vertekijker Posted September 9, 2009 Share #1 Posted September 9, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I don't think it has been signaled yet: Erwin Puts take on the M9: M9, part1 -------------- Frans Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 9, 2009 Posted September 9, 2009 Hi vertekijker, Take a look here Erwin Puts on M9. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
vanhulsenbeek Posted September 9, 2009 Share #2 Posted September 9, 2009 I don't think it has been signaled yet: Erwin Puts take on the M9:M9, part1 -------------- Frans Hmmm...... All Leica lenses from 15 (sic!) to 135 mm? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertknappmd Posted September 9, 2009 Share #3 Posted September 9, 2009 The great one likes it !!! :) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnbuckley Posted September 9, 2009 Share #4 Posted September 9, 2009 This is one of the better-organized and clearer essays from Mr. Puts in quite some time. He knows this review will be cited for a long time to come, because the M9 will be relevant for some time to come. Essential message: Noise still too high at the higher ISO levels, but: "The M9 is the only digital 35mm camera that operates and feels like a classical film loading camera." Bravo, Leica engineers: you really have pleased Mr. Puts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanhulsenbeek Posted September 9, 2009 Share #5 Posted September 9, 2009 The great one likes it !!! :) Sure; where is that 15mm lens? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnbuckley Posted September 9, 2009 Share #6 Posted September 9, 2009 And a very interesting conclusion: "If you were looking for radically new features in the M9, you might be disappointed. The camera has the full DNA of the classical Leica CRF and is still completely locked in the M-evolutionary tree. You can improve a camera to a certain level and to the limit of its natural habitat. The M9 represents the final stage of the classical CRF concept for the digital workflow. Some refinements will of course always be possible. A radically new version would require a substantial and fundamental change in the DNA make-up. This then is the significance of the M9. Overall you can sense that the Leica engineers and developers are becoming more in synch and at ease with the demands and possibilities of digital technology without losing sight at the fundamental Leica characteristics as elegance, simplicity and performance. Do I hear someone muttering about the new Mac operating system, Snow Leopard, which has a comparable approach? The Leica M9 is a sensible mix of traditional Leica virtues and state-of-the-art camera features. It is a tool for Leica aficionados who still think chemical, but want to work with a digital workflow." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tadeyev Posted September 9, 2009 Share #7 Posted September 9, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) It reads as a very sensible and clear view of the camera minus the (enjoyable!) hype. The choice of framelines seems to me to perfect for what I need; I think Leica made some very good choices here, although I am sure others will disagree with me. Can't wait to get on one in my hands...I have been waiting literally years for this moment! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knorp Posted September 9, 2009 Share #8 Posted September 9, 2009 I don't think it has been signaled yet: Erwin Puts take on the M9:M9, part1 -------------- Frans Thank you Frans, I enjoyed reading that. Erwin is quite pleased with the overall concept of the M9, but still not happy about its high ISO performance Kind regards. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
patrick parker Posted September 9, 2009 Share #9 Posted September 9, 2009 Thank you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vertekijker Posted September 9, 2009 Author Share #10 Posted September 9, 2009 Thank you Frans, I enjoyed reading that. Erwin is quite pleased with the overall concept of the M9, but still not happy about its high ISO performance Kind regards. My pleasure. I was pleasantly surprised to find his reaction so soon. Always interesting to see what he has to say. Frans Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty Posted September 9, 2009 Share #11 Posted September 9, 2009 The M9 represents the final stage of the classical CRF concept for the digital workflow. Some refinements will of course always be possible. Not sure I agree 100% with Puts here. One could argue that the M8 is that stage: it is already a fully digital classical CRF. From this perspective it is the M9 that is merely a "refinement". Perhaps he meant to add 35mm. Then of course the M9 can be appreciated as such. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted September 9, 2009 Share #12 Posted September 9, 2009 "The bigger sensor size delivers a file with a much larger size of course: 18 Million pixels is the basic size. But now you can select a new option: DNG uncompressed which creates files with a size of 36 to 40 Million pixels capturing the full potential of the sensor." I wonder if he doesn't fully understand digital. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted September 9, 2009 Share #13 Posted September 9, 2009 Thanks you Frans. Always enjoy reading Erwin's works. Carried on to read several of his technical papers I hadn't seen before. Bravo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
patrick parker Posted September 9, 2009 Share #14 Posted September 9, 2009 "The bigger sensor size delivers a file with a much larger size of course: 18 Million pixels is the basic size. But now you can select a new option: DNG uncompressed which creates files with a size of 36 to 40 Million pixels capturing the full potential of the sensor." I wonder if he doesn't fully understand digital. How's he wrong? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted September 9, 2009 Share #15 Posted September 9, 2009 The uncompressed DNG images take 36MB, not 36-40MP. There are always 18MP in the DNG images. In fact, I believe that, like the M8, the images always take up the same amount of space, 18MB for compressed and 36MB for uncompressed. This is due to the special compression scheme used by Leica for these cameras. "The pixel pitch of 6.8 micron allows excellent definition up to 70 line-pairs/mm, which is enough for really crisp prints in A3 format." Another weird comment. The deciding factor in how large you can print (with any reasonable camera/lens) is resolution, not lppm. He clearly knows a lot about Leica cameras in general, and I own and enjoy a couple of his books, but he occasionally makes some really weird comments about digital photography. I think he is mixing up some concepts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted September 9, 2009 Share #16 Posted September 9, 2009 How's he wrong? LOL I think he's muddling his MP's with his MB's ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
microview Posted September 9, 2009 Share #17 Posted September 9, 2009 Yes but is that paint wear already in the image of the two cameras side by side?:D:D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
patrick parker Posted September 9, 2009 Share #18 Posted September 9, 2009 The uncompressed DNG images take 36MB, not 36-40MP. There are always 18MP in the DNG images. In fact, I believe that, like the M8, the images always take up the same amount of space, 18MB for compressed and 36MB for uncompressed. This is due to the special compression scheme used by Leica for these cameras. "The pixel pitch of 6.8 micron allows excellent definition up to 70 line-pairs/mm, which is enough for really crisp prints in A3 format." Another weird comment. The deciding factor in how large you can print (with any reasonable camera/lens) is resolution, not lppm. He clearly knows a lot about Leica cameras in general, and I own and enjoy a couple of his books, but he occasionally makes some really weird comments about digital photography. I think he is mixing up some concepts. Thank you carstenw Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nugat Posted September 9, 2009 Share #19 Posted September 9, 2009 The uncompressed DNG images take 36MB, not 36-40MP. There are always 18MP in the DNG images. In fact, I believe that, like the M8, the images always take up the same amount of space, 18MB for compressed and 36MB for uncompressed. This is due to the special compression scheme used by Leica for these cameras. "The pixel pitch of 6.8 micron allows excellent definition up to 70 line-pairs/mm, which is enough for really crisp prints in A3 format." Another weird comment. The deciding factor in how large you can print (with any reasonable camera/lens) is resolution, not lppm. He clearly knows a lot about Leica cameras in general, and I own and enjoy a couple of his books, but he occasionally makes some really weird comments about digital photography. I think he is mixing up some concepts. Obvious mix up MPvsMB. Not so weird with the resolution. Pixels are not resolution, lines per..XYZ or CoC are resolution. What's the point of X000 pixels vertically if the actual sensor+lens resolution is Y000?? This is the real detail on the print. M8 from raw gets 2600 lph (lines picture height). D3x, A900 and 5Dm2 get 2700 (as per dpreview tests). M9 probably similar . Puts gives MTFs and writes: "The differences are quite small and may be due to the statistical variations, which always create a margin when testing lenses and equipment. The image quality of the M9 pictures could be improved when you take advantage of the bigger sensor area: you can get closer to the scene to capture the same angle and this helps in the recording of fine detail. When the M8 is used expertly and within its limits of angle of view, the image quality is very close to that what you get with the M9. In this sense the M8 is not obsolete. " Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted September 9, 2009 Share #20 Posted September 9, 2009 How's he wrong? Both files contain the same number of pixels, what's different is the size of the files. A pixel isn't a byte, which is where he appears to be confused. He also refers to full frame being 23mm x 36mm - I assume a typo just as when he refers to 15mm rather than 16mm for the lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.