chrism Posted December 3, 2009 Share #41 Posted December 3, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thank god I never took up sailing... If sailing is defined as a disease which is akin to standing under a cold shower tearing up large denomination banknotes, then the complication of "two-foot-itis" can be fatal. In this regard I'm like a sober alcoholic; I'll be fine as long as I don't buy another boat. Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 3, 2009 Posted December 3, 2009 Hi chrism, Take a look here Is It Good Enough?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
logaandm Posted December 3, 2009 Share #42 Posted December 3, 2009 I do plan to stick with my 5D MkII bodies for a long time--for my DSLR system. But my question was whether the M9 is a camera I can also stick with for a long time--for my digital rangefinder system. In other words, is the M9 at the same point as a digital rangefinder that the 5D MkII is at as a DSLR? I have to use both systems, not one or the other, for my work. Believe me, I'd love nothing better than to be able to dump everything except my Leicas. I recently was lucky enough to get the M9. I am NOT a long time Leica user but I am a long time Canon user and I also have the 5D Mark II. I am also of the opinion that the 5D Mark II is probably "good enough" for 10-15 years. Most improvements in image quality the last few years have been almost exclusivly due to software rather than hardware. My old 5D images processed from RAW with the latest versions of DPP show substantially better image quality than the camera JPG. My opinion, as a long time Canon user, a new Leica user and a confirmed pixel peeper (so yes I have compomared the two) is: In terms of image quality when processed from RAW the M9 and 5D Mark II produce very similar images up to 1250 ISO. At 2500 ISO the M9 lags behind, but with careful processing and depending on subject matter and colour vs. BW, I find can be good enough. While the 5D Mark II is better at ISO 3200 than the M9 at ISO2500, in my opinion (with RAW processed files) the differences are not large. I have no problems shooting all day at ISO 800 with the M9 and similarly I have no problems shooting all day with ISO 1250 with the 5D Mark II. Withe faster ISO's I get a little nervous. So for image quality it it my view the M9 is good enough. (I have only used 25mm and longer) As far as camera features are concerned, it is a different issue. - Auto white balance is not as good as Canon but is fooled in different situations - Colours from the Camera are not as good as canon, but PS Camera RAW is quite good. - occasional Moire - Wide angle colour shifts. This will likely be improved by technology. - Auto exposure metering is very poor compared to Canon. Actually I would say it sucks. I am pretty sure it is little changed from the M8. - Live view has turned out to be quite useful with the Canon on a tripod. It would be even more useful with the Leica. I intially thought live view as a gimick. For a range finder it would make panoramics, landscapes, and long lenses much easier. - I am not a video guy, but when I do video with the Canon it is spectacular. - I can see a number of software/usability changes, such as better control over ISO, exposure locking. I am sure users will come up with a long list. In the same way the M3 is just as good for taking film stills compared to the M7, the M9 will be nearly as good (in my opinion) as the M10+. FWIW it is also my professional opinion as a physicist that there will be no significant improvements in sensors which will improve noise more than 1 stop. All improvements are in signal processing. We are already counting more than 1/2 the photons and an improvement of 1 stop is doubling the counting, which is clearly impossible. So shoot RAW and use the latest software. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spersky Posted December 3, 2009 Share #43 Posted December 3, 2009 I use two camera systems for my work--Leica M whenever possible and Canons for any work not suited to rangefinders. My current Canon DSLRs are the 5D MkII and they are impressive. High ISO is outstanding, lower ISO is stunning. I've made prints up to 30" from the 5D files and can find no fault with them. After going through the DSLR upgrade rat race numerous times, I am finally at a point where I can honestly say if I had to use the 5D MkII for the next 10 or 15 years, that would be fine and I'd very likely still be happy with it. I want to be able to feel that way about my next digital M. If the M9 isn't quite there, I'll wait for the M10, or the M11. I just am no longer willing to dump thousands of dollars of my annual profits into digital upgrades every year or two. So, here's my question to those of you who have used the M9 for a couple of months now: Do you feel the camera is good enough right now that you would likely still be happy with it in 10 or 15 years? Is it the digital equivalant of the MP? Yes, If your main objective is to make great photographs with 30" prints, then the M9 will be all you ever need for your rangefinder photography. Other bells and whistles, which will come with technological advance mean nothing to the final output image quality. The M9 delivers in that respect so the answer is yes. It should be all you ever need for a manual rangefinder digital camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted December 4, 2009 Author Share #44 Posted December 4, 2009 There have been a lot of thoughtful answers, opinions and insights given in response to my question and I appreciate them very much. I had been questioning the wisdom of getting a couple of M9s if I was just going to have to dump them in a couple of years for the "pefect" M10, but I have pretty much decided at this point to leave my name in the que for an M9 and probably keep an M8 for backup. Then I'll live in fear of an announcement from Leica on 10/10/2010. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guido Posted December 4, 2009 Share #45 Posted December 4, 2009 My opinion, as a long time Canon user, a new Leica user and a confirmed pixel peeper (so yes I have compomared the two) is: Out of interest, may I ask which lenses you are using on your 5D Mk2? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdgerston Posted December 4, 2009 Share #46 Posted December 4, 2009 For the OP, "The Onion" has this timely article: New Device Desirable, Old Device Undesirable | The Onion - America's Finest News Source Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Printmaker Posted December 4, 2009 Share #47 Posted December 4, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) If sailing is defined as a disease which is akin to standing under a cold shower tearing up large denomination banknotes, then the complication of "two-foot-itis" can be fatal. In this regard I'm like a sober alcoholic; I'll be fine as long as I don't buy another boat. Chris That depends on what kind of sailing you do. My first big boat was a 60 year old gaff ketch that I paid less than the price of a new Honda or Toyota car. I lived aboard while sailing that boat around the Pacific. All told my average expense was around $400 per month over 8 years. When I was done, I sold the boat for almost what I originally paid. Im currently restoring a classic 1969 yawl that I paid about the price of a 3 series BMW. When I'm done the restoration, I'll have about the price of a 5 series into it. I'm planning a 10 year sail next while renting my house out. If history repeats itself, I'll be banking those large denomination notes. Of course I'll have a leica or two onboard. Tom Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted December 4, 2009 Share #48 Posted December 4, 2009 {snipped} Then I'll live in fear of an announcement from Leica on 10/10/2010. Don't worry Brent; the 10/10/10 announcement has to be the R10 Or equivalent (hey, I can hope, right?). So much to respond to in this thread, but instead let's look at this a different way. I look forward to printing from my DMR in 2020 on whatever Durst will create as a photo printer. Why? Because perhaps by then they'll be able to actually match the colour gamut the camera is capable of producing : ) The M8 produces files that are better than the output mechanisms as well. Given these two cameras will still work 10 years from now, their output will be, if anything, better than it is today just due to RAW processor improvements and printing improvements. How's that for ROI? I strongly suspect the M9 has a different sensor and processing hardware / software than the M8. People who jump to the conclusion that they're "the same" because the pixel density is the same are about as right as they are when they say Canon flagship dSLRs are "cropped." Oh, and btw, I fully believe that the M9 is not a work in process, but as a computer system it is still not optimized. It will be. Does that mean an M10 won't have advantages? Nope... but of course having an M10 will not affect the quality of the M9 images. So given neither the M8 or DMR produce images that are "out of date" within their ISO range, and that the M9 has at least a stop on the M8 and probably two on the DMR, then I think it's a pretty great investment if you prefer, as I do, shooting with a RF. If I could afford it, I'd buy two and ditch all my other cameras (except for the DMR ) Heck, if I could afford it, I'd get an S2 as well! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted December 4, 2009 Author Share #49 Posted December 4, 2009 For the OP, "The Onion" has this timely article:New Device Desirable, Old Device Undesirable | The Onion - America's Finest News Source For $395 each I'll take 10 of them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted December 4, 2009 Share #50 Posted December 4, 2009 For the OP, "The Onion" has this timely article:New Device Desirable, Old Device Undesirable | The Onion - America's Finest News Source Mods - can we make this article a sticky? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted December 4, 2009 Share #51 Posted December 4, 2009 I strongly suspect the M9 has a different sensor and processing hardware / software than the M8. People who jump to the conclusion that they're "the same" because the pixel density is the same are about as right as... etc... Hi Jamie - I think I've seen you make this statement a few times now, but I haven't seen what you base your opinion on, if you don't mind me asking? From the latest LFI (which also had the inside track on the M9's in-camera noise processing): "Apart from scale and resolution, the M8 and M9 sensors are virtually the same. Kodak changed one tiny detail in the form of a newly developed red filter colourant... In addition, the red and green filters overlap slightly more than before..." I don't think the pixel density is making people "jump to conclusions". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted December 4, 2009 Share #52 Posted December 4, 2009 etc... Hi Jamie - I think I've seen you make this statement a few times now, but I haven't seen what you base your opinion on, if you don't mind me asking? From the latest LFI (which also had the inside track on the M9's in-camera noise processing): "Apart from scale and resolution, the M8 and M9 sensors are virtually the same. Kodak changed one tiny detail in the form of a newly developed red filter colourant... In addition, the red and green filters overlap slightly more than before..." I don't think the pixel density is making people "jump to conclusions". I do. Instead of accepting that there are obvious and significant differences between the two sensors, they proclaim them the same and consequently "out of date". And they did this before the LFI article. Put it another way, Mani: apart from the scale and resolution, (and the new IR filter) and apart from the new microlens array, which allowed a full frame sensor, and apart from the colour filter colorant, which affects the red-level intensity, and apart from the filter red-green cutoffs, which affects the colour mix (and apart from whatever they're doing with noise).... Apart from all that, it's the same sensor. Which is why the results aren't the same with the same processing--which you could see from the very first M9 DNGs. Or with the same profiles. If you want to call those minor changes, that's ok with me I guess. Leica and LFI have to walk a pretty fine line here. In practice--to me anyway--they're not that minor. Now, the changes retain the goodness of the M8 overall though, which I have no problems with, and which was my point to begin with. There isn't much wrong with the M8's approach to IQ and those that think there is (like some on this thread) are also jumping to (the wrong) conclusions, IMO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted December 4, 2009 Share #53 Posted December 4, 2009 I do. Instead of accepting that there are obvious and significant differences between the two sensors, they proclaim them the same and consequently "out of date". And they did this before the LFI article. Put it another way, Mani: apart from the scale and resolution, (and the new IR filter) and apart from the new microlens array, which allowed a full frame sensor, and apart from the colour filter colorant, which affects the red-level intensity, and apart from the filter red-green cutoffs, which affects the colour mix (and apart from whatever they're doing with noise).... Apart from all that, it's the same sensor. Which is why the results aren't the same with the same processing--which you could see from the very first M9 DNGs. Or with the same profiles. If you want to call those minor changes, that's ok with me I guess. Leica and LFI have to walk a pretty fine line here. In practice--to me anyway--they're not that minor. Now, the changes retain the goodness of the M8 overall though, which I have no problems with, and which was my point to begin with. There isn't much wrong with the M8's approach to IQ and those that think there is (like some on this thread) are also jumping to (the wrong) conclusions, IMO. "Apart from scale and resolution, the M8 and M9 sensors are virtually the same." Well these words were from the LFI article - not mine. For the record, I don't think the sensor is in any way "out-of-date". But neither do I think that Kodak engineers have been secretly working away at some 'super-CCD' for the M9 launch. I personally think that Leica had more ambitious long-term plans for their eventual full-frame version of the digital M, but economic considerations meant they needed to bring a camera to market quicker than they'd thought. The (minor?) changes that were made to the color filters appear to have been mostly aimed at lowering noise, which I'd say was to address the clamor of online-criticism rather than any aesthetic improvement in color-rendering. Leica have said that time constraints were the reason they were unable to incorporate more S2 technology into the M9, so I really don't think this camera is the final word. However, if someone feels they need it, then the latest device is definitely an improvement over the previous device and therefore much more desirable, as The Onion so perceptibly points out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
viramati Posted December 4, 2009 Share #54 Posted December 4, 2009 It's a great camera. if there was no internet we would be out there taking pictures not chatting about it. it's a tool be used not to be talked about. I love it and it's good enough for me, the same the way that the nikon D700 is good enough for me as a DSLR. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 4, 2009 Share #55 Posted December 4, 2009 "Apart from scale and resolution, the M8 and M9 sensors are virtually the same." Well these words were from the LFI article - not mine. For the record, I don't think the sensor is in any way "out-of-date". But neither do I think that Kodak engineers have been secretly working away at some 'super-CCD' for the M9 launch. I personally think that Leica had more ambitious long-term plans for their eventual full-frame version of the digital M, but economic considerations meant they needed to bring a camera to market quicker than they'd thought. The (minor?) changes that were made to the color filters appear to have been mostly aimed at lowering noise, which I'd say was to address the clamor of online-criticism rather than any aesthetic improvement in color-rendering. Leica have said that time constraints were the reason they were unable to incorporate more S2 technology into the M9, so I really don't think this camera is the final word. However, if someone feels they need it, then the latest device is definitely an improvement over the previous device and therefore much more desirable, as The Onion so perceptibly points out. The changes may indeed have been aimed at noise reduction, Mani, but they have resulted in a totally different colour response of the camera, so I would hesitate to call them minor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
theendlesshouse Posted December 4, 2009 Share #56 Posted December 4, 2009 "Apart from scale and resolution, the M8 and M9 sensors are virtually the same. Kodak changed one tiny detail in the form of a newly developed red filter colourant... In addition, the red and green filters overlap slightly more than before..." I count three things there? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted December 4, 2009 Share #57 Posted December 4, 2009 The changes may indeed have been aimed at noise reduction, Mani, but they have resulted in a totally different colour response of the camera, so I would hesitate to call them minor. I'm not going to press the point, as I neither know nor really care. I do think the idea that Kodak have been putting resources into designing a totally new sensor for Leica is wishful thinking though, and if they had, my feeling is that Leica would be doing plenty of boasting about it. Having said that, I personally prefer the color response of the M8, so it's a moot point for me anyway. Ian Watts has shown one image (of his child in front of the TV) that totally blows the M8 high-ISO images "out of the water", as people like to say here. Otherwise I haven't really seen any image that's impressed me so far. Maybe if they give one to Stefan Rohner...? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted December 4, 2009 Share #58 Posted December 4, 2009 I count three things there? You do realize that I'm quoting LFI there, right?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bo_Lorentzen Posted December 5, 2009 Share #59 Posted December 5, 2009 But there still is 3 things rather than one thing... scale, red coulourant for filter red and green overlap. Overall while the resolving power is the same, the flavor of the sensor have changed a little, personally I like the look of the new files very much. amazing what little tweaks can ad up to. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted December 5, 2009 Author Share #60 Posted December 5, 2009 Maybe if they give one to Stefan Rohner...? Please, Leica, don't do that. The dude was booted from this forum for very good reasons. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.