Jamie Roberts Posted September 11, 2009 Share #21 Posted September 11, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Very nice Andy! Glad I still have my 75 Lux PS--nice to see Jim and Linda getting the work done. Hope they're thrilled with what's going on... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 11, 2009 Posted September 11, 2009 Hi Jamie Roberts, Take a look here M9 report from Salt Lake City. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
sps Posted September 11, 2009 Share #22 Posted September 11, 2009 Andy, Thanks for staying up. +1 on keeping my 75 lux! Have you tried the 12mm CV? S Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted September 11, 2009 Author Share #23 Posted September 11, 2009 I expect I will get a 35 of some kind eventually, but for right now I am getting rid of most of my lenses between (not including) 21 and 135, and could happily shoot just 21 and 75 for years, for RF work (with the 135 @ f/8 for daylight scenics - and yes, the 135s do need to be stopped down to below f/5.6 for reliable focus with the M9 .68x finder - tried both my Tele-Elmar and the reps' APO-Telyt. Both are lovely - when they are focused. Nice to see them in the manual lens code list - they do show a subtle amount of corner darkening that the camera corrections remove. See below. 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/96281-m9-report-from-salt-lake-city/?do=findComment&comment=1029703'>More sharing options...
adan Posted September 11, 2009 Author Share #24 Posted September 11, 2009 sps: No, I had one briefly with the Epson R-D1 and preferred the 15 - but I expect Sean Reid is likely to test it - he preferred it on the R-D1 so likely still has one (sorry, sean - hope I'm not putting you on the spot!) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sps Posted September 11, 2009 Share #25 Posted September 11, 2009 I don't own the 15, but have used the 12 extensively on the M8. When I can get my greedy hands on an M9 I'll snap some shots. Glad I kept my 135 Apo also! That's one of the best things about the M9. My favorite M7 lenses are finally going to get the use they deserve. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted September 11, 2009 Author Share #26 Posted September 11, 2009 Another point that I just remembered: there was no gray M9 to see, but the black paint version was substantially less glossy than the black-paint M8.2 - about halfway between Leica's usual black paint and black chrome. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
microview Posted September 11, 2009 Share #27 Posted September 11, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Microview - probably sensor dirt - the M9 got a lot of use and a lot of lens changes during the preview. Thanks Andy. Helpful to see those images! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted September 11, 2009 Share #28 Posted September 11, 2009 Andy--just another dumb question. What are you shooting that pre-ASPH 21 at? F4? f5.6? Just curious how soft you find it opened up and what it looks like on the M9... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted September 11, 2009 Author Share #29 Posted September 11, 2009 The Leica rep having dinner on the patio was f/2.8 - the train station brick wall and shopping plaza were probably 5.6-8ish. Looks like - you mean cosmetically? About like it did on the M8 here - except without the whitewash or the IR filter (Sorry left out the link - doh!): http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/1007236-post1.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted September 11, 2009 Share #30 Posted September 11, 2009 The Leica rep having dinner on the patio was f/2.8 - the train station brick wall and shoppig plaza were probably 5.6-8ish. Looks like - you mean cosmetically? About like it did on the M8 here - except without the whitewash or the IR filter No--I meant f stop and sharpness, so thanks! I was impressed by your brick wall shot and edge detail, but that must have been stopped down a piece. Just checking Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthury Posted September 12, 2009 Share #31 Posted September 12, 2009 Andy, Why aren't we doing some USM for images to be posted for viewing? These images are quite soft. -- Arthur Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted September 12, 2009 Author Share #32 Posted September 12, 2009 They show what the M9 does, not what PhotoShop can do. Surely that is more informative? Download them and sharpen to your heart's content, if you want. Personally, the ones showing 100% crops of details look plenty sharp to me (on a 99ppi monitor). A lot of them illustrate broader things than image sharpness - vignetting, reflections, green blobs (or lack thereof). ------- I will note that some of these were uploaded at 200K each, and then "reprocessed" by the Forum's upload engine to 70-90K. Nothing I can do about that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jl4069 Posted September 12, 2009 Share #33 Posted September 12, 2009 Andy, Tell me if I'm wrong but it sounds to me like you feel the M9 has quite a few IQ advantages over the M8? Or do you agree with Farkas who says to him there's little difference for normal sized shots? J Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted September 12, 2009 Author Share #34 Posted September 12, 2009 Well, for me, the main advantage of the M9 over the M8 is that my "21mm" lens is suddenly 2 stops faster - 21 f/2.8 vs. 15 f/4.5. With the option of f/1.4 if I want to get the 21 Summilux. Which means 2 (4) stops less noise in any given lighting (or 2(4) stops less subject blur - or a combination). Right off the bat that is a fair improvement in image quality. For prints of the same size at the same ISO, any noise speckles will be 1.33x smaller in an M9 shot - even if the actual noise looks the same when pixel-peeping. That's another improvement. I've been pretty happy with M8 image quality overall, so in and of itself, that is not the reason I'm excited by the M9. The gain in low-light with a wideangle lens is pretty big, though. Especially since I can get it with my 28-year-old $1000 21, instead of a new $4500 Leica or Zeiss fix-it 15/16mm lens. Multiply that by a couple of wides, and the M9 is almost free. ----------- So if you never need wider than 28mm, yes, I'd agree with Dave. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted September 12, 2009 Share #35 Posted September 12, 2009 Adan, ok, I guessed wrong on what you thought would become the lens that would become scarce. I was thinking about the 50/lux. But, of course this lens is still in production. It is just a great lens. It won't become scarce until they stop production of it. I picked up a 75 lux about a year ago and I agree that it is fantastic. I got a great late copy of that lens in perfect condition and I liked it so much that a sold my 75 cron. Which was a mistake because the cron was like the 50 lux I love. The 75 cron is sharp with great contrast and color just like the 50 lux. That is another story. The 75 lux, is just one of those great and classic lenses that make great images that have a character of their own. On the M9 it should be everything the 50mm is to the M8. (By the way, I would love to see what Mitch would do with a 75 Lux on an M9 in Hong Kong if he could open his mind up to it). The only problem with the 75 Lux is that it is really prone to flare and doesn't have the contrast that the 75 cron asph has. That is why I am sorry I sold my 75 cron. The contrast and the color of that lens was 50-asph-lux-like. Anyway, the 75 Lux is fanclassic and I can't wait to get my M9 and try it out. Oh, I forgot to mention... f1.4 ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted September 12, 2009 Author Share #36 Posted September 12, 2009 Rick - yeah the 75 'lux has lower contrast, but I find that a plus for digital. Note, on the previous page, how much detail is visible inside the stores of the shopping plaza shot, even exposed for pale exteriors in hard sunlight. Free dynamic range. It's funny - I tried the 75 'lux several times on film, and it just didn't deliver for me the way it did on the M9 for some reason. I think the low contrast just couldn't carve an image into film the way the 'cron can, and of course if one is messing with an f/1.4 lens, one is often also shooting Tri-X pushed two stops in available darkness, hand-held - which won't show off the lens to best effect. Plus it was a whole lot more expensive then - relatively. It's different buying a lens that costs three times as much as your camera than it is buying one that costs less than half as much. And between the 75 'cron on film and the 50 on the M8, I've developed a taste for a FoV that seemed too short 5-6 years ago. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted September 12, 2009 Share #37 Posted September 12, 2009 35 f/1.4 ASPH to show that the "back-focus" complaints pale to insignificance on a big sensor. What does that means? A larger sensor implies less DoF, so focus precision problems should be worse on the M9, including focus shift. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted September 13, 2009 Author Share #38 Posted September 13, 2009 For a given sized print, an M9 image is enlarged 1.33x LESS than an M8 image - or put another way, on the M9 the 35 is a wideangle, with eveything smaller in the frame, instead of a near-normal lens as it is on the M8. Smaller details mean small differences in sharpness will also be smaller, thus less noticeable, thus less significant. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.