M9, M9M, Do It Yourself Comparison

[brianv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The resolution of the fine-grain films such as Panatomic-X is very high, exceeds that of the M9 monochrome. Many people have never used these films, and most consumer-grade scanners could not come near capturing their native resolution. The Film Scanner that I used in 1979 took up the better part of a living room sized lab and recorded to Mag Tape. I'm suddenly feeling very old. The M9 Monochrome is at about 72LP/mm, the D800e is about 100LP/mm. The latter uses a 2x2 Mosaic filter. The M9 Monochrome is About "Plus-X" and the D800e is about "Kodachrome 25". Over 30 years ago someone asked me why I use Panatomic X. Answered "It matches the lenses". My Micro-Nikkor 55/3.5 stopped down a bit measured 70LP/mm on film. This new generation of digital camera is catching up.

[Advertisement]

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

[diogenis]

And to think the human eye can only see 1/10 of that, 6-7 lp/mm...at reading distances.

But tbh, pixel peeping is fun. Less and less people print their pictures. It's all in the computer screen, iPhone iPad, etc

[diogenis]

There are fabulous Nikon lenses! I have a D800E and an M9 both, and they are both great. My Nikon I am using a 3 prime set (24 f/1.4, 85 f/1.4, 200 f/2) and they are all quite amazing lenses. Equal to any Leica I have ever used. The 200mm f/2 is pure magic. Except for the weight, the most beautiful bokeh and microcontrast I have ever seen. My favorite lens...

I am not saying there aren't fabulous lenses. But I am questioning the real necessity of that sensor. 38MB over a 36x24mm area what was the real need to produce such a sensor? In short, I am asking what more will that serve that the D700 @ 12Mp isn't doing already?

[macjonny1]

I am not saying there aren't fabulous lenses. But I am questioning the real necessity of that sensor. 38MB over a 36x24mm area what was the real need to produce such a sensor? In short, I am asking what more will that serve that the D700 @ 12Mp isn't doing already?

 

I think you could say that about any sensor upgrade these days. Not only do you get more resolution than the D700, you get better ISO performance, better dynamic range, and better color depth. I'm sure you know it is the best sensor DXO has ever tested! We don't need to argue DXO's merits but it improved on the D700 in every way. The ability to crop and still retain detail is outstanding. The D800E can rival the Leica S2's image quality for a fraction of the cost. I have a D800E and an M9 and they are both great but obviously quite different. Different tools but both great in their own right.

 

In short....why not 36MP? Only thing they lost compared to the D4 at 16MP is frame rates and ISO, and the D800E is already plenty fast in both for me.

[diogenis]

The D800 can't rival the MM in REAL pictures and it will rival the S2?

And as for DxO, according to them, all Leica's sensors is junk. I don't know what exactly they measure and how they get those results, but really my eyes tell otherwise.

 

If D800 sensor is so great why do they use a 16kmp one in their flagship D4?

And if the problem was the pixels why did they suddenly produced the D700 back then with only 12kMp, when they had the D3S already with 23kMp? Seems to me that Nikon is losing direction here. Canon shows more consistency to what they do

[macjonny1]

The D800 can't rival the MM in REAL pictures and it will rival the S2?

And as for DxO, according to them, all Leica's sensors is junk. I don't know what exactly they measure and how they get those results, but really my eyes tell otherwise.

 

If D800 sensor is so great why do they use a 16kmp one in their flagship D4?

And if the problem was the pixels why did they suddenly produced the D700 back then with only 12kMp, when they had the D3S already with 23kMp? Seems to me that Nikon is losing direction here. Canon shows more consistency to what they do

 

Do you have any objective evidence to refute what I say or just your own subjective experience? Diglloyd did a comparison of the S2 and the D800. Do you have your own published comparison? I'd go read up on that comparison or at least the commentary if you don't subscribe to the site.

 

By the way the D3S had 12MP like the D700. The D3X had twice that. The D3X was an ultra-expensive studio camera. "Why does the D4 have a 16MP sensor?" I told you above that it is optimized for quicker frame rate and better ISO capability. I'd go do some more homework before commenting....

 

I'd also look at Canon 5DIII sales vs. Nikon D800/E sales. I'm guessing the market thinks otherwise regarding the Canon/Nikon argument over who is losing direction. Just watch....the next Canon released will be a high MP camera.

 

http://diglloyd.com/blog/2012/20120407_5-LeicaS2-vs-NikonD800-reader-comments.html

[diogenis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Do you have any objective evidence to refute what I say or just your own subjective experience? Diglloyd did a comparison of the S2 and the D800. Do you have your own published comparison? I'd go read up on that comparison or at least the commentary if you don't subscribe to the site.

 

By the way the D3S had 12MP like the D700. The D3X had twice that. The D3X was an ultra-expensive studio camera. "Why does the D4 have a 16MP sensor?" I told you above that it is optimized for quicker frame rate and better ISO capability. I'd go do some more homework before commenting....

 

I'd also look at Canon 5DIII sales vs. Nikon D800/E sales. I'm guessing the market thinks otherwise regarding the Canon/Nikon argument over who is losing direction. Just watch....the next Canon released will be a high MP camera.

I have common sense. One is MF and the other is FF. They are both 38MP and Leica has larger sensor. There is no need to join someone's site because he wants to "review" and compare apples to oranges.

 

Furthermore, Fun with D800 Photos - Page 6 - The GetDPI Photography Forums the shot of D800 has lost the colors, while the M9 is spot on

 

And last, May 10, Part 3: Bayer vs. non-Bayer: Leica M-Monochrom vs. Nikon D800E – Ming Thein | Photographer in the last shot both the cropped and the whole, the technology marvel fails hard.

 

And again: I am not saying that D800 is a bad camera, on the contrary: I expect it to be a great camera, much like the D700 is. I am only questioning the need Nikon chose, by reviving the megapixel wars.

[brianv]

It should not be a race. Nikon went with a smaller pixel count with their flagship than the 3 year-old M9 has, what does that tell people? I'd rather have real dynamic range, native to the detector. I'd rather have the M9 and M9 monochrome. Put my own money on those, and somebody else's on the D800e. But if Leica does an M9ir, I can easily justify that for work.

 

Honestly, I'd rather read about the Leica M9 and M9 monochrome on this forum, and about the Nikon somewhere else.

[jaapv]

M9ir=M8

[brianv]

I want ALL of the IR!

 

I have to use an IR cut filter on my DCS200ir to get it down to the M8 levels. and then there's that pesky Bayer filter messing up visible.

 

But of course the best thing about an M9ir... I essentially get it for free. Same as the D800e.

[Kittyphoto]

The D800E can rival the Leica S2's image quality for a fraction of the cost. .

 

I feel D800 or MarkIII use too much processor manipulate the files. File looks HDR from the beginning. Too much sharpen. While S2 look natural and smooth.

IMHO

kitty

[SpiritShooter]

And last, May 10, Part 3: Bayer vs. non-Bayer: Leica M-Monochrom vs. Nikon D800E – Ming Thein | Photographer in the last shot both the cropped and the whole, the technology marvel fails hard.

 

If you closely compare the two, you will find that the difference in the lenses playing a big part in these two images as well as his focus not being hit on the pancake lens. The D800 focus is almost precisely on the left nostril (right side of the image) and further back board the eye in the M9 image.

 

Not sure that you can definitively say "the technology marvel fails hard" with any amount of credibility.

 

I own both the D800 and M9. Shooting the same scene on a tripod at the same aperture and shutter speed using the D800 with am AF-S 50 f/1.4 at f/2 and the M9 with a Summicron 50 f/2 at f/2 shows that the D800 out resolves the M9. Micro contrast is also superior with the AF-S 50.

 

The comparison that Ming did is helpful, but not really all that applicable due to the shortcomings he built in.

 

Mike

[diogenis]

How do you know where he was focusing at? Why shouldn't it be the same with both cameras?

I already said about micro contrast and the APO 50, so lets forget about it for a sec. What do you think about contrast then when comparing both pictures?

I own both the D800 and M9. Shooting the same scene on a tripod at the same aperture and shutter speed using the D800 with am AF-S 50 f/1.4 at f/2 and the M9 with a Summicron 50 f/2 at f/2 shows that the D800 out resolves the M9. Micro contrast is also superior with the AF-S 50.

Maybe. But the summicron you have is not the summicron he has either. And the afs50 is only consistent on its center area. Compare the same lenses, say outdoors in the city with heavy detail in the whole frame, not just the center. Compare them both wide open then stopped and then conclude, and maybe show it here.

And it's not only about pixel peeping (I love pixel peeping btw), colors, gradations, overall contrast also important.

Don't you think it's about time for Nikon to change its name to Leicon?

I thought dSLRS were all about zoom lenses, where you can zoom everywhere in the blink of the eye - gone, now its all about primes and resolving power

I thought dSLRS were all about fast AF - gone that too with the primes, now you hunt for the 13th eye lace of the model.

I thought that Leica was wrong about using that AA filter, after all what do they know? - gone that too!! now Nikon is selling you the 800E without the AA filter some 5 years later.

Now silly Leica is making that MM thing without color omg! I can predict the 1000EBW 3 years from now.

Only thing that stays put is that enormous bulk and weight

[brianv]

If Nikon makes another Monochrome DSLR, I'll buy it and have the IR absorbing glass replaced with a clear window. They made a monochrome digital camera many years ago. Hopefully, they will come out with a new one. Same with the lack of AA filter, this is the first Nikon DSLR to leave out the AA filter since the Nikon E3 of 1997. I have that one. Only about 100 made. The only Zoom I use on it is the 70~180 Micro-Nikkor-Zoom. Usually it has a 60/2.8 on it.

 

Nikon also made some really good Rangefinder cameras in the past few years. I doubt they will do a Digital Nikon SP. Until then, I use an Amedeo adapter on the M9 for the S-Mount lenses. That would be an interesting comparison, take the detector from the D4 and use it in the SP. Switch to Titanium foil curtains like on the 1960s SP's. The DCS100 used a Nikon F3 and had no problems with a horizontal travel shutter.

 

But- this discussion has veered far away from the M9 vs M9 Monochrome comparison. When my M9 monochrome arrives, I'll give it a "do it yourself comparison" with the Nikon lenses.

[SpiritShooter]

How do you know where he was focusing at? Why shouldn't it be the same with both cameras?

I already said about micro contrast and the APO 50, so lets forget about it for a sec. What do you think about contrast then when comparing both pictures?

 

Maybe. But the summicron you have is not the summicron he has either. And the afs50 is only consistent on its center area. Compare the same lenses, say outdoors in the city with heavy detail in the whole frame, not just the center. Compare them both wide open then stopped and then conclude, and maybe show it here.

 

And it's not only about pixel peeping (I love pixel peeping btw), colors, gradations, overall contrast also important.

 

Don't you think it's about time for Nikon to change its name to Leicon?

I thought dSLRS were all about zoom lenses, where you can zoom everywhere in the blink of the eye - gone, now its all about primes and resolving power

I thought dSLRS were all about fast AF - gone that too with the primes, now you hunt for the 13th eye lace of the model.

I thought that Leica was wrong about using that AA filter, after all what do they know? - gone that too!! now Nikon is selling you the 800E without the AA filter some 5 years later.

Now silly Leica is making that MM thing without color omg! I can predict the 1000EBW 3 years from now.

Only thing that stays put is that enormous bulk and weight

 

Not really sure what you are saying here. So many thoughts and opinions..... most seem sarcastic so I am not sure if you are serious....

 

With respect to focus....

 

Take a look at the images again. I am sure that you can see where the focus for each shot is. Unless both images were focussed in exactly the exact same place, it is difficult to judge the differences to be in the camera or lens.

[Jamie Roberts]

There are fabulous Nikon lenses! I have a D800E and an M9 both, and they are both great. My Nikon I am using a 3 prime set (24 f/1.4, 85 f/1.4, 200 f/2) and they are all quite amazing lenses. Equal to any Leica I have ever used. The 200mm f/2 is pure magic. Except for the weight, the most beautiful bokeh and microcontrast I have ever seen. My favorite lens...

 

I can't say for the 200 f2, but if the 24 1.4 Nikon and the 85 1.4 Nikon are "equal to any Leica lens" you've ever used, then may I humbly suggest you're using the wrong Leica lenses, or using them in ways that don't bring their qualities to the foreground (which I find happens a lot on so-called "test sites" as well).

[diogenis]

Take a look at the images again. I am sure that you can see where the focus for each shot is. Unless both images were focussed in exactly the exact same place, it is difficult to judge the differences to be in the camera or lens.

 

So, now you assume that Ming deliberately kept the shot of D800 out of focus to give more contrast to the MM???

Dude, you are looking at the CROP of the picture you know... The guy is taking a shot at 1.5-2 meters away and you are telling us that he focus the D800 on... the right hair of her left nostril? Furthermore he is shooting with his lens stopped down @ 5.6-8 f. Do you know what this means for DoF? You have done just too much homework, more than what was needed, go back and start over again. And finally you are looking at NOISE not oof areas.

And please, don't deconstruct someone else's work, if you can't just make your own conclusions

[jaapv]

Whatever else, DOF does not enter the equation if you are pixel-peeping on a 100 % crop.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[diogenis]

It depends on the magnification. It is surely not 35-50cm of the normal print, but the nostril from the eye also is like what? 2cm?

[macjonny1]

I can't say for the 200 f2, but if the 24 1.4 Nikon and the 85 1.4 Nikon are "equal to any Leica lens" you've ever used, then may I humbly suggest you're using the wrong Leica lenses, or using them in ways that don't bring their qualities to the foreground (which I find happens a lot on so-called "test sites" as well).

 

Good point I was mainly talking about the 200 f/2. The 24 f/1.4 is as good as the Leica though although much bigger. The 85mm is quite good as well....maybe not as good as my 50 Lux though.