Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
specpro

M9 and M7 sample image comparisons

Recommended Posts

There are so many different steps between leaving the two cameras and hitting the printed page I would find it hard to know what such a comparison means....

 

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't see any point in that comparison.

Conclusion;

Film is not digital.

Digital is not film.

 

Oh look, the sentences are exactly the same length!

Edited by bayerische
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah totally agree with you. The comparison is just my interpretation of what the article is about. Would be good to have someone translate the captions to see what the article is actually getting at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you just post that on your blog within copyright?

 

I guess it falls within fair use since only an extract is reproduced and sources are clearly mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can get away with that sort of excerpt under fair use. It's comment/criticism. Though you could certainly find two copyright lawyers to genuinely argue either side of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well copyright discussions aside....

Well, that is one of the problems - it is easier to get focus on a medium that stays in one place:p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest mc_k

re the comment below the pictures, I think the M9 picture is slightly overexposed, not the other way around. Face and jacket are a little blocked.

Edited by mckeough_k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Realistically, I doubt anyone could have picked which was film and which was digital if we didn't have the hints of the little cameras beside each picture. At least at this size.

 

Bokeh blurs in the trees at top make me think different lenses or different apertures were used for each shot, which skews the results, anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree and what you are saying is actually good news for anybody using film M's and keen to go digital.

 

Regards

Steve

 

Realistically, I doubt anyone could have picked which was film and which was digital if we didn't have the hints of the little cameras beside each picture. At least at this size.

 

Bokeh blurs in the trees at top make me think different lenses or different apertures were used for each shot, which skews the results, anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Realistically, I doubt anyone could have picked which was film and which was digital if we didn't have the hints of the little cameras beside each picture. At least at this size.

 

Bokeh blurs in the trees at top make me think different lenses or different apertures were used for each shot, which skews the results, anyway.

 

Come on Andy - there are plenty of ways you could see which was which, including dynamic range, the out-of-focus characteristics, abrupt highlight transition of digital etc etc.

The identical lens and settings are listed to the right of the images: Summilux50 1,4ASPH; both images shot at f1,4.

 

I think the interesting thing isn't which is better or worse (that discussion would be endless), but rather how different they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spec,

Can you post the 2 original pictures here ?

Thanks

Henry

 

I'm sure Henry appreciates, after a moment's thought, that this exemplifies what I was alluding to above. "Original pictures" means which ones, at what stage and when? The film image in the magazine (which has been developed and printed, then scanned and, presumably, adjusted in an image editor somewhere, or simply scanned at the negative stage, adjusted in an image editor and then exported for pre-press - will have to be scanned again for the 'original' to appear here, after further processing into a suitably small jpeg with the right colour gamut for web browsers. You all know just how many steps the poor old digital image has been through (was it a DNG or a JPEG when it came out of the camera, and into which raw processor or image editor did it arrive? How was it tweaked? To get to the magazine was it printed and scanned or exported as a JPEG, and if so how? Once in the magazine it will need scanning again for the 'original' to appear in this thread and ...... you know the rest! Much as I want to know the answer to how an M7 and an M9 compare, there is no sensible comparison to be made this way. Presumably the jaded editors of the magazine responsible for this mess know all this and decided their readers wouldn't know the difference.

 

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...