Images posted so far

[MJones]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Here's some nice ones:

APhotoContributor: It's been a crazy week...

 

Haven't had time to finish my M9 page but it's a great camera. I have 3,000+ pictures waiting for edit and will have little time the next days as I'll be shooting a couple of thousands more.

 

It's great for what it does.

 

I think DR is good, sharpness is definitely good. Tones is up to you, I think many struggle to convert the RAW files properly still. Lightroom is not ready yet, C1 is new to many, and I think you always have trouble getting the right look of a new camera. The DMR was very disappointing for me in the beginning. But after a while I got the grip on the files in Lightroom and FlexColor. It's the same for M9.

 

Not that anybody will blame you for pulling out of the waiting list. Many will thank you for stepping one camera closer :-)

 

I really like these 2

http://aphotocontributor.typepad.com/.a/6a010534d16590970c0120a5c9bb9a970c-pi

http://aphotocontributor.typepad.com/.a/6a010534d16590970c0120a5732894970b-pi

[arthury]

And yet you won't tell us 1) what it is or 2) how you've profiled it--or even how you're viewing them!

 

Why is this important?

 

Because, simply, if your monitor is correctly profiled for 1,8 gamma (like many are) and you're looking at someone's JPEG profiled for gamma 2.2 (as many are--one's a Windows and one's a Mac "standard"), and you're looking at them on a browser that doesn't adjust this, or doesn't do it properly, then

 

 

• you may see a brighter picture than was intended by the person who made the JPEG
  
• you may see artifacts that others can't see--even if they won't print--more easily
  

 

This is just one variable. Even worse variables come in on what LCD you're using (laptops are essentially unable to display luminance data correctly), which means, again, you're seeing things others aren't, or you're NOT seeing things others are.

 

As I said, if you're happy, then great. But this is the tip of the iceberg in estimating a camera's performance "over the Web."

 

Ignorance can be bliss. But sometimes it's just ignorance

 

If that's so, explain to me why all images I have viewed all these years from other cameras, including other people's images shot from M8's have no such problems?

 

I am only seeing these issues from the M9 images.

[Shootist]

If that's so, explain to me why all images I have viewed all these years from other cameras, including other people's images shot from M8's have no such problems?

 

I am only seeing these issues from the M9 images.

 

 

You could start by answering question with real answers instead of other questions.

Or is that to hard.

Other then that I have no idea.

[jl4069]

Andy said:

"IMHO the M9 gives up nothing to the M8 at the pixel level - and has more pixels. End of story."

 

I thought there was DR and color? JL

[jonoslack]

If that's so, explain to me why all images I have viewed all these years from other cameras, including other people's images shot from M8's have no such problems?

 

I am only seeing these issues from the M9 images.

 

Hmm . . . are you saying that the M9 shots you've seen have problems with DR, Sharpness and Colour . . . which you have never seen from other cameras?

 

If so, you should certainly take yourself off the list immediately, and probably sell your M8 as quick as possible two (same sensor you know - they might introduce an update which does the same thing).

[adan]

people "write" that the M9 suffers in DR and color - show me, please.