M9 versus M8.1 tests

[plasticman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The M9 is "medium-format" compared to the M8...

 

Is there anything really one can say about comments like this...? Not really.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[adan]

Ahh - so just to clarify, this is the kind of thing you're looking for?

 

plasticman: ehh, the M9 is closer to the S2 than it is to the M8. 1.25 crop vs. 1.33

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!

[plasticman]

What would that prove - that the M8 pixels are the same size as the M9 pixels?

 

When I did my test of the M9 against my M8 I stood in the same place with the same lens. The details in the portion of the images covered by the M8 sensor were identically sized, and I could make direct comparisons of details, color, moiré and so on.

 

Naturally I'd like a full-frame digital M, don't get me wrong - but I'm seeing the most incredible statements and comparisons online at the moment, to justify advantages in the newer camera which in my opinion are misleading.

 

Edit: Adan - I see you beat me to it in your latest image comparison. As for the 'medium format' comment, the proportionate increase of the sensor size is more significant than the supposed closeness in size to a sensor that isn't medium format in any case. Guess it just shows you can make statistics do whatever you want.

[adan]

"I could make direct comparisons of details, color, moiré and so on" - OK, I see what you want - to see if the M9 is 120 Ektachrome cropped to the M8's 35mm Kodachrome, or just bigger Kodachrome.

 

Right - AND BEFORE ANYONE GETS EXCITED, my crops are BOTH M9 - just trying to simulate the sort of pairing others want to see. Me, I expect the M9 and M8 to be indistinguishable cropped this way - which is probably why I didn't shoot anything this way.

 

Yes, and the Proportions of the M9 sensor to the S2 are 1:1.25, the proportions of the M8 sensor to the M9 are 1:1.33 - or 4:5 and 3:4. M9 is closer to S2 than to M8.

[lct]

Cropping is a pis aller of couse. I would prefer a link to original or large files and adjust myself viewing magnifications. Not always possible i know.

[plasticman]

Me, I expect the M9 and M8 to be indistinguishable cropped this way - which is probably why I didn't shoot anything this way.

 

Yes, and the Proportions of the M9 sensor to the S2 are 1:1.25, the proportions of the M8 sensor to the M9 are 1:1.33 - or 4:5 and 3:4. M9 is closer to S2 than to M8.

 

Well - first point: try the direct comparison, the images weren't indistinguishable.

 

Second point is just hilarious.

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...M9 is closer to S2 than to M8.

Looks like differences are exactly the same. Funny isn't it.

S2 sensor diagonal: 54.0833mm

M9 sensor diagonal: 43.2666mm (10.8167mm difference)

M8 sensor diagonal: 32.4500mm (10.8167mm difference)

[lct]

Looks like differences are exactly the same...

In fact there is a difference of 0.000000000000007mm

[adan]

Ahh, so if I offer you 80% of my paycheck or 75%, you'd pick 75% as being the larger proportion of 100%. Understood.

 

If you actually go back and read what I originally wrote - I was commenting on how the crop factor played a role in checking image quality. I said that the M9 was "medium format" in the sense of a larger image area to the M8's "35mm". I guess you'd be happier if I reversed it and said the M9 is 35mm format and the M8 is APS format. They mean the same thing.

 

Except for the crop factor --- I doubt that the M9 is any better than the M8 (if it is, it wouldn't matter). I doubt that it is any worse than the M8 (unless it's significant, i.e. >10%, it still wouldn't matter).

 

Hey, I've loved working with the M8 - there aren't that many people who bought TWO, and never used anything else for 3 years.

 

Frankly and bluntly - I still visit the M8 Forum, and there is a lot of hokum being spread around over there, too. Mostly amounting to "My 10 precious M8 megapixels are much better than those nasty plasticky 18 M9 megapixels."

 

I'd call that hilarious - except that it isn't. It's just sad.

 

Sad that folks are calling themselves a "ghetto". Sad that they seem so bitter about the Mine that they can't just enjoy their Mates without feeding themselves myths about the horrible M9. Sad that we can't all just enjoy our M lenses. On whatever body. Take a look at the detail in my 75 Summilux crops. That same lens will fit an M8 - go get one and use it!

[adan]

lct, since your math is good, figure the AREAS of the S2, the M9 and the M8 sensors. Then calculate the differences.

[lct]

Back to the facts, i wonder if M9 pics need some sharpening where M8 ones don't. What do you think?

[adan]

Well, that of course depends on individual perceptions of sharpening. I usually sharpen my M8 pix (in PS, not the raw converter) with USM 300%, .3 radius, 0 threshold. In terms of per-pixel sharpening on-screen, the M9 seems to need about the same.

 

In terms of a final print of a given size, I'll bet the M9 needs more sharpening, since the pixels are smaller and thus a sharpening radius measured in pixels would be smaller and less visibly effective. I.E. the M9 might need .5 pixel radius USM for the sharpening to "show" in A4 prints

[lct]

lct, since your math is good, figure the AREAS of the S2, the M9 and the M8 sensors. Then calculate the differences.

Crop factors are based on diagonals not areas as you know but as far as areas are concerned the M9 (864mm2) is closer to the M8 (486mm2) than the S2 (1,350mm2).

[plasticman]

Ahh, so if I offer you 80% of my paycheck or 75%, you'd pick 75% as being the larger proportion of 100%. Understood.

 

I actually have no idea whatsoever what you mean by this. That is self-evidently not what I said. Still, if it makes you happy thinking the M9 sensor is "closer" to the S2 than the M8 sensor, and that makes it somehow an honorary MF camera, then great.

 

Frankly and bluntly - I still visit the M8 Forum, and there is a lot of hokum being spread around over there, too. Mostly amounting to "My 10 precious M8 megapixels are much better than those nasty plasticky 18 M9 megapixels."

I'd call that hilarious - except that it isn't. It's just sad.

 

Interested to see some links.

 

Take a look at the detail in my 75 Summilux crops. That same lens will fit an M8 - go get one and use it!

 

Pretty happy with the FOV that my Noctilux gives me on my M8 thanks. Interesting you assume that I don't own a 75 Summilux, though. I'm gonna assume you don't own a Noctilux: "go get one and use it!"

[Lasex]

...I guess you'd be happier if I reversed it and said the M9 is 35mm format and the M8 is APS format.

 

 

I think M9 is a Minox compared to a 9x12cm sheet film

[ulrikft]

Well they are basically the same size, the pixels themshelves. In the M9 there is just more of them.

 

I hope everyone understand what I'm getting at. You simply can't test sensor/image quality using two different focal length lenses and certainly not two different focal length lenses made by two different manufacturers.

 

Yes certainly the M9 cpatures a larger image with each FL lens but that has nothing to do with the final quality of the image.

 

I have proposed a method to make a real comparison It in a post above. In doing that you will take a M9 image and crop out the extra pixels so the final M9 image is the same size as a M8 image and has the exact same subjects/scene in it, no more (wider) or less.

This will give you a true test of whether or not the M9 images are any clearer, sharper, then a M8 image.

I suspect they will be exactly the same. Showing the same detail.

 

Your method will just test a smaller part of the m9 sensor against the entire m8 sensor, not very fair. If you want to use the same lens, say a 90mm, move the m9 further back and show the entire sensor captured image. Or else you are gimping the higher MP sensor, and that is flawed methology.

[plasticman]

Your method will just test a smaller part of the m9 sensor against the entire m8 sensor, not very fair. If you want to use the same lens, say a 90mm, move the m9 further back and show the entire sensor captured image. Or else you are gimping the higher MP sensor, and that is flawed methology.

 

The point is it depends on what you are purporting to test: if the test is how the sensor captures image detail, then Shootist's methodology is the only correct one.

If the test is how the sensor renders a particular composition, then obviously the camera should be moved between shots.

 

Simple really.

[adan]

Plasticman, now that distinction I can agree with. It's the difference between a laboratory bench test and being a photographer in the field who wants a 90mm or 21mm (or, yes, 50 or 75) composition and has to (or can) choose between formats.

 

I just didn't notice a signpost at the start of this thread saying "laboratory bench tests only". So I believe both approaches are worthy here.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[lct]

If we don't want to crop or compare lenses, there is a only way to get the same field of view with both cameras: use the same lens and move the M9 forward IMHO. The perspective will change though.

[plasticman]

Plasticman, now that distinction I can agree with. It's the difference between a laboratory bench test and being a photographer in the field who wants a 90mm or 21mm (or, yes, 50 or 75) composition and has to (or can) choose between formats.

 

I just didn't notice a signpost at the start of this thread saying "laboratory bench tests only". So I believe both approaches are worthy here.

 

I don't disagree with that at all. Nice that we can all be friends again.