M9 and M comparisons

[CaptZoom]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I find this thread amusing. I think I'm in the minority, because the image quality of the sensor (and I'm not sure what even means) is not a priority. I think choice of lens, proper shooting technique, and post post processing has more to do with the "look" than the sensor.

[rirakuma]

I somewhat agree with you but I have a feeling (or perhaps hope) it is fixable via firmware although it might take a few more iterations before they look closer to the M9. When I look at John's pictures I do see something special in the rendering but I'm sure many can agree that the strange tint is definitely present. I was looking through the M9 LFI master shots gallery and based on the recent pics from the new M I find it difficult to believe that the "current" M can render the colours like the M9 did (I'm not saying it can't). I imagine that as the color profiles mature the M will be wonderfully unique in its own way. The tint really needs to go away though.

 

Anyone prepared to do a back to back ?

 

So far the images I have seen look 25% M9 and 75% Nikon/Canon in rendering style but with incredible sharpness. That Fuji Velvia potential for richness and vibrancy of the M9 seems to have gone from the images I have seen so far. Plus a number look quite 2D

 

I suspect my initial concern about the CMOS look will not go away

 

Sorry to be a party pooper.....

[IWC Doppel]

Seems to me some of the comments are suggesting it's about he photographer and LR skills and the camera lens is not relevant I thought Leica was substantially about performance, not convenience or brand ?

Whilst I totally accept the results are fundamentally underpinned by both the photographer and developer, I was looking at this from an equipment performance perspective, not just technical performance but comparable rendering as well. Ming mentions this and I can see similarities to other CMOS sensors in some shots.

 

It's only an ask for direct comparisons.

[IWC Doppel]

PS I am curious only at this stage, My M9-P has now only done 8,000 actuations and will be with me for a few years yet, I am not an early adopter of new technology. Strange this somewhat obvious question has provoked such a strange response

[Olsen]

I got nothing against 'new technology'. Quite on the contrary. But I am wary of being a beta tester once more. M8 and M9 were enough for me. I want to hear about 'the shit' in good time before I pull my credit card. Then I will decide.

 

1)

How is corner sharpness and light fall off on M240 compared to M9? All 'tests' and 'impressions' I have seen so far are with lenses down to 28 mm and above. Which are totally unproblematic on just any digital camera.

 

2)

Any Italian Flag tendencies when using extreme wide angle lenses or non Leica lenses? Like the Voigtländer 15? Or even Leica's WATE?

 

Why have these vital 'problematics' been totally absent from the test material so far released...?

[jedi996sps]

 

It's only an ask for direct comparisons.

 

Yes, i am also very surprised that no one has posted any comparision images...other than what we have seen in the reviews so far.

[jonoslack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I hate to be that guy, but I will just come out and say it: I dare anyone here to tell me the difference between ten different 13x19 prints made with the M9, the 5DII, the new M, the MM, the M8. It really depends all on the lenses and processing, and I am a huge Leica fan. The CCD vs. CMOS debate is just blown out of proportion.

 

 

I quite agree with this sooo much!

 

My point is IMHO there is no objective way to compare M and M9 images, so trying to "measure" as a "logical" way to decide whether to buy is a form of rationalization of a predetermined decision to buy -- or not buy. Both decisions, if you ask me, are at least partly based on individual subjectivity (if not emotion), and by the way there is nothing wrong with that, but let's be honest about what we are talking about.

 

This is the point - you need terms of reference for a comparison - just gazing at a file and pontificating is hardly useful - it just means that the viewer sees what they want to see . . . . or what they don't want to see (depending on their glass half full status).

 

 

I was looking at this from an equipment performance perspective, not just technical performance but comparable rendering as well. Ming mentions this and I can see similarities to other CMOS sensors in some shots.

 

It's only an ask for direct comparisons.

 

I could have done this - but what would satisfy you? Sean's vegetables apparently don't (in this context they don't satisfy me either).

Would you like the outdoor pictures of our garden shed? some images of a dresser in low light? A dpreview like picture of little bits of fluffy doll and bottles of booze?

 

As others have pointed out - you need proper terms of reference to make a proper comparison. As I'm pointing out - it's even harder than that, because one's subjective impression will change with every scene.

 

That's the reason I don't ever post that kind of comparison these days (I've learned my lesson) - I just can't see that it's possible to draw useful conclusions from it (great scope for a punch-up however )

[jonoslack]

Hi There Olsen

There are a few wide angle shots in my write-up (FWIW)

 

I got nothing against 'new technology'. Quite on the contrary. But I am wary of being a beta tester once more. M8 and M9 were enough for me. I want to hear about 'the shit' in good time before I pull my credit card. Then I will decide.

 

1)

How is corner sharpness and light fall off on M240 compared to M9? All 'tests' and 'impressions' I have seen so far are with lenses down to 28 mm and above. Which are totally unproblematic on just any digital camera.

 

It's much much better than the M9 - sure there may be some tweaks needed for one or two lenses, completely different ball game -

2)

Any Italian Flag tendencies when using extreme wide angle lenses or non Leica lenses? Like the Voigtländer 15? Or even Leica's WATE?

 

The WATE is fantastic - even if you code it quite correctly it's still absolutely fine - at least - it's absolutely fine in all the photographs I've taken with it.

 

the CV15 is not so good - there is some red-purple vignetting (but certainly no Italian flag) - but I've not tried coding it as anything else to see how good it is. This is really an extreme lens though - all the other wides I've tried have been fine:

 

WATE

21 f2.8

24 'lux

28 'cron

Why have these vital 'problematics' been totally absent from the test material so far released...?

Well, it isn't totally absent - but the reason it hasn't been all consuming is that it's so much less of an issue than it is with the M9

 

I hope this helps

all the best

[rosuna]

Someone in another thread is complaining the images are too vibrant?!

 

My complaint is the M240's images are too 3D.

 

I would like something more balanced, between 2D and 3D... something like 2,5D or 2,7D

[Paul J]

Strange this somewhat obvious question has provoked such a strange response

 

It's a perfectly legitimate request, in my opinion, when evaluating wether one should upgrade from x to y.

 

When done properly a comparison is very telling.

[jaapv]

the camera lens is not relevant.

I should think not. Any decent comparison presupposes shots taken with the same lens.

[IWC Doppel]

I could have done this - but what would satisfy you? Sean's vegetables apparently don't (in this context they don't satisfy me either).

Would you like the outdoor pictures of our garden shed? some images of a dresser in low light? A dpreview like picture of little bits of fluffy doll and bottles of booze?

 

As others have pointed out - you need proper terms of reference to make a proper comparison. As I'm pointing out - it's even harder than that, because one's subjective impression will change with every scene.

 

That's the reason I don't ever post that kind of comparison these days (I've learned my lesson) - I just can't see that it's possible to draw useful conclusions from it (great scope for a punch-up however )

 

Jono, hi

 

Here's my weak, please drive a bus through it, logic........

 

I take pictures purely for my and on occasion other peoples pleasure.

 

One aspect of what is important to me with respect to the equipment (This thread was not about photography skills, lightroom skills or other aspects, I agree with all that the eye of the photographer and the ability to take the shot is everything) is how the images are rendered in comparison. If people accept the M9 renders differently to the M8 (I think so and had both) with a very similar sensor then a comparison is for me valid. I do accept there are a lot of dependencies and there is the possibility of being struck down for helping (I feel a little beaten up asking for soemthing seemingly straightforward)

 

I have no interest in vegetables other than to eat and my sole reason for not subscribing to SR's site is the value proposition for one review that I am interested in. I WOULD pay for this forum however

 

Put it another way, if there is no difference or the difference is so subtle it cannot be articulated or has no meaningful benefit the M must be about the additional functionality, which in itself would be useful to know...... At least to me.....

[thighslapper]

The CCD vs CMos argument is not just blown out of proportion, it is largely irrelevant imo. The design of the filter array in front of the sensor and the firmware processing makes the output look the way it does, not to mention the postprocesssing by the photographer.

 

... The voice of reason

 

Leica could make the output look like ANYTHING...... if they wanted it to.

 

I thought the whole point was to produce an image as close to what you were looking at as possible.

 

What you do with it after that is up to you......

[Fgcm]

After comparing images from M9 and M I can say that I cannot tell which image come from which camera at ISO 200.

 

M is simply a better camera designed around a more modern sensor.

 

Franco

[jonoslack]

After comparing images from M9 and M I can say that I cannot tell which image come from which camera at ISO 200.

 

M is simply a better camera designed around a more modern sensor.

 

Franco

 

Straight to the point - nail hit on the head - I wish I'd just said that!

[IWC Doppel]

I should think not. Any decent comparison presupposes shots taken with the same lens.

 

Ofcourse any comparison should be with the same lens, sorry if my comments were confusing

[jonoslack]

Hi There

Well, that's a good reply and deserves a decent answer, so I'll do my best

 

Jono, hi

 

Here's my weak, please drive a bus through it, logic........

 

I take pictures purely for my and on occasion other peoples pleasure.

 

Yes yes - me too.

One aspect of what is important to me with respect to the equipment (This thread was not about photography skills, lightroom skills or other aspects, I agree with all that the eye of the photographer and the ability to take the shot is everything) is how the images are rendered in comparison. If people accept the M9 renders differently to the M8 (I think so and had both) with a very similar sensor then a comparison is for me valid. I do accept there are a lot of dependencies and there is the possibility of being struck down for helping (I feel a little beaten up asking for soemthing seemingly straightforward)

 

I have no interest in vegetables other than to eat and my sole reason for not subscribing to SR's site is the value proposition for one review that I am interested in. I WOULD pay for this forum however

 

Put it another way, if there is no difference or the difference is so subtle it cannot be articulated or has no meaningful benefit the M must be about the additional functionality, which in itself would be useful to know...... At least to me.....

 

I don't think there's no difference, or that it's particularly subtle, but I think it changes from image to image, and that it's not possible to draw a sensible conclusion from any one comparison.

 

Without an ability to make real, objective, conclusions from a comparison, one is left with a gut feeling (dangerous thing on these forums!)

 

So, let's be pragmatic, and try and make some supportable statements:

1. the M images look pretty okay

2. the dynamic range on the M is greater than the M9

3. the colour is slightly different between the two cameras

4. the detail is equivalent

5. the M is better in almost every functional respect.

 

For me, 5 is enough as long as 1-4 isn't a deal breaker.

 

Is this helpful? probably not

[Ecar]

After comparing images from M9 and M I can say that I cannot tell which image come from which camera at ISO 200.

 

M is simply a better camera designed around a more modern sensor.

 

Franco

 

Fully agree.

Let me add my 2c: I see more difference between a picture taken with the Summilux 35 ASPH and one taken with the later FLE version (for the record, I prefer the former) than between two pictures with the same lens taken respectively with the M9 and the M. And this is before any LR tweaking.

As far as I'm concerned, the main difference is in the ergonomics, not the IQ, of each camera - and the M wins hands down. It is really a joy to use, even if, like me, you are not interested by video or the ability to use R lenses.

[jonoslack]

Fully agree.

Let me add my 2c: I see more difference between a picture taken with the Summilux 35 ASPH and one taken with the later FLE version (for the record, I prefer the former) than between two pictures with the same lens taken respectively with the M9 and the M. And this is before any LR tweaking.

As far as I'm concerned, the main difference is in the ergonomics, not the IQ, of each camera - and the M wins hands down. It is really a joy to use, even if, like me, you are not interested by video or the ability to use R lenses.

 

Thank you - agree with every word.

 

all the best

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[theno23]

I've just uploaded a pair of 16 bit TIFF files from my M9 and M, of a random bookcase, taken with the 50 1.4 ASPH, at f/11.

 

The angle of view wasn't identical, so I had to rotate and crop the M one in Lightroom to get them to match, then I cropped them both to 5k pixels on the long edge.

 

The white balance is set to a white point on one image (I forget which one) then I manually set the white balance controls in Lightroom to the same value on the other.

 

The colour is different, but I'm using Lightroom 4.4 beta, and I doubt the M profile has stabilised yet. It's close enough to compare though.

 

See if anyone can guess which is which. It's hard! I doubt I could if I didn't know. The look at base ISO is very, very similar.

 

The images are close to 100MB, so will take a while to download.

 

http://plugin.org.uk/misc/A.tif

http://plugin.org.uk/misc/B.tif

 

- Steve