No M9 for me

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In post-processing there is a point that files start ot break up and artifacts start appearing. Sharpening is a prime example, but all other parts of the process are affected. I'm sure you have noticed that. In the past DMR files proved to be considerably more resistant against this effect than M8 files. Not just me, but other DMR-M8 owners had the same experience. The most probable cause is the 8-bits compression of the M8 files. The M9 is equal to the DMR in this respect when using uncompressed files. In tonal transitions and contrast transitions the M9 is superior to both the DMR and the M8, almost certainly because of the higher pixel count/ smaller relative magnification. Combined with the improved red Bayer filter and shifted Red/Green Bayer balance which creates richer colours it results in images that are clearly evolved beyond the M8. The LFI issue comparing the M8, M9 and 5DII shows compelling evidence supporting this.

Oh, I agree with your opinion on 50=50 btw.

 

Just an addendum: when you looked at the M9 files and made your colour judgement, there were no RAW profiles that did the M9 justice available in RAW conversion. If you look in the current versions of LR2 or C1-5 your might come to an opposite conclusion.

[pgk]

In post-processing there is a point that files start ot break up and artifacts start appearing..... The M9 is equal to the DMR in this respect when using uncompressed files. In tonal transitions and contrast transitions the M9 is superior to both the DMR and the M8, almost certainly because of the higher pixel count/ smaller relative magnification.

 

Jaap

 

Without wishing to hijack this thread, your comments are very interesting as I am printing at just about the limit of my M8's capability (just smaller than A2 prints with ~20% uprezzed files). These prints are very good indeed providing I minimise post processing but on occasion I struggle to maintain both colour and tonality as I want them. What is your opinion on the M9's files as opposed to the M8's for large prints - assuming you have produced some?

[jaapv]

I have not done any large prints yet, so I can only give you the obvious "stands to reason"answer. It might be an idea to start a thread to the effect in the M9 forum to gather opinions.

[Ted Lemon]

I have printed up to 40x30 inches for an exhibition with files from scanned negs (from M7) and M8 files. The printing was done at Chaudigital | Home (if you are in London they are very well known) and they were sold and now displayed at the Northumbrian Business School. I regularly print up to A2 with M8 files - never an issue.

 

On main point of the thread, I am perfectly happy with my M7 (brought 2005) and M8 (brought 2008) and when I want a new camera it will be an M9.

[plasticman]

Combined with the improved red Bayer filter and shifted Red/Green Bayer balance which creates richer colours it results in images that are clearly evolved beyond the M8. The LFI issue comparing the M8, M9 and 5DII shows compelling evidence supporting this.

 

 

If I really needed to print much larger than I currently do, or needed to earn my living with the camera and therefore needed 18MB files, I'd agree with your assessment and trade-up, whether the so-called "improved" Bayer filter were to my taste or not (it isn't). As for the LFI article, it shares the same assumption that you make in your post: namely, that stronger (you use the value-term "richer") colors are better. This is as absurd to my mind, as if someone were to say that Velvia colors are 'better' than Portra. They are different, and my preference (which won't surprise you) are the subtle nuances of PortraNC - the same goes for the M9/M8 colors. But I stress those are my preferences.

 

The images in that article incidentally showed appalling over-saturation of magenta in certain places - the sign over the bar, for instance.

 

Just an addendum: when you looked at the M9 files and made your colour judgement, there were no RAW profiles that did the M9 justice available in RAW conversion. If you look in the current versions of LR2 or C1-5 your might come to an opposite conclusion.

 

I tried with LR2 and even the beta of LR3. I can't like anything about LR's files, in general. I'll give the files a whirl with the updated Raw Developer though, just haven't downloaded it yet.

 

Glad you're enjoying the M9 of course, it's just I just don't buy the fact that many personal preferences are discussed as supposed 'improvements' (one guy even said over on the M9 forum that he 'preferred' that the top LCD had been replaced by a battery indicator on the screen - this seems to me like saying you 'prefer' to light a new candle every time you want to check how many matches you have left!)