macjonny1 Posted March 4, 2013 Share #41 Posted March 4, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thank you - agree with every word. all the best Yes I've said this before but the reason to upgrade is the features not the "sensor." everyone is so focused on the "sensor" but back in film days folks didn't upgrade from an M3 to an M6 because of better IQ (they used the same film!). Sure the extra ISO is nice but lets face it new cameras cost a lot of money and some will want to upgrade and some will be fine with what they have. If you need video, ISO 6400, R-lens, quiet shutter, then your M9 isn't going to cut it. If you don't, then stick with the M9. The M9 is probably more camera than anyone could possibly need but if you want that little bit of "extra" feature set then upgrade! I'm going to wait until the special 100-year edition comes out and you all want to upgrade, and I'll pick up your "M" for a steal!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 4, 2013 Posted March 4, 2013 Hi macjonny1, Take a look here M9 and M comparisons. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Bundestrainer Posted March 4, 2013 Share #42 Posted March 4, 2013 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 My guess: A = M(240) B = M9 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecar Posted March 4, 2013 Share #43 Posted March 4, 2013 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. Brave man! Now, how about a wide open comparison? Just joking... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanJW Posted March 4, 2013 Share #44 Posted March 4, 2013 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. My guess is M is A and M9 is B. A looks a bit flatter and the reds are in need of work. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted March 4, 2013 Share #45 Posted March 4, 2013 ... 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. ... Thanks for not telling, which is which! Following the common prejudice that the M 240 colours are more "shiny" and less natural especially where you have red tones - i say: A is M240 an B is M9 (I was sure at first glance, though when I look back I ask: wasn't B the M240...?). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted March 4, 2013 Share #46 Posted March 4, 2013 Well, I don't know, and I don't need to guess - the fact that guessing is necessary says it all doesn't it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bundestrainer Posted March 4, 2013 Share #47 Posted March 4, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Well, I don't know, and I don't need to guess - the fact that guessing is necessary says it all doesn't it? Isn't it always a guess if you don't know for sure?! I'm 99.9 per cent sure that we're right with our guesses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted March 4, 2013 Share #48 Posted March 4, 2013 I think 'A' = M240 'B' = M9. 'A' looks flatter and less 'lifelike'. But I'd prefer a portrait in daylight to make a better judgement. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
theno23 Posted March 4, 2013 Share #49 Posted March 4, 2013 Yep, A = 240, but it's actually much closer to the colours of the real scene. The M9 shot is too orangey, and the reds are too hot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
theno23 Posted March 4, 2013 Share #50 Posted March 4, 2013 Also, bear in mind the M shot was the one that was rotated and scaled smaller, so it lost more texture. I would have liked to do a wide open shot, but accuratly focussing the M9 close up in poor light is too difficult! - Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeTexas Posted March 4, 2013 Share #51 Posted March 4, 2013 Hmmm, Photo A seems to have a strange pastel magenta glow to it, but the white balance is probably more realistic. Photo B seems to have a bit too much yellow, but it looks more like what I'm used to seeing. I guess A = M, B = M9 Edit: I hate it when I spend too long reading the thread and the answers end up being posted before my guess! lol Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted March 4, 2013 Author Share #52 Posted March 4, 2013 Darn, no chance to guess before the answer. I must admit in these shots they do look different but only in quite subtle ways if you ignore the colour hues. Seems like the exposure in B is a tad up on A which probably helps favour B. I prefer B, but both do look very similar in 'style' to my eyes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted March 4, 2013 Share #53 Posted March 4, 2013 Thank you very much for posting those comparisons. I think I will be spending the money on lenses instead. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted March 5, 2013 Share #54 Posted March 5, 2013 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 Interesting, thanks Steve. I'm not in the market for a new M, and I'm certainly not in the market for knocking it. It looks like a fantastic camera; I think Leica have done a great job, and I wish them all the best. Looking at the two images, closely, and looking for differences, tells me nothing, I'm sorry to say. If I was looking at either in isolation, I'd be very happy. I might change the colour balance for both images. I know there will be experts who will say with lots of authority what the difference is, but to me, it's just the latest M camera - an improvement all round, I'm sure. But I remain happy with what I have (it's way more than I need). Happy shooting all you new M owners, and post some nice images, or even some video! Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
magosak Posted March 5, 2013 Share #55 Posted March 5, 2013 I prefer B as well. Darn, no chance to guess before the answer. I must admit in these shots they do look different but only in quite subtle ways if you ignore the colour hues. Seems like the exposure in B is a tad up on A which probably helps favour B. I prefer B, but both do look very similar in 'style' to my eyes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ockie50 Posted March 5, 2013 Share #56 Posted March 5, 2013 Hi ThereWell, that's a good reply and deserves a decent answer, so I'll do my best Yes yes - me too. 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 6, by the M9 looks better from a design point of view........ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted March 5, 2013 Share #57 Posted March 5, 2013 Well, I don't know, and I don't need to guess - the fact that guessing is necessary says it all doesn't it? Sorry Jono, I don't really see the fact that you have to guess as a good sign at all. I'm disappointed that you have to guess between the IQ of camera's which are a generation, 4 years, apart. Of corse I'm speaking from a buyers perspective of IQ and I'm sure those faithful will buy it and those who want the extra features, but for me it's like spending £5k on a fair ground attraction. It's not adding that much in terms of real world IQ to an existing M9 user. I can see it will suit new buyers though who are comfortable with the fact that a very expensive camera doesn't have peerless IQ. How many really want to drop the alternatives, which are far cheaper for that though? I don't want to be negative and it's not a case of the Emperor's new clothes, more like the Emperor's New fancy coat and GPS/Video smart phone. It's not a bad thing I suppose. Considering the cost to both Leica and more so the buyer, considering the other alternatives I can't help but feel both let down and worried for Leica seeing that we're not going to see an upgrade for at least 3 years. But I think I get it now. I guess this is it for M IQ. If you want more they want you to buy an S it seems. But for me the S is too corrected. It's not for me and I would rather higher resolution in other systems for that look. Perhaps my expectations are just unrealistic or just not in keeping with what Leica are doing. Does it really fit the M philosophy though? Respectfully, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 5, 2013 Share #58 Posted March 5, 2013 I'm disappointed that you have to guess between the IQ of camera's which are a generation, 4 years, apart Maybe we witnessing the old law of diminishing returns in action? Maybe, if we could upgrade our eyes, we would see a vast difference. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted March 5, 2013 Share #59 Posted March 5, 2013 I can't agree with that Jaap. The slight differences are plain to see but the the gain is minimal. I suppose, though, it depends what gains we determine as worthy. We all have our different needs and I don't deny that. Personally i was expecting/hoping for quite a bit more in resolution. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 5, 2013 Share #60 Posted March 5, 2013 What I mean that it is increasingly difficult to realize a significant gain when starting from a rather high level, and that there is a biological limit to the quality of the image we can see. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.