Jump to content

Images posted so far

arthury

By arthury
in Leica M9 / M-E

Recommended Posts

stevem7

stevem7

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have been reviewing and looking at M9 images for a month and I have seen some pretty incredible files. It seems the experienced M8 shooters are doing great with it. I have seen some crap quality samples here and there but I have also seen some fantastic samples. I should have mine VERY soon and I can not wait. It's gonna be fun. This is my last camera purchase for a looooooong time. Riccis, Thorsten..they all look great to me.

 

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply
adan

adan

Posted
Posted

Arthury - the church jpegs were generated through PS's "Save for Web" option - at the highest quality setting that would squeeze the files into LUF's 240K limit. About 65 for the fullframe, close to 100 for the detail crops.

Link to post
Share on other sites
arthury

arthury

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Arthury - the church jpegs were generated through PS's "Save for Web" option - at the highest quality setting that would squeeze the files into LUF's 240K limit. About 65 for the fullframe, close to 100 for the detail crops.

 

Thanks, Andy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
adan

adan

Posted
Posted

See: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/98533-regarding-m9-jpegs.html

 

I'd grade them B-to-B+, compared to a D+ for the M8's.

 

Main improvement I see is that the sharpening is much less video-like - actually usable at settings above "none". They seem to do better with yellows in terms of hue (less green) - but I'd need to play around a bit with exposure comp because the ones I did blew out the red channel of yellows to 255, as in this sample (Don't judge DR - this was at the default contrast setting since I was mostly interested in the DNGs, and only shot jpegs on the side in case the DNGs wouldn't process in my 3-year-old version of ACR).

 

I would also say the new jpegs are more sharpenable in post-processing. The M8's jpegs seemed very resistant to any post-processing improvements and adjustments.

 

They aren't DNGs, but I feel I could shoot them if needed without throwing away a lot of sharpness and color quality - for news work. (M9 jpeg fine, downsized, sharpening soft - exp. comp, sat., contrast all "default." 21 pre-ASPH Elmarit @ f/16

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
Guest PhotoWebb.co.uk

Guest PhotoWebb.co.uk

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm underwhelmed. The pictures do look great but they are no better than what can be produced with an M8 in my opinion. I've decided to give this a miss. Simply, for me, the M9 is not worth paying more than double what you can get a used M8 for.

 

Here are a couple of shots I took my my M8 last week - would the M9 have made these look any better? Perhaps, but unlikely.

 

Besides, the 35 cron ASPH makes a fantastic standard lens on my M8. I would never use it if I had an M9.

 

3918602545_35735d57ce_b.jpg

 

3916438276_23cf204c8e_b.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
adan

adan

Posted
Posted

Not a 21mm or 24mm low-light shooter, are you, Daniel?

 

But quite right - there are things the M9 does that the M8 doesn't - but not everyone needs those things. I'm sure there were those who saw no reason to rush to the M2 from the M3 - except people for whom a 35mm was their main lens.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve Ash

Steve Ash

Posted
Posted
Not on my monitor or in print, that is if you are talking about the bottom image. In fact on the bottom image for print I'd sharpen more.

 

Now in these next 2 shots I haven't nor would I sharpen them.

 

[ATTACH]162641[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH]162642[/ATTACH]

 

Where is this lovely place?

 

Regards

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites
plasticman

plasticman

Posted
Posted
Not on my monitor or in print, that is if you are talking about the bottom image. In fact on the bottom image for print I'd sharpen more.

 

Now in these next 2 shots I haven't nor would I sharpen them.

 

[ATTACH]162641[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH]162642[/ATTACH]

 

Now I have an idea that Shootist has blocked me somewhere along the line, but someone tell him from me that these are awesome shots. :cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites
jaapv

jaapv

Posted
Posted
Arthury: ISO 160, The camera was FedEx-ed to the Leica reps Tues. Sept. 8 from NY. Updated with latest firmware as of 9/9 (1.002). Compressed 8-bit DNG (same as M8).

 

Let me know where in the sky you see grain, and I'll give you a crop of that area (sized to avoid jpeg compression as much as possible). Remember that a relatively smooth undetailed area like sky is where jpeg will do its strongest compression, to minimize compression in the busy areas.

 

(And yes, there are some dust bunnies - this camera got a workout from 20 or photogs in one day, with lots of lens changing..)

 

Microview - well you and arthury will have to get together on what constitutes "perfect" sharpening. Once you guys have a standard, I'm sure we can meet it.

The dust bunny was a little tease ;) No, I do not see grain either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Shootist

Shootist

Posted
Posted
Now I have an idea that Shootist has blocked me somewhere along the line, but someone tell him from me that these are awesome shots. :cool:

 

 

No not at all.

Thank you very much for the comment.

 

EDIT:

Plasticman. I do not see a previous comment from you to this thread about those 2 images I posted and I do not have you blocked in any way, PM's or posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
plasticman

plasticman

Posted
Posted
No not at all.

Thank you very much for the comment.

 

EDIT:

Plasticman. I do not see a previous comment from you to this thread about those 2 images I posted and I do not have you blocked in any way, PM's or posts.

 

Good to hear - I can be abrasive at times (so people tell me). I removed a post about some other images if that's what you mean? I thought my contribution about those images (in another thread) wasn't constructive, so I deleted it.

Great shots you posted - v atmospheric.

Link to post
Share on other sites
arthury

arthury

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Perhaps you may find some comfort in this thread and the associated web files. If this doesn’t change your perspective, perhaps nothing will.

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/98714-debunking-online-myths.html

Regards,

Thanks, I saw these but now that you brought it up, I have asked another question in there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jamie Roberts

Jamie Roberts

Posted
Posted
You might wanna check that carefully before you make such a statement.

 

Ok, let's get this right out of the way then:

 

 

  • what monitor are you actually using
  • what targets is it calibrated to
  • how are you loading your profiles?

Thanks!

 

(PS--it's not quite true that there's no color management on the Web: there's all kinds of terrible color management on the Web. In other words, even for a lot of people who think they've got things set up right, what is there is more often is poorly implemented and managed.

 

But let's start with your system and go from there :))

 

BTW--I don't think the early Nikon files were anything to write home about; even skin tones, in particular, are really difficult to wrestle out of them, even now :) YMMV.

Link to post
Share on other sites
arthury

arthury

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Ok, let's get this right out of the way then:

 

 

  • what monitor are you actually using
  • what targets is it calibrated to
  • how are you loading your profiles?

Thanks!

 

(PS--it's not quite true that there's no color management on the Web: there's all kinds of terrible color management on the Web. In other words, even for a lot of people who think they've got things set up right, what is there is more often is poorly implemented and managed.

 

But let's start with your system and go from there :))

 

BTW--I don't think the early Nikon files were anything to write home about; even skin tones, in particular, are really difficult to wrestle out of them, even now :) YMMV.

 

 

So, Jamie,

 

Now, you are suspecting that the monitor I have been using to edit my M8 images for sale is the problem, then.

So, the JPG compression we're all seeing in this thread's images are due to monitors?

 

Why don't you start telling us what special monitors, profiles and extra steps are required so that M9 images will look normal or great?

 

And, Jamie, just so you know, I have no issues looking at all other images from Nikon, Canon and other M8 images ... except the M9 images I am seeing here.

In fact, if I may add, images from the other lower end cameras are more tolerant of the lousy monitor I am using. These observations are really getting interesting.

 

:)

 

And, of course, your assumption was that I was silly enough to pay $5K for my M8 and $5K for my D3 so that I can edit my images in lousy uncalibrated monitors to yield successful images. It was, indeed, a pure delight to read all these assumptions you have made.

Link to post
Share on other sites
adan

adan

Posted
Posted

Jamie, and arthury - let it lie. To a certain extent your are both right. Some browsers have some "calibration" - most just assume any image is sRGB and don't bother to read profiles, thus are relatively uncalibrated. "Calibrated" screens can vary depending on whether they are calibrated with Monaco or Eye-One, and which gamma the users chooses, and whether they are LCD or CRT. Calibration is good - but it is not universal so long as we have 20 different monitor factories and 10 different calibration tools, each claiming to be better - and thus different - from the others.

 

Here is the acid test - and the last test I'll do, since my M8s are now awaiting some lucky buyer on my dealer's used shelf.

 

M8.0 vs. M9, same lens, same position, identical processing from .dngs, ISO 160, 50 Summicron, f/5.6, jpeg compression 95% (very high quality) - 2 crops plus a reference full frame, simple Sharpen filter in PS.

 

Note: looks like there is a slight exposure variation - M8 shows a bit more in the shadows but the gray type in the little red and white label at right is also bleached a bit - just we don't get TOO bogged down in DR discussions. The M9, IMHO, meters about 1/3rd EV darker than the M8 (in my broad experience of having worked with 2 samples of each).

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
SMF

SMF

Posted
Posted
You would be right to come off the waiting list. The net is the wrong medium. Get some DNG's. Go see some prints. :) Then go back on the waiting list. (I'll be showing some 30x20 prints in Preston, England tomorrow.)

 

 

Brett - Are these the prints that you had at Reddotcameras last week? (Boat on shingle, Highlands). They were great pictures to show off some of the M9's abilities - good colour , lots of fine detail, butter smooth out-of-focus areas. They certainly helped to convince me that I'd made the right decision to buy. Out of interest - where was the shot taken?

 

Stephen

Link to post
Share on other sites
stunsworth

stunsworth

Posted
Posted
Brett - Are these the prints that you had at Reddotcameras last week? (Boat on shingle, Highlands).

 

I expect they are, as they were the same prints that Brett had at Stephens in Manchester on Sunday. They looked superb. It's difficult at this stage to imagine wanting more from such a compact body such as the M9.

 

If the images that have been posted so far haven't looked good, then blame the photographer not the camera.

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...