nugat Posted September 9, 2009 Share #1  Posted September 9, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Since the English version server is down (lenstip.com) look at the Polish original at optyczne.pl . DC raw no sharpening. From 400 ISO visible CCD character. 800ISO questionable.  Leica M9 i jej pe?noklatkowi konkurenci - porównanie RAW - Optyczne.pl Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 9, 2009 Posted September 9, 2009 Hi nugat, Take a look here M9 raws vs other FF-sharp but noisy. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
wilfredo Posted September 9, 2009 Share #2 Â Posted September 9, 2009 Boy, the Canon 5D Mark II beats the M9 hands down in the ISO arena. I'm not really surprised. I'm sure M9 owners will put up with this. I'm used to living with this limitation on the M8. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leica007 Posted September 9, 2009 Share #3 Â Posted September 9, 2009 i think WB of M9 is problematic in these series - shows some blue-ish cast. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackal Posted September 9, 2009 Share #4 Â Posted September 9, 2009 but just look how mucky and soft the other cameraa look at lower iso's with their aggresive AA filters Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nugat Posted September 9, 2009 Author Share #5 Â Posted September 9, 2009 Generally I am underimpressed. Waiting for Reichmann and Reid reviews , if they confirm it's basically an M8.3, I'll get it in a year second hand. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
psss Posted September 9, 2009 Share #6 Â Posted September 9, 2009 i don't see a real crisper look...i do see lots of artifacts and noise... Â there is something wrong with the dsIII files, some are much softer then others, focus must be a little funky..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eleskin Posted September 9, 2009 Share #7 Â Posted September 9, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Some noise, not as bad as the M8, but the M9 wins across the board in resolving power and sharpness. Imagine a new Noctilux at the mid ISO's. I think this is a vast improvement over the M8! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted September 9, 2009 Share #8 Â Posted September 9, 2009 The M9 results look sharper, the other cameras have lower noise, but at the expense of added softness. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmk60 Posted September 10, 2009 Share #9 Â Posted September 10, 2009 The images from D3X remain pretty much the same across the ISO range..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kittyphoto Posted September 10, 2009 Share #10 Â Posted September 10, 2009 Download all M9 pictures from dpreview website. I thought files even at iso160 is noisy. Yes sharp but seems noisy than M8. May be need better firmware. I don't know. Just my thought. Â kitty Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
georg Posted September 10, 2009 Share #11 Â Posted September 10, 2009 CCD-based cameras don't use internal noise-reduction in RAW-files, don't directly compare noise-performance this way (use noise-reduction software for both files and see how well noise & detail hold up in crucial areas - not grey & black cards). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted September 10, 2009 Share #12 Â Posted September 10, 2009 Interesting. I personally can't believe how mushy those other, more mature, cameras are. None of them are apparently as high definition as the M9! Â Since we know this not to be the case (don't we?) there must be a flaw in the methodology. Â Um, no kidding. Â This is perhaps the dumbest comparison I've seen yet. Â Does anyone--and I mean anyone--know what that "milk maid" is supposed to look like? What it's actual printed resolution is? Â The line drawings all look better drawn by the M9. How can that be? Â The gray patches don't really show much difference in noise either. Â Something is seriously messed up with this... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted September 10, 2009 Share #13  Posted September 10, 2009 Download all M9 pictures from dpreview website.I thought files even at iso160 is noisy. Yes sharp but seems noisy than M8. May be need better firmware. I don't know. Just my thought.  kitty  The dpreview files are all on pre-production firmware. I wouldn't say anything about them except I was surprised how good 1600 was with an underexposed ceiling and beta firmware Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Valdemar Posted September 10, 2009 Share #14 Â Posted September 10, 2009 I do like that the Leica doesn't have an anti-alias filter in front of the sensor, since they claim it relies on software algorithms to remove Moire, like the 8 year older Kodak 14n. This, to my eye, makes a far crisper and higher resolution image file. I wish the Japanese makers would follow suit. Â Here's a couple of recent Kodak 14n files shot last week. Albeit lower iso range, but with a similar Kodak sensor to the Leica stills gives anything "modern" a run for the money, including the M9. (This was with a cheap, 35-70mm Nikkor "kit" lens) Â Â Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted September 10, 2009 Share #15  Posted September 10, 2009 Great colors! Reminds me that soon after the Kodak 14n was out — I don't remember the year — I saw a series of prints at the annual Paris Photo show at the Louvre and was so taken by the colors that I asked the photographer, who was there, what film he had used. The answer was, "the Kodak 14n".  —Mitch/Potomac, MD Bangkok Hysteria©: Book Project Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted September 10, 2009 Share #16 Â Posted September 10, 2009 Reminds me of the DMR. Alas. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Valdemar Posted September 10, 2009 Share #17 Â Posted September 10, 2009 Kodak could have been a world-beater. Â But they had totally inept marketing, and the firmware was a disaster until 5 or six releases down the line. Â By that time the full frame Kodak 14n and the "improved" SLR/n were horribly bashed by the ignorant press and totally marginalized. By the time they got it together, the full frame Canon had appeared at a much lower price and it was a far more refined machine. Â Kodak withdrew from the SLR market and dispersed a very talented team. Â You can buy a Kodak 14n or SLR/n on eBay for less that $1000 (much less sometimes), and if you update the firmare to the latest, and don't push the ISO, the results are astonishing. Â (I should add that my first post was a bit inaccurate. The Kodak DSLRs had full frame sensors with specs dictated by Kodak, but made by an Israeli and I believe a Belgian fab for the later SLR/n) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mah Posted September 22, 2009 Share #18 Â Posted September 22, 2009 I would like to show this image I took with M9 aimed to measure sharpness of new FF and resolution beside the Leica optical superiority: Â The morning after midnight lightening.... on Flickr - Photo Sharing! Â Thanks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carbonadam Posted September 22, 2009 Share #19 Â Posted September 22, 2009 Still, that big Kodak 14n with a lens must be like carrying a bowling ball around. It does look great though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mah Posted September 23, 2009 Share #20 Â Posted September 23, 2009 M9+ Noctilux at ISO 320: Â The peace of night... on Flickr - Photo Sharing! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.