theno23 Posted March 5, 2013 Share #81 Posted March 5, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Oh, but it has. And I am not convinced that a 40 MP sensor would, on the whole, have meant an improvement in image quality. There are trade-offs involved and I for one wouldn’t want to increase resolution to the detriment of other key factors. 24 MP is just fine (18 MP would have been fine, too). Yes, if it had still been 18MP (but with better noise) I would still have bought it. 18 is enough for very nice A3+ prints, which is the biggest I commonly print. - Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 5, 2013 Posted March 5, 2013 Hi theno23, Take a look here M9 and M comparisons. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Paul J Posted March 5, 2013 Share #82 Posted March 5, 2013 Not sure what the other 40+MP camera you have that you are comparing too but I have a Nikon D800E that has a very nice sensor but I often prefer my M9 pics. I think most would find the 24MP range the sweet spot. I'd rather them keep it at this level and work on cleaner ISO up to 10,000 like the Monochrom in the future. I guess we are all looking at different "wants." Hello MacJonny, I own a Phase One P65+. As I said, it's not fair to compare the two or speak of the two in the same sentence, but I believe in time technology will progress to match what it can offer in much much smaller formats. There was a time not that long ago that 22MP was the pinnacle of digital with Medium Format and now 35mm can closely match. I have also owned a P45+ and the the Nikon is approaching that territory in terms of IQ. It's also an easier camera to use. As for the Nikon, that sensor is an amazing achievement and I believe in many ways the new bench mark. I agree that much of the visual quality of the M9 is what I prefer and that is why I have been choosing the M9 in place of the Phase One on many many occasions. It is by far the better system to use for me due it's diminutive form. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted March 5, 2013 Share #83 Posted March 5, 2013 Oh, but it has. And I am not convinced that a 40 MP sensor would, on the whole, have meant an improvement in image quality. There are trade-offs involved and I for one wouldn’t want to increase resolution to the detriment of other key factors. 24 MP is just fine (18 MP would have been fine, too). Yes I understand you don't want it. But there are many that do and I am one of those people. I suggest the success of the D800 goes to show how many agree and it does not need to be at the detriment to image quality. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted March 5, 2013 Share #84 Posted March 5, 2013 Well, there are all kinds of cameras out there so everyone can find a model to his or her liking. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted March 5, 2013 Share #85 Posted March 5, 2013 I didn't - I don't have much use for the extra resolution, and it would slow the camera, and post processing down a lot. I travel with the smallest MacBook Air I can get, and do a lot of editing on that. It can still do M DNGs, but 40MP would be too big. I'd rather sacrifice some detail for speed, but obviously others have different needs - if you mostly do studio shooting the extra slowness wouldn't be an issue, and the resolution would be useful. - Steve Yes I think the over ridring factor here is that we all have different needs and what we are willing to work with and around. I shoot equally in studio and on location. I appreciate the need to travel light and is one of the reasons the M is so attractive. And while I would also sacrifice some detail for speed and ease of use I would rather more detail and a slightly bigger computer like a Mac Book Pro which has not been a problem to date. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonycdpp Posted March 5, 2013 Share #86 Posted March 5, 2013 The M definitely renders more detail, but I doubt you'd ever see that on web sized images, or on plausible sized prints. The M shot I posted was rotated (which softens detail a lot), and scaled down quite a bit, but pixel peeping the original DNG files you can see there's a bit more detail in the M shot - not a lot though. - Steve I guess what I wanted to really say is that the M9 renders more 'perceivable' detail to my eye. I don't doubt for a second that the M 240 renders more detail. Maybe I have become more accustomed to a combination of a CCD sensor and M lenses. On the picture taken with the M 240 I perceive slight colourisation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanJW Posted March 5, 2013 Share #87 Posted March 5, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Yes I understand you don't want it. But there are many that do and I am one of those people. I suggest the success of the D800 goes to show how many agree and it does not need to be at the detriment to image quality. The D800 is an amazing camera (I have D800E). But I see it as complementary to a Leica, not as a substitute. That was certainly true for the M9. Long lenses on a D800E vs a M9 is no contest unless you are willing to schlep around a visoflex. Macro also unquestionably easier on a DSLR. The M may change that, but an EVF is not the same as a through the lens view and until I see it (I am told I am next for delivery -- whenever that may be) I am planning to keep the Nikon for the times a DSLR is just a better tool. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nyckylim Posted March 5, 2013 Share #88 Posted March 5, 2013 Brave man!Now, how about a wide open comparison? Just joking... Just for the fun of it, pics are taken in Raw. Opened in Aperture 3 and exported as jpegs. Pictures taken with identical settings. Pretty meaningless, but some random shots to entertain everyone here Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwbell Posted March 5, 2013 Share #89 Posted March 5, 2013 First one is M240? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nyckylim Posted March 5, 2013 Share #90 Posted March 5, 2013 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptZoom Posted March 5, 2013 Share #91 Posted March 5, 2013 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. Umm...who else makes a full frame digital rangefinder? -- I have one camera which far exceeds human vision, which while unfair to compare, makes the point that our eyes really do not need upgrading. That kind of detail is only really available in 40MP+ though. I was hoping that Leica would join Nikon and get on board with a high pixel offering. It really does open creative doors. Well said Peter. I am with you that I have no interest in scientific differences. The P65+ has a dynamic range of more than 20 stops? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jffielde Posted March 5, 2013 Share #92 Posted March 5, 2013 Thanks for the samples. I would love to see: Indoor shots at ISO 2000. Outdoor shots (with greenery, trees, etc. - lots of detail) at base ISO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pieterpronk Posted March 5, 2013 Share #93 Posted March 5, 2013 With these last two comparisons I dont see much of a difference. To be honest I dont see the difference between CCD and CMOS in every picture, and the difference is indeed subtle, To me it's like buying a new lens. When contemplating a new lens I just put flickr on a slideshow with only pictures from that lens. After watching for a while, i get a feel for a lens. I would say I see more of a difference between a M9 and the M10 than for example between the Biogon 35mm and the Summicron 35mm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted March 5, 2013 Author Share #94 Posted March 5, 2013 Interesting, for me the first of the two (top one for each) I have a slight preference for, although with the bottom two ( full shot of screen) I could quite happily change my mind. But they both are from the same 'stock' so to speak. Another left ball, it seems from the small number of tiny jpg's so far that in low light (Indoors), lowish ISO they are much more similar than outdoors ? Thanks for sharing Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rirakuma Posted March 5, 2013 Share #95 Posted March 5, 2013 Any chance you could do a portrait comparison of the two under ideal lighting conditions? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macjonny1 Posted March 5, 2013 Share #96 Posted March 5, 2013 With these last two comparisons I dont see much of a difference. To be honest I dont see the difference between CCD and CMOS in every picture' date=' and the difference is indeed subtle, To me it's like buying a new lens. When contemplating a new lens I just put flickr on a slideshow with only pictures from that lens. After watching for a while, i get a feel for a lens. I would say I see more of a difference between a M9 and the M10 than for example between the Biogon 35mm and the Summicron 35mm.[/quote'] Until the Zeiss started to wobble... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jto555 Posted March 5, 2013 Share #97 Posted March 5, 2013 The fact that one can't be sure says a lot for the look of the M(240). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrid Posted March 5, 2013 Share #98 Posted March 5, 2013 Good grief. 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...
pieterpronk Posted March 5, 2013 Share #99 Posted March 5, 2013 The fact that one can't be sure says a lot for the look of the M(240). I guess it depends how serious you are about it. I could probably not see a difference between a bad Russian Jupiter 3 lens and a Summilux 50mm ASPH in some conditions or pictures. That doesnt mean there is no substantial difference. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted March 5, 2013 Author Share #100 Posted March 5, 2013 Come on guys say what you think about the images, if only to establish the fact that small indoor jpg's on a poor office terminal (my work computer) are extremely similar..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.