skimmel Posted September 11, 2009 Share #1 Posted September 11, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) In looking at the few M9 pics out there so far, particularly those from David Farkas, I feel much more of that 3D look that I felt with film M cameras. There are no direct comparisons with the M8, but I am wondering if there is some technical reason that pics from the M9 might have more of this look than the M8. The distance from camera to subject for a given focal length being different to get the same "crop"? Something else? I realize that I haven't made an objective comparison here and that this could just reflect David's skills as a photographer, but I'd like to get people's thoughts on this. Here are some examples: L1000815.jpg (image) L1001324.jpg (image) L1000796.jpg (image) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 11, 2009 Posted September 11, 2009 Hi skimmel, Take a look here Are M9 Pictures more 3D than M8. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
sean_reid Posted September 11, 2009 Share #2 Posted September 11, 2009 There's a degree to which shallower depth of field can create a sense of space in a picture because of the difference between things seen in sharp focus vs. soft focus. That may be part of what you're seeing. Cheers, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
skimmel Posted September 11, 2009 Author Share #3 Posted September 11, 2009 There's a degree to which shallower depth of field can create a sense of space in a picture because of the difference between things seen in sharp focus vs. soft focus. That may be part of what you're seeing. Cheers, Yes, I was thinking about that too. When I moved from 1.3 crop DSLR to full frame DSLR, I didn't notice this as much as I thought I would. Perhaps it's different with a rangefinder. Would be very curious on your thoughts of the same lens on M8 vs. M9 based on your experience... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted September 11, 2009 Share #4 Posted September 11, 2009 It might also be different because of the lenses themselves combined with the fact that the M8 and M9 don't use AA filters so one can sometimes perceive sharp vs. not sharp more keenly. Having worked a lot with the M8/M8.2 since the summer of 2006 and then with the M9 since mid-August of this year (not long) the thing that strikes me most often (in the pictures) is that change in DOF. Not always better or worse but different. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted September 11, 2009 Share #5 Posted September 11, 2009 Me too would point on focus transition between planes : two evenings ago, happened I made 2 A4 prints of 2 very similar pics, one taken by me (M8-24 asph) and the other by my daughter (Lumix, zoomed with about exactly the same FOV) : apart the obvious difference in general sharpness, the difference in sense of depth is stunning. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbelyaev Posted September 11, 2009 Share #6 Posted September 11, 2009 Delusion... What do you think is the reason why everyone on these pictures have red faces? Too much champagne? ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthury Posted September 12, 2009 Share #7 Posted September 12, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) More clarity, I agree but the 3D feel can be done with any fast lens in other cameras. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.