Lens Differences Outweigh M8 vs M9 differences?

[graeme_hutton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My M8 results in terms of image quality are distinctly affected by the choice of lens. The 40 'cron is a dream in terms of sharpness, bokeh, colour and gradation from deep black to bright white. My (former) 28mm Elmarit v4 was noticeably poorer in all areas except sharpness.

 

Does this make a nonsense of all the hyper-technophiles arguing the minutae between M8 and M9?

 

For conjecture......Discuss.....(If you want)

 

Best

 

Graeme

[jaapv]

Not really, as the M9 is bound to react simirlarly to different lenses, even more so, as the M8 uses the better corrected centre, where the differences are less pronounced.

[Guest BigSplash]

Not really, as the M9 is bound to react simirlarly to different lenses, even more so, as the M8 uses the better corrected centre, where the differences are less pronounced.

 

Jaapv I am not sure that I undersatnd what you are saying. I think you are saying:

1 The M8 and M9 are the same family (pedigree) and have nominally the same characteristics. The pictures will be very similar.

2 The M8 uses the "better corrected centre" ...I take this to mean that the M8 therefore makes better pictures?

 

Is this in fact a way of saying that the micro prisms on the M9 at the edge of the sensor are actually adding some level of distortion which will not happen if you accept the crop factor of the M8 as there are no micro prisms?

 

I guess that the UV /IR filter glass is an area of potential distortion. Using a UV/IR filter in front of the lens on a M8 (or M9) may be a better solution although does require the purchase of a bunch of UV/IR filters. (that are now cheaply available on Ebay for obvious reasons.)

[jaapv]

No, Frank. I am saying that a cropped camera makes use of the centre of the lens, the sweet spot. The character of a lens is determined by its aberrations, and these are most pronounced in the edges. Many users find this desirable.

[Jamie Roberts]

I'm not Jaap, but I think his point was that on the cropped sensor of the M8, it would only be "seeing" the sweetest part of any given lens, since optically performance of any given lens tends be best in the center. The M9 will show you the edges in all their glory

 

So a lens like the Nocti 1.0 doesn't exhibit it's typical vignetting character on the M8 that it will on the M9, because that part of what the lens sees is cropped away.

 

Whether or not this is a good thing is up to you. For me, I can't wait to have a Nocti that really looks like one Buying Leica glass also usually means very well corrected lenses out to the edges (at least for all the modern lens designs).

 

Of course, things get harder the wider you go, since wides tend to be worse on the edges than non-wides in terms of sharpness and correction, but from what I've seen of some of the shots around here, there are plenty of good choices there too.

 

Oh--and the 21 FOV will once again be 21

 

So for me the M9 actually restores a lot of the character of the glass from film days. Again, it's up to the user if that's a good thing or not, and the M8 definitely has some advantages seeing only the sweet spot of some glass (a lot of the CV offerings come to mind).

[jaapv]

Thanks for elaborating, Jamie. that is exactly what I meant.

[Bo_Lorentzen]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Another important aspect in terms of perceived image quality is scale.

 

The M9's gain in resolution is because of a larger chip rather than a denser chip. so because on the average 11x14 print the image is actually using more of the lens rendering area. Had the gain been from a denser sensor the lens would have been much more critical.

 

.

[Guest BigSplash]

For me the feedback that you all are giving is in line with my own thoughts. At an optics level ( I studied Physics at University)

 

I recognise the following as simple basics in photography:

> Being at the centre of a lens is great for pin prick focus (f8) ,

> If you insist on f22 ..... then you get interference issues

> If you move from f8 to say f4 then you get the subject in focus and the background fuzzy ...this will be less pronounced with a wide angle lens compared to say a 75mm. It is this very feature that is supportive of great portraits. I especially like the ability of Leica lenses to handle green foliage (fuzzy) behind pin prick main subject portrait images.

 

I believe that there are many other concerns for a photographer such as :

> vignetting (ie brightness variation from center to corner of the image)

> spherical abberrations ( Hopefully corrected with ASPH lenses)

> colour aberrations ( across the range of apertures taking account of vignetting and sperical aberrations)

> Other??

 

I am interested to see how M9 will handle all of this compared to M8. So far I remain convinced that M9 has handled most things exceptionally well. I also like many on the forum am spell bound by the quality of some very wide angle images that have been produced using M9..............although being critical there are issues such as Magenta etc that are niggles in my view.

 

I guess the problem that exists is that Leica M8 was/ IS actually very good and produces excellent results. Going forward I want to see more evidence that M9 is not introducing degreadtions that were not ther with M8.

 

This is simply a concern. I believe that M9 is a great camera and the Leica engineers have done a superb job to get this camera to market with so few (if any ) issues.

 

I do believe that a new threshold has been reached for FF photography with M9 ...the real issue is can it be improved on and how?

[carstenw]

My M8 results in terms of image quality are distinctly affected by the choice of lens. The 40 'cron is a dream in terms of sharpness, bokeh, colour and gradation from deep black to bright white. My (former) 28mm Elmarit v4 was noticeably poorer in all areas except sharpness.

 

Does this make a nonsense of all the hyper-technophiles arguing the minutae between M8 and M9?

 

It depends on your lenses. The modern Leica lenses are more than capable of delivering near maximum performance of the sensor to the final image. For someone who has a bag full of older designs, I am not convinced that image quality would be a good reason to move to the M9. One might still want an M9 for other reasons, such as the angle of coverage on full frame or better high ISO.

[swamiji]

It depends on your lenses. The modern Leica lenses are more than capable of delivering near maximum performance of the sensor to the final image. For someone who has a bag full of older designs, I am not convinced that image quality would be a good reason to move to the M9. One might still want an M9 for other reasons, such as the angle of coverage on full frame or better high ISO.

 

I am not sure about that. All Leica lenses are designed for FF, while the M8 with its crop factor, often picked the "sweet spot" on a lens... the character of the lens would often be lost. The older Nocti as an example. With the M9 and FF returning, older lenses will find there way back. And is not Character a major part of image quality... Do we love them in-spite of there flaws or because of them?

[GMB]

.... and the M8 definitely has some advantages seeing only the sweet spot of some glass (a lot of the CV offerings come to mind).

 

Of course, you can achieve this advantage by cropping a M9 shot in post production because the M9 sensor has about the same pixel density as the M8 sensor.

[luigi bertolotti]

My M8 results in terms of image quality are distinctly affected by the choice of lens. The 40 'cron is a dream in terms of sharpness, bokeh, colour and gradation from deep black to bright white. My (former) 28mm Elmarit v4 was noticeably poorer in all areas except sharpness.

 

Does this make a nonsense of all the hyper-technophiles arguing the minutae between M8 and M9?

 

For conjecture......Discuss.....(If you want)

 

Best

 

Graeme

 

Imho, CAMERA and LENS are to be evaluated as two separated components: I mean, to compare M8 and M9 one ought to evaluate them with "the same" lens (which is theorically impossible, given that same lens gives a different image on M8 and M9): surely, for example, compare M8 with 21 2,8 asph and M9 with 28 2,8 asph is a good way to evaluate M8 vs. M9... personally, when one day I'll have a M9 I'd like a lot to compare, for instance, M8 with Cron 35 asph and M9 with a 50-years Elmar 50... ... funny.

BTW, I thought that with SAME lens, same RAW developer, and these 2 cameras :

1) M8 - set to DNG

2) M9 - set to DNG compressed

The central 10 MP crop of M9 would have been virtually IDENTICAL to M8 file, but a recent (and technically complex) thread in the forum arises several doubts about (even if, maybe, only software-depending).

[tom0511]

Well, as IQ is a result of sensor and lens (and maybe even of photographer) for me both is important.

Judging of IQ of lenses is even more difficult IMO-specially with rangefinder.

I have been trying to run some quickl comparisons - and its hard to do so.

For example the 50/2.8 is said to be very good at close distances, even better than the 50asph-which should be better than the 2.8 at nearly all other distances and f-stops.

Does your lens front focus? and if, at which distance? Which f-stop is the sweet stop? etc etc.

For some reasons I felt that some lenses which did great on my rd1 were not the same lenses whcih worked great on the M8, and I expect the same between M8 and M9.

Some few lenses seem to work great on nearly every camera under nearly all conditions.

One of them being the 50asph, than the wides 21,24,28 asphericals.

Others seem to be more tricky, I have not yet an final conclusion - for example the 35asph lux and the 75 lux.

 

From my experience I also have to say that I am not someone who misses the oldLeica character of lenses. Once I compared several 50s and the older designs didnt really show the most pleasing bokeh - I found the newer designs to show a smoother out of focus area than the older ones, plus I personally like the newer designs show more definition than some of the older lenses.

 

Overall I agree that from my first impressions the lenses make more difference in IQ than the difference between M8 and M9.

[Jamie Roberts]

Of course, you can achieve this advantage by cropping a M9 shot in post production because the M9 sensor has about the same pixel density as the M8 sensor.

 

Yes--on the optical side if you crop your Nocti on an M9 to M8 size, the resolving power will evidently be the same.

 

However, resolving power aside, the M9 has different color, dr and noise characteristics than the M8. It may even have some tweaks to the anti-vignetting algorithm that are different than the M8, and of course with a CV lens, while you have the option to code it, I don't believe there's an IR filter option in the M9 firmware.

 

So you have more post to do in some scenarios if you want to achieve an M8 look with an M9.

 

Personally, I wish I could achieve an M9 look with an M8!