rramesh Posted March 11, 2013 Share #21 Posted March 11, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thanks lovelyleica. Question is what was your focus point? Was it set to infinity in both? or did you use liveview and focus closer? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 11, 2013 Posted March 11, 2013 Hi rramesh, 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!
Dougg Posted March 11, 2013 Share #22 Posted March 11, 2013 ...As some have noted, I also noticed that LR indicated the M(240) to be at f8 while the M9 to be at f9.5. Same shutter speed (350 ) and ISO. Based on this, the M(240) does indeed appear to be shot at a 1.5 stop wider aperture. ... Just to note that f/8 and f/9.5 are only half a stop different, not one and one half stops. And as suggested this could simply be a different "guess" by each camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A miller Posted March 11, 2013 Share #23 Posted March 11, 2013 Just to note that f/8 and f/9.5 are only half a stop different, not one and one half stops. And as suggested this could simply be a different "guess" by each camera. 100% right. I stand corrected. Thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jffielde Posted March 11, 2013 Share #24 Posted March 11, 2013 Only a third of a stop, even. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted March 11, 2013 Share #25 Posted March 11, 2013 I've been playing with these for a little bit now. First of all, thank you very much. These are really useful for all sorts of pixel peeping etc. I will work with them for quite some time and I can't wait to make some 13x19 prints. These MUST be enough to put an end to that stupid CCD vs. CMOS debate because with a tiny little tweak in the conversion it will be absolutely impossible to pick which camera was used once you resize these images. The little bit of extra detail will give away the M, but that is it. There is no magic CCD look. The only difference that people are seeing is the difference in color between shadow and highlights, which can be changed with a profile, and the extra "bite" that a lower pixel count brings over a higher one. This is more visible between the M8 and the M9. In fact, I would say that there is less difference in perceived micro-contrast between the M and the M9 than between the M9 and the M8 with its weaker IR filter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted March 11, 2013 Share #26 Posted March 11, 2013 I am not sure, but I might be eating my words right now. Boy, I really have to do some soul searching quickly before my name pops up from the M list. That depreciation on the M9 is a hard pill to swallow all things considered. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macjonny1 Posted March 11, 2013 Share #27 Posted March 11, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) I am not sure' date=' but I might be eating my words right now. Boy, I really have to do some soul searching quickly before my name pops up from the M list. That depreciation on the M9 is a hard pill to swallow all things considered.[/quote'] Just wait, another pill will come if you buy a new M. Just figure about a grand a year minimum depreciation. In 3 years your M will be where the M9 is now. It's just the way it is. Maybe not the first year but averaged out...a grand a year. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted March 11, 2013 Share #28 Posted March 11, 2013 Trust me I know. I've been there with the M8 - and the full upgrade of course. Then again, I also bought a lot of lenses when the M8 came out and did pretty well with that investment. In my opinion the full-frame sensor justified the upgrade and I certainly got a lot of use out of both the M8 as well as the M9. I'm just getting a little nervous right now. It doesn't help that I just got to play with an MM either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rramesh Posted March 11, 2013 Share #29 Posted March 11, 2013 The more I see such comparisons, the harder it becomes to justify a M over a M9 on IQ alone. I guess others have said it all along. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWW Posted March 11, 2013 Share #30 Posted March 11, 2013 Just wait, another pill will come if you buy a new M. Just figure about a grand a year minimum depreciation. In 3 years your M will be where the M9 is now. It's just the way it is. Maybe not the first year but averaged out...a grand a year. I rationalize digital depreciation this way, it's like buying a camera with all the "film" prepaid. A grand a year is still better than the cost of shooting film in the old days. Just think of how much film and processing would cost to shoot 5k or 10k images a year. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted March 11, 2013 Share #31 Posted March 11, 2013 Here's the catch: shooting digital loosens you up. I really had a huge advance in my photography with the M8 simply because I felt like I could shoot without hesitation. Now, when I shoot film though, the percentage of keepers per roll is much higher than when I take the same number of exposures on digital. And I am not talking about the differences in the medium. I'm just wondering if I really shoot as many exposures anymore these days. Also, unfortunately we are not talking about film vs. digital. We are talking about upgrading from an M9 to an M for the price of roughly $4,000. If I take into consideration that I am completely happy with the M9 up to ISO 1000, the dilemma gets worse. Want vs. need. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rscheffler Posted March 11, 2013 Share #32 Posted March 11, 2013 These MUST be enough to put an end to that stupid CCD vs. CMOS debate because with a tiny little tweak in the conversion it will be absolutely impossible to pick which camera was used once you resize these images. The little bit of extra detail will give away the M, but that is it. There is no magic CCD look. I agree. It didn't take much to get nearly identical results from each file, with nearly the same adjustments. The biggest differences were WB and tint values in LR 4.3. After outputting the two, I resized the M to the M9's dimensions and there are subtle differences at 100%. As others have pointed out, the red roof at the middle right edge in both exhibits moire, but in the M9 image there is also a lot of apparently false detail. The M file shows what appears to be the correct look to the roof tiles whereas the M9 injects maze-like artifacts. The window shutters on the building at the bottom left corner also look better with the M. For me the M was always more about the non-image quality improvements over the M9 that will provide real benefits to my style of shooting. That the two can actually look quite similar is a definite bonus as I plan to keep the M9 as a second camera. It means other than WB, possibly fewer headaches than I expected keeping a consistent look with both. As for depreciation... Whether you do incremental upgrades or wait til the bitter end before replacing the M9, as already stated, you can pretty much expect around $1,000 depreciation each year. Maybe what Leica should offer is an automatic upgrade perpetual lease, whereby you pay $XXXX/year and always have the latest camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted March 11, 2013 Share #33 Posted March 11, 2013 . Maybe what Leica should offer is an automatic upgrade perpetual lease, whereby you pay $XXXX/year and always have the latest camera. An interesting suggestion, but I'm not sure the business model would hold + the growing supply to the market for used digital M cameras will be great for the lens business. re depreciation in general, if you're making money with the cameras it's part of business planning / client cost etc. If not, then it's the price you pay for the intense pleasure of working with great cameras and lenses Thanks to everyone for the interesting discussion here. I agree that if you're fully happy with M9 IQ then the M advantage isn't that great. For me, it's been the combination of a definite improvement at ISO above 1600 + the really significant feature set + operational improvements on the M which made me make the jump at the earliest possible opportunity. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted March 11, 2013 Share #34 Posted March 11, 2013 Most manufacturers that have looked to provide upgradeable platforms have realised one to two models on the platform structure needs changing and I think it is usually unfortunately more expensive all round. Then there is the embarrassing issue when it no longer works, sort of going back on the agreement. I am surprised they don't offer a 'clever' financial deal, like the car industry, a small lens collection and one body and its near a midrange care price. Balloon payment anyone ? Leica could sell refurbished M's with warranty and keep up residuals ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted March 11, 2013 Share #35 Posted March 11, 2013 I'd rather Leica didn't become a finance company. Dealers, however, might try harder to find ways of connecting residual values with original purchase prices and coming up with reduced monthly "rentals". But we'd end up paying for the service, credit and risk-transfer one way or another, plus another layer of profit would put us out of pocket in the long run. Just as it does with cars, if we'd care to admit it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 11, 2013 Share #36 Posted March 11, 2013 Not always with cars, I find - sometimes there are tax loopholes - just off to order one which will be nearly for free... In the end it will cost me 12% of the list price without counting the reduction in fuel costs and roadtax, which will bring the price down to zero or better., over a period of five years Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted March 11, 2013 Share #37 Posted March 11, 2013 Ah, tax: nothing is free, its just a question of who pays. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 11, 2013 Share #38 Posted March 11, 2013 In this case our ministry of finance for once... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted March 11, 2013 Share #39 Posted March 11, 2013 Do they have their own money? I wish ours did. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted March 11, 2013 Share #40 Posted March 11, 2013 Anyway... Thanks for these photos LovelyLeica. I've looked long and hard at the photos in LR4 and can't see significant differences. Those that are obvious are easily managed. Maybe time and many more samples of different styles and conditions will be needed before we start to understand whether there are important differences in character. Does anyone feel differently? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.