adan Posted September 15, 2009 Share #61 Posted September 15, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Right - and believe me, after this: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/1007236-post1.html I have every respect in the world for my M8s. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 Hi adan, Take a look here M9 versus M8.1 tests. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Doc Henry Posted September 15, 2009 Author Share #62 Posted September 15, 2009 .... more red colour and contrast according to me for M9 ! but M8 is also a good camera .... for M8 and for 4000 Euros (5800 USD) , Leica put the very high bar ! I just want to add a word concerning Summicron: the manufacture of lenses is very strict and criteria of strict quality are imposed by Leica I think therefore compared of 2 summicron is interesting .... M9 first and M8 for this "Triumph" moto 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! Quote 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/96811-m9-versus-m81-tests/?do=findComment&comment=1035852'>More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted September 15, 2009 Share #63 Posted September 15, 2009 .... more red colour and contrast according to me for M9 ! Did you create a colour profile for the M9? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted September 15, 2009 Share #64 Posted September 15, 2009 Got serious red oversaturation as well with C1 v4 but my copy does not support the M9. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adli Posted September 15, 2009 Share #65 Posted September 15, 2009 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. The best way to compare the cameras should be to use the same lens and the same position. Then crop the pictures 1:1 at the same place in the picture. If both crops are the same size (pixelwise), they should show the exact same segment of the picture (remember that pixel density is the same). This should make it pretty easy to compare. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulrikft Posted September 15, 2009 Share #66 Posted September 15, 2009 The best way to compare the cameras should be to use the same lens and the same position. Then crop the pictures 1:1 at the same place in the picture. If both crops are the same size (pixelwise), they should show the exact same segment of the picture (remember that pixel density is the same). This should make it pretty easy to compare. You compare then, a gimped fullframe sensor, instead of it's full potential. I don't see how this is a fair comparison. It reminds me of those that look at noise at a pixel level instead of image-level. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulrikft Posted September 15, 2009 Share #67 Posted September 15, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) 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. Wrong If you want to test how the sensor captures image detail, you can't use just 10% of the fullframe sensor, but 15-20% of the crop sensor, if doing so, you compare pixel resolution, which doesen't say anything, you do not compare sensor resolution, which is what counts. This is why framing similarly either by moving camera, or changing lens and then resizing the lower res photo up to the higher res size, is the only way of actually comparing fairly. Your kind of comparison gimps the fullframe/higher res camera, and skews the comparison greatly in the direction of the low MP/crop-camera. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digbyhp Posted September 15, 2009 Share #68 Posted September 15, 2009 Doc, I only wish you'd taken test shots with your M7 as well ! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adli Posted September 15, 2009 Share #69 Posted September 15, 2009 You compare then, a gimped fullframe sensor, instead of it's full potential. I don't see how this is a fair comparison. It reminds me of those that look at noise at a pixel level instead of image-level. Well, you know before you take a single picture that one is full frame and one is not. No need to take a test shot to find out that. If the point is to compare the camera system consisting of both lens and camera, it makes sense to look at the image-level. But if one want to compare the two cameras per se, it is easier if you keep the other factors unchanged. You will of cource not be able to compare the part of the picture that is outside the cropped M8 sensor. Btw, I find you sarcastic comment regarding noise and pixel lever rather arrogant and exaggerated. Could you please try to justify your statement instead of writing such comments. What exactly is it that you don't find fair in this comparison? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulrikft Posted September 15, 2009 Share #70 Posted September 15, 2009 Well, you know before you take a single picture that one is full frame and one is not. No need to take a test shot to find out that. If the point is to compare the camera system consisting of both lens and camera, it makes sense to look at the image-level. But if one want to compare the two cameras per se, it is easier if you keep the other factors unchanged. You will of cource not be able to compare the part of the picture that is outside the cropped M8 sensor. Btw, I find you sarcastic comment regarding noise and pixel lever rather arrogant and exaggerated. Could you please try to justify your statement instead of writing such comments. What exactly is it that you don't find fair in this comparison? I have specified quite good why*the comparison is unfair. You compare 75% of the M9 sensor with 100% of the M8 sensor, you gimp the M9 with 25% of it's performance. It skews the test in the direction of the smaller sensor. Increasing the amount of megapixels and changing the format are both factors that incrase performane, if you choose to ignore that, you will... find what you want. But what you find won't necessarily be very correct. And my comments abotu noise-levels are beacause the same error is being made when people compare noise. The pr pixel noise of the 1ds mk III is far worse than the per pixel noise of the d700, but a upressed d700-image of the same scene tells another story. If you want to compare a gimped M9 with a M8, go ahead, but it is not a very fair comparison. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted September 15, 2009 Author Share #71 Posted September 15, 2009 Did you create a colour profile for the M9? Steve It is my Leica dealer who prepared M9 for me. I go back this afternoon to make other photos with the same optics (regulating is standard and of origin , i think) but I will look and I will say it to you Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted September 15, 2009 Author Share #72 Posted September 15, 2009 (edited) yellow colour on a bit discoloured flowers (end of season) : yellow colour with more "material" and" more "supported" according to me for M9 (first photo) but nice green on M8 (photo in contre-jour) 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! Edited September 15, 2009 by Doc Henry Quote 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/96811-m9-versus-m81-tests/?do=findComment&comment=1035965'>More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 15, 2009 Share #73 Posted September 15, 2009 (edited) SteveIt is my Leica dealer who prepared M9 for me. I go back this afternoon to make other photos with the same optics (regulating is standard and of origin , i think) but I will look and I will say it to you Err... A profile is not something in the camera, it is part of your RAW converter. Essential if you want to compare colours. Did you use a calibrated monitor and the correct colour spaces when preparing those colour comparisons? What software? Edited September 15, 2009 by jaapv Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adli Posted September 15, 2009 Share #74 Posted September 15, 2009 Well, regarding finding what one wants, I would expect the M9 to perform better than the M8 with my proposed test setup. To claim that you reduce the M9s performance with 25% when you crop the image is nonsens. You reduce the resolution, but as long as you don't compare large printouts, this should not affect the comparison. It is not like the M9 pictures suddenly are 25% degraded. What you don't get from my comparison is how the two cameras perform with different lenses. Since the M9 sensor is larger, it will be more affected by vignetting / fall-off on the edges and corners of the picture, but this will vary from lens to lens. To get an idea of the performance of the M9 with regard to this subject, one has to test it lens by lens. I have specified quite good why*the comparison is unfair. You compare 75% of the M9 sensor with 100% of the M8 sensor, you gimp the M9 with 25% of it's performance. It skews the test in the direction of the smaller sensor. Increasing the amount of megapixels and changing the format are both factors that incrase performane, if you choose to ignore that, you will... find what you want. But what you find won't necessarily be very correct. And my comments abotu noise-levels are beacause the same error is being made when people compare noise. The pr pixel noise of the 1ds mk III is far worse than the per pixel noise of the d700, but a upressed d700-image of the same scene tells another story. If you want to compare a gimped M9 with a M8, go ahead, but it is not a very fair comparison. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted September 15, 2009 Author Share #75 Posted September 15, 2009 Doc,I only wish you'd taken test shots with your M7 as well ! I will do it Thanks for looking Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted September 15, 2009 Author Share #76 Posted September 15, 2009 (edited) Err... A profile is not something in the camera, it is part of your RAW converter. Essential if you want to compare colours. Did you use a calibrated monitor and the correct colour spaces when preparing those colour comparisons? What software? Jaap Sorry... i don't understand and i am not an expert here is a copy of the screen I do not touch the regulating of origin Is necessary to change something ? 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! Edited September 15, 2009 by Doc Henry Quote 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/96811-m9-versus-m81-tests/?do=findComment&comment=1035996'>More sharing options...
adan Posted September 15, 2009 Share #77 Posted September 15, 2009 RichC - no problem. Actually I did an upsampling like yours myself. Not having a good profile yet for the M9 (I always build my own for an individual camera, and don't have "my" M9 yet), I can't compare color, contrast, DR, etc. That's also why I don't think the crop-for-crop test would be a valid indication of true differences, right now (excepting reviewers who had the camera in advance and likely did profiles themselves). In a couple of weeks, when everyone has a good profile for their cameras, then we can see something. The lighting was indentical - pix shot literally 15 seconds apart on a cloudless morning. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lotw Posted September 15, 2009 Share #78 Posted September 15, 2009 (edited) Adan: " Here are samples of the 15mm C/V 15mm f/4.5 on my M8(.1), and my 21 Elmarit on the M9." So if I understand you right you are comparing a CV15 with a Leica 21 here on different sensors, under the heading "M9 vs M8.1". Is that usefull? Edited September 15, 2009 by Lotw Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sclamb Posted September 15, 2009 Share #79 Posted September 15, 2009 Got serious red oversaturation as well with C1 v4 but my copy does not support the M9. v4.8.3 is out and this has an M9 profile. Simon Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted September 15, 2009 Share #80 Posted September 15, 2009 Lotw, if the 21mm FoV is critical to me - which it is - I'm comparing the two options available to me for digital M photography. Frankly, unless someone can show a large difference between the M8 and the M9 at the pixel level (and maybe someone can, so there is a fair reason to do tests like that, too) - I simply - don't - care about small differences. Personally, I haven't been unhappy with the quality of the C/V 15mm - but the f/4.5 aperture has been a drawback in my picture-taking. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.