threeputt Posted July 9, 2012 Share #21 Posted July 9, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) I viewed them each at 100% and the M9 is definitely sharper - no question about that. Alas, if I bought the M9 my wife would strangle me, then she would shoot me. After that, she might even get angry. I am, however, excited to get my back-ordered X2 to go with my M3. That should keep me busy enough for awhile Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 9, 2012 Posted July 9, 2012 Hi threeputt, Take a look here M9 + X2?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
nryn Posted July 9, 2012 Share #22 Posted July 9, 2012 I think rendering is the right way to describe any relevant comparison. Images out of both of these cameras (I own both) can be extremely sharp--post-processing in even moderately competent hands can normalize any substantial differences. The main difference for me is the one between CMOS (X2) and CCD (M9). This is obviously more and more noticeable as the ISOs ramp up. At their native ISOs, I find files from both cameras equally pleasant. Under 800, I prefer the M9--something about the CCD grittiness really resonates with me (and won't with others, I understand). Above 1000 or so, it's the X2 most of the time. But really, it doesn't matter which camera renders a crappy composition better, you're still left with a crappy composition. I think with that in mind, it doesn't really matter which of these two cameras you have. Both make superb images. I'm finding the M9 and the X2 complement each other really, really well, for all the reasons mentioned above. More than anything, I don't feel like I'm "settling" when I take the X2 out with me on trips or around town. I felt this way with my D-lux 4 and with various other P&S cameras, and not by pixel-peeping (I really don't get why people do this so much) but by using those images for print. Large prints in some cases. The D-lux images, though fine as images go, just don't hold up as well past a certain point. X2--so far--I'm really impressed with not just the quality of the image, but the way that the image holds up in various media. The way it's sorting out for me is that I take the M9 when I am going somewhere to make photographs. I take the X2 with me the rest of the time, esp. business trips, when I don't know if I'll get an opportunity. And I take both of them when I can. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJB Posted July 9, 2012 Share #23 Posted July 9, 2012 Superbly intelligent response. I wholly "get" that perspective. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted July 9, 2012 Share #24 Posted July 9, 2012 The reason I referred to rendering rather than sharpness is the M9 has some odd colour rendering in places, not least on the NatWest tower. Expanding up comparable areas on both pictures does not to me reveal a massively sharper or more detailed M9 advantage. When price is brought into the picture the diminishing returns from the M9 (on this very limited and not necessarily representative sample) appear stark. I would like to see some other representative comparisons, purely for interest as I must admit I am currently coveting a used M9. AJ AJ, your conclusion is only true if you use the M9 as a fixed lens camera, which it isn't. Once you add in the increased versatility, the price differential becomes easily justified. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJB Posted July 9, 2012 Share #25 Posted July 9, 2012 OK, I do understand that, but question the logic of "easily" justified. I am a photographic ignoramus really in terms of technical aspects. My previous kit (still mostly owned) is Canon bodies with various L zooms and a couple of primes. The snag with all this is that it is a lot of kit to lug about. My wife agreed and I bought the slightly used X1 for her so that she could experiment with a simpler approach that still delivers high IQ. (She is the real family photographer). Once you start carting several Leica lenses around, the compromise re-appears. Even my 15 year old son's Canon D600 with a couple of half decent lenses (not L's) is capable of excellent IQ these days, with a great deal of flexibility and really quite intuitive menu systems. So to go down the M9 route, one needs to value some other things in order to justify the substantial price differential. Those things may be compactness, heritage, perceived brand image, a different approach to photography...name your poison really. I get that too as I quite enjoy a certain brand of Italian car, that goes from A to B in exactly the same time as a basic family car in a traffic jam. It seems to me as a Leica newbie, that one has to be realistic and accept that the M9 (for example) has a significant brand premium and a degree of diminishing returns on the pricing curve. AJ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nryn Posted July 9, 2012 Share #26 Posted July 9, 2012 It seems to me as a Leica newbie, that one has to be realistic and accept that the M9 (for example) has a significant brand premium and a degree of diminishing returns on the pricing curve. AJ, I think if your the only dimension of relevance here is cost, then yeah, perhaps what you say is true. And I certainly understand the cost factor. That said, I also think the M9 is a unique camera in many respects, most of which have to do with the photographic process. Again, not being a pixel peeper, I take it on faith that all sorts of people who do that kind of thing can pull out differences between the M9 and other cameras, Leica or not. For me if there was another camera that did what the M9 did--great image quality and a true rangefinder experience--I don't care if it was $5000 cheaper or $5000 more expensive, it'd be something I'd look at seriously. OK, maybe I'd mind a bit if it were $5000 more expensive... All this to say that the brand premium people associate with Leicas is certainly relevant to some buyers. Often these buyers don't take, in my opinion, very good photographs. But I think that for me the pricing curve is entirely vertical--there is no other digital camera out there that provides me with the experience the M9 provides me, period. I wouldn't care if the brand for a similar camera was Wal-mart. I pay for the experience. The X2 extends (but in no way duplicates) that experience into a smaller form factor. It's more like the X2 carries the same photographic ethos but not the same technique (if that makes any sense). Basically it comes down to this for me--I've had a lot of cameras, professional, prosumer, consumer. Over the years they've felt more and more like holding up a computer than they have interacting with a camera. The M9 does not. And that for me is the only dimension of relevance when evaluating my investment in the M system, because it affects the way I photograph more, perhaps, than it affects the images I capture. As I said earlier, the M9 and the X2, to my eye, produce images compelling and similar enough that I don't think they warrant any significant comparison on the image quality front. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJB Posted July 9, 2012 Share #27 Posted July 9, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Yes, I accept that viewpoint fully. I also accept that the ability to capture a compelling image has very little to do with equipment. I may be a bit odd in this regard, but I have always appreciated the way certain things are made, and Leica equipment does push some of those buttons, in much the same way as Ferrari cars do, or for that matter handmade Japanese chefs knives. There is a point where one regards price as merely a measurement. However, one does need to look more widely than brand loyalty at times. I became interested in photography in 2008 when I accidentally came across the Cambridge in Colour site. The gallery had some incredible work, capturing mainly night time images of Cambridge University using long exposures and a very artistic eye for a stunning image. I had very little interest in the gear (Canon 5D as it happens) - but the "eye" caught my attention. Over the years I have come to realise that if I have to carry lots of gear about, I won't, so mostly I will miss the pictures I wish I had taken. Especially candid ones. The used X1 was bought for my wife on a whim when another camera broke, and the X2 ordered today was because we have both found it more appealing than we expected. We will use them both on our travels this summer and buy an M9 or pre order an M10 if we feel the Canon kit can finally be consigned to eBay (lenses passed onto offspring) in favour of a lighter and simplified approach. Added to this, my wife is German so she inexplicably maintains German technology is superior anyway.... AJ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.gt Posted July 10, 2012 Share #28 Posted July 10, 2012 Wow...when looking at each photo, I prefer the X2 image. It just looks cleaner and does not have the color "moire" effect seen on the tallest building in the background. I don't care for the 100% crop test so much as whether I like the overall image or not. They are both so close, that it is amazing how complementary the X2 is with the M9, the camera I would choose to shoot everyday if I could afford it. Thank you for these images... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny19800304 Posted July 10, 2012 Share #29 Posted July 10, 2012 what I own now is a m9p + x2. x2 is automatic but hand feeling is different as m9. i like the shutter release feeling m9 give me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avatar Posted July 10, 2012 Share #30 Posted July 10, 2012 As posted in another thread...M9 and X2...great combination.. (for me), MM and X2...much better combination... (when I get it, that is!) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECliffordSmith Posted July 10, 2012 Share #31 Posted July 10, 2012 Hi All, It is an interesting comparison, thank you for sharing your images. Personally I find the M9 image is the better of the two but that the X2 can be compared in this manner is remarkable really. When you bear in mind sensor differences and the suberb contrast of the modern Leica M lenses this image quality differential is to be expected. The M9 file appears to hold up to the processing a little better too. I note no significant moire in the X2 image where I feel my X1 would have produced some. Does anybody who owns/owned both the X1 and X2 have an opinion as to whether there could be a stronger AA filter on the X2? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted July 10, 2012 Share #32 Posted July 10, 2012 OK, I do understand that, but question the logic of "easily" justified. ...AJ AJ, it is impossible to quantify intangibles. Eventually it comes down to your own personal cost-benefit analysis. No one can do it for you. All I can say is that it took me years to expand on my original Leica kit purchase. It was a slow process, reflecting my ever-changing passage through life. But I am unreservedly happy with the kit I have gradually acquired and rarely upgrade without a great deal of thought. Some photographers seem to make snap judgements and/or are forever chasing the latest technology. At least with a Leica you can tap into historic resources and still have some very fine working equipment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mah Posted July 11, 2012 Share #33 Posted July 11, 2012 Here are other two shots using M9 and X2: M9+ 35mm Summilux Tower Bridge- Olympiad 2012 M9 version | Flickr - Photo Sharing! X2: Tower Bridge- Olympiad 2012 X2 version | Flickr - Photo Sharing! Thanks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECliffordSmith Posted July 11, 2012 Share #34 Posted July 11, 2012 Hi, Thank you for posting these. They are very useful comparisons. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avatar Posted July 11, 2012 Share #35 Posted July 11, 2012 To my eye the images posted for comparison look over processed and artificial. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
s38 Posted July 11, 2012 Share #36 Posted July 11, 2012 To my eye the images posted for comparison look over processed and artificial. I'd have to agree with you... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted July 11, 2012 Share #37 Posted July 11, 2012 To my eye the images posted for comparison look over processed and artificial. That is why attempting to judge the quality of lens performance in pictures on the web is fairly futile. It can show other pictorial qualities, such as composition and angles of view quite well, but qualitative analysis of lens performance needs prints on a wall or in the hand, depending on size. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avatar Posted July 12, 2012 Share #38 Posted July 12, 2012 That is why attempting to judge the quality of lens performance in pictures on the web is fairly futile. It can show other pictorial qualities, such as composition and angles of view quite well, but qualitative analysis of lens performance needs prints on a wall or in the hand, depending on size. Yes I agree but really the images posted for comparison are so artificial they look more like HDR or illustrations...lol..thought i was seeing things...I never saw images from either camera that looked like that! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECliffordSmith Posted July 12, 2012 Share #39 Posted July 12, 2012 Hi Avatar, While it is clear that the photographer has a highly processed look I still found the comparisons interesting. Two raw files you can play with yourself and print are always the only true way to compare but in the absence of those I was grateful they were posted. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stark60 Posted July 12, 2012 Share #40 Posted July 12, 2012 I agree with you Avatar, I didn't point it out on my first post cause it was not the subject, but these images look like HDR with curve adjustments under Photoshop. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.