Jeff S Posted May 29, 2014 Share #21 Posted May 29, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) There was a very interesting article by Erwin Puts that showed the M8 was marginally better at resolving detail than the M9... I think you're referring to this article. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 29, 2014 Posted May 29, 2014 Hi Jeff S, 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!
luigi bertolotti Posted May 29, 2014 Share #22 Posted May 29, 2014 Puts' article is well written and explained as always... but considering that it deals with pure resolution at sensor level, its results are exactly what one had to expect on the basis of cameras' specs : - MM : no Bayer filter --> exploits the full pixel resolution - M240 : higher pixel resolution, but not of a ratio to offset the Bayer filter presence (*) ---> a bit lower than MM - M9 and M8 : same sensor, just "cut" in different dimensions --> similar results, with a marginal plus for M8 that has a thinner piece of dispersive glass (the IR filter) in front. (*) depending on theories applied, a 18 MP sensor without Bayer filter should equal a 27-30 MP sensor with Bayer filter, M 240 has 24 MP. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted May 29, 2014 Share #23 Posted May 29, 2014 I think you're referring to this article. Jeff Jeff, thanks, this is an updated version of older analysis, but all the better for the update as the former was long and complex and only covered the M9 and M8 from memory plus I think reference to the Nikon D3X Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
goorackerelite Posted May 30, 2014 Author Share #24 Posted May 30, 2014 I think I'm starting to get the hang of the Leica M9. Here are some of my observations and solutions. Please let me know if anyone else feels the same and has more brilliant work arounds for these issues. The image previews on the LCD are absolutely useless in determining fidelity, sharpness and color accuracy, even more so than the Leica M8. So I turned it off completely. The Auto White Balance is atrocious, so bad that it's possibly the worst AWB of any digital camera I've ever used in my life. So I set WB manually for every situation. The meter in the M9 tends to underexpose the image in an aggressive attempt to preserve highlight detail. So I add about +.3 to .7 to my metering habits. I don't like to push the images in lightroom or photoshop, the pushed highlights have a persistent and nasty grey that never comes alive for me. However I do love the additional depth in the color and the bokeh that's granted by the full frame sensor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJH Posted May 30, 2014 Share #25 Posted May 30, 2014 . As Steve mentions, in LR the clarity slider does a decent job as well, but mainly for the midtones. This is a good point as the M8 images especially with a lens like the 28 Elmarit ASPH has so much contrast in the fine details I ended up turning the clarity down a bit to make the images look less harsh. With a CV lens I go the other way and add it a bit sometimes. I am sure I can't be alone in this observation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted May 30, 2014 Share #26 Posted May 30, 2014 [...{ The meter in the M9 tends to underexpose the image in an aggressive attempt to preserve highlight detail. So I add about +.3 to .7 to my metering habits. A most astute observation, and the same in my experience with the M9. Perhaps Leica scaled exposure in that way to accommodate the average client, which is not a bad thing, thus exposure compensation for the more expert. This issue exposes something that analog/film photographers did not have to consider. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptZoom Posted May 30, 2014 Share #27 Posted May 30, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) I think I'm starting to get the hang of the Leica M9. Here are some of my observations and solutions. Please let me know if anyone else feels the same and has more brilliant work arounds for these issues. The image previews on the LCD are absolutely useless in determining fidelity, sharpness and color accuracy, even more so than the Leica M8. So I turned it off completely. Yup. I use the LCD only when I need to use the menus and as very rough estimate for setting exposure (histogram) at the beginning of a set. The Auto White Balance is atrocious, so bad that it's possibly the worst AWB of any digital camera I've ever used in my life. So I set WB manually for every situation. I dunno if I'd call the auto white balance atrocious; out of habit, I set the WB manually (on all digital cameras I use(d)). The meter in the M9 tends to underexpose the image in an aggressive attempt to preserve highlight detail. So I add about +.3 to .7 to my metering habits. I don't like to push the images in lightroom or photoshop, the pushed highlights have a persistent and nasty grey that never comes alive for me. The metering on the M9 is easily fooled by point light sources, and in general does underexpose. When I'm in aperture priority (rarely) I have the exp comp turned to +1 unless the scene is extremely high contrast, in which case I dial it down a bit. However I do love the additional depth in the color and the bokeh that's granted by the full frame sensor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblutter Posted June 2, 2014 Share #28 Posted June 2, 2014 WB doesn't matter in RAW And in PS CC you can bring up the RAW editor any time, any file type - even jpg A huge improvement -- 3 yrs shooting M9 almost exclusively and daily, just now getting prints exactly how I want Am super happy with it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptZoom Posted June 3, 2014 Share #29 Posted June 3, 2014 WB doesn't matter in RAW True, but getting WB in camera cuts down on post processing time. Also, aren't in-camera histogram a generated from jpegs, not RAW/DNG files? And in PS CC you can bring up the RAW editor any time, any file type - even jpg A huge improvement -- 3 yrs shooting M9 almost exclusively and daily, just now getting prints exactly how I want Am super happy with it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulev Posted June 3, 2014 Share #30 Posted June 3, 2014 This is a good point as the M8 images especially with a lens like the 28 Elmarit ASPH has so much contrast in the fine details I ended up turning the clarity down a bit to make the images look less harsh. With a CV lens I go the other way and add it a bit sometimes. I am sure I can't be alone in this observation. I do find using too much clarity ( if any at all) in combination with asph lenses, results often in HDR-like pictures, muddy skintones, etc ... Rgds Ulev Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulev Posted June 3, 2014 Share #31 Posted June 3, 2014 ... The image previews on the LCD are absolutely useless in determining fidelity, sharpness and color accuracy, even more so than the Leica M8. So I turned it off completely. ... The meter in the M9 tends to underexpose the image in an aggressive attempt to preserve highlight detail. So I add about +.3 to .7 to my metering habits. I don't like to push the images in lightroom or photoshop, the pushed highlights have a persistent and nasty grey that never comes alive for me. The "advantage" of the poor image previews ... they look so much better on my desktop/laptop ! I do find the centre weight metering of the M's quiet accurate and handy ( even tough I use spot metering on my DSLR all the time). It's a matter of taking light conditions in account and lock exposures if needed. Rgds Ulev Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 3, 2014 Share #32 Posted June 3, 2014 And to be aware of the metering diagram. There is not much difference between the M8 and M9 in this respect. The M9 has a slightly expanded central area to compensate for the larger sensor, and the edges are more gradual. Most of the complaints in this respect come from relying on the "A" setting. Exposure compensation helps, but will remain an estimate all the same. The most accurate way using the camera is to go to manual and "scan" the scene through the viewfinder and take note of the values in the shadows and the highlights, to be able to choose the optimum exposure. Better still not to rely on the inbuilt meter and use an exposure meter, incident light or spot. Dialling in a "blanket" exposure compensation will result in too many badly exposed images. In general the metering on digital Ms is quite accurate, but of course, especially bright lights in the metering area will push the average lightlevels up, causing a perception of underexposure, particularly using wideangle lenses. The camera cannot decide for you whether a highlight should be blown or not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted June 3, 2014 Share #33 Posted June 3, 2014 In practice, I rarely have trouble with exposure. It usually occurs when I make changes and forget to restore my preset values. Any slight variance is easily and quickly corrected in Lightroom. Having said that, I do bring personal experience to bear in the way I meter my subjects. I only use LCD for framing confirmation, rarely for exposure purposes unless in a particularly tricky lighting situation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
goorackerelite Posted June 4, 2014 Author Share #34 Posted June 4, 2014 I do find using too much clarity ( if any at all) in combination with asph lenses, results often in HDR-like pictures, muddy skintones, etc ... Rgds Ulev Wow thank you!! that was a big help! I turned down the clarity by a tiny bit and now the images don't look so ruddy HDR esque. I'm becoming a believer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblutter Posted June 6, 2014 Share #35 Posted June 6, 2014 True, but getting WB in camera cuts down on post processing time. Also, aren't in-camera histogram a generated from jpegs, not RAW/DNG files? I shoot RAW uncompressed only, metering to keep highlights from being blown out. Don't need a histogram for that with a modicum of experience / tests For me photo is a 2 stage process. 1. Initial shot. 2. Post. In post, I'm the shooter's technician, editor and harsh critic Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptZoom Posted June 6, 2014 Share #36 Posted June 6, 2014 I shoot RAW uncompressed only, metering to keep highlights from being blown out. Don't need a histogram for that with a modicum of experience / tests For me photo is a 2 stage process. 1. Initial shot. 2. Post. In post, I'm the shooter's technician, editor and harsh critic I would add a third stage (to 1. Initial capture, 2. post processing/developing and 3.): final output (print, electronic display) Until recently, I used process anywhere from 50 to 200 shots daily and that was after doing the captures. My work week would be between 50-70 hours. With that type of load, any time at all that I could shave off of the process was significant. Histograms aren't just for preserving highlights but also for controlling color at capture. Color is vitally important for product photography. Can I, could I have guesstimated the correct exposure values with reasonable accuracy? Yes. In fact I do for personal photography when I'm feeling lazy. Would I do this in a professional setting? No. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
goorackerelite Posted June 10, 2014 Author Share #37 Posted June 10, 2014 Okay, I'm finally convinced! The more I use the M9, the less I want to touch the M8. Here's my findings. M9 has a very very high amount of color saturation. NEED TO TONE THAT SHIT DOWN IN POST!! The Clarity slider needs to be set to at least -5 for natural looking files. Sharpening- it's an art form. The Meter in the M9 consistently underexposes by .7 stops or more The shadows are malleable and have almost an infinite amount of information lurking deep with-in. Black and whites are good, as long as I don't expect them to look like M8 Black and whites Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblutter Posted June 19, 2014 Share #38 Posted June 19, 2014 I would add a third stage (to 1. Initial capture, 2. post processing/developing and 3.): final output (print, electronic display) Reply: Post also means printing for me, I was not clear enough. I do everything for exhibition. Thus I agree with your 3 stages Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.