jip Posted November 1, 2013 Share #101 Posted November 1, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) I like the colour of the M beterr but the clouds seem off... so M9 clouds the rest M Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 Hi jip, Take a look here New LEICA M vs M9 – Daylight picture RAW files comparison. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
india42 Posted November 1, 2013 Share #102 Posted November 1, 2013 If I am not mistaken, this test was done before the M's recent firmware update. I don't have an M9, however it would be interesting to see a new comparison with the M's updated firmware. In all fairness, at the time these were shot the M was fairly new while the M9 was a mature camera with several improvements made over it's lifetime. Anyway, I love the M, but I upgraded from the M8. Thanks for the work done on this comparison. Paul Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 1, 2013 Share #103 Posted November 1, 2013 Just comparo of different in-camera WBs folks. Adjust them in PP and you'll get more or less the same colours. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted November 1, 2013 Share #104 Posted November 1, 2013 Just comparo of different in-camera WBs folks. Adjust them in PP and you'll get more or less the same colours. lct Seems you have been absent for a while. Was hoping you would chime in on the Dilemma of the 50's thread re 11868 vs 11623 pre ASPH 50/1.4. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 1, 2013 Share #105 Posted November 1, 2013 Hi Lou yes i missed this thread i'm afraid. Same lens optically as least. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quadraticadder Posted November 2, 2013 Share #106 Posted November 2, 2013 A ~ 15 % increase in pixel density (6000 vs 5212 and 4000 vs 3472) is going to be hard to see, even at very high magnifications. The dynamic range and colour depth are supposed to be higher for the M at base ISO (DxOMark), but I don't see a difference in these images. The difference in these values is reportedly higher at higher ISO's, though. The noise difference is bigger too at high ISO. If I owned an M9, I wouldn't sell it and buy an M for the differences at base ISO. I'm not sure I would argue the CCD image is better than the CMOS at baseline ISO, either. Perhaps the acutance is better with the M9. I like the mechanical frame lines in the M9, as well as the frame line selection lever to visualize the crop in the viewfinder without changing lenses. Best, Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrendanD Posted November 2, 2013 Share #107 Posted November 2, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thanks very much for posting these. I've adjusted them both in Aperture and can get pretty much the same results. The differences are in WB, contrast, exposure and an insignificant extra detail in the M file. (much as people have said) There is no sensor-based reason to upgrade, at base ISO. I would be interested in a similar comparison at ISO 3200..... My principal problem with the M9 is that the shadows fall apart after ISO800, so its no good in low light. I use an Olympus OMD E-M5 for this. My main interest was to see whether the M file had more tonal range in B&W conversion than the M9. The Monochrom excels in this area. I can't do a direct comparison obviously, but I'm now very familiar with the MM files and how they look and behave in post processing. The bottom line is that there is NO difference in B&W conversion between the M9 and M files. The M Monochrom is simply WAY ahead and is still unique in this respect. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrendanD Posted November 2, 2013 Share #108 Posted November 2, 2013 Pixel Sharpness Slight edge M9 Colour Balance M240 Dynamic Range M240 Overall look M240 The warmer images are from the M240, but all of the above can be adjusted in post processing.... so no difference in my view. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pieterpronk Posted November 2, 2013 Share #109 Posted November 2, 2013 I have to say the warmer one is much better especially in the crops. (are both cropped 100%?) The difference in sharpness and noise on the wall behind is so big that I wonder if something went wrong here. Is it at base iso? I'm afraid that the warmer one is the M9? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bundestrainer Posted November 2, 2013 Share #110 Posted November 2, 2013 If someone is interested I just uploaded an M9 and M240 dng (!) file showing the same scenery. The respective photo was taken with the same settings but not on a tripod. Here's the link for the download (hope it works): https://www.dropbox.com/sh/kux0niln3mqrt1u/vg-IojJzD2 I'm interested to hear what you think and to see the ways you are processing the images. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 2, 2013 Share #111 Posted November 2, 2013 Sorry folks but using auto iso is the worst way to compare cameras colour wise. Use a grey card and you won't probably see any significant difference as far as colours are concerned IMHO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted November 2, 2013 Share #112 Posted November 2, 2013 I like the mechanical frame lines in the M9... The M frame lines are similarly mechanical; only the illumination method is different. But the M RF is better, even though based on the M9 structure. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quadraticadder Posted November 2, 2013 Share #113 Posted November 2, 2013 The M frame lines are similarly mechanical; only the illumination method is different. But the M RF is better, even though based on the M9 structure. Jeff I hope to get my M in a few weeks, and I own a M4-P so I'll be able to compare how the two frameline systems operate (granted the M4-P is different than the M-9's). With the M4-P I am impressed by the complexity of the frameline mechanism that works for several focal lengths, with a preview lever, and with the lines being illuminated by light channeled from the front window. I am glad to read that the M frame lines are mechanical as well. I prefer mechanisms for the same reasons I prefer a nice shutter sound. It gives one a tactile sense of the craftspersonship behind the camera. Best, Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 2, 2013 Share #114 Posted November 2, 2013 You won't be disappointed then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted November 2, 2013 Share #115 Posted November 2, 2013 And besides the shutter sound, you'll enjoy the improved shutter release. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pieterpronk Posted November 2, 2013 Share #116 Posted November 2, 2013 Although I admit that for the extra features and ergonomics for me the M240 is the better deal, I do think the per pixel sharpness makes the M9 a better performer at base iso. The difference between the crops is quite big imo. (This mirrors my experience that I like zooming in to pixel level much less with my new M240 than with my M8.) So although we look at the same pictures we still reach different conclusions. Imo the M240 just produces slightly mushier files that need more sharpening and never reach the same crispness. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 2, 2013 Share #117 Posted November 2, 2013 Just a matter of default sharpening of your raw converter IMHO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pieterpronk Posted November 2, 2013 Share #118 Posted November 2, 2013 Just a matter of default sharpening of your raw converter IMHO. Well, yes... if only software generated sharpness were the same as real sensor sharpness. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 2, 2013 Share #119 Posted November 2, 2013 Interesting to compare raw converters from this standpoint. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted November 2, 2013 Share #120 Posted November 2, 2013 So everyone that thinks they are leaving something behind by going to the M240 I say bull all this griping about the M240 is actually keeping the M9 prices high which is a good thing. Now here is a question if both cameras were priced exactly the same say 5000 dollars each which one would you buy ???? Well I have the M, Monochrom and M9. I think the M is a better camera than the M9, and would be even more so if both cameras were sitting next to each other with a $5000 price tag. In fact my new M cost me less than my new M9. The M user experience is more refined. The shutter sound and especially the rangefinder are much improved. The EVF and focus peaking (although not state of the art) improve the accuracy of focusing longer lenses (especially the 3.4/135 APO-Telyt wide open) and other lenses wide open and with focus shift (such as the 1.0/50 Noctilux) - I rarely miss focus using these lenses under such conditions. I must admit that I really like the illuminated red framelines and use this setting all the time. LIve view is convenient at times. I have yet to use the video function. The high ISO performance is a bit better. The limited exposure time of one minute really pisses me off as I do like long-exposure night photography. The resolution of 24MP files are a slight improvement but overall I do prefer the M files. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.