Jamie Roberts Posted September 10, 2009 Share #61 Posted September 10, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) {snipped}i thought M9 will be faster than M8 , given that it has better [assuming] DUAL processors. is it the file size which it finds difficult to deal with or is it related to the SD card's writing speed? [Perhaps, Maestro could have solved this problem. ] 007--the M9 is obviously a TON faster than the M8, since Noah was shooting uncompressed 16bpp RAWs at 36mb each!! I'd expect a little downtime when zooming through those, though I have no doubt that can be optimized. @ Noah--your observations match (+almost 2 stop improvement) precisely my best guesses playing with a few compressed DNGs I can get my hands on, figuring how much it will take for the M9 to get some firmware improvements, and based on my limited capability with ACR I have to say based on your comments I'm completely committed to getting one of these as soon as I possibly can! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 10, 2009 Posted September 10, 2009 Hi Jamie Roberts, Take a look here get real.... I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
trs Posted September 10, 2009 Share #62 Posted September 10, 2009 Sincerely, what is the relevance to compare a big a## Sony A900 with a rangefinder twice smaller ? The A900 could be ten times cheaper, I would not buy it. I would definitely buy A900 for 10times cheaper because I already have all lens I need for that platform But, I would not trade my M8 for anything except M8.2 or M9. I have not used my dSLR since I got M8 and I don't think I will any time soon. But, hey, for $700 (10 times cheaper), I would definitely buy a Sony. It's great camera, too. But, I will still be carrying my M8 99% of the time. M8 just fits for my casual photography. If I were buy another M digital right now, I would buy a M9 no problem. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
batmobile Posted September 10, 2009 Share #63 Posted September 10, 2009 Lets not go down the road of the investment value of the M9, M8.2 or anything else. If you need it for its performance, who cares? If you care about the residual value too much, chances are you don't need it, merely want it. There is no point comparing the M9 to a FF SLR. Leica had to solve some seriously tough design issues to get a FF RF at all and this is the first. hopefully it will be enough of a success for there to be a M10, M11 etc and you can bet the high ISO performance will be better. I can see that only one or two evolutionalry steps beyond the M9 we will have all the performance we need, but some will still want ISO 32,000,000 so they can shoot at f22 in a coal mine at night. Being realistic, we could never do that with film, but we managed... somehow. It is to be expected that the M9 does not have the high ISO performance of the Sony whatever, but if you really think that means you should use the SLR, you are obviously ignorant as to why people shoot rangefinders and are using the wrong camera! FF SLRs trounce the M9 in many respects... like macro....er full sized image in the finder, rather than piddly frame lines for longer lenses. We know all this, but the whole point is the M9 is is ablinking rangefinder and NONE of the others are! It is therefore imaterial what the others do, merely whether the M9 does enough for us to get the images we want. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nugat Posted September 10, 2009 Share #64 Posted September 10, 2009 C'mon nugat! That is gross exaggeration. Out of your quote of 10,000 people I reckon you would be lucky to get one to comment at all. When trimmed back substantially to a realistic probable statistic, I could be inclined to agree with the tenor of your observation. As for what you refer to as the "snob" effect. I wonder why you comment on it as though there is some problem with it. Peridically, I have been referred to as a snob and other similar terms, usually because of the car I drive, the camera I use, the watch I wear, or the fact that I choose to go to opera and ballet rather than slush in a pub with mates or go to the footy (aussie rules of course ). The one thing I can do (have done) is methodically demonstrate why I choose all those pursuits as opposed to other "less snobbish" choices. I actually have a very efficient "blind" test that I subject myself to and must pass before committing to any of them. None of my critics have ever been able to explain why the alternatives would be a better option (albeit cheaper) for me. You see, all these things are personal choices and not open to criticism from others. So yes, I may be a snob by your judgment and I enjoy it. I hope the fact does not impede you from enjoying your preferences as I believe we are all entitled to enjoy what we can find in life. If we are not enjoying it, there is a good chance we only have ourselves to blame for the decisions we made. Don't take my ranting too seriously. If one is a snob I'm the MegaOne. And a cheap one on top. I collected and use M6, MP, M8, CL, RD1 and all kinds of M glass . I try to get bargains on most of the stuff, that's all. I love Leica, I hate their prices. Due to high costs of production in Germany (and most of the western world) and low competitiveness all electronics manufacturing move to Far East. They did it now with the X1-made in Japan. First sign of a trend. M10 will carry "Designed in Solms, Made in China". With the price tag of 3000$ I will not mind. The Half-price Snob Piotr Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmun Posted September 10, 2009 Share #65 Posted September 10, 2009 This is in Aperture using the M8 preset. What is this preset please? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markgay Posted September 10, 2009 Share #66 Posted September 10, 2009 Can anyone, Leica or Sony lover confirm that the lower noise at higher ISO which is claimed for many cameras is due to software processing in camera? After all, the M9 has a new sensor. It should be closely comparable in low noise sensitivity with other sensors of its generation. Surely any significant difference in noise levels at higher ISO is due to Leica's decision not to impose detail-crushing noise suppression in camera? Mark Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackal Posted September 10, 2009 Author Share #67 Posted September 10, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I think you are paying for years of precision engineering and development. Not jewelry or something to place in a case, but a working camera that is the best choice for anybody who understands the advantages of a rangefinder with the best lenses ever made. A rangefinder is not for everybody. As for trading on its name, if Leica deserves the reputation, that should be an advantage if only they would quit depending on celebrities to market the camera for them! Tina Tina Manley that as well (hence why i used the word partially) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 10, 2009 Share #68 Posted September 10, 2009 Can anyone, Leica or Sony lover confirm that the lower noise at higher ISO which is claimed for many cameras is due to software processing in camera? After all, the M9 has a new sensor. It should be closely comparable in low noise sensitivity with other sensors of its generation. Surely any significant difference in noise levels at higher ISO is due to Leica's decision not to impose detail-crushing noise suppression in camera? Mark You are 100% spot-on. That is the reason a fair number of Nikon users don't like the fantastic-high ISO settings - the files look (and are) cooked. With C-mos sensors the noise-reduction starts on the sensor itself. The real noise that is produced is determined by quantum physics, and all sensor design can do is approach that limit - which most modern sensors do. http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/downloadable_2/Physical_Limits_2.pdf Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackal Posted September 10, 2009 Author Share #69 Posted September 10, 2009 As for high-iso performance, I'm very picky. I use the M8 only up to 320 for most uses. I would not shoot at 640 for most of my clients, though I know some have used it with good results. But as I said, I'm picky. On the M9 the results at ISO 640 are beautiful. I'd use it in any situation where I wanted more DOF or a faster shutter, I'd say it's as good or better than the M8 at 320. At 800 the files are still amazing, there may be some visible noise (as there is with the M8 at 320) but it's extremely minimal. At 1600 there is more noise, but I'd still say the files are very good. I would NOT hesitate to use 1600 for any of my work even for picky clients. Thanks for that Noah i'm getting excited now.. off to London to pick mine up not that I need >640 in any case as all my lenses open up to between F/1.0-F/2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackal Posted September 10, 2009 Author Share #70 Posted September 10, 2009 Can anyone, Leica or Sony lover confirm that the lower noise at higher ISO which is claimed for many cameras is due to software processing in camera? After all, the M9 has a new sensor. It should be closely comparable in low noise sensitivity with other sensors of its generation. Surely any significant difference in noise levels at higher ISO is due to Leica's decision not to impose detail-crushing noise suppression in camera? Mark yes, go and read any Nikon/Canon review over on DPreview and you'll see that a certain level of NR happens in camera before the DNG is spat out Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nugat Posted September 10, 2009 Share #71 Posted September 10, 2009 Can anyone, Leica or Sony lover confirm that the lower noise at higher ISO which is claimed for many cameras is due to software processing in camera? After all, the M9 has a new sensor. It should be closely comparable in low noise sensitivity with other sensors of its generation. Surely any significant difference in noise levels at higher ISO is due to Leica's decision not to impose detail-crushing noise suppression in camera? Mark The sensor does not look so new. If after 4-5 years the pixel pitch is not chaged it looks suspicious. Maybe it's only higher yield for the bigger slices and new filter/microlens pattern? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
yanidel Posted September 10, 2009 Share #72 Posted September 10, 2009 I'd expect a little downtime when zooming through those, though I have no doubt that can be optimized. I felt the downtime while zooming was significant. If they can fix it, great. Otherwise, one more incentive not to chimp, which is good too ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 10, 2009 Share #73 Posted September 10, 2009 The sensor does not look so new. If after 4-5 years the pixel pitch is not chaged it looks suspicious. Maybe it's only higher yield for the bigger slices and new filter/microlens pattern? Pixel pitch is no parameter for sensor age. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markowich Posted September 10, 2009 Share #74 Posted September 10, 2009 You are 100% spot-on. That is the reason a fair number of Nikon users don't like the fantastic-high ISO settings - the files look (and are) cooked. With C-mos sensors the noise-reduction starts on the sensor itself. The real noise that is produced is determined by quantum physics, and all sensor design can do is approach that limit - which most modern sensors do. http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/downloadable_2/Physical_Limits_2.pdf do yourself a favor try the D3x at high isos. this might increase your perspective--)))p Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted September 10, 2009 Share #75 Posted September 10, 2009 Don't take my ranting too seriously. If one is a snob I'm the MegaOne. And a cheap one on top. I collected and use M6, MP, M8, CL, RD1 and all kinds of M glass . I try to get bargains on most of the stuff, that's all. I love Leica, I hate their prices. Due to high costs of production in Germany (and most of the western world) and low competitiveness all electronics manufacturing move to Far East. They did it now with the X1-made in Japan. First sign of a trend. M10 will carry "Designed in Solms, Made in China". With the price tag of 3000$ I will not mind. The Half-price Snob Piotr Fair enough Piotr. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick_dykstra Posted September 10, 2009 Share #76 Posted September 10, 2009 A rangefinder camera allow the photographer to see the world in a similar way to that they may see when they use the naked eye, an SLR doesn't. It provides an artificial way of seeing. Steve, I'm not sure I agree with you here. Hold your finger up about six inches in front of your face (no, not that far!) and focus on something far away. Provided you're not short sighted your finger will be blurred. Now focus on your finger. The background is blurred. SLRs work a lot more like normal eyes than rangefinders do, but in an exaggerated way. What a rangefinder does that is unlike human vision and SLRs is keep everything sharp, which can be very handy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted September 10, 2009 Share #77 Posted September 10, 2009 Rick, but the depth of field you see when you look through a rangefinder is identical to the depth of field you see when you are not looking through a rangefinder. We don't see at f1.4 all the time, and even when the light is very bad, and the pupil is wide open we are constantly refocussing as we look around a scene. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 10, 2009 Share #78 Posted September 10, 2009 do yourself a favor try the D3x at high isos. this might increase your perspective--)))p I won't, I am not interested in that kind of high-ISO stuff. But the Nikon users claiming this have been posting even in this thread. I think I formulated my post to show I was only quoting. For instance: I think the camera has at least two stops advantage over the M8. My statements above assume correct exposure. I also shot with the D700 (with zeiss primes) for a while. I'd say the noise reduction at very high speeds (3200 and up) is nice but it smears fine detail and the files look more processed and artificial. Also the color can get funky. The fastest I really liked was 1600. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick_dykstra Posted September 10, 2009 Share #79 Posted September 10, 2009 I felt the downtime while zooming was significant. If they can fix it, great. Otherwise, one more incentive not to chimp, which is good too ... How does the waiting while zooming compare with DMR? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick_dykstra Posted September 10, 2009 Share #80 Posted September 10, 2009 Rick, but the depth of field you see when you look through a rangefinder is identical to the depth of field you see when you are not looking through a rangefinder. We don't see at f1.4 all the time, and even when the light is very bad, and the pupil is wide open we are constantly refocussing as we look around a scene. Yes - agree about the F1.4 view of the world. Rangefinders are just at the opposite end of the aperture scale. Again, very handy. I've been having more and more trouble focussing my Rs in dim light lately (late fourties now - optometrist said this would happen). The Ms are a snap to focus in any light. Then again, for critical focus I always reach for the Rs. Horses for courses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.