Guest malland Posted September 11, 2009 Share #161 Posted September 11, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Andy/Steve: I never suggested that huge files should be linked. My own experience is that I size my files at 864 x 576 in flickr and link them here. What I had been wondering whether there was anything that was affecting some of Toke's files that made them appear soft here or whether there was an issue with the pictures themselves, as all this affected how the M9 files that he posted came across. —Mitch/Potomac, MD Bangkok Hysteria©: Book Project Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 11, 2009 Posted September 11, 2009 Hi Guest malland, Take a look here I have M9. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
andybarton Posted September 11, 2009 Share #162 Posted September 11, 2009 All he has to do is resize them to 960 on the longest side and 235kb max and all will be well. Or, he can host them somewhere else at whatever size he likes, and post a link to them here (not an embedded image, just an HTML link) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted September 11, 2009 Share #163 Posted September 11, 2009 links are great as people can choose not to open them Imants Krumins Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted September 11, 2009 Share #164 Posted September 11, 2009 woops I banned myself from the this forum ahhh well.......still I haven't mentioned mX-1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted September 11, 2009 Share #165 Posted September 11, 2009 By way of explanation I should add that my interest in the M9 is to know how much improvement there has been in high ISO capability, particularly in ISO 1250 and 2500. Reading some of the other threads the consensus seems to be emerging that there is an improvement of a stop or a bit more. But that is not the the feeling I get from the high ISO pictures I've seen here and in other threads. We'll see when Sean Reid posts his ISO tests later today. On the M8, ISO 2500 is a hit or miss affair, rendering shots unusable even with a slight underexposure. In view of the cost, and some other design decisions of the M9 — including regression to 1m frame lines, elimination of top LCD, low resolution and elimination of sapphire on back LCD and lack of weather sealing — I would only upgrade my M8.2 if the M9 had a significant improvement in ISO 1250 and, particularly, in ISO 2500 because I'm quite happy with the image qiuality of up to ISO 640 on the M8. —Mitch/Potomac Bangkok Hysteria©: Book Project Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iridium7777 Posted September 11, 2009 Share #166 Posted September 11, 2009 what in god's name is all that purple stuff doing on the left side of the image? is this something to be expected? is this a firmware issue or you can pretty much expect it anytime you shoot with a wide lens like that? M9 + 15mm Voigtländer @ iso 160 and F: 8-11 and no filter. I used Adobe camera Raw CS3 to open...16mm tri selected in the menu. I think the choice of software matters, but I only have the Adobe CS3. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandymc Posted September 11, 2009 Share #167 Posted September 11, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) what in god's name is all that purple stuff doing on the left side of the image? is this something to be expected? is this a firmware issue or you can pretty much expect it anytime you shoot with a wide lens like that? 15mm CV is well beyond any of the built-in compensation profiles. CornerFix. Sandy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted September 11, 2009 Share #168 Posted September 11, 2009 what in god's name is all that purple stuff doing on the left side of the image? As Sandy says, it's due to the lens, not the camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sps Posted September 11, 2009 Share #169 Posted September 11, 2009 See, these are funky colors to me.It's like they are somewhat off. I know this isn't the best way to evaluate colors, but I'm really enjoying them. They do not look accurate on my monitor, but remind me of my Velvia 50 days (the original emulsion). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicalarsen Posted September 12, 2009 Share #170 Posted September 12, 2009 Hey Toke thanx for posting pics.. Seems that most people here dosent really take pictures but rather debate pointless stuff like file sizes and colors, last which is realy a waste of time when thinking about their most likely not very accurate mointor and the fact that the color they think is bad is from a place they have never been to see the real color.. But what the f. times goes by in many different ways ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ammitsboel Posted September 12, 2009 Share #171 Posted September 12, 2009 Hey Toke thanx for posting pics.. Seems that most people here dosent really take pictures but rather debate pointless stuff like file sizes and colors, last which is realy a waste of time when thinking about their most likely not very accurate mointor and the fact that the color they think is bad is from a place they have never been to see the real color.. But what the f. times goes by in many different ways ? If colors look bad, they are bad. When a person says is looks bad, it's not a valuable argument to say that it's because they have never been there. It's just a bad excuse to hide the obvious. This reminds me of a mac vs. pc discussion. Should we emphasize what people can do with the software or should we emphasize what the software can do with people? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brill64 Posted September 12, 2009 Share #172 Posted September 12, 2009 each to their own..all entitled to own opinions. seems like it's back to the good old days in the m8 room. km-25, i'm with you and definitely please keep you focus on the brilliant kodachrome project till some of this dust gets settled;) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
toke Posted September 13, 2009 Author Share #173 Posted September 13, 2009 And here's a iso 2500 shot with a 100% crop............ Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/95931-i-have-m9/?do=findComment&comment=1032604'>More sharing options...
toke Posted September 13, 2009 Author Share #174 Posted September 13, 2009 BW iso 320 Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/95931-i-have-m9/?do=findComment&comment=1032614'>More sharing options...
wattsy Posted September 13, 2009 Share #175 Posted September 13, 2009 And here's a iso 2500 shot with a 100% crop............ That can't be a 100% crop. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
toke Posted September 13, 2009 Author Share #176 Posted September 13, 2009 Why not? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted September 13, 2009 Share #177 Posted September 13, 2009 Why not? Because the area of the original image covered should be much smaller if that last post was a 100% crop. So that isn't a 100% crop. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted September 13, 2009 Share #178 Posted September 13, 2009 Seeing post #175, sorry to harp on this, but I continue to be puzzled by some of the M9 examples posted here in that they continue to be softer than what I get with my M8.2 and am certain that they don't really represent the increased resolution from the larger file size of the new camera. For comparison here are a couple of M8.2 shots, the first at ISO 320 and the second at ISO 640, to both of which some grain has been added (in Color Efex and Silver Efex, respectively: —Mitch/Potomac, MD Turks & Caicos - Color Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
toke Posted September 13, 2009 Author Share #179 Posted September 13, 2009 Is this better then? Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/95931-i-have-m9/?do=findComment&comment=1032677'>More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted September 13, 2009 Share #180 Posted September 13, 2009 Seeing post #175, sorry to harp on this, but I continue to be puzzled by some of the M9 examples posted here in that they continue to be softer than what I get with my M8.2 and am certain that they don't really represent the increased resolution from the larger file size of the new camera. For comparison here are a couple of M8.2 shots, the first at ISO 320 and the second at ISO 640, to both of which some grain has been added (in Color Efex and Silver Efex, respectively: —Mitch/Potomac, MD Turks & Caicos - Color Um, and some sharpening, perhaps? These M9 shots are hardly processed at all. I don't notice any lack of sharpness in any of the stuff posted so far. DOF, yes; sharpening, yes... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.