tgm Posted December 17, 2009 Share #1 Posted December 17, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Erwin Puts has posted his comparison between M7 with delta 100 and orwo ortho film M9, part 8B Thomas Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 Hi tgm, Take a look here erwing puts comparison analog / M9 is up. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
scott kirkpatrick Posted December 17, 2009 Share #2 Posted December 17, 2009 Actually, it is pretty interesting. The M9 is still resolving details that are mush in his film examples. With Moire artifacts, however, because this is beyond the Nyquist frequency (translation -- these are line pairs closer together than the pixel spacing). scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
theendlesshouse Posted December 17, 2009 Share #3 Posted December 17, 2009 guess the M9 is the bee's knees then eh? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guido Posted December 17, 2009 Share #4 Posted December 17, 2009 The color artifacts confirm what I see in many of my M9 shots. In winter, snow-covered tree branches without foliage definitely are not ideal subjects for the M9 (in color). Either that, or I haven't quite figured out yet how to get rid of those anomalies in post. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted December 18, 2009 Share #5 Posted December 18, 2009 Puts compares the M9 files with black and white ISO 100 film, and I think it is a bit unfair. Well, Puts is comparing the best cases for both systems, and that is interesting. The point should be the M9 surpasses any ISO 160 color film in terms of resolution, and you have to go to low or very low ISO black and white film for getting better resolution. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted December 18, 2009 Share #6 Posted December 18, 2009 His most recent blog, on his 5 Ms, is interesting. He says he has the first M9 sold worldwide to a buyer. Not sure if that's based on serial # or if Leica sold it to him directly. Surprised he didn't get one free for testing. Sorry for the digression. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted December 18, 2009 Share #7 Posted December 18, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) At least this had more comprehensible writing and illustrations than some of Ewin's other recent posts. A reasonable, if limited, test with reasonable conclusions. All very well to compare the M9 against a film that probably 0.1% of those photographers still using film actually use (Spur Orthopan UR - obviously an extremely good hi-rez film if one can shoot ISO 16-25 and only needs B&W), but how about: M9 vs. Tri-X @ 200/400/800 M9 vs. Fujichrome 400x @ 400/800/1600 M9 vs. the last of the K64 (for old times sake) M9 vs. whatever the concensus says is the "best" ISO 400 color neg film @ 400 M9 vs. Ektar 100 M9 vs. Delta/Tmax 3200 @ 1600/2500 M9 vs. Superia 1600 @ 1600 - otherwise using the same workflows (traditional chemical enlarging and hand-processing). I've done a few of those comparisons, but only with scanned film, and will be the first to admit that scanning is - different - from a fully analog approach, with its own pluses and minuses regarding grain, resolution and tonality. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted December 18, 2009 Share #8 Posted December 18, 2009 Andy, your question is really the relevant one, and I think scanned film is the comparison that is relevant to 90% of those who choose between film and M8/9 for a project. When Sean Reid published his first reviews of the M8 in 2006, his claim was that the M8, used with skill, and perhaps in good light, equaled the results of scanned MF film for his black and white style of shooting. Recently, I have been alternating between HP5+ or FP4 in 120 format, using a tripod, cable release, and a certain amount of ceremony, and shooting informally with an M9, for indoor portraits. So the differences are more than just resolution and tonality. I like what I am getting with this film shooting style, but I expect I could do the same with the M9 and further experimentation, post processing, etc. Who else is now shooting both film and the M9, and why? scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted December 18, 2009 Share #9 Posted December 18, 2009 Well, Puts is comparing the best cases for both systems, and that is interesting. The point should be the M9 surpasses any ISO 160 color film in terms of resolution, and you have to go to low or very low ISO black and white film for getting better resolution. He also says The results shown here will not be feasible when handheld shooting under dynamic conditions is required. And in those situations the M9 can play some of its stronger cards. In other words, the best modern Leica lenses are of unnecessarily high quality for most traditional RF photography. Discuss. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
blakley Posted December 18, 2009 Share #10 Posted December 18, 2009 He also says In other words, the best modern Leica lenses are of unnecessarily high quality for most traditional RF photography. Discuss. Handheld at f/1.4 with the best modern Leica lens (50/1.4 Summilux Asph) and ambient light: Necessary? Probably not. But I don't aspire to adequacy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 18, 2009 Share #11 Posted December 18, 2009 He also says The results shown here will not be feasible when handheld shooting under dynamic conditions is required. And in those situations the M9 can play some of its stronger cards. In other words, the best modern Leica lenses are of unnecessarily high quality for most traditional RF photography. Discuss. If one link in the chain of production of an image is weaker than the rest, it will influence the end result, that is right. However, if one weakens a second link in addition, it will deteriorate the image quality even more. In other words, all factors are interdependent and the effects are cumulative. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
meino Posted December 18, 2009 Share #12 Posted December 18, 2009 The color artifacts confirm what I see in many of my M9 shots. In winter, snow-covered tree branches without foliage definitely are not ideal subjects for the M9 (in color). Either that, or I haven't quite figured out yet how to get rid of those anomalies in post. You could try CaptureOne Pro 5. It solved for me those anomalies. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
odyocu Posted December 18, 2009 Share #13 Posted December 18, 2009 A very interesting comparison indeed. Thanks to E. Puts. I was wondering the same for a long time, just because of curiosity though. The results are not surprising either. I still use film sometimes, but that is only to continue the hobby. But I have to use a scanner. That makes a lot of difference.. It's not a film photo any more. I have Nikon 9000 scanner, which is supposed to be one of the best. When scanning the film, a lot is lost, not only resolution. So for practical purposes, a digital photo is better in more aspects than a scanned photo. It's a pity that I don't have a darkroom any more. I just miss the B+W enlargements. Seyhun Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcusperkins Posted December 18, 2009 Share #14 Posted December 18, 2009 I think many here are missing the point of Mr Puts' review. He's made it quite clear that the M9 produces files that are practically the equal of the best film, and will do so up to the 320/400 ISO range. However, if you want more resolution with an M, then you currently have to go the film route regardless of the film ISO. There is no doubt technical films have a much higher resolution, but you really do have to be careful in order to extract that resolution. With regards to colour, I think Kodak Ektar 100 scanned with an X5 at 8,000 dpi (for the sake of comparison) then scaled down to the M9 resolution easily gives as much detail as the M9, perhaps a little more. However, the detail looks different, less edge sharpness, but more nuanced tones. Like comparing handwriting with print - print is much easier to read, sharper, cleaner, but handwriting has more subtlety for sure. Regardless, it's great to know Leica glass can resolve such fine detail when necessary. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
innerimager Posted December 18, 2009 Share #15 Posted December 18, 2009 beautiful portrait blakley. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
blakley Posted December 19, 2009 Share #16 Posted December 19, 2009 Thank you! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nugat Posted December 19, 2009 Share #17 Posted December 19, 2009 2.0/85mm Russian 50$ Jupiter lens on 2004 6mpix camera (Epson RD1). Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/106986-erwing-puts-comparison-analog-m9-is-up/?do=findComment&comment=1156491'>More sharing options...
Leicakillen Posted December 19, 2009 Share #18 Posted December 19, 2009 Thanks Markus - but I am still confused. I have used the following workflow since the 1960s; - B&W chemistry, Leica equipment, Ilford Galerie paper prints up to 24x30 cm 200 ASA films - Started to scan negatives with Nikon 4000ED, used Fuji 200 ASA film, ink jet printer - My first digital SLR Nikon D70, total digital workflow - Full frame Leica M9 For every step forward in the processes above - I can very easily see a clear quality improvement - now doubt. Even when I compare a scanned neg and ink jet printed image with the same Ilford Galerie print - the ink jet is far superior. With image quality I do not only mean sharpness - it´s the "total" impression. But when I read Irwin´s reviews I should go back to silver technology to improve my print quality?? I would never do this - my M9 gives me the best images I have ever seen! Thanks, /Anders Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicoleica Posted December 19, 2009 Share #19 Posted December 19, 2009 His most recent blog, on his 5 Ms, is interesting. He says he has the first M9 sold worldwide to a buyer. Not sure if that's based on serial # or if Leica sold it to him directly. Surprised he didn't get one free for testing. Sorry for the digression. Jeff Hi Jeff, I was told that too by my dealer a few weeks ago. Mr Puts & I use the same camera shop, and that's what he told them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted December 19, 2009 Share #20 Posted December 19, 2009 Hi Jeff, I was told that too by my dealer a few weeks ago. Mr Puts & I use the same camera shop, and that's what he told them. Thanks, Nicole. Hope you get special treatment at that shop, too. I feel badly for my local shop today. This is the last weekend to capture much needed sales before Xmas and we're in the middle of a snowstorm expected to dump 2 feet or more, with heavy winds. Yikes. Can't wait to get out for some pics, though...if my front door isn't drifted in. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.