Cold_Viking Posted December 9, 2009 Share #21 Posted December 9, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have both the M9 and D3s and thats not my experience at all. Not in the slightest. The D3S produces jaw dropping images even out or ACR. The ability to shoot clean images at iso 6400 and even 12800 is incredible! Plus black tones stay black even at the higher iso's. Nikon did an amazing job with the D3s.The new 70-200 VR II is also really nice. Sharp, wonderful bokeh, and nice contrast. The M9 produces jaw dropping images as well but in a different way. With no AA filter obviously images are sharper out of the box, but more importantly, nothing can compare to Leica glass and thats what makes the M9 images so great! I just got the 50mm 1.4 asph and have come to the conclusion that it is the most incredible lens ever made I literally feel like I could take a picture of dog doo and this lens would make it look good. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 9, 2009 Posted December 9, 2009 Hi Cold_Viking, Take a look here M9 v D3S. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
dseelig Posted December 9, 2009 Share #22 Posted December 9, 2009 Too me these are such different cameras that threads like these make no sense to me. I shoot Leica when I am working for myself. When I am working for money then I brake out monster dslr in my case canon. Leica hits a brcik wall with an m9 at about 1250 so I shoot fast glass but when Ineed more I shoot a dslr. But frankly slrs have never been my way of seeing for my own work. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artichoke Posted December 9, 2009 Share #23 Posted December 9, 2009 FWIW, I agree with you, and it's one reason I stick with Leica. But there are tradeoffs... ISOs being low, the M8 / DMR are much easier to get to a great shot in terms of colour. It really does depend on how picky you are, though. I have a d3 and an M8 still, and as someone I admire greatly once said, customers don't care about 3 points of magenta being out, but here's the thing... If I nail the white balance and exposure in both cameras, the Nikon's colour palette is still a bit off--especially in skin tones, regardless of RAW processor. As the ISO rises, the colour gets worse. I believe (but I can't prove it) that this is due to a CMOS / CCD difference, it might just be the technology, but it's also true that Kodak knows colour... better than a lot of camera makers, probably. So my M8 takes way less work than any of the Canons or Nikons to get to a good file in terms of colour. Of course, the tradeoff is noise. The Canons and Nikons render images noise-free with much higher ISO. The colour does degrade as noise-reduction is applied, but sometimes you don't care about that...it's more important to get the shot. I have a D3X & an M8 not only are colors better rendered with the M8 (and in particular at high ISO) but I believe there is less sensor bloom as well I also agree that companies with decades of experience capturing color, do a better job with this this is not to say that the D3X does not produce stunning colors, but that the M8 files generally need less tweaking I also prefer the output I get from a CCD Nikon did a fabulous job with noise reduction and high ISO performance, but the M8's files appear more analog and from what I have seen of the M9, these are even better yet hopefully I'll have one soon so I can do some head to head comparisons Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
innerimager Posted December 10, 2009 Share #24 Posted December 10, 2009 As follow up to my comments on Raw Developer and reddish skin tones. Brain tweaked the M9 profile and included it in the current version (1.87) of RD. I briefly looked at it last night and was very pleased, I might even prefer the skin tones it renders to C1. Have a look Charles (and other RD users)! best....Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlesphoto99 Posted December 10, 2009 Share #25 Posted December 10, 2009 Yes, much better Peter. Thanks! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted December 10, 2009 Share #26 Posted December 10, 2009 but the M8's files appear more analog and from what I have seen of the M9, these are even better yet I agree with pretty much everything you say regarding color, CCD vs CMOS and Nikon's high-ISO capabilities, but I would say that the M9 files look very much less 'analog' than the M8 files - which may be an advantage or disadvantage entirely depending on your needs and preferences. Not meaning to knock the M9 here (nor the M8, for that matter), but if the grainy 'analog' look is preferential, then I find it hard to understand why you might choose the M9 on that basis. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
innerimager Posted December 10, 2009 Share #27 Posted December 10, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Yes, much better Peter. Thanks! Your welcome Charles, glad you agree. I gotta give Brian major kudos, he is amazingly responsive to user needs. He improved the profile in less than 1 week from the time I sent some example DNGs to him, and he always returns questions in the most thoughtful way in a matter of days. Just great....Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.