Jump to content

The M9 is fantastic

snaggs

By snaggs
in Leica M9 / M-E

Recommended Posts

snaggs

snaggs

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Good evening,

 

Sorry for a rant, but I've been reading a few posts about the M9 being 24 because DXO (who makes distortion correction profiles for SLR Zoom lenses) says so, and a few other posts.

 

Now, I have had 5D's, D3's, rented blads, and I can tell you, I was amazed at the fourth photo that came out of my camera, take a landscape photo at f4 or f5.6 with a 35 summicron and have a look at the leaf's in tree's, no purple CA, clear, sharp and with amazing detail.

 

Nothing except the 50 megapixel blad is in the ball park.

 

1. CCD's are not very good at on-chip noise reduction for high iso

2. CCD's are exceptional for low ISO shooting

 

Canon CMOS has a very plastic look on skin, leaves and grass are mush, CCD's, especially without a "aa filter" are in another league.

 

Daniel.

 

PS. Who bought their M9 expecting state of the art high iso performance.

 

 

Daniel.

Link to post
Share on other sites
zlatkob

zlatkob

Posted
Posted
Canon CMOS has a very plastic look on skin, leaves and grass are mush, ...

 

The M9 is fantastic. But Canon very plastic? ... mush? There are some 60 rather successful Canon Explorers of Light who produce rather good work with Canon. Nachtwey, Kirkland, Tenneson, Greenfield, Gorman, etc. And there are some 12 Canon Ambassadors who with manage to work with Canon too. Ascough, Knight, Pellegrin, etc. How do they do it? ;);)

Link to post
Share on other sites
jaapv

jaapv

Posted
Posted

It used to be true in the 10D days, and maybe the first Ds, but nowadays CCD and Cmos are a lot closer in this respect. Still there are visible differences - I would hesitate to use terms like better or worse - so much comes down to postprocessing skills.

Link to post
Share on other sites
lct

lct

Posted
Posted
...Canon CMOS has a very plastic look on skin, leaves and grass are mush...

I would not disagree about the plastic look of skins out of the 5D2 but certainly not the 5D with good lenses. As for leaves and grass being mush, where did you learn this story from if i may ask?

Canon 5D, Summicron-R 90/2, 400 iso, FF & 100% crop.

 

yam7c34

 

yz7bkq8

Link to post
Share on other sites
photoshutter

photoshutter

Posted
Posted

Sensor from 5D MkII is better than original 5D, but with original 5D you can close aperture more die of diffraction, and image will be sharper than from 5D MkII. I'm don't understand what is a "plastic look", Canon has better color, almost no moire, for example picture from 1dsII has better look than from M9. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
jaapv

jaapv

Posted
Posted

Call a thead " Leica is fantastic" and you get all the knee-jerk "It is not even close to Canon/Nikon/Sony" posts, call it "Leica stinks" and we learn that everybody ditched his DSLR because Leica is better.:rolleyes: Aren't Internet forums amazing -and predictable? ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
AlanG

AlanG

Posted
Posted
Good evening,

 

Sorry for a rant, but I've been reading a few posts about the M9 being 24 because DXO (who makes distortion correction profiles for SLR Zoom lenses) says so, and a few other posts....

 

 

PS. Who bought their M9 expecting state of the art high iso performance.

 

Without getting into the thrust of your post, DXO does a lot more than make distortion correction profiles for SLR zoom lenses. (Such as designing and marketing camera testing systems for manufacturers and various kinds of software for optimizing imaging.)

 

I think that having state of the art high ISO capability would be well within the Leica tradition of being a superb system for low light shooting. And I think they should consider making that a priority in the future to go with having such great high speed lenses.

Link to post
Share on other sites
vanhulsenbeek

vanhulsenbeek

Posted
Posted
Call a thead " Leica is fantastic" and you get all the knee-jerk "It is not even close to Canon/Nikon/Sony" posts, call it "Leica stinks" and we learn that everybody ditched his DSLR because Leica is better.:rolleyes: Aren't Internet forums amazing -and predictable? ;)

 

A proof of the human wish to lead everything to the common denomitator: maximum entropy in the end :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites
thrice

thrice

Posted
Posted

As an extensive 5D, and 5D Mark II shooter, with many 20x30" prints currently around my house I honestly have no idea what you guys are talking about. 5D Mark II at equivalent print sizes is vastly superior, unless all you like to do is look at your images at 100% on your monitor.

 

And the M9 is superior to both the Canons for colour, tonality and detail. Don't tell me it's the glass, I exclusively shot the best R glass on my Canons.

Link to post
Share on other sites
mardag

mardag

Posted
Posted

I have also shot the old 5d and 5dmarkII for quite some time and I´m printing my pictures on a epson 3880. I have now sold of the old 5d and bought the M9. I don´t deny that the markII has an advantage when printing large but pixel per pixel sharpness is better on the old 5d. Thats somthing different than pure resolving power. It´s not the glass it´s the sensor. I don´t shot leica R on mine but 85L 135L 24LII are not bad glass either and I still se the difference between the files. I´m not talking about huge differences but visible:)

Link to post
Share on other sites
roanjohn

roanjohn

Posted
Posted
As an extensive 5D, and 5D Mark II shooter, with many 20x30" prints currently around my house I honestly have no idea what you guys are talking about. 5D Mark II at equivalent print sizes is vastly superior, unless all you like to do is look at your images at 100% on your monitor.

 

And the M9 is superior to both the Canons for colour, tonality and detail. Don't tell me it's the glass, I exclusively shot the best R glass on my Canons.

 

Color and tonality on a digital image is so subjective once you factor in PP and RAW conversion software. Image quality from these 3 cameras are so good that we will be splitting hair deciding which is best compared to the other. At the end of the day, it is really a matter of personal preference which image is more pleasing - for me, it's 5D > 5DMKII. Can't comment on the M9 as I don't have one.......but I have the M8 which is amazing at base ISO too!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
elansprint72

elansprint72

Posted
Posted
Call a thead " Leica is fantastic" and you get all the knee-jerk "It is not even close to Canon/Nikon/Sony" posts, call it "Leica stinks" and we learn that everybody ditched his DSLR because Leica is better. Aren't Internet forums amazing -and predictable?

 

:D:D and look what came after you posted this!!!!! :eek:

 

 

Anyway; my D700 beats your M9 in every department. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
carcam

carcam

Posted
Posted
:D:D and look what came after you posted this!!!!! :eek:

 

 

Anyway; my D700 beats your M9 in every department. ;)

 

Except carrying it around, with a couple lenses. Maybe better high iso and faster focusing (for me anyway). My D700 sat around when I got my M8.2 and now M9 but I know it is better at many things but certainly not "in every department". And when I look back at prints- I like the M pics better- hard to explain; color, contrast, tonality, sharpness, not sure on the 3d leica look but there is something obviously more pleasing with the Leica pictures that I make. Besides being more fun in the process of making the picture-

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...