sblutter Posted April 28, 2012 Share #1 Posted April 28, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'm sure I'm behind the curve on this - my apologies in advance, have been ensconced in the studio working on a new show: (FEAR + DESIRE Photography exhibition at Judy Saslow Gallery, Chicago - June 1 > 30, 2012. These pics are all M9, 99% Visoflex, tiled images, print size is 60" long size, resolution no issue whatsoever) Wrapped that work and got around to upgrading to LR4. Did a bunch of night street tests yesterday @ 2500+ ISO. Noise reduction results are much better than LR3 or CS5 to my eye, printed. The night is back - these are very usable professional images - even at a pushed 3200 - no prob. The human eye can't resolve in super low light either. Pics look 'right' and real (and need tweaking). 3200 is where I left off souping my B&W - these are far superior. Its going to take a real leap to 'need' an M10. Like 5DM3, I don't see the point, the 2 does everything I need it do - and I'm glad its not also a phone, homing device, fishing rod or other such nonsense. The 9 is a 'real' M, grandson of the M3, especially now that I've got a scratched view screen! (Don't care) With these 2 cameras, I think I'm done playing the upgrade game but of course you never know - like needing really giant prints, which doesn't make much sense for my stuff anyway - the people that have purchased them have normal sized homes. I wont hold my breath waiting for a corporate or civic client's commission for a 12' piece... LR4 - get out and shoot - I'm very excited to have this capability in the 9 - hate walking around with a heavy SLR or a P & S that can't possibly produce a pro image of size. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted April 28, 2012 Posted April 28, 2012 Hi sblutter, Take a look here With LR4, no need for M10?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
FlashGordonPhotography Posted April 29, 2012 Share #2 Posted April 29, 2012 I couldn't agree with you more. The M9 can do everything I need a M to do. And newer raw converters with better algorithms take our existing cameras to new heights. Unfortunately the realist in me know that, at some time this year, I will be working on a way to put the kids on eBay to fund a M10. Gordon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted April 29, 2012 Share #3 Posted April 29, 2012 Heck, I didn't need an M9 after using an M8.2. Moving from LR2 to LR3 provided significantly better file resolution and detail, and LR4 promises to do even more. I've written on the forum before how various changes in the back end of the digital workflow (software improvements, better papers and paper profiles, better inks, better printers, etc) add as much or more to the technical aspects of my prints as any new camera or lens might. That's not to say that a better camera or lens couldn't even add more...that's certainly possible...but the cost often far exceeds changes in other parts of the workflow (70 bucks or so on LR4 upgrade.) Having said that, a friend just moved from a 5DII to 5DIII and the significant improvements in autofocus, along with the enhanced 100% VF, and better weather sealing, provide tremendous benefit for his type of work. It all depends on what one needs...or wants. And who knows what an M10 might bring?...until then, no need to waste time over it. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted April 29, 2012 Share #4 Posted April 29, 2012 And who knows what an M10 might bring?...until then, no need to waste time over it. Jeff Couldn't agree more. Go out and take photos! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted April 29, 2012 Share #5 Posted April 29, 2012 And who knows what an M10 might bring?...until then, no need to waste time over it. I'm not saying I wouldn't want one, but the idea of an M10 excites me the least out of many other developments that are happening now (and I don't mean the X-Pro 1 or whatever it is called). The new ACR looks like a significant benefit to the M9, and of course all other digital cameras, so much so that I could happily call it my M9.2. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted April 29, 2012 Share #6 Posted April 29, 2012 I'm not saying I wouldn't want one, but the idea of an M10 excites me the least out of many other developments that are happening now Which M10? Has Leica announced an M10 and published its specs without me noticing? Because if they didn’t, how would your statement (as well as the original question “With LR4, no need for M10?”) make any sense? I for one reserve judgement about the M10 until I know what it is going to be. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
proenca Posted July 20, 2012 Share #7 Posted July 20, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'm sure I'm behind the curve on this - my apologies in advance, have been ensconced in the studio working on a new show: (FEAR + DESIRE Photography exhibition at Judy Saslow Gallery, Chicago - June 1 > 30, 2012. These pics are all M9, 99% Visoflex, tiled images, print size is 60" long size, resolution no issue whatsoever) Wrapped that work and got around to upgrading to LR4. Did a bunch of night street tests yesterday @ 2500+ ISO. Noise reduction results are much better than LR3 or CS5 to my eye, printed. The night is back - these are very usable professional images - even at a pushed 3200 - no prob. The human eye can't resolve in super low light either. Pics look 'right' and real (and need tweaking). 3200 is where I left off souping my B&W - these are far superior. Its going to take a real leap to 'need' an M10. Like 5DM3, I don't see the point, the 2 does everything I need it do - and I'm glad its not also a phone, homing device, fishing rod or other such nonsense. The 9 is a 'real' M, grandson of the M3, especially now that I've got a scratched view screen! (Don't care) With these 2 cameras, I think I'm done playing the upgrade game but of course you never know - like needing really giant prints, which doesn't make much sense for my stuff anyway - the people that have purchased them have normal sized homes. I wont hold my breath waiting for a corporate or civic client's commission for a 12' piece... LR4 - get out and shoot - I'm very excited to have this capability in the 9 - hate walking around with a heavy SLR or a P & S that can't possibly produce a pro image of size. Agree with you - M9 is a real gem and LR4 improves it to death. If images are exposed properly, high ISO's can be used and printed large. Also, with the M9 megapixels few issues come to mind : storage needs as well processor power. I can happily process my Leica M9 DNG's on my MBP i7 and I dont want to change it because the M10 Do I really NEED more megapixels ? M9 has 18 and no AA filter- it really sports nice and sharp pixels, equals to 23-24 on a "normal" DSLR and even goes head to head with other dSLRS, having a better colour fidelity and clarity. Its a really competent camera and M10, specially if its the rumored CMOS sensor to be its going to have a REAL hard time. Either sports a huge bump in megapixels and/or ISO range that really differenciates from the M9 or ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted July 21, 2012 Share #8 Posted July 21, 2012 How is lr4 so much better than capture one ? And how are you getting a higher iso than the one available in the m9 menu? Personally I happen to agree about m9 m10 swap. Yes I know we don't know what the new one will be but more to the point of getting off the have to get the latest treadmill the m9 suits my needs perfectly and very happy to have software enhancing the product. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
proenca Posted July 23, 2012 Share #9 Posted July 23, 2012 to be honest, have no clue - I think LR4 has the edge, but then again C1PRO had it a while ago. Its pretty much like Canon / Nikon. But in the end of the day, use the one that makes you feel more confortable - I'm quite at ease with LR4 ( use it since LR1 ) although I had a quick affair with C1 and Aperture. Because you get the best results from the converter you know how to use best and how to extract better information - for me, LR4. I believe that LR has better noise filters while C1 can output sharper files at low isos - this is what I usually read. But for me, the ease of use of LR trumps some marginal sharper gains of C1 - I really like LR and its integrated database / catalog system. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fang Posted July 23, 2012 Share #10 Posted July 23, 2012 LR4 is a software while the M10 is a hardware ? Maybe with the M10 together with the LR4 we will see better images. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguewave Posted July 23, 2012 Share #11 Posted July 23, 2012 Excuse me, but the title of this thread is nothing but absurd. One thing has nothing to do with the other. Your images of plastic figures don't stand as any reasonable representation of high iso imaging. There's little real content to demonstrate any of the real virtues of of the Leica fies in your content. The color spectrum is miniscule, at best. The M9 is not a great low light camera, in any way, shape or form. Although LR4 offers some good software tricks, but it also doesn't offer any real advantages when it comes to low light/high (3200-6400) iso images. Doesn't matter if they are Leica, Cannon, Nikon or Sony. The M9Monochrome files are much better at the higher iso range. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.