goorackerelite Posted May 27, 2014 Share #1 Posted May 27, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hey guys. first time poster here. I just purchased a Leica M9 after using my Leica M8 for a few months. Honestly, the look is very different and I don't know if I like the M9 look that much. The images from the M9 looks like it has deeper but more cartoonish colors, duller luminance in it's rendering with more crushed mid tones and shadows as opposed to the crispy, bitingly sharp and airy pastel colors of the Leica M8. I should mention that I'm using the UV/IR filters on my 50 Lux Asph and my 35 cron asph on the M9. Is there something that I'm missing here? Or is there an adjustment period that I need to go through to fully appreciate the M9? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 27, 2014 Posted May 27, 2014 Hi goorackerelite, Take a look here Leica M9 Newbie from M8 user not so convinced of the M9. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
RobertJRB Posted May 27, 2014 Share #2 Posted May 27, 2014 Hey guys. first time poster here. I just purchased a Leica M9 after using my Leica M8 for a few months. Honestly, the look is very different and I don't know if I like the M9 look that much. The images from the M9 looks like it has deeper but more cartoonish colors, duller luminance in it's rendering with more crushed mid tones and shadows as opposed to the crispy, bitingly sharp and airy pastel colors of the Leica M8. I should mention that I'm using the UV/IR filters on my 50 Lux Asph and my 35 cron asph on the M9. Is there something that I'm missing here? Or is there an adjustment period that I need to go through to fully appreciate the M9? First of all, there is no need for UV/IR filters on the M9 so you can take them of. Second, I had the same when moving from a M8 to the M9P a couple of years ago. In my case it was just about getting to know the M9 better. After a short time I liked it more and more. Just go on with the M9 and enjoy it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted May 27, 2014 Share #3 Posted May 27, 2014 I went from M8 to M9-P as well. The colouring is different with deeper richer tones, more Fuji Velvia straight out of camera, easy to adjust, depending on your desired finished look. The obvious differences, and for me much appreciated differences were Real world 1 stop better noise performance No more darned IR filters Full frame (You can now go wide and appreciate the glass as intended) 45% increase in pixel count From my perspective improved colour density and richness Plus slightly slicker operation There is a little bit of 'bite' in B&W that has been traded for other virtues against the M8. Once you adjust to the colouring you will love it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k_g_wolf ✝ Posted May 27, 2014 Share #4 Posted May 27, 2014 By all means, take the IR-Filter off, apply them only when you lift up the M8 again. Use manual coding for uncoded lenses and - after processing your files with LR - you should get far better results than before. Actually. Best GEORG Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
menos I M6 Posted May 27, 2014 Share #5 Posted May 27, 2014 It took me months to get a look with my M9, pleasing enough, I was used to get at ease with the M8.2 (I have to add, that I used both almost exclusively for B&W though). Both cameras produce extremely different files. My only short suggestion to help is to shoot both cameras in similar light for a reasonable comparison (use IR cut filters for the M8 shots and NO filters for the M9 shots). Then bring both file sets into your preferred RAW converter (I always used mainly Adobe Lightroom). Adjust the settings for the M9 files to "ape" the look of your M8 files (you never will exactly get there as by nature the M9 files are softer (less acuity) and have entirely different colours. Once you have done this, refine the profiles from there as you go over the next months. This is a lot of work in the beginning. Good Luck. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
shootinglulu Posted May 27, 2014 Share #6 Posted May 27, 2014 I used and loved the M8 for a long time then upgraded to the M9 when it came out. Soon after I could have written exactly the same post as yours. I saw the colours and tones coming from the M9 as less beautiful and organic than those of the M8. After a while though I learnt to appreciate working with the fantastic files of the M9 in LR and my eye changed. I enjoy working in LR though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrisRose Posted May 27, 2014 Share #7 Posted May 27, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) On my M8, I only really shot black and white. On getting my M9, the colours were so nice, it got me shooting colour just to enjoy them. I guess everyone has their own preferences. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted May 27, 2014 Share #8 Posted May 27, 2014 I should mention that I'm using the UV/IR filters on my 50 Lux Asph and my 35 cron asph on the M9. Don't do that. Put the UV filters away. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
goorackerelite Posted May 27, 2014 Author Share #9 Posted May 27, 2014 thanks for all the thoughtful responses guys! I'll stick it out with the M9 for a few more months before I make a final call on it. I hope to really like the M9 and add it to my tools, I've heard so many amazing things about it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted May 28, 2014 Share #10 Posted May 28, 2014 I hope to really like the M9 and add it to my tools,....... ......and one of your tools should be post processing. It doesn't take much effort to make an M9 file look like an M8 file but it isn't going to happen straight out of the camera. Welcome to the forum Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 28, 2014 Share #11 Posted May 28, 2014 The remark that should have been made in the first place. I personally use IR filters on all my not-too-short lenses on the M9 and find that they make no difference for the colour in general, and improve the colour rendering in high-IR situations. After all, the camera has about 20% IR transmission. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted May 28, 2014 Share #12 Posted May 28, 2014 The remark that should have been made in the first place. The words “out of camera” make me suspect the use of JPGs..... Where ? Not in the OP post... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 28, 2014 Share #13 Posted May 28, 2014 You're right : One edit to be made.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
goorackerelite Posted May 28, 2014 Author Share #14 Posted May 28, 2014 The remark that should have been made in the first place. I personally use IR filters on all my not-too-short lenses on the M9 and find that they make no difference for the colour in general, and improve the colour rendering in high-IR situations. After all, the camera has about 20% IR transmission. I promise you guys that I stay far far away from JPEGs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
goorackerelite Posted May 28, 2014 Author Share #15 Posted May 28, 2014 I did some shooting yesterday with the Leica M9. The tonality is much smoother and nuanced than the M8 with deeper blacks and more flexible highlights. However the acuity and sharpness isn't as pronounced as the M8. tradeoffs were made I guess. Call me crazy, but I think the M9 would have been a better camera if they left out the IR/filter on the sensor like the M8. Using UV/IR filters on lenses does not bother me one bit, and I'm pretty convinced that the Thicker IR filter in front of the sensor is obscuring some per pixel sharpness. I wonder if anyone out there was crazy enough to surgically remove the IR filter from the M9 sensor Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted May 28, 2014 Share #16 Posted May 28, 2014 However the acuity and sharpness isn't as pronounced as the M8. tradeoffs were made I guess. But this is a natural consequence of the pixel count increasing. The higher the number of pixels the softer the image can initially appear. So you need more 'Clarity' when using ACR, and then sharpen appropriately in Photoshop/Lightroom. There is absolutely no way that a properly processed M9 image is less sharp than an M8 image. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted May 28, 2014 Share #17 Posted May 28, 2014 I did some shooting yesterday with the Leica M9. The tonality is much smoother and nuanced than the M8 with deeper blacks and more flexible highlights. However the acuity and sharpness isn't as pronounced as the M8. tradeoffs were made I guess. Call me crazy, but I think the M9 would have been a better camera if they left out the IR/filter on the sensor like the M8. Using UV/IR filters on lenses does not bother me one bit, and I'm pretty convinced that the Thicker IR filter in front of the sensor is obscuring some per pixel sharpness. I wonder if anyone out there was crazy enough to surgically remove the IR filter from the M9 sensor You can find crazy individuals in any sufficiently large group of people, this is basic statistics.. : Leicistes are rather many people so... : but I think that such a surgery is really top of craziness for a camera that costs like a M9, whose value, supposed one makes "something that works", drops next to nil : sensor is a factory packaged device, with micro tolerancing, delicate assembly of the package over the supporting board (and you must remove it to cut away the thin front filter) ... even a well equipped lab would be hesitant to work on. Enjoy your M9 and go on through your learning curve... I haven't it ("jumped" from M8 to M240) but for what I remember, all the people in the forum that passed from M8 to M9 ended to find it a step on : if I remember correctly, the only situations in which M8 kept some form of lead over M9 were Black & White and, maybe, IR photography. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted May 28, 2014 Share #18 Posted May 28, 2014 There was a very interesting article by Erwin Puts that showed the M8 was marginally better at resolving detail than the M9 but this was due to the thicker IR glass (or most likely) the implications being that by the time you add the filter to the lens your back to a closer comparison. Perhaps the lens provides a slightly better solution in some respects, but there is no way I'd go back to reflections in low light and the pain of adding filters to everything. The ISO improvement is worth it on its own IMO Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJH Posted May 28, 2014 Share #19 Posted May 28, 2014 Dxo reckon that the camera does a small amount of pixel level noise filtering DxOMark review for the Leica M9 - DxOMark Given that the pixel pitch is the same as the M8 the above looks like a pretty good possible reason for the files to look a touch softer at 100%. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 28, 2014 Share #20 Posted May 28, 2014 Dxo reckon that the camera does a small amount of pixel level noise filtering DxOMark review for the Leica M9 - DxOMark Given that the pixel pitch is the same as the M8 the above looks like a pretty good possible reason for the files to look a touch softer at 100%. But this is a natural consequence of the pixel count increasing. The higher the number of pixels the softer the image can initially appear. So you need more 'Clarity' when using ACR, and then sharpen appropriately in Photoshop/Lightroom. There is absolutely no way that a properly processed M9 image is less sharp than an M8 image. Steve The M9 image as processed by the camera i.e. straight out of DNG is a bit less contrasty than the M9. The main reason is that the IR filter is 0.3 mm thicker. That produces a minimal contrast reduction which makes the image appear less sharp. The noise filtering only kicks in at higher ISO and is of a kind that does not affect acuity. Contrast is often confused with sharpness. Not surprising though, as sharpening in postprocessing is nothing but microcontrast manipulation. Just adjust your capture sharpening properly, and do not rely on the raw converter preset, and magically your images will appear exactly as sharp between the two cameras. As Steve mentions, in LR the clarity slider does a decent job as well, but mainly for the midtones. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.