macjonny1 Posted March 21, 2013 Share #121 Posted March 21, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) The sensor IQ on the M and M9 are perfectly acceptable in the real world. And the reasons to buy a Leica lay in the form-factor' date=' the optical bright-line rangefinder/viewfinder and the array of lenses available. If you want/need a DSLR then go buy one. I micrometer and a ruler are both measuring devices, but they're complimentary, not exclusionary. Leicas are one more tool for the job. If the job at hand exceeds what the tool can do, then get the right tool. It's pretty simple. The job at hand is making photos, not comparing sensors. Once again, if you have an arsenal of R lenses waiting to be used, or you want video, or live-view, or any of the other host of new features the M has and still allows you to stay in the Leica M world, then it's a good choice. If you're just making images and the M9 suits you fine then you've saved $7k.[/quote'] Yes totally agree that was my point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 21, 2013 Posted March 21, 2013 Hi macjonny1, Take a look here A little disappointed. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Dirk Mandeville Posted March 21, 2013 Share #122 Posted March 21, 2013 My M9 is a perfectly capable studio camera. Why would/should superior IQ be a dream? It was with the M9. I would actually question the validity of this comment. I guess it depends on what type of work your studio does. But if you print anything large, the resolution of the M9 is a limiting factor. Dynamic range is also a very limiting factor for a studio camera. Fortunately, the new M helps in both of these areas. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted March 21, 2013 Share #123 Posted March 21, 2013 I would agree, but probably not for the same reasons. I believe for all full frame 35mm digital cameras, image quality improvements are going to be coming in small steps, rather than the leaps and bounds that some expect. To get more image quality at this time, I think you are going to have to venture into medium format digital such as the Phase One products (and for a serious studio camera, why the heck wouldn't you?). Over the next decade, we will see improvements in dynamic range by perhaps another few stops, improvements in resolution on a FF sensor, better low-light performance, and perhaps some improvements in color and tonal gradations. But I just don't think these will be mind blowing improvements. The truth is, in my opinion, digital has already surpassed film quality in many areas, particularly sharpness. What are you expecting that you are missing right now as far as IQ is concerned? The whole idea that a switch to CMOS should have resulted in mind-blowing improvements in picture quality is kind of silly, in my opinion. Adding the feature set they were able to add by using CMOS, while exerting a lot of control over the design of the chip to ensure room for future improvements, all while still maintaining the quality of image that people expect from a Leica are, in and of themselves, excellent reasons why the M is a great successor to the M9. Basically, they switched technology platforms to ensure the future of the camera, they added a lot of new features in the process, and they didn't mess up image quality to do it (even adding a bump in resolution). I think they hit the ball out of the park with this camera. Hi Dirk, See Nikon for a revolutionary leap in IQ that has occurred in one generation. However somehow I'm not allowed to make that comparison here despite both camera's being FF 35mm and therefore comparable in my eyes. As for Phase One, I already own one and while it has IQ in spades it doesn't have the ease of use, the form factor, the lenses and aesthetic I want, the less intimidating barrier it creates, not being tripod bound etc etc etc. I've used the Phase One a lot less this year because of the M9. The M9 really was and is a revelation to me. So I want high resolution in the same package with the lenses I've grown accustomed too for their unique look. I'm not asking for 60MP yet, like my phase one but 36-40 would be very welcomed and it would mean I would probably rid myself of my MF woes and shoot entirely the way my style both desires and requires. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
douglasf13 Posted March 21, 2013 Share #124 Posted March 21, 2013 I would actually question the validity of this comment. I guess it depends on what type of work your studio does. But if you print anything large, the resolution of the M9 is a limiting factor. Dynamic range is also a very limiting factor for a studio camera. Fortunately, the new M helps in both of these areas. You control your own DR with studio lights, so I'm not sure that DR is much of a limiting factor with the M9 in many studio situations. The resolution difference between the M9 and M isn't all that much, either. Leica needs a bigger jump in megapixels, say 36-50'ish, for a really noticeable difference. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenPatterson Posted March 21, 2013 Share #125 Posted March 21, 2013 I'm not asking for 60MP yet, like my phase one but 36-40 would be very welcomed and it would mean I would probably rid myself of my MF woes and shoot entirely the way my style both desires and requires. Not for me. Files that size would substantially slow my workflow. As it is now the M240 files perfectly compliment my 5D Mk. III files. 90% of my printing is A3 or smaller, and 24MP is perfect for that (and larger if needed). Unless you're planning to crop like mad what is the point of all those pixels? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted March 21, 2013 Share #126 Posted March 21, 2013 But if you print anything large, the resolution of the M9 is a limiting factor. Thanks, my point entirely. Fine for a lot of my work not for some. Hence the need... Dynamic range is also a very limiting factor for a studio camera. Dynamic range is the least of your concerns in a controlled studio environment. Even on location in changing light it's not a deal breaker at all. Makes your job easier though. Prior to digital I worked with 6 stops with transparency and have lighting ratios and the zone system ingrained in my workflow. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk Mandeville Posted March 21, 2013 Share #127 Posted March 21, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) So I want high resolution in the same package with the lenses I've grown accustomed too for their unique look. I'm not asking for 60MP yet, like my phase one but 36-40 would be very welcomed and it would mean I would probably rid myself of my MF woes and shoot entirely the way my style both desires and requires. You seem to be conflating image quality with resolution. While resolution is one aspect of image quality, it is only one and indeed one that many don't feel the need for improving (as evidenced by Stephen's post). Personally, I agree with you on the resolution front. I would like to see something in the range of thirty to forty mp on an M camera, as I like to print big and would like to get the most of my Leica lenses. But I just don't expect them to make the leap as fast as you. Within the next generation or two of M, I expect we will see this. I would never have expected this with the current generation switch to CMOS. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted March 21, 2013 Share #128 Posted March 21, 2013 Not for me. Files that size would substantially slow my workflow. As it is now the M240 files perfectly compliment my 5D Mk. III files. 90% of my printing is A3 or smaller, and 24MP is perfect for that (and larger if needed). Unless you're planning to crop like mad what is the point of all those pixels? That's why you then have the ability to shoot at lower res settings with a higher res camera including FF 35mm camera's such as the Nikon D800. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted March 21, 2013 Share #129 Posted March 21, 2013 You seem to be conflating image quality with resolution. While resolution is one aspect of image quality, it is only one and indeed one that many don't feel the need for improving (as evidenced by Stephen's post). Personally, I agree with you on the resolution front. I would like to see something in the range of thirty to forty mp on an M camera, as I like to print big and would like to get the most of my Leica lenses. But I just don't expect them to make the leap as fast as you. Within the next generation or two of M, I expect we will see this. I would never have expected this with the current generation switch to CMOS. Yes, IQ is made up of many things including resolution but that is what is lacking, IMO. Why shouldn't we expect it? It would be in keeping what other manufacturer's have developed. We are paying for a premium brand at premium prices. This is LEICA. Lift it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted March 21, 2013 Share #130 Posted March 21, 2013 I thought the Leica M series was always promoted as a rugged, smallish form factor, portable and flexible camera for reportage...... .... not sure that anything has changed...... The M is a significant improvement set against these criteria. It is not a shrunken S series and was never designed for studio work, technical photography or producing 20ft billboard landscapes..... I'm very happy with it .... and I'm sure most people who use it within the sphere for what it was designed will be too..... No camera is perfect and none can do everything ..... if there was one then we would all have it.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macjonny1 Posted March 21, 2013 Share #131 Posted March 21, 2013 Thanks' date=' my point entirely. Fine for a lot of my work not for some. Hence the need... Dynamic range is the least of your concerns in a controlled studio environment. Even on location in changing light it's not a deal breaker at all. Makes your job easier though. Prior to digital I worked with 6 stops with transparency and have lighting ratios and the zone system ingrained in my workflow.[/quote'] How large are you printing? The M9 has plenty of resolution to print 20x30 and up. I remember the old canon D30 3MP camera and the fantastic prints my friend made from it. I print 17x22 all the time and it looks great. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk Mandeville Posted March 21, 2013 Share #132 Posted March 21, 2013 Yes, IQ is made up of many things including resolution but that is what is lacking, IMO. Why shouldn't we expect it? It would be in keeping what other manufacturer's have developed. Every Leica M camera has "lagged" behind their SLR competitors in features. This is not a new thing. You think the M8 or the M9 was advanced compared to their competitors? Even the film cameras lagged in some respects their SLR competitors. You are buying into the rangefinder experience, M system lenses, and Leica build quality. That doesn't mean you are going to get state of the art technology. Why shouldn't you expect it? Because they just switched platforms! That is a huge jump for a small company. They just designed (in conjunction with CMOSIS) their first CMOS sensor. How can you expect they will just come out of the box with one in the forty+ megapixel range, along with the processor that can handle that size files, fit it all into an M size body, and do it successfully while implementing all the other features that CMOS brings to the table? You are expecting a lot. Had they done all that, the price would be twice what it is (and it is already more than most can easily afford). I think you will perhaps see the camera you are looking for . . . in six or eight years. We are paying for a premium brand at premium prices. This is LEICA. Lift it. You are paying for a compact rangefinder camera. Expect it to be what it is. Leica offers a camera for your needs. It is called the S. You will pay a premium for it, and you will not get the rangefinder experience. I have to add that, according to the much-maligned DxOmark tests, Leica has greatly improved image quality with this sensor over the M9 sensor: "The latest 24-megapixel CMOS sensor offers not only six million extra pixels but DxOMark’s Sensor Scores indicate a +1 Stop improvement in overall image quality compared to the previous 18Mp CCD sensor. As well as offering more consistent Colour Sensitivity across the ISO range there’s also an impressive extra +1.6 Stops boost for Dynamic Range and its low-light ISO scores are improved too, again beating previous versions by around +1 Stop." So they have improved resolution, dynamic range, low light iso, and color sensitivity of the sensor, and added a host of new features including R lens compatibility, live view, focus peaking, etc., etc., all while keeping the price the same, and still you aren't satisfied because they didn't blow away high end state of the art DSLRs with a huge megapixel sensor? And you don't think you are being just slightly unreasonable in your expectations? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tanks Posted March 21, 2013 Share #133 Posted March 21, 2013 ... You are expecting a lot. Had they done all that, the price would be twice what it is (and it is already more than most can easily afford). I think you will perhaps see the camera you are looking for . . . in six or eight years.... Actually it is there now, called Leica S:p Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
designed Posted March 21, 2013 Share #134 Posted March 21, 2013 I think it's fantastic that 1) Leica has had the courage to change the formula a bit more and bring the M more relevant to more people, and especially the younger generation (that'ld be me). Do-it-all it's not, but at least it's trying in many new areas, and will probably get those right with a few firmware upgrades. I have an M5 as my film M and it's absolutely fantastic because it too had the courage to change the formula. 2) Leica has had the chance to design camera from ground up. As an M8 owner, I'm not a fan of the electronics. My M8 had always felt like inside the teutonic metal body with precision optical instruments was the electronic spirit of an 1980s cassette player - and that thing some things unfinished. And from what I've gathered, the M9 continued on the same path. (This is what troubles me most about the MM, btw) The new battery and weather sealing alone seem like a revelation. 3) The initial samples looked a bit flat, but fortunately the recent samples have had that Leica pop what initially lured me in from Flickr back in 2008. ("Wow, what's this taken on? That Leica thing, again?! What is that?"). And the video is a bit flaky, but I'm sure it will get better - and even like this it's better to have it than not, especially when it's implemented in such a Leica like fashion. So there, my 2 cents after spending 3,5 years with an M8. The M8 is currently back at the mothership for repairs (I suspect it missed the initial upgrades in 2006) and I've been thinking a lot what would be the smartest move next. The new M makes a strong argument because it's a more thought out package. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.