Quickie M8/9 comparison: corners, res, & finder

[thompsonkirk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Today I was able to make some rough M8-M9 comparison shots at Camera West in Walnut Creek, CA.

 

‘Rough’ means M8 & M9 bodies using the same lens, with camera sitting on a counter in front of a flat wall displaying accessories & colorful film boxes. The self-timers tripped the shutters. The Leica rep’s M9 was wearing a 35mm Summicron, so I used his lens on my M8 too. (A more patient treatment would have added my 28 Summicron to the comparison, giving the 2 bodies approximately the same field of view; but other folks were waiting after me to grasp & fondle the M9.)

 

This sort of rough comparison doesn’t lead to conclusions; just hypotheses or impressions. Later careful testing – especially by Sean Reid - may or may not confirm them.

 

Corner sharpness:

 

At f2: At wide apertures, lenses - not the sensor - will set the basic limits of corner sharpness. With the Leica rep’s 35 Summicron copy on the M9, corner sharpness was underwhelming at f2. The M8 shot was noticeably sharper in the corners – because of the crop factor.

 

(This will come as no surprise to those of us who used Canon lenses on 1.5 crop-factor sensors & then on the FF 5D. Lenses more than sensor, for sure.)

 

At f5.6: With the lens stopped down to a middle aperture, the corners of the M9 file looked impressively sharp. If the microlenses can cause any problems of corner sharpness with wide angles, that would be wider than 35mm. All is well at this focal length.

 

Resolution:

 

With comparable enlargements, the 18MP M9 sensor resolves noticeably more detail than the 10 MP M8. I could see this especially in the small lettering on film boxes. I assume – but couldn’t see in my test shots of little objects – that the same increase in resolution will also mean smoother tonal transitions in large prints.

 

Viewfinder:

 

The 28mm lines in the M9 viewfinder are fine for folks without glasses, but problematic for four-eyed folks. With a lot of peering, I could make out the edges of the 28mm frame through my glasses; but I was having the same problem as with 24mm framelines on the M8. The M9 probably the ideal 28-35-50 viewfinder for most people; but we who are glasses-challenged may want an external finder for 28.

 

Noise: My quick tests of ISO 160-320-640-1250 suggests that the M9 will deliver one stop less noise, but not 2 stops less. The M9’s 640 was noticeably better than the M8’s 320 – but its 1250 was not.

 

So much for seat-of-the-pants testing. Now I’ll wait for Sean’s Part II.

 

Kirk

[sandymc]

Corner sharpness:

 

At f2: At wide apertures, lenses - not the sensor - will set the basic limits of corner sharpness. With the Leica rep’s 35 Summicron copy on the M9, corner sharpness was underwhelming at f2. The M8 shot was noticeably sharper in the corners – because of the crop factor.

 

(This will come as no surprise to those of us who used Canon lenses on 1.5 crop-factor sensors & then on the FF 5D. Lenses more than sensor, for sure.)

 

At f5.6: With the lens stopped down to a middle aperture, the corners of the M9 file looked impressively sharp. If the microlenses can cause any problems of corner sharpness with wide angles, that would be wider than 35mm. All is well at this focal length.

 

Encouraging.

 

Agree with you on the one stop of noise rather than two stops, btw; all the comparisons I've seen indicate the same.

 

Sandy

[thompsonkirk]

Sean Reid posted an explanation today: the improved noise reduction is mostly smoothing, & the real difference in noise is that it's harder to see it in a print when the sensor is larger & the image needs less res-ing up.

 

Kirk