (only in BW) with Cone's 100% carbon black pigment ink. For b/w I was going for archival. My view is that we can't get there with color -- but we have never been able to do so. Archival and Color occupy different universes.

 

Hijack continued...Thanks, I also use Hahnemuhle Photo Rag (Pearl 320 or Baryta) for bw work...Ilford Gold Fibre Silk for color.

 

My bud is very attuned to the archival properties of his work, citing Wilhelm for the prints he sells. I think his latest process uses the Canon IPFS 100 with Lucia ink system...12 shades of color/bw. For bw specifically, he uses the RIP for better tonality, but also for permanence. He cites 300 years according to Wilhelm.

 

I think one of the reasons he recommends the Quad RIP for my 3800 is that it causes the printer to use only bw inks for bw work...for better permanence (otherwise, even though bw printing, the printer uses some color inks). I'll ask about your points now that you raise the differences between color/bw.

 

Jeff

[wparsonsgisnet]

... its hard to images such striking differences in stage lighting and exposure unless I'm overlooking something? ... Dave (D&A)

 

Dave, There may be more lighting for the second set of shots, but I think it is a function of the light-gathering ability of the M9. This performance included outside rear light, and it was a little more cloudy for the second set of pix (the shots are a week apart), so the lighting person added a little more of the stage lighting.

 

That said, the reason I chose these two pairs of pix is that the dancers were positioned at the rear of the stage, where there was very little stage light.

 

So, as best as I can show it, the M9 has more ability to gather light (the sensor is 1/3 larger). Note that the ISO was higher for the M9 pix than for the M8 pix, and the M9 pix show less noise to my eye. Since I was on AutoIso, the cameras chose the iso settings on both days.

 

Because the M9 saw less light and used a higher iso than the M8 did the previous week, I believe the overall light levels were actually lower for the M9 pix. I agree that the M9 pix look better lighted -- due to all the stuff I have just (endlessly, sorry) gone thru, I think the M9 sees more light.

 

I will post a couple of keepers later. These pix are not Adams-ready.

 

And, maybe it's not a hijak. It's about the M9, after all.

 

I have a couple of pix from the M8 series that I want to print and so will show here. I also have some M9 fav's and will post them. In this case, I'm gonna process the pix so that they show some IQ.

 

Regards,

[plasticman]

Dave, There may be more lighting for the second set of shots, but I think it is a function of the light-gathering ability of the M9. This performance included outside rear light, and it was a little more cloudy for the second set of pix (the shots are a week apart), so the lighting person added a little more of the stage lighting...

So, as best as I can show it, the M9 has more ability to gather light (the sensor is 1/3 larger). Note that the ISO was higher for the M9 pix than for the M8 pix, and the M9 pix show less noise to my eye. Since I was on AutoIso, the cameras chose the iso settings on both days...Because the M9 saw less light and used a higher iso than the M8 did the previous week, I believe the overall light levels were actually lower for the M9 pix. I agree that the M9 pix look better lighted -- due to all the stuff I have just (endlessly, sorry) gone thru, I think the M9 sees more light.

 

There is considerably more stage light in the M9 pictures, there are even clearly defined shadows in those images, and although hard to say in these online versions, the highlights look completely burned-out. The light is completely different in the M8 images, and I'd have to say that lower ISO or not, those seem to me to be much more pleasing, and have much better detail-retention, also. (The M8 prefers less contrasty light anyway).

 

Still, you are happier with the M9 and that's the important thing!

[D&A]

Hi Bill,

 

Appreciate the response. Even considering all exposure factors and differences between the two cameras, my opinion is the lighting for those two sets of images were significantly different on those two days, although to the naked eye, they appeared more similar. Therefore the striking differences in lighitng and subsequent dramatic differences seen in your files between the two cameras images that you posted was more due to the differences in actual lighting those days than the two cameras (aside from of the differences one expects to see between the M8 and M9).

 

My belief is if you took both cameras, and took shots in a dimly lit room or dimly lit stage at around the same time and same day with consistant lighting (under same lighting conditions) I personaly don't beleive you would come up with the dramatic differences in lighting your two shots illustrated, regardless of ISO/noise etc. If you have a chance, retake a low light shot with both cameras at around the same time/same scene, framing the two as closly similar as possible. Not a controlled test, but the differences then seen will be more attributable to the differences between the cameras.

 

Although I realized it didn't happen, it's as those the dances in the M9 shots were spot lit for the most part, whereas in the M8 shots, considerable ambiant light was added into the "mix" . It's these sort of differences I am refering to. Thanks again!

 

Dave (D&A)

[wparsonsgisnet]

... The light is completely different in the M8 images, and I'd have to say that lower ISO or not, those seem to me to be much more pleasing, and have much better detail-retention, also. (The M8 prefers less contrasty light anyway)....

 

I guess these pix are not as comparable as I thought they might be.

 

As mentioned above, I'll post some of each set, fixed up the way I want them.

[wparsonsgisnet]

...

 

My belief is if you took both cameras, and took shots in a dimly lit room or dimly lit stage at around the same time and same day with consistant lighting (under same lighting conditions) ... Dave

 

Dave, I will have a chance to do exactly that. I'll be shooting in this same space on Nov 19th. I'll try to get some comparison pix.

 

Thanks for the logical suggestion.

[D&A]

Hi Bill,

 

I'll look forward to future comparitive shots. My belief is that what the camera sensors saw (M8 vs. M9) was quite different. Whether it was the particular lighting on each day of shooting or a slight difference in angle of view of each camera which caused one sensor to read the lighting conditions differently than the other, the resulting images showed something more (and dfifferent) than the comparitive performance of the M8 vs. the M9. I think as you continue to use both cameras in identical shooting situations, the strenghts and weeknesses of each body will be evident.

 

Dave (D&A)

[wparsonsgisnet]

Also very happy to hear you're enjoying the new M9! If you dont mind me asking ,where did you get yours from? Im from the south shore, Stoughton, & ordered mine from Hunt's in Melrose, a month ago & still waiting, Suppose to be in the end of Oct. Thank you & looking forward to your images!

 

Steve, I got mine in Boston, but I don't think any store stocks them. The sales guys are just order takers. Hang in there.

 

I nagged the Leica guys when I was in NY at the 9-9-9 Big Event, about the way the dribble their product out. But maybe we're lucky that there is a company that makes this kind of product that makes enough for everyone. Imagine if we were waiting for a Rolls Royce. What's the wait? Two years?

[wparsonsgisnet]

Hi Bill,

 

I'll look forward to future comparitive shots. My belief is that what the camera sensors saw (M8 vs. M9) was quite different. Whether it was the particular lighting on each day of shooting or a slight difference in angle of view of each camera which caused one sensor to read the lighting conditions differently than the other, the resulting images showed something more (and dfifferent) than the comparitive performance of the M8 vs. the M9. I think as you continue to use both cameras in identical shooting situations, the strenghts and weeknesses of each body will be evident.

 

Dave (D&A)

 

Dave, I'll post after Thursday, 11/19, with shots taken in sequence, using both cameras. For this purpose, I'll put the 35 'lux-a on the M8 and the 50 'lux-a on the M9. I'll continue to use AutoISO, tho, to see what the two instruments do.

[wparsonsgisnet]

Incidentally, I don't baby this thing, but there are little bits of paint chipped of the top plate (leaving little magnesium spots in the black).

 

I believe someone else posted about this regarding an M8.x.

 

Now, I know it's mine.

 

Have I said how much I like this thing?