M9 and M comparisons

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.....

And under sh***y light conditions too...

[Paul J]

Umm...who else makes a full frame digital rangefinder?

 

Pray tell, how does a rangefinder have any bearing on IQ?

 

The P65+ has a dynamic range of more than 20 stops?

 

Don't be ridiculous.

[edwardkaraa]

I prefer no. 2 here, I think it has more volume, but it could be the lens fault

 

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

 

 

[63strat]

I'm guessing the top shot in each is the M9.

[edwardkaraa]

In this one I prefer no. 2 as well, and for the same reason, but admittedly there is less difference than in the first pair.

 

 

[Guy2]

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.

 

- Steve

 

Isn't it a bit pointless to judge the critical sharpness of one sensor that's been rotated, with all the pixel interpolation that involves, against one that hasn't?

 

Would it be possible to upload the non-rotated version, just so we can see how, eg, the texture on the spine of the Eames furniture book looks in the M? That would be really interesting. And also, yes please to the request for high-iso images! Thanks

[CaptZoom]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Pray tell, how does a rangefinder have any bearing on IQ?

It doesn't. However the fact remains that literally there is no digital full frame rangefinder camera in the market besides the offerings from Leica, hence there are no alternatives.

 

 

Don't be ridiculous.

You claimed to have a camera/back that's better than the human eye. I assumed you were talking about your +P65. In any case, it's not really worth discussing here.

[CaptZoom]

 

 

I like the second photo in each of the comparisons you posted. The colors a bit more neutral, and there's more apparent sharpness.

[Paul J]

It doesn't. However the fact remains that literally there is no digital full frame rangefinder camera in the market besides the offerings from Leica, hence there are no alternatives.

 

 

 

You claimed to have a camera/back that's better than the human eye. I assumed you were talking about your +P65. In any case, it's not really worth discussing here.

 

I was discussing IQ of various cameras, not rangefinders. So your criteria is irrelevant. I'm actually not so fussed about Rangefinder focussing. I like it a lot but it wouldn't stop me from using other cameras and I expect that the new user base that Leica is trying to attract won't be so fussed either.

 

Dynamic range is not the only thing that makes up IQ. But while we're at it - In average light the eye can only perceive 11-14 stops of dynamic range at any one time. It can, however, move within a much wider range of 24 stops and adjust accordingly. Again the science is irrelevant because in terms of real world imaging, we only need 6-8 to make a print so the rest is superfluous anyway.

 

When I shoot with my P65+ and view a shot in Photoshop, you can zoom in an see, in perfect clarity, detail that your eye will not be able to make out, no matter how close you get. So unless you have they eyes of a hawk it will show you things you've not seen before.

[jonoslack]

Hi There Paul

sorry to be so long replying - been busy elsewhere

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.

 

erm. But everyone has been saying how wonderful the M9 IQ is, and how much they think the new camera will be worse.

What did you dislike about the IQ of the M9 which needs fixing? High ISO maybe - well in that case, 2500 on the M is always completely useable - even for large prints, on the M9 it's usually unusable. If the shots were taken at 1600 ISO the difference would be obvious - but they weren't.

 

As for the new features - surely a bigger buffer, more dynamic range, much better high ISO, radically improved shutter as quiet as an M6, better LCD, weathersealing (I'll stop, you know) is no fairground attraction!

 

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.

 

Who said it doesn't have peerless IQ? I certainly didn't - but at low ISO I thought the M9 had peerless IQ too, and isn't peerless peerless?

 

All the best

[CaptZoom]

I was discussing IQ of various cameras, not rangefinders. So your criteria is irrelevant. I'm actually not so fussed about Rangefinder focussing. I like it a lot but it wouldn't stop me from using other cameras and I expect that the new user base that Leica is trying to attract won't be so fussed either.

It isn't about being fussy but the certainty of my statement: Leica stands alone as the only digital FF RF. I agree with you that not everyone care about the rangefinder mechanism. I would use autofocus if I could, but the damned things don't focus in what I want. Manual focus is the only way for me to do photography out of necessity not desire, which is why the rangefinder is so endearing.

 

Dynamic range is not the only thing that makes up IQ.

That's exactly it though, isn't it: we can cherry pick our examples and show how one's superior to the other without considering that we are comparing two non-comparable systems.

[Paul J]

Hi There Paul

sorry to be so long replying - been busy elsewhere

 

 

erm. But everyone has been saying how wonderful the M9 IQ is, and how much they think the new camera will be worse.

What did you dislike about the IQ of the M9 which needs fixing? High ISO maybe - well in that case, 2500 on the M is always completely useable - even for large prints, on the M9 it's usually unusable. If the shots were taken at 1600 ISO the difference would be obvious - but they weren't.

 

As for the new features - surely a bigger buffer, more dynamic range, much better high ISO, radically improved shutter as quiet as an M6, better LCD, weathersealing (I'll stop, you know) is no fairground attraction!

 

 

 

Who said it doesn't have peerless IQ? I certainly didn't - but at low ISO I thought the M9 had peerless IQ too, and isn't peerless peerless?

 

All the best

 

 

Hi Jono, thanks, though now I'm confused! I actually said the M seemed better in almost every way in another post. It's just the amount that it is better that bothers me. I was hoping for a higher resolution sensor to begin with. What I did say is that it seemed flat to me and that I disagreed that it was from the Dynamic Range and suspected that it was to do with the colour response and the sensor characteristics.

 

As for the M9 I don't want to change much at all. Except for higher resolution. I was really hoping for a 36+MP sensor and thought we'd get it.

 

As for peerless IQ. It seems on many accounts that it isn't. I think it should be given the price and brand.

 

Thanks,

[Paul J]

It isn't about being fussy but the certainty of my statement: Leica stands alone as the only digital FF RF. I agree with you that not everyone care about the rangefinder mechanism. I would use autofocus if I could, but the damned things don't focus in what I want. Manual focus is the only way for me to do photography out of necessity not desire, which is why the rangefinder is so endearing.

 

 

That's exactly it though, isn't it: we can cherry pick our examples and show how one's superior to the other without considering that we are comparing two non-comparable systems.

 

So what's your point? The discussion was about IQ, not that the Leica is a Niche product. Leica is 35mm Full Frame sensor as is the Nikon 800. Camera focusing method does not change the IQ. You can still use manual focus on an SLR, heck, you can even use Leica lenses on the Nikon and vice versa. So the different systems are well and truly comparable.

 

As for cherry picking - It seems you are cherry picking sentences and not reading the entire post and thread. The mention of the P65 was not a comparison of cameras at all. I did'nt even mention it was a P65 at first because I suspected someone would misconstrue. The talk of high megapixels was to illustrate that the biological limits of our eye do not constrain image quality. We don't need upgraded eyes to see more resolution, we just need more pixels.

 

Give me more pixels damn it! I love my Leica and it's lenses. I want to stop using my medium format for many reasons so please - give me more pixels and give them to me now!

[CaptZoom]

Hopefully for the last time:

Comparing IQ between cameras: fair enough. Saying a digital rangefinder has alternatives, kinda nonsensical since only one company makes them, and even then just one model at a time.

 

Comparing human visual system with digital capture, kinda pointless. It's a point you brought up when you claimed you have a camera that surpasses the human eye.

 

You want more pixels- good for you. It seems you'll have some waiting to do.

 

It seems you're priority is ultimate image quality, with little if any concern about human-machine interface, which is why you own a medium format system. My concern is skewed more in favor of interface than ultimate IQ. I just don't like making grandiose claims.

 

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.

 

 

So what's your point? The discussion was about IQ, not that the Leica is a Niche product. Leica is 35mm Full Frame sensor as is the Nikon 800. Camera focusing method does not change the IQ. You can still use manual focus on an SLR, heck, you can even use Leica lenses on the Nikon and vice versa. So the different systems are well and truly comparable.

 

As for cherry picking - It seems you are cherry picking sentences and not reading the entire post and thread. The mention of the P65 was not a comparison of cameras at all. I did'nt even mention it was a P65 at first because I suspected someone would misconstrue. The talk of high megapixels was to illustrate that the biological limits of our eye do not constrain image quality. We don't need upgraded eyes to see more resolution, we just need more pixels.

 

Give me more pixels damn it! I love my Leica and it's lenses. I want to stop using my medium format for many reasons so please - give me more pixels and give them to me now!

[Paul J]

Hopefully for the last time:

Comparing IQ between cameras: fair enough. Saying a digital rangefinder has alternatives, kinda nonsensical since only one company makes them, and even then just one model at a time.

 

Comparing human visual system with digital capture, kinda pointless. It's a point you brought up when you claimed you have a camera that surpasses the human eye.

 

Helloooooooooo?? I'm not talking about Rangefinders I'm talking about IQ! If it needs to be a rangefinder for you then that does not govern every body else. I could easily use both and so could all the other people Leica are trying to attract from Planet dSLR.

 

alternative |ôlˈtərnətiv|

adjective [ attrib. ]

(of one or more things) available as another possibility: the various alternative methods for resolving disputes

 

An alternative does not need to be rigidly, exactly, identical.

 

As for human vision - I'm sorry but I stand by what I said. My Phase One exceeds human vision. It's because of it's resolution.

[mjh]

Helloooooooooo?? I'm not talking about Rangefinders I'm talking about IQ! If it needs to be a rangefinder for you then that does not govern every body else. I could easily use both and so could all the other people Leica are trying to attract from Planet dSLR.

Do they even try? The war between SLRs and rangefinder cameras is over and the SLRs have won, many decades ago. The Leica M series is for those who love rangefinder photography anyway.

 

I have gathered you are not enamoured with rangefinder cameras and you aren’t looking for 35 mm cameras specifically (since you use a medium-format model). This means you are not exactly the prototypical Leica M customer. There is nothing wrong with your set of requirements but if the M doesn’t deliver what you have wished for, that doesn’t imply Leica has done anything wrong. In fact they may have done (nearly) everything right and the M would still not be the camera for you.

[Paul J]

Do they even try? The war between SLRs and rangefinder cameras is over and the SLRs have won, many decades ago. The Leica M series is for those who love rangefinder photography anyway.

 

I have gathered you are not enamoured with rangefinder cameras and you aren’t looking for 35 mm cameras specifically (since you use a medium-format model). This means you are not exactly the prototypical Leica M customer. There is nothing wrong with your set of requirements but if the M doesn’t deliver what you have wished for, that doesn’t imply Leica has done anything wrong. In fact they may have done (nearly) everything right and the M would still not be the camera for you.

 

Michael well thanks for taking the time to understand but in this instance, no, you have me down wrong. Although I can accept I'm not the typical M customer. I love my M9. I love the M Lenses. I love the rangefinder and actually prefer it but it's just not something that is a necessity to me.

 

I'm a convert. No denying. I'm kind of obsessed by Leica so i'm caught in a situation of needing more but not wanting to budge. I just want more resolution so I can use it more commercially and drop my cumbersome medium format system altogether.

 

I think 40±MP is going to play a big role future of 35mm format. I'm part of a very large group looking for a solution that is small and high res. You only need to look to the success of the D800 to see that. I understand you only want 18-24MP and I can understand the reasons why. They are good reasons.

 

I think Nikon is leading the way here and I just feel it should be Leica given the kind of company it is. Have Leica done anything wrong? Well it's a tough call but maybe I'm here to say yeah - I think they should try harder if that's where they want to see them selves. If it's a possiblity to build and if it's in keeping with the agenda/philosphy etc. That's OK for me to do that. I actually want to see them succeed and have an increase in market share and produce better products for me to enjoy. Selfish reasons entirely

 

In the meantime I will continue using my M9 and MF. I don't see the need to buy an M but I'm glad and happy for the people that do. I'm kind of glad everyone is so passionate about me going against the grain as it shows you how good the system really is.

 

Edit just to add - I don't believe the M series is just there for the people who love rangefinder photography. I see it also there for people like me who LOVE the look of the lenses. Rangefinder focussing was an unexpected bonus. I actually thought I'd hate it but I love it. But the lenses are completely unique and a very attractive characteristic - I found the Noctilux and instantly fell in love and signed up buying a whole kit and here I am hooked on it.

[macjonny1]

Edit just to add - I don't believe the M series is just there for the people who love rangefinder photography. I see it also there for people like me who LOVE the look of the lenses. Rangefinder focussing was an unexpected bonus. I actually thought I'd hate it but I love it. But the lenses are completely unique and a very attractive characteristic - I found the Noctilux and instantly fell in love and signed up buying a whole kit and here I am hooked on it.

 

I think it mainly is, and that's why it will continue to succeed even when Sony brings out it's FF NEX-CAM or whatever. Using M-lenses with MF and live view is a totally different experience and if you don't want that then wait until Sony brings their 36MP FF version (they make the sensor already and we all know they will eventually do it...the RX1 is just a first step). You can already use M-lenses on other cameras so the one thing the bodies have that are different are RF focusing.

 

By the way any gains that 35mm format makes in terms of resolution etc will just be matched by MF gains. Look at the new Phase One backs announced yesterday...they will destroy any FF camera's IQ but you pay as much as a house and carry a gigantic camera to do it.

[jaapv]

I absolutely see where you are coming from. However it does not quite fit into the historical role of Leica. They have been the inventor and carrier of the small format compact camera for a century now. Was that the highest resolving best quality image of the time? Of course not. Even if the Leica shots were surprisingly good, any view camera would run rings around them.

For the same reason they had to develop good lenses. Without them the small format images would have looked like nothing at all.

 

These days nothing has changed. Leica builds the best they can - for a small camera with a small sensor. And lenses to make it exceptional. For requirements like yours they have made the S2. And then there is medium format proper - which shows up the limitations of our small "full frame" sensors.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Paul J]

I think it mainly is, and that's why it will continue to succeed even when Sony brings out it's FF NEX-CAM or whatever. Using M-lenses with MF and live view is a totally different experience and if you don't want that then wait until Sony brings their 36MP FF version (they make the sensor already and we all know they will eventually do it...the RX1 is just a first step). You can already use M-lenses on other cameras so the one thing the bodies have that are different are RF focusing.

 

By the way any gains that 35mm format makes in terms of resolution etc will just be matched by MF gains. Look at the new Phase One backs announced yesterday...they will destroy any FF camera's IQ but you pay as much as a house and carry a gigantic camera to do it.

 

Good points. Well as I said, I love the M9 body. I love the focussing. It would take a lot to shift me. Leica lenses on a Leica M9 have a great look. I've not gelled to the samples of the Sony RX1 that I've seen so I can't speak for any camera FF EVIL camera they make in the future. And I will always prefer an optical finder. The way a camera feels in the hand to me is really important too. I shot my Hasselblad V's for years passed their "expiry date" for the same reason. It's a beautiful design that is inspiring to use. The only other camera I get that feeling from is the M.

 

The reason I chose the M9 over the Phase one is, for editorial, say, Double Page - The difference is not enormous in print between the Phase One and the M9. I actually think (i.e. guess) that my leica lenses are better than my Fujiblad ones. The detail you lose in the offest printing process and also just the fact that it is native size for the M9 It's hard to tell the difference. Then there are the other bennefits. The lenses, the actual camera. I shoot people and it's much easier with a small camera. My style is such that I move around a lot, quickly and the M is perfect. Also on location my work, fashion, is kind of like street photography and it's a great camera for that. I would much rather shoot it than the big, heavy, bulky Phase One. Relatively it's a pig. Also the fact there are no Medium Format cameras that are contenders that inspire me in the same way the M does.

 

Where it changes though is when I need bigger images and the limits of 18MP show. Particularly when the industry is geared to high res. So that's where I shoot it. It's hard not to get excited by High Res detail once you have seen it in your work and I would like to see it in the M.