Superior M9 IQ

[plasticman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well the quality I see from the LS 9000 scans from my M6 (effectively 22megapixels in digital terms) are so vastly superior to what I've seen from the M9 that I suggest you do sell it.

 

But you see - you're happy with your M9 and I'm happy with my M8 and M6. The only difference is I don't feel the need to post pretty awful examples of how brilliant my camera is to make myself feel better for buying it.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[efftee]

Well, the title was unintentionally a bit provocative. The judgement of image quality, like Mani says, it quite subjective as it depends on which aspect you look at. Even the processing of DNGs provided is not always helpful. I found the M9 a bit disappointing initially, until I had developed a few dozen DNGs and got my workflow set up properly and after that I discovered the advantages over the M8. Other brands - too different to compare really meaningfully to me -different lenses different sensor types, different converters, different workflows, different strong and weak points, etc. I just go with what I like in print.,

 

Yes, I do see now how the title was provocative. Quite regrettable.

[stunsworth]

Well the quality I see from the LS 9000 scans from my M6 (effectively 22megapixels in digital terms) are so vastly superior to what I've seen from the M9 that I suggest you do sell it.

 

That's strange, because although I only have a lowly Coolscan V and Leica M8, I have found the image quality from the M8 to be far better than that from the scanner in terms of definition and colour accuracy.

[jaapv]

Well the quality I see from the LS 9000 scans from my M6 (effectively 22megapixels in digital terms) are so vastly superior to what I've seen from the M9 that I suggest you do sell it.

 

But you see - you're happy with your M9 and I'm happy with my M8 and M6. The only difference is I don't feel the need to post pretty awful examples of how brilliant my camera is to make myself feel better for buying it.

Well, to my eyes it looks the other way around. As a film has no pixels an M6 has no megapixels, effective or otherwise... If you want to compare resolution, Fuji Sensia has a resolution at 30% contrast of 60 Lp/mm (source: erwin puts lens compendium), the M9 sensor resolves 75 Lp/mm, so there is no "superiority"either way. The only valid comparison basis is a personal appreciation of the way it looks - and in my world that is M9, D700, 1DsIII etc generated images. Strictly technically film has been overtaken by new technology a decade ago. So I will NOT suggest that you sell your M6 - just that you enjoy your results, as I and apparently efftee enjoy ours.

[efftee]

Well the quality I see from the LS 9000 scans from my M6 (effectively 22megapixels in digital terms) are so vastly superior to what I've seen from the M9 that I suggest you do sell it.

 

But you see - you're happy with your M9 and I'm happy with my M8 and M6. The only difference is I don't feel the need to post pretty awful examples of how brilliant my camera is to make myself feel better for buying it.

 

Whoa. You mean like how you are being sarcastically hostile to make yourself feel better than me? Dear sir, I do genuinely feel my ex-M8 couldn't have produced a better image in the same situation. Why would I brag about an M9 in an M9 forum eh?

[plasticman]

Well, to my eyes it looks the other way around. As a film has no pixels a scan has no megapixels... If you want to compare resolution, Fuji Sensia has a resolution at 30% contrast of 60 Lp/mm (source: erwin puts lens compendium), the M9 sensor resolves 75 Lp/mm, so there is no "superiority"either way. The only valid comparison basis is a personal appreciation of the way it looks - and in my world that is M9, D700, 1DsIII etc generated images. So I will NOT suggest that you sell your M6 - just that you enjoy your results, as I and apparently efftee enjoy ours.

 

Well indeed Jaap that's my point. I've said it many times before, 'image quality' is mostly a subjective measure. Film scans tend not to have the fine detail I can get from digital, but the way they handle light - especially bright light - is a revelation, (as you know). And when I find the right Hasselblad I'll get back to you about image 'detail'.

 

The funny thing to me about this thread is how appalling the original image is. I'm not by any means saying the M8 could do better - it definitely couldn't. But any serious discussion after looking at that image is really rather meaningless imho.

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Can I just interrupt a moment to say thanks. I have workers in my house doing repair work this week, so I'm killing time on the computer. This is making the day pass much more quickly.

 

Jeff

[plasticman]

Whoa. You mean like how you are being sarcastically hostile to make yourself feel better than me? Dear sir, I do genuinely feel my ex-M8 couldn't have produced a better image in the same situation. Why would I brag about an M9 in an M9 forum eh?

 

yawn.

[jaapv]

Well indeed Jaap that's my point. I've said it many times before, 'image quality' is mostly a subjective measure. Film scans tend not to have the fine detail I can get from digital, but the way they handle light - especially bright light - is a revelation, (as you know). And when I find the right Hasselblad I'll get back to you about image 'detail'.

Oh yes- the way film and digital handle light is quite different. there was an article on the subject in LFI quite recently. The main reason digital gets a bad press regarding dynamic range is the fact that many users treat it like film, both in exposure and postprocessing. I'm glad we didn't get into an oil paint vs aquarel fight

[efftee]

yawn.

 

And rude too. Damn.

[plasticman]

Oh yes- the way film and digital handle light is quite different. there was an article on the subject in LFI quite recently. The main reason digital gets a bad press regarding dynamic range is the fact that many users treat it like film, both in exposure and postprocessing. I'm glad we didn't get into an oil paint vs aquarel fight

 

Well this isn't really a discussion about dynamic range - that's a whole other argument. And I saw that article - it was interesting but nothing new. In fact, the original image shows much wider DR than I could probably get from my main choice of film (PortraNC 160). I'd say a lot of the background would've been lost in grain on that film, anyway.

 

But film would've treated the bright areas with grace - which to me, might have made this photograph worth taking.

 

btw - long time since I got into an argument on this forum. Mostly live by the 'if you can't say something good, say nothing' dictum these days. But I honestly don't see the point of posting an awful image like this which (quite literally) highlights some of the weakest points of a camera, and use that image to boast about it.

It's been fun, but obviously there's no point in getting into a scrap about it.

[bill]

Nacho, anyone?

 

I love these objective discussions about subjective matters. The two most influential variables here are:

 

1. The quality of the individual's Mk. 1 eyeball

2. Personal taste

 

Two people may see the same thing but they do not perceive it in the same way. The camera, processing and everything else in the "supply chain" may be optimised to within an inch of it's life and to all intents and purposes identical, but two different people can still hold totally different views as to what looks "right" to them.

 

Dip?

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[diogenis]

Bill,

Stop eating junk food

[plasticman]

Bill,

Stop eating junk food

 

check

[fotolebrocq]

Efftee - Why don't you just enjoy your M9 and forget the forum? You will find life far more enjoyable

 

Cheers

[noah_addis]

Oh dear, the worms from the can is flying out fast! May I just say again that the Canon and Nikon remark was conveyed as they were expressed by friends using those gear. They're amateurs, like I am, and perhaps nowhere close to the proficiency that you or others on this forum are. Maybe. I wouldn't know. It was not intended to slight the Canon and Nikon brands or users/owners. I apologize if that offended anyone.

 

No offense taken and I don't think you're slighting Nikon or Canon at all. Perhaps my attempt at humor was too harsh and I apologize as well. I agree that the M9 image quality ranges from slightly better to much better than the M8 depending on your ISO.

 

I sometimes think people around here give Leica too easy of a time. The M9 is a great camera. I love rangefinders and prefer the handling, focusing, camera size and small high quality lenses when compared to SLRs. But the high-iso performance of the M9, if it's important to you, is not exactly state-of-the-art, even with ultrafast lenses. And mirrors in SLRs are pretty well damped these days, I can hold my SLRs at about the same shutter speeds as I can my Leicas.

 

If I spent half the price of the M9 on a Nikon and it had such performance, I'd be asking for my money back.

 

High-ISO performance isn't even important to everyone. I would have kept the M9 if it had better low-iso performance. I actually gave it up because I didn't like the way the files at 160 printed at very large sizes under certain very demanding situations that definitely don't apply to everyone. I'm not advising anyone to sell their M9s, it's a great camera for many uses.

 

I just find it amusing that, in this era of digital technology, someone is excited about making a photo at ISO 1000 that looks good on screen. I'd expect any consumer-grade sub $1000 camera to be able to pass this simple test.

 

I use C1PRO for all of my raw conversions, and I had no big problems with color fringing with M9 files. Moire is another issue however.

[AlanJW]

Get out the popcorn. It is show time.

 

I am happy with my M9 but that fact is irrelevant to anyone else. By the same token, that someone is unhappy is irrelevant to me. I do not do Erwin Puts-type technical analyses. I just like the images it produces. I like the size and the ergonomics. I do not do a lot of high ISO work, so my needs may be different than Noah's (who could in any event probably take great photos with a Brownie).

 

IMHO, anyone who makes decisions about what tool is right for them based on someone else's web posting is bound to be disappointed unless the poster works exactly the same way you work, which is a highly dubious proposition given the different and unique photographic tools that exist between our ears.

[wattsy]

Moire is another issue however.

 

Indeed it is. The M9 seems significantly more susceptible to moire than the M8 (which is odd considering the similarities of the two sensors) and half way to being a deal breaking problem for me.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[efftee]

Efftee - Why don't you just enjoy your M9 and forget the forum? You will find life far more enjoyable

 

Cheers

 

Hey there, oh no, I do enjoy being here; I've learnt much from many individuals. For free too! I'm not a pro and, it would seem, not a very good photographer too, I don't mind that at all. Criticisms I take with gratitude -- how else would I learn eh?

[efftee]

No offense taken and I don't think you're slighting Nikon or Canon at all. Perhaps my attempt at humor was too harsh and I apologize as well. I agree that the M9 image quality ranges from slightly better to much better than the M8 depending on your ISO.

 

I sometimes think people around here give Leica too easy of a time. The M9 is a great camera. I love rangefinders and prefer the handling, focusing, camera size and small high quality lenses when compared to SLRs. But the high-iso performance of the M9, if it's important to you, is not exactly state-of-the-art, even with ultrafast lenses. And mirrors in SLRs are pretty well damped these days, I can hold my SLRs at about the same shutter speeds as I can my Leicas.

 

If I spent half the price of the M9 on a Nikon and it had such performance, I'd be asking for my money back.

 

High-ISO performance isn't even important to everyone. I would have kept the M9 if it had better low-iso performance. I actually gave it up because I didn't like the way the files at 160 printed at very large sizes under certain very demanding situations that definitely don't apply to everyone. I'm not advising anyone to sell their M9s, it's a great camera for many uses.

 

I just find it amusing that, in this era of digital technology, someone is excited about making a photo at ISO 1000 that looks good on screen. I'd expect any consumer-grade sub $1000 camera to be able to pass this simple test.

 

I use C1PRO for all of my raw conversions, and I had no big problems with color fringing with M9 files. Moire is another issue however.

 

Hey Noah, no worries. I do regret the title and the obvious failure in illustrating my belief that the M9 was worth the upgrade from an M8, which was the reason behind this thread. Quite simply, I just thought that as 'awful' as this shot may be, the M8 would have been significantly worse. And whilst another camera could have handled the fringing better, I thought that the overall image quality from an M9 to be better. FWIW, I could be wrong but in my own limited experience, there's nothing I know that'd make me believe otherwise. Perhaps I should have kept quiet? At least I didn't lie.

 

On another note, any diff between v4 and v5 or C1?