albertknappmd Posted September 24, 2009 Share #41 Posted September 24, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) beautiful photos indeed.... both the camera & photographer performed... flawlessly!!!;) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 24, 2009 Posted September 24, 2009 Hi albertknappmd, Take a look here Two weeks with the M9 in Crete. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jonoslack Posted September 24, 2009 Author Share #42 Posted September 24, 2009 HI There Colours are very 'Greek' and I mean natural by that! I only get such rich colours in Greece. Lovely photography. You are wrong about the colors. You get exactly those colors especially after a good rain where moisture goes and atmosphere cleans up. On top of it all he was lucky because this was a chilly summer with lots of winds, which further clean atmosphere. You get exactly these saturated colors... Interestingly, the first few days were very hot, after which there was a downpour, clearing the air and the colours, still, some of the photos in question were shot before that. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/98684-m9-versus-m8-1-tests-7.html "You are wrong about the colors." Let's hope so, in my M9-photo's I do not recognize any cyan deviation, but I judge them in CaptureOne 4.8.3. In the Crete photo''s I do see cyan deviations, nrs: 5, 6 (shadows), 12, 16, 31, 32 , 33, 34, as well as in the test photo's of Doc Henry, link above I guess you're talking about cyan in the corners? (rather than general bad colours) I must say I can't see it, and it doesn't seem to be evident in prints either. Of course, my PP may be at fault. Still, it certainly isn't something I'm going to worry about in the present. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted September 24, 2009 Author Share #43 Posted September 24, 2009 Dear Sir -Nice pictures indeed,no questions about it. -To be honest i am a bit jealous about your brand new M-9.I have a M 8.2 i bought less than one year ago. -Looking to your pictures the distance between your superb quality seems to be centuries ahead of mine if i relate the time frame between your camera and mine. -Yes i know sensibility has to be taken into account,not the ISO one but the one in your eyes. -Question:How long is the M-9 ahead of the M-8,to deserve your show on this Forum? Any backups of Leica on this? Regards Hi there, thanks for the kind words. I'm not sure that the M9 is that much ahead of the M8 - it has more features (ISO button, EV compensation, uncompressed RAW etc.) and of course it has a bigger sensor. However, if you take a 100% crop from each camera at low ISO with an equivalent lens then you aren't going to see a great deal of difference. Nothing wrong with the M8! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted September 24, 2009 Author Share #44 Posted September 24, 2009 HI There beautiful photos indeed.... both the camera & photographer performed... flawlessly!!!;) Thank you Albert - I'm glad you enjoyed them Beautiful pictures and work.The colors are unbelievable and the pics taken with the 16 mm are stunning. It seems also that you took some good time:D thank you for sharing. The days are long before the end of the month... All the best, Jean-Luc Thank you - the WATE is a real bonus on the M9 - really good. We had a wonderful time - walking, swimming, sunbathing, reading, drinking, eating, taking photographs and sleeping . . . . what could be better! The days are long before the next trip to Crete as well . . .(I'm trying to work for an Easter trip). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
diogenis Posted September 25, 2009 Share #45 Posted September 25, 2009 Interestingly, the first few days were very hot, after which there was a downpour, clearing the air and the colours, still, some of the photos in question were shot before that. I can almost tell which days were these... Of course there is always a microclimate for each region, but in general this summer, if there was a particles concentration index, this should have been close to 0. There were some days that it was so clear, sunlight so bright that it was unreal. It was also a windy summer a well. This summer was a Joy in Greece, a joy for those who appreciate winds and close to 30-40% RH. I believe a M9 with its new red color filter would have shined, like how you did it Jonathan... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulrikft Posted September 25, 2009 Share #46 Posted September 25, 2009 Hi there, thanks for the kind words.I'm not sure that the M9 is that much ahead of the M8 - it has more features (ISO button, EV compensation, uncompressed RAW etc.) and of course it has a bigger sensor. However, if you take a 100% crop from each camera at low ISO with an equivalent lens then you aren't going to see a great deal of difference. Nothing wrong with the M8! But comparing 100% crops would imply that you would frame differently with the two cameras, would it not? since you would compare a narrower part of the frame on the M9 with a larger part of the frame on the M8? Especially for ISO, this would be a disadvantagous test for the M9. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted September 25, 2009 Author Share #47 Posted September 25, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) But comparing 100% crops would imply that you would frame differently with the two cameras, would it not? since you would compare a narrower part of the frame on the M9 with a larger part of the frame on the M8? Especially for ISO, this would be a disadvantagous test for the M9. HI There of course, 100% crop on an M9 is a smaller part of the frame. But I think it's the only way of getting a handle on the comparative performance of the cameras. Actually, this is something I did quite extensively quite early on with the testing. Nothing as rigorous as Sean or dPreview perhaps, but enough to get a sense of what was going on. I did the testing with a 75 on the m9 and a 50 on the m8 to keep the FOV the same. It seemed to be a good way to compare the sensors. My feeling was that the colour with the M9 was better at base ISO - and the general 'feel' of it was a little more zingy (it was very similar though - really not much in it). At high ISO the problem with intractable red (making all my middle aged friends look drunk) seems to me to be a great deal better on the M9 - the files are at least, a great deal easier to deal with (which chimes in with their having improved the red on the sensor). So - generally speaking a modest improvement at 100%, pixel for pixel. That, of course, translates to quite a big improvement on the M9 when you look at the whole file, because there is so much more of it! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted September 25, 2009 Author Share #48 Posted September 25, 2009 I can almost tell which days were these...Of course there is always a microclimate for each region, but in general this summer, if there was a particles concentration index, this should have been close to 0. There were some days that it was so clear, sunlight so bright that it was unreal. It was also a windy summer a well. This summer was a Joy in Greece, a joy for those who appreciate winds and close to 30-40% RH. I believe a M9 with its new red color filter would have shined, like how you did it Jonathan... Quite right - up to the point of the pictures on the ship (around the start of page 5) it was very hot. That day we did a big walk, it was 40 deg and nearly 70%RH (my we drank a lot of water!). The photos are actually in chronological order (for want of anything better), so you can see the changes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lotw Posted October 5, 2009 Share #49 Posted October 5, 2009 http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/98684-m9-versus-m8-1-tests-7.html "You are wrong about the colors." Let's hope so, in my M9-photo's I do not recognize any cyan deviation, but I judge them in CaptureOne 4.8.3. In the Crete photo''s I do see cyan deviations, nrs: 5, 6 (shadows), 12, 16, 31, 32 , 33, 34, as well as in the test photo's of Doc Henry, link above Puts in his M9 test: " It is logical too as the thicker glass forces the rays to follow a longer path through the glass and this reduces contrast and shifts color balance to cyan. " M9, part3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 5, 2009 Share #50 Posted October 5, 2009 Hi there, thanks for the kind words.I'm not sure that the M9 is that much ahead of the M8 - it has more features (ISO button, EV compensation, uncompressed RAW etc.) and of course it has a bigger sensor. However, if you take a 100% crop from each camera at low ISO with an equivalent lens then you aren't going to see a great deal of difference. Nothing wrong with the M8! And, of course, the EV compensation control is there in the M8.2 as well - along with the quieter shutter. I'm with Jono on this. As I've written before, the M9 is an excellent camera but the differences between it and the M8.2 are not night and day (aside from the obvious differences of the larger sensor, higher pixel res. and stronger internal IR-cut filter in the former). Photographers who are interested in the M9 may find that much of its goodness can also be found in an M8.2 so long as they are willing to use filters and accept a crop factor. Much depends on how important those core differences are to a given photographer. The one-stop ISO noise advantage of the M9 (in prints or files sized for web presentation) should be also be noted as well. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted October 5, 2009 Share #51 Posted October 5, 2009 Hi there, thanks for the kind words.I'm not sure that the M9 is that much ahead of the M8 - it has more features (ISO button, EV compensation, uncompressed RAW etc.) and of course it has a bigger sensor. However, if you take a 100% crop from each camera at low ISO with an equivalent lens then you aren't going to see a great deal of difference. Nothing wrong with the M8! Jono - thanks for sharing - good work. I also agree with the comments on IQ from the M8. The VERY big difference for me between working with the M9 and the M8 is that it's less effort. I can shoot true 28 FOV without needing to use an external finder. I only need carry the 28 + 50 + 90 to cover most work that I do. I CAN go wider if I want to (and the 21 elmarit / 18 zeiss seem to do the job very well for me) and I am finding that I can focus the 135 Apo Telyt pretty comfortably, so long is there too. With the M8 I was having to put on an external finder to do a lot of things - and this I don't like to do if I can help it + the 135 was really tough to focus... possible, but tough. So first - it's an easier system for me to use. When I add this to the benefit that agencies are happy with image size without upressing + there's much better IQ at high ISO, it's ceased to be a question - the M9 works better for me. For others who have put together a system that they're comfortable with and which suits there needs, it's possible that the improvement in IQ isn't sufficient to justify the new investment that's going to be needed in lenses (and the body / bodies!!). The M8 continues to be an outstandingly good camera. We really shouldn't forget this! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vdb Posted October 6, 2009 Share #52 Posted October 6, 2009 Superb images. Thanks for these. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted October 6, 2009 Author Share #53 Posted October 6, 2009 Puts in his M9 test: " It is logical too as the thicker glass forces the rays to follow a longer path through the glass and this reduces contrast and shifts color balance to cyan. " M9, part3 HI There of course there is a shift to cyan - it's why lens recognition is so important in the M9 as well - so that the cyan drift can be adjusted in the firmware (otherwise there wouldn't be any need beyond exif convenience). Whether it shows in photographs is a different matter (my feeling is that for all practical purposes it doesn't) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted October 6, 2009 Author Share #54 Posted October 6, 2009 And, of course, the EV compensation control is there in the M8.2 as well - along with the quieter shutter. I'm with Jono on this. As I've written before, the M9 is an excellent camera but the differences between it and the M8.2 are not night and day (aside from the obvious differences of the larger sensor, higher pixel res. and stronger internal IR-cut filter in the former). Photographers who are interested in the M9 may find that much of its goodness can also be found in an M8.2 so long as they are willing to use filters and accept a crop factor. Much depends on how important those core differences are to a given photographer. The one-stop ISO noise advantage of the M9 (in prints or files sized for web presentation) should be also be noted as well. Cheers, Sean Hi Sean I reckon that the overall ISO advantage is about 1.1/2 stops or perhaps a little less- still, it's going to depend on the situation and subject (that's about 1/2 stop in terms of actual 100% pixel peeping improvement and around one stop because of the extra pixels in printing and presentation). Of course, we've discussed this, at any rate, there certainly is a little benefit. As for the extra firmware facilities, now there is no competition issue it would be nice to have a firmware update for M8 and M8.2 putting in as many of the features from the M9 as possible. I'm sure that it would be much appreciated by all M users, and I don't think it would really impact sales of the M9. Mind you, I think that the lens table needs to have an optional 'revert to auto' when a coded lens is attached. The M9 has in no way made the M8 redundant, and hopefully, the fact that a good secondhand M8 can be got for a little under the new price of an M9 will make digital rangefinder photography more available to more people. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted October 6, 2009 Author Share #55 Posted October 6, 2009 Jono - thanks for sharing - good work. I also agree with the comments on IQ from the M8. The VERY big difference for me between working with the M9 and the M8 is that it's less effort. I can shoot true 28 FOV without needing to use an external finder. I only need carry the 28 + 50 + 90 to cover most work that I do. I CAN go wider if I want to (and the 21 elmarit / 18 zeiss seem to do the job very well for me) and I am finding that I can focus the 135 Apo Telyt pretty comfortably, so long is there too. With the M8 I was having to put on an external finder to do a lot of things - and this I don't like to do if I can help it + the 135 was really tough to focus... possible, but tough. So first - it's an easier system for me to use. When I add this to the benefit that agencies are happy with image size without upressing + there's much better IQ at high ISO, it's ceased to be a question - the M9 works better for me. For others who have put together a system that they're comfortable with and which suits there needs, it's possible that the improvement in IQ isn't sufficient to justify the new investment that's going to be needed in lenses (and the body / bodies!!). The M8 continues to be an outstandingly good camera. We really shouldn't forget this! Hi Chris I quite agree - and I think lots of new people will be introduced to RF photography, partly due to good secondhand M8s, and partly due to the increasing variety of great and good value M lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted October 6, 2009 Author Share #56 Posted October 6, 2009 Superb images. Thanks for these. HI Virgil Thanks for the kind words. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 6, 2009 Share #57 Posted October 6, 2009 Hi SeanI reckon that the overall ISO advantage is about 1.1/2 stops or perhaps a little less- still, it's going to depend on the situation and subject (that's about 1/2 stop in terms of actual 100% pixel peeping improvement and around one stop because of the extra pixels in printing and presentation). Of course, we've discussed this, at any rate, there certainly is a little benefit. Yes, we've already discussed this off-line and the total advantage may be a bit better than a stop at certain ISO levels. It depends on which ISO level and how one feels about the slight smoothing of the M9 files at ISO 2500. So, somewhere between 1 and 1.5 stops seems a reasonable conclusion depending upon how one looks at things. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted October 6, 2009 Share #58 Posted October 6, 2009 Well that's equivalent to the difference between 1:2.8 and 1:2.0. And when deciding for and against a new lens, most people do feel this is a difference that can make a difference! The old man from the Age of the 3.5 Elmar Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 6, 2009 Share #59 Posted October 6, 2009 Well that's equivalent to the difference between 1:2.8 and 1:2.0. And when deciding for and against a new lens, most people do feel this is a difference that can make a difference! The old man from the Age of the 3.5 Elmar Absolutely, even one stop can indeed make a useful difference in practice. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lotw Posted October 7, 2009 Share #60 Posted October 7, 2009 HI Thereof course there is a shift to cyan - it's why lens recognition is so important in the M9 as well - so that the cyan drift can be adjusted in the firmware (otherwise there wouldn't be any need beyond exif convenience). Whether it shows in photographs is a different matter (my feeling is that for all practical purposes it doesn't) Sorry for my persistence, it's not meant to be nasty, but again: M9, part4 At the bottom I see all cyan images, with ZM lenses. It's not just the corners, which was already known with the M8 I just think that this deserves attention from Leica, which must be corrigeable with new firmware imho. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.