Jump to content
Leica M EV1: Die erste M mit EVF statt Messssucher ×
Leica M EV1: The first M with EVF instead of Rangefinder ×

M9 versus M8 picture quality

Guest Essemmlee

By Guest Essemmlee
in Leica M9 / M-E

Recommended Posts

gravastar

gravastar

Posted
Posted
Wow! How did you get to post a whacking great file like that on the L.Camera Forum?:cool:

 

The image link references an external site. I think it's something that Andreas asks us not to do since the large file size causes people on slow links/iPhones etc. to have problems or excessive bandwidth charges.

 

Bob.

Link to post
Share on other sites
jackal

jackal

Posted
Posted
The quality of the pictures has very little to do with the camera.

 

 

 

:)

 

 

too true

 

give a good photographer whatever, a Lomo, diana, an instamatic, a pinhole camera made form an eggbox ..... and he'll create compelling pictures that move people

 

digital M is all about its tiny size and weight and how it places you in right in the epicentre of the picture making process... it has an involvement factor that a machine gun-esque DSLR will never even get close to

 

to get bogged down in all this talk of iso, resolution, detail, aa filters, noise etc.. is totally missing the point

 

the M9 doens't have a competitor... either buy one, or buy a DSLR and take pictures in a completely different way

Link to post
Share on other sites
JHAG

JHAG

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

This is not different in principle from shooting Tri-X in a 35mm camera and in a MF camera, printing to comparable sizes, and you do indeed see a difference! I have done that a lot. Results are hanging on the wall in front of me as I write this. Dou you want to claim that there should be no difference because it is the same film? If so, we would have been running around with Minoxes ...

 

Sharpness? There is no such thing. (Or rather, it is a psychological experience and not a measurable parameter.) There is resolution, and contrast. Together, we call them definition.

 

Sorry, but you can't get around it: size makes a difference.

 

The old man from the Age of the Super Ikontas

 

I concur 33 times (at least).

But why, why did I read your post, lars ?

You'll cost me at least 4000 euros. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jamie Roberts

Jamie Roberts

Posted
Posted
{snipped}

to get bogged down in all this talk of iso, resolution, detail, aa filters, noise etc.. is totally missing the point

 

the M9 doens't have a competitor... either buy one, or buy a DSLR and take pictures in a completely different way

 

You're right of course--the M9 by itself will not guarantee better quality over the M8.

 

But in the hands of the same photographer, I really do think it will be easier to shoot:

 

  • easier to compute FOV
  • easier to get fast / wide look
  • easier to hold the shutter faster with better ISO
  • easier to get better color (early indicators are that colors are better than the M8)
  • easier to get better contrast (I agree that the sensor native contrast has been tweaked for nicer roll-off in highlights)

IOW--easier to focus on picture making. For me, that's worth its weight in gold, and certainly worth the upgrade

Link to post
Share on other sites
wilfredo

wilfredo

Posted
Posted
So it's fair to say that it's difficult to tell the difference between the two camera images side by side, and it may be that the M8 provides a better result?

 

That is really helpful as I believe my dithering has been useful. I'll wait for the M10.

 

Perhaps by the time the M10 comes along, we will have better ISO at the higher numbers, something more in competition with the Canon 5D Mark II in that department. That would have a significant impact on IQ for the digital M line. A good size LCD would also be great, I'm really enjoying the LCD on my Canon 5D II and wish my M8 had something like that, nevertheless I'm holding onto my M8.

Link to post
Share on other sites
JHAG

JHAG

Posted
Posted
You're right of course--the M9 by itself will not guarantee better quality over the M8.

 

But in the hands of the same photographer, I really do think it will be easier to shoot:

 

  • easier to compute FOV
  • easier to get fast / wide look
  • easier to hold the shutter faster with better ISO
  • easier to get better color (early indicators are that colors are better than the M8)
  • easier to get better contrast (I agree that the sensor native contrast has been tweaked for nicer roll-off in highlights)

IOW--easier to focus on picture making. For me, that's worth its weight in gold, and certainly worth the upgrade

 

Jamie,

Good Heavens, by Jove and Holy Mackrel,

Why, but why did you write this post ?

And why, but why did I read it ? :eek::D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jamie Roberts

Jamie Roberts

Posted
Posted
Jamie,

Good Heavens, by Jove and Holy Mackrel,

Why, but why did you write this post ?

And why, but why did I read it ? :eek::D

 

LOL!! Thanks Johan!

 

That's exactly the way I feel though too. I love my M8 and it's fabulous, but every time I play with a new DNG from the M9 in C1 I find myself doing less and less to it to make it look great. Even ISO 2500 DNGs... And 50mm shots look like 50mm (especially some of the Nocti .95 and 1.0 M9 shots floating around).

 

You and Mani both are using Raw Developer for raws. too.

 

I'm starting to see improved blues and reds in the M9 when they're properly balanced, and the contrast in the upper midtone to highlight seems to be different too. I do believe Kodak has tweaked the color filters for the M9, and I am starting to see some differences.

 

For instance on a typical M8 shot in C1, I always tone the contrast down to get that rolloff we talked about before. I don't have to do that with the M9 in a lot of the (uncompressed) samples I've seen...

 

I can only imagine what Raw Developer will do with the M9 files (you've nearly convinced me on that one) and so I'm really thinking about a Mac as well... (:eek:) Though to be fair it's early days with the M9 and C1 yet :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jamie Roberts

Jamie Roberts

Posted
Posted
Perhaps by the time the M10 comes along, we will have better ISO at the higher numbers, something more in competition with the Canon 5D Mark II in that department. That would have a significant impact on IQ for the digital M line. A good size LCD would also be great, I'm really enjoying the LCD on my Canon 5D II and wish my M8 had something like that, nevertheless I'm holding onto my M8.

 

Wilfredo--have you seen the ISO 2500 shots the M9 is producing? My M8 cannot do that in the slightest.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jamie Roberts

Jamie Roberts

Posted
Posted
Well here's where I'll have to disagree with you, Jamie. I'm interested know what these 'early indicators' are, but I'm off to bed on this side of the Atlantic.

 

Gotcha Mani. As I explained below to Johan, the early indicators are, to me:

 

  • improved reds and blues (skies especially) with the M9 when properly color balanced (so for me, that means C1 and PS, not LR).
  • the overall contrast of the M9 sensor seems lower than the M8. Haven't seen DR results yet, but my feeling is a one stop improvement there too along with one stop (or more) of noise improvement.

It's just a week after the camera has been announced. If we get half the IQ improvement from Leica and Jenoptik we've seen over the past 3 years for the M8 in the M9, Leica will have knocked the IQ right out of the park with this camera.

Link to post
Share on other sites
JHAG

JHAG

Posted
Posted

Jamie,

I see exactly what you mean and I begin to think the M9 will give much better (and easier to work on) results both in low lights and harsh contrasty lights (be it bright daylight or

tungsten).

Still, I won't budge from my usual tactics of late adopter. I believe doing so saved me some glitches with the M8 (apart the price I paid it). But again, I'm not in the same league

as you economically (and I don't even dare to speak about photography :D) and if I cannot justifiy the expense now, I certainly have the advantage that I can wait longer than you (not that I'm being patient here…:)).

 

And I bet you will be scratching your head (or your eyes) when testing a bit Raw Dev…

Oh, and when you'll shop for your Mac, I'll advise a Mac Pro. My iMac is quite fine,

thank you, but not always fast enough for 50 Mb DNG or 120 Mb medium format scans. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
chrism

chrism

Posted
Posted

I may be simple, but isn't the M9 sensor the same as that of the M8, except for there being more of it? So onscreen at 100% it will look the same, but when printed to a particular size there will be more pixels squeezed into the M9 print compared to that from the M8?

 

Chris

The Madness of Simplicity

Link to post
Share on other sites
adan

adan

Posted
Posted

Chris: Well, in general, yes, that was my expectation, too. (which was fine). Kodak CCD, 6.8-micron pixels, more of them. But there has also been 3-4 years (depending on how one figures for development time) for Kodak and Leica to make some improvements to the parts, even if they are the same parts.

 

I can't show it yet, but like Jamie I think there is a small DR improvement. I KNOW Kodak changed the red dye in the Bayer matrix (Kodak and Leica both said so). I need to get my own body to profile it properly and be sure.

 

More images comparing 8 to 9 directly here: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/98684-m9-versus-m8-1-tests.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
wann

wann

Posted
Posted

i know the 135mm isn't recommended for M8, but i enjoy the extra tele power which literally turns it to 185mm. which was supposedly a disadvantage has turned out to be a new adventure and i'm been hanging around with it. And i know this is something M8 does it better than M9.

 

The whole discussion on resolution and sensor etc has only reduced many a leicaman to the level of cameraman, not photographer, and least artist.

Link to post
Share on other sites
sean_reid

sean_reid

Posted
Posted
I'm dithering a bit over purchasing but...........

 

Maybe we have a member with both cameras who can upload a 100% crop of the same shot taken with both cameras. In fact, shots with different light would be even better.

 

I believe if I had both cameras it would have been one of the first tests I carried out.

 

ISO noise differences have been discussed. If you look at two pictures made at ISO 160 with the same lens, same focus, etc. using the M8 and M9 the resolution between them, at pixel level, will essentially be the same.

 

In a large print, of course, the 18 MP M9 will have the advantage.

 

The M8 and M9 sensors have much in common and the best way to get a rough sense of M9 file quality is to look at an M8 file and imagine it as continuing out (in both directions) to larger pixel dimensions.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...