IWC Doppel Posted March 7, 2013 Author Share #141 Posted March 7, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Well, what significant gain could there be at ISO160/200? The M9 is a damn good camera at base ISO - you get a good chunk more DR - you can see it even in that test shot, shadows aren't as blocked up, which contributes to the "less 3D" think some people are talking about I guess - you can get back to the M9 level by just increasing the black level and squashing the dynamic range. There's not a lot in it though, a stop, maybe? At ISO 400+ though, the difference is enormous. I've got some night city shots that look great, but not had time to upload them yet. - Steve Steve if no difference at base ISO is possible what is the MM all about ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 7, 2013 Posted March 7, 2013 Hi IWC Doppel, Take a look here M9 and M comparisons. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
hepcat Posted March 7, 2013 Share #142 Posted March 7, 2013 Best is, what is best for the individual person and his purposes, and what this person can afford and is willing to pay. For me the main points, why I am interested in the M instead of the M 9 are:Live View plus enlargement in some cases, which will help me focussing my 90 mm (ev. plus adapter) - I am 65 and my eyes are not the very best - possibility to use my R Macro Elmarit 60 mm (ev. plus extender and plus 2ply APO converter) and making "real" macros with a Leica M and an improved High ISO performance. Of course these points may not be of importance to everyone - it is a very personal point of view of mine. Anyway - a M might help me to use the Leica more often and to leave the heavy weight 5 D III system more often at home. And those are exactly the features that someone in your position should be looking to the M for. And Leica hopes you'll do exactly that... buy the M and leave the 5DIII at home. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
theno23 Posted March 8, 2013 Share #143 Posted March 8, 2013 Steve if no difference at base ISO is possible what is the MM all about ? There's no no difference, though it's certainly subtle until you start messing with the curves. The colours are different, but that's a software thing. The reasons I got the M are: 1) The better ergonomics, liveview and GPS grip - I would have bought it just for that. 2) I shoot at base ISO probably less than 50% of the time. I mostly shoot evenings, and a lot actually at night and indoors. If you need more depth of field than you can get from f/1.4, then you're often wanting ISO1600 or so - I probably would have bought it just for that too. I tried to avoid using the M9 over ISO800, unless I was shooting for B&W, but the the M I'm happy up to ISO3200. That's an extra two stops of movement stopping, or DoF. I suspect that people who are fixating so much on the image quality haven't handled an M - it's a huge improvement - much bigger than say M6 to M7 - and that didn't change the image quality in any substantial way. The fact that the dynamic range is better, and image quality is such much better at ISO400+ is just icing on the cake for me - though I'm sure there are people who shoot at ISO400+ even more than I do. It's not all positive - the fact that the M won't do exposures longer than 1 minute is a pain. The M9 is good up to about 2 mins, and capped at 4, for those that don't do long exposure stuff. I was planning to keep my M9 as a backup body anyway - Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Rawcs Posted March 8, 2013 Share #144 Posted March 8, 2013 2) I shoot at base ISO probably less than 50% of the time. I mostly shoot evenings, and a lot actually at night and indoors. If you need more depth of field than you can get from f/1.4, then you're often wanting ISO1600 or so - I probably would have bought it just for that too. I tried to avoid using the M9 over ISO800, unless I was shooting for B&W, but the the M I'm happy up to ISO3200. That's an extra two stops of movement stopping, or Do - Steve Steve, I've been shooting a project for almost a year now that has required a lot of photography at ISO 3200. I found the M9 not up to the job (for my tastes anyway) - that and the wildy inaccurate viewfinder framelines made me use a Canon 5d 3. I've just ordered the M: can you post some ISO 3200 samples please? I've tested the framelines on the M and I'm happy with the change. Mike. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted March 8, 2013 Share #145 Posted March 8, 2013 On topic, but a different angle. I've been shooting a corporate job with the M and M9 side by side. IQ will be fine with either, but the shutter noise on the M9 turns heads and distracts. The shutter on the M doesn't. If only for this it's worth the money! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronaldh Posted March 8, 2013 Share #146 Posted March 8, 2013 This was taken with the M9. With apologies to Sean Reid, I am hoping for better vegetables when my M arrives Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/199637-m9-and-m-comparisons/?do=findComment&comment=2264927'>More sharing options...
ErikP Posted March 8, 2013 Share #147 Posted March 8, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) The point is' date=' when anyone buys the latest digital M camera, whether M or MM, they'll be getting the best digital M camera, as you should expect. That doesn't mean that everyone who already has a digital M camera, like an M9 for example, should now go out and buy a new camera just because there is a new camera available. Its not like buying the latest edition of The Beano. Or maybe it is.[/quote'] Depends on your cash flow...... :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErikP Posted March 8, 2013 Share #148 Posted March 8, 2013 On topic' date=' but a different angle. I've been shooting a corporate job with the M and M9 side by side. IQ will be fine with either, but the shutter noise on the M9 turns heads and distracts. The shutter on the M doesn't. If only for this it's worth the money![/quote'] Good point! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
photomeme Posted March 8, 2013 Share #149 Posted March 8, 2013 On topic, but a different angle. I've been shooting a corporate job with the M and M9 side by side. IQ will be fine with either, but the shutter noise on the M9 turns heads and distracts. The shutter on the M doesn't. If only for this it's worth the money! Use discreet mode on the M9, and you may experience the opposite reaction, from the reports I'm getting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted March 8, 2013 Share #150 Posted March 8, 2013 Use discreet mode on the M9, and you may experience the opposite reaction, from the reports I'm getting. I don't know where you are getting your reports from. Chris always has used discreet mode - We've discussed it at length. We have just done a similar comparison to the one we did with the M6. This is with the quietest M9 shutter of the 4 cameras that have passed through here. The M is quieter than the M9 in discreet mode (5 times out of 5) (and that's without re-cocking the shutter in the M9 until after the decision has been made). All the best Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted March 8, 2013 Share #151 Posted March 8, 2013 Use discreet mode on the M9, and you may experience the opposite reaction, from the reports I'm getting. As Jono said, Discrete mode's my default - and it's still noiser than the M-240... For interest from this shoot, two examples from real world experience. M-240 with 90 Apo-Summicron and M9 with 50 Summilux-Asph. Both at ISO 800. I know which I prefer. Crappy mixed light and I didn't quite nail the focus with the 90, but it's good for the job. PS - I've no idea why Lightroom didn't pick up the lens information for the 50 lux from the Exif... PPS - if ANYONE says that the M-240 image is soft because it's from a mushy CMOS sensor, I'll scream. For amusement I've also added a 100% crop from one of the other images in the set... Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/199637-m9-and-m-comparisons/?do=findComment&comment=2265116'>More sharing options...
douglasf13 Posted March 8, 2013 Share #152 Posted March 8, 2013 I don't know, I think the whole quiet shutter thing is a little overblown. Of course, it seems useful in Chris' situation, but most of the time it probably isn't an issue. Sure, the M9 seems loud with the camera stuck right to your face, but it isn't offensively loud to someone 5+ feet away, in most cases, unless you're shooting unusual circumstances like golf, an office, tennis, opera or whatever. Constantine Manos seems to not have an issue with it, and he really gets in there amongst people. I used to actually turn on the silly fake shutter sound on the Fuji X100, so that people knew when the camera was going off. People already see the camera stuck to your face, so they know you're taking pictures. In fact, I sometimes wonder whether the hilarious recocking sound of the M9 makes people believe it's just some worthless old film camera, which makes them a little more comfortable. Who knows? I'd welcome the new shutter sound, but I'm not sure it's worth upgrading, for me, as I've discussed with Jono several times. Of course, he has warned me not to handle the camera, because I may change my mind! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptZoom Posted March 8, 2013 Share #153 Posted March 8, 2013 For interest from this shoot, two examples from real world experience. M-240 with 90 Apo-Summicron and M9 with 50 Summilux-Asph. Both at ISO 800.... Thanks for posting these images. In addition to better res, wb, etc., the M's photo is better composed and is difficult not to like:) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pieterpronk Posted March 8, 2013 Share #154 Posted March 8, 2013 Thanks for the comparison! Pictures like these are REALLY helpful! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted March 8, 2013 Share #155 Posted March 8, 2013 Hi Chris. I really hope you don't mind me posting this example. But I shoot a lot of interiors under various kinds of artificial light. A lot of times there is yellow filling in the shadows - typically coming from fluorescent bulbs or localized tungsten task lights. I'm pretty sensitive to this. I use DXO as my raw editor and it has a "Hue" section that lets me de-saturate just a specific color (in this case yellow) without affecting the overall color balance. It can also shift the yellow to be a bit more reddish as I did here in addition to the de-saturation. Sometimes I still have to use a color brush to clean up some areas or actually paint in a color to match a particular fabric color for a very demanding interior designer. The tool is also useful when I shoot dusk exteriors of homes to take some of the fluorescent yellow out of the windows and warm them up. This has been a huge time saver for me and perhaps you and others will find it useful. I think DXO now supports the M9 and hopefully will support the M too. In any case, you can do this kind of color change on tiffs or jpegs too. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/199637-m9-and-m-comparisons/?do=findComment&comment=2265277'>More sharing options...
wda Posted March 8, 2013 Share #156 Posted March 8, 2013 ....PS - I've no idea why Lightroom didn't pick up the lens information for the 50 lux from the Exif........ Could it be lens recognition inadvertently deselected in the menu? Or User Preset not reset? That is one reason why I regularly check and reset my User Presettings. But I still forget occasionally when I occasionally fit a non-coded older Leica lens for a shot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Rawcs Posted March 8, 2013 Share #157 Posted March 8, 2013 I'd welcome the new shutter sound, but I'm not sure it's worth upgrading, for me, as I've discussed with Jono several times. Of course, he has warned me not to handle the camera, because I may change my mind! I handled the camera and the much more accurate framelines were a deal maker for me: I ordered the camera. The shutter sound is very good: don't handle the camera! Mike. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted March 8, 2013 Share #158 Posted March 8, 2013 Seems to me the M is doing a better colour job of the wall in front of the students. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted March 8, 2013 Share #159 Posted March 8, 2013 I handled the camera and the much more accurate framelines were a deal maker for me: I ordered the camera. The shutter sound is very good: don't handle the camera! Resistance is futile... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted March 8, 2013 Share #160 Posted March 8, 2013 I've tested the framelines on the M and I'm happy with the change. Or you could have tried an M8.2 for that purpose. It's about time Leica got around to them again. And the quieter shutter is a big bonus...I found the discreet mode quite awkward. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.