M9, M9M, Do It Yourself Comparison

[brianv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

We did discuss that early in an Mm thread, but with a rather tongue-in-cheek way. Later, you answered our question (perhaps Alan's question) regarding color separation filters (Wratten 25, 47b, and 58). Let us propose a Leica tri-color camera.

 

The tri-color camera requires beamsplitters, and would be difficult to do with M-Mount lenses. The way to do it is with a color wheel and three separate exposures. It can be used for studio shots, or scenic shots. Not much different than taking an HDR shot or bracketing a shot.

[Advertisement]

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

[brianv]

Can you explain why a filter in the optical path would be so much better than one that is over each individual pixel of the sensor where it cannot impact resolution? Now maybe there are other issues caused by differences in what lies over the two sensors but isn't that the point of these kinds of tests... to reveal whether they exist and bother you? That is where theory meets practice.

 

Mosaic filters introduce artifacts as the frequency of the image is higher than the bayer site. Basically, the Foveon sensor avoids this by stacking the RGB layers. A monochrome camera with a color wheel essentially allows the layers to be stacked, not interpolated. The Kodak DCS monochrome cameras had a color wheel interface, useful in studio work.

[AlanG]

Good summary, Alan. The only thing you left out is that the CA effects of the filter in front of the sensor of the M9 (or any other bayer filtered camera for that matter) are not negligible. Light spill on adjacent pixels and refraction effects on the borders between the minifilters do make quite a difference, experts tell me.

 

But I am not qualified to know if that translates into a significant loss of resolution, color purity, or exposure. (Or some combination.) Yes there is an overall system in place. What experts say and what you can see are two different things. That is why you have to make some critical comparisons and see how these things work out in practice vs. theory. And this posted example is one place to start using your eyes as a deciding factor. This simply is a visual medium.

 

In theory, an $8,000 Leica 50mm f2 lens should out perform a $110 Canon 50mm 1.8. In practice that is not always the case.

[erlingmm]

.... Higher ISO shooting is likely to be the exception... which will only exist if you don't use color filters over the lens when shooting with the MM.

 

If I understand you correctly, I disagree - it is in low-light situations where high ISO gives a benefit, that I think the MM may show its strength, where RBG values are low, colors are not saturated.

I am more interested in "BW-style" image comparison a la the shots towards the end of David Farkas' review, but unfortunately he did not shoot M9 comparisons.

I think the ISO test here is quite convincing:

http://www.reddotforum.com/content.php/231-ISO-Test-Leica-M-Monochrom-vs.-Leica-M9

[AlanG]

If I understand you correctly, I disagree - it is in low-light situations where high ISO gives a benefit, that I think the MM may show its strength, where RBG values are low, colors are not saturated.

I am more interested in "BW-style" image comparison a la the shots towards the end of David Farkas' review, but unfortunately he did not shoot M9 comparisons.

I think the ISO test here is quite convincing:

http://www.reddotforum.com/content.php/231-ISO-Test-Leica-M-Monochrom-vs.-Leica-M9

 

You did get me wrong. By exception, I meant it will be easier to see that the MM is better at higher ISOs than when studying comparative control images between the MM and M9 at base ISOs of each camera... the gap should be greater. Yes those examples, which I have seen before, show a pretty big difference at higher ISOs.

 

I am saying that it looks like it is in higher ISO shooting where the MM will have an advantage... so long as you don't work against this by using a filter thus forcing a still higher ISO setting, larger aperture or longer exposure. Just to start out there is a one stop advantage in base speed. And you probably would not be using filters in most low light situations. It still will be worth studying some comparisons, but the MM goes to 10,000 and the M9 only goes to 2500, so there isn't anything to compare past 2500 unless you are also considering other cameras. But of course at higher ISO's detail suffers a bit too thus reducing the difference in lens quality to some degree. (Not even factoring in likely camera or subject movement.) Again it is theory vs. practice. Perhaps a stabilized camera would record more detail in a given situation.

 

Higher ISO is a vague term today. So let's say we mean 2500 and higher. I remember when ASA 160 High Speed Ektachrome was considered fast. Of course 400 speed Tri-X has been standard for a long time. Clean images can be achieved at much higher than that now and it is pretty common to shoot in the 4,000-8,000 ISO range today.

 

I think if you were a low light b/w only shooter and did not already own an M9, the MM would be the obvious choice for digital rangefinder photography if it is within budget. (Talk about qualifying a statement.) Beyond that you might want to apply informed judgment unless the additional cost is not a factor.

[jonoslack]

A rough example of modifying the bottom two panels.

Keep in mind that these are actual pixels.

The sample below is a small part of the full image.

-- EDIT -- I am not sure the two samples were taken in the same light. Jono?

 

HI there

I fear it might have been english weather - to be honest I can't remember - What I can say though is that I've done a lot of comparisons, and, rather to my surprise, I found that getting the 'red filter skies' that I like for landscapes worked rather better with the MM - on the other hand, one certainly has more flexibility with the channel mixer . . . and less detail.

 

I chose this scene because it does have quite a large range of exposure, but I'm afraid you would get a different kind of result with almost any scene you care to try. N.B. there is a lot of green around here, and that's relevant as well.

 

I suppose that, for me, there are several things which seem to be relevant.

 

1. the MM is not like black and white film

2. the MM is not like a converted colour file

3. In most circumstances there will be more detail in the MM shot (whether this is relevant is a different matter)

4. every scene gives you a different feeling.

5. you can take wonderful monochrome files with an M9

6. losing the option for colour is a real disadvantage

7. losing the option for colour is a real advantage.

 

But having provided the ammunition for this kind of discussion, I'm not (in my heart of hearts) very sure of the value of it.

 

Using the MM imposes a different approach to taking photographs (just as using black and white film does). If this stimulates you, then the MM is a definite winner. I'm not convinced that any detailed comparison of the images is going to be very enlightening.

[SpiritShooter]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This is all interesting and quite informative, however the bottom line for me seems to be the following;

 

1. Do I want to shoot B/W from a purist sense?

2. Is the greater detail that the MM offers a significant plus?

3. Will the use color filters in front of the lens provide the level of control I need vs. flexibility of the color filtration of LR4, Aperture, C1 or PS?

4. Do I need or want the versatility of a color sensor?

 

Over the past 30 years, I have shot thousands of rolls of B/W film. Over the last 10 years, I have shot terabytes of color digital images. I have printed and sold hundreds of B/W images and NO color images. I have printed color images of holidays, family functions and other fund stuff.

 

During the last 7 days, I have flip flopped at least 6 times on whether I am going to accept delivery of the MM. Then, I printed Jono's bridge scene 36"x54" and guess what? I am sold on what I see. The image quality of the MM is not better nor worse than my Nikon D800 but is certainly better than my M9.

 

I guess one can never have enough cameras, especially when you are a fanboy or just fickle....but once I get the MM, I have this feeling that the M9 may find a new home. Only time will tell. In the meantime I have red, yellow, and orange B+W MC filters sitting on my desk awaiting the new body.

[Guest malland]

...losing the option for colour is a real disadvantage

...losing the option for colour is a real advantage...

Jono, you've hit the "Zen of photography" here!

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Pak Nam Pran: From Fishing Village to...

[diogenis]

I believe that what needs to be done is someone to find and exploit this camera's virtues like that of superb detail and contrast and the other of great fidelity as there is no guessing work involved and the system's superb lens. When this happens, the road for masterpiece photography will be open. I firmly believe this camera will prove that it is capable of masterpieces, otherwise every camera can take B&W shots.

[jaapv]

I did not know it had a “masterpiece “ setting in the menu... All the more reason for us mere mortals to buy it

[stephan_w]

still searching for an answer for my question: Is the MM better at Iso 3200/5000 than a D800E?

 

Anyone?

[SpiritShooter]

still searching for an answer for my question: Is the MM better at Iso 3200/5000 than a D800E?

 

Anyone?

 

There was a detailed comparison done by Ming Thien (although some people seem to think it was flawed by the lens used on the D800E). He has lots of good images comparing noise and resolution.

 

The conclusion is that both cameras are amazing, but the D800 shows less noise at higher ISO's.

[diogenis]

Not sure how amazing both cameras are, but when I compare the zoomed faces of the portrait in the end, I only like the one taken with the MM. The other one shows a very peculiar grain. Also loses some of its micro contrast, but this is well, expected from competing such an expensive lens.

Edit: If I had to guess it looks like noise coming from ISO amplification, looks like a struggle in low light, while the MM just draws its finest details

[stephan_w]

There was a detailed comparison done by Ming Thien (although some people seem to think it was flawed by the lens used on the D800E). He has lots of good images comparing noise and resolution

 

thanks, I know his blog but didn't see this comparison. I will have a second look

[jonoslack]

There was a detailed comparison done by Ming Thien (although some people seem to think it was flawed by the lens used on the D800E). He has lots of good images comparing noise and resolution.

 

The conclusion is that both cameras are amazing, but the D800 shows less noise at higher ISO's.

 

Thanks for posting this link - I think Ming's blog is great - and that this comparison is really useful - perhaps largely because it doesn't really come to a conclusion.

 

all the best

[diogenis]

I would love to see a comparison of the M9 versus the D800E.

I bet that the differences will be less than what we see here with the MM, but there will still be shots showing less microcontrast when comparing one another, and no, the megapixels wont help.

[stephan_w]

I would love to see a comparison of the M9 versus the D800E.

I bet that the differences will be less than what we see here with the MM, but there will still be shots showing less microcontrast when comparing one another, and no, the megapixels wont help.

 

I have the D800E for a week now, what I have seen so far ist that the sensor is amazing: excelent resolution, color and high ISO. The weak point for the D800E is the problem to find a lens that matches it. Also, I'm not impressed at all by the design and build quality of this new Nikon, it's definitvely not a pro-camera as the D3/D4 are.

[diogenis]

This is a real problem both camera makers (CaNikon), will face in the immediate future.

The real question is, if their R&D and current legacy is capable to compete against Leica's proven record of superb but expensive lenses.

Another real question is, for how long will they keep improving their sensors without making a matching lens able to break their resolution.

So what is really the point of the D800 "amazing" sensor if it is limited by lens?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[brianv]

This is certainly getting away from an M9 color vs M9 monochrome comparison. I will be purchasing a D800e for work, to replace my D1x. I will not be buying any new lenses with it, and will continue to use the 70~180 ED Micro-Zoom-Nikkor, 60/2.8 Micro-Nikkor, 105/2.8 Micro-Nikkor, and 200/4 ED Micro Nikkor. "ED" in Nikon terminology stands for "Extra Dollars". These lenses should be well matched to the D800e. The old 55/3.5 Micro-Nikkor would not have any problems with it either.

[macjonny1]

This is a real problem both camera makers (CaNikon), will face in the immediate future.

The real question is, if their R&D and current legacy is capable to compete against Leica's proven record of superb but expensive lenses.

Another real question is, for how long will they keep improving their sensors without making a matching lens able to break their resolution.

So what is really the point of the D800 "amazing" sensor if it is limited by lens?

 

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...