Mauribix Posted December 2, 2009 Share #41 Posted December 2, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) According simply to dpreview, M8 and M9 share the same resolution ratio: 2.1 MP/cm² density. I own both, and in my experience focussing with the M8 and the nocti is a bit easier (forgiving) than with the M9, probably because of the larger relative DOF. Anyway, I still feel that FF lenses on cropped sensors (M8) still behave and feel as they are on FF sensors. In my feeling, pass me please the statement, using the 35 on an M8, is not as using a 50 on an M9. I feel as if I'm really still using a 35, simply just cropped on the M8. The FOV is equivalent, but my feeling is different. As a matter of fact, the 35mm lens was my favorite with the M8, but still it is on the M9! weird... I'd like to know if someone else agree with this feeling. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 2, 2009 Posted December 2, 2009 Hi Mauribix, Take a look here Noctilux on M8 looks sharper than on M9. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
ho_co Posted December 2, 2009 Share #42 Posted December 2, 2009 ... It shook my beliefs too, because I originally thought that using the same lens on either a FF or cropped sensor DOF wouldn't change... Bruno, you're not alone in being surprised at the discovery. Even Leica erred on p 87 of the M8 manual, where they say: This [crop factor] has the respective effects on their perspective, but not on their depth of field, which, with the LEICA M8, can also be read directly off the lens... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 2, 2009 Share #43 Posted December 2, 2009 Bruno, you're not alone in being surprised at the discovery. Even Leica erred on p 87 of the M8 manual, where they say:This [crop factor] has the respective effects on their perspective, but not on their depth of field, which, with the LEICA M8, can also be read directly off the lens... Two mistakes in the same sentence. Quite funny indeed. Well seen, Howard. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wparsonsgisnet Posted December 2, 2009 Share #44 Posted December 2, 2009 Posting unadjusted pix in the other thread, now. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/106551-m9-vs-m8-pix-redux-2.html#post1141517 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted December 3, 2009 Share #45 Posted December 3, 2009 I think Bo is right. All the OP shows is that at wide open apertures like F1 small adjustments in the RF or lens mount will make a huge difference. You haven't made two shots with the same light here (not you Bill)... but even if you did it wouldn't rule out a simple adjustment difference between the Nocti on your M8 and the Nocti on your M9. I don't see any evidence of a systemic sharpness difference... sorry. And FWIW, I think that for a given FOV with the same lens, the M9 will have more resolution to print but "less dof" than the M8 (because you need to move back from the subject with the M8 to get the same FOV). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wparsonsgisnet Posted December 3, 2009 Share #46 Posted December 3, 2009 I agree with Jamie, who doesn't disagree with me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted December 3, 2009 Share #47 Posted December 3, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) The FOV is equivalent, but my feeling is different.As a matter of fact, the 35mm lens was my favorite with the M8, but still it is on the M9! weird... I'd like to know if someone else agree with this feeling. Not weird. Pretty much the same for me. I thought I would switch more to the 50 on the M9 but I still use the 35 most of the time. Like you, I never really felt the 35 on the M8 ever felt like a 50. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
!Nomad64 Posted December 3, 2009 Share #48 Posted December 3, 2009 Bruno, you're not alone in being surprised at the discovery. Even Leica erred on p 87 of the M8 manual, where they say: @ Howard: LOL! @ Juha: I finally re-found the article I mentioned before. it's here: Luminous landscape Quite a long reading, but worth the effort imho. Cheers, Bruno Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.