scott kirkpatrick Posted September 23, 2009 Share #21 Posted September 23, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) ah, so let me rephrase this question. if you had 2 m8's (1M8 and 1M8.U) which would you sell to help pay for the M9. If the M9 has the same ability for me to shoot wide open with my lux's and nocti then I guess I would sell the m8. I would use the M9 for sunny days, but I need one m8 for using my tele lenses and getting a bit more reach out of them for stage work. IE id like to shoot my 90, and 75, and sometimes nocti on the m8 and keep the m9 for my wides and whenever I would want full frame. thanks Personally, I would keep the M8u, since it is a better, quieter, and more reliable camera. But I know that you like to shoot wide open, and might just need the 1/8000, so YMMV. scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 23, 2009 Posted September 23, 2009 Hi scott kirkpatrick, Take a look here What does mean iso 80 (pull)?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
j_lir Posted September 23, 2009 Share #22 Posted September 23, 2009 now if only i can get leica to swap out my m8.U screen into the m9. then were in business! hah! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 23, 2009 Share #23 Posted September 23, 2009 I would use the M9 for sunny days, but I need one m8 for using my tele lenses and getting a bit more reach out of them for stage work. IE id like to shoot my 90, and 75, and sometimes nocti on the m8 and keep the m9 for my wides and whenever I would want full frame. thanks I am afraid this argument won't hold. If you crop the M9 image down by 1.33 you will get exactly the same image with the same number of pixels and the same reach.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ennjott Posted September 23, 2009 Share #24 Posted September 23, 2009 If you lower the ISO setting below the sensor’s native sensitivity, the sensor gets overexposed and clipping will occur. Nothing gets changed on the actual sensor though, the light meter is adjusted by one stop and the digitized values are simply bit shifted by one digit (= division by 2). Of course this usually means overexposure in practical use. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted September 23, 2009 Share #25 Posted September 23, 2009 Nothing gets changed on the actual sensor though, the light meter is adjusted by one stop and the digitized values are simply bit shifted by one digit (= division by 2). That way you would lose another f-stop worth of dynamic range (on top of the f-stop lost to overexposure). Dividing by 2 would serve no purpose and make no sense. The remaining tonal values do need to be adjusted, but in a way preserving whatever is left of the sensor’s native dynamic range; simple bit shifting doesn’t cut it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
haroldp Posted September 24, 2009 Share #26 Posted September 24, 2009 Michael and Jaap have this exactly right. Nikon's have this feature, and on the D3 (or 700) whose base ISO is 200, going to -1 (iso 100) or -2 (iso 50) does not improve the noise floor, and makes it very easy to blow out the highlights. Unless I have very low contrast, lighting, when 'walking around', I habitually set ISO to 1 EV above base ISO for the sensor, because noise is rarely a problem with modern camera's at that level, and blowing out the highlights is much more visible and bothersome to me. Unfortunately my M9 is still on order, but if it is in fact 1 EV better in it's noise characteristics, I will most often use that as above to improve my highlight headroom. My M8's have much less noticeable noise than grain was on equivalent ISO film, and I am rarely doing high ISO available light work, so the noise issue has not been one of my hot buttons. The M9 giving more of the same size pixels on a larger sensor, which is adequately covered by all of my Leica (and Zeiss) lenses, while restoring the FOV, in a body that is no larger or heavier, made this decision, technically ( if not financially) a 'no brainer' for me. Apologies for the run on sentence if this is being graded. Regards to all ... Harold Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
phovsho Posted September 24, 2009 Share #27 Posted September 24, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) ah, I would use the M9 for sunny days, but I need one m8 for using my tele lenses and getting a bit more reach out of them for stage work. Is this logic correct? I don't think a cropped sensor has more reach? If I use a 90 on either and M8 and an M9 I get the same magnification from the lens, just a wider field of view on the M9 due to the wider sensor. And you would get equivalent dof, given the distance from the subject would be the same in both cases. I'm no scientist. M Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 24, 2009 Share #28 Posted September 24, 2009 You may be no scientist, but you have it exactly right. As the pixel sizes of the M8 and M9 are the same, you can get an identical image out of both by cropping the M9 to the size of the M8. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJones Posted September 24, 2009 Share #29 Posted September 24, 2009 You may be no scientist, but you have it exactly right. As the pixel sizes of the M8 and M9 are the same, you can get an identical image out of both by cropping the M9 to the size of the M8. question regarding sensor density vs microlens layout - I understood the M9 sensor to be the "uncropped" version of the M8, but the way the microlenses were described to be organized differently for FF rangefinder, would there be a difference in the final image captured? Not just an uncropped version of the M8, but something technically different though maybe not noticeable to human eye. I figured the average density was the same between the two sensors but sounded like the sensor's receptor layout changed (or maybe it's only the microlenses) as you move out from the the center - especially the outer 1/3. Just curious really. Seems like M9 is best of both worlds - if you want more "reach" then crop it to the m8 crop, otherwise just use different lens to achieve similar focal length look (disregarding the affects of changing lens focal lengths). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 24, 2009 Share #30 Posted September 24, 2009 Well, yes, the Bayer filter array is different too, biut all that won't make a difference in the question of resolution/reach. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_lir Posted September 25, 2009 Share #31 Posted September 25, 2009 well now you guys have made things even harder for me. so i should sell both my m8's and grab a pair of m9's and crop when i want to crop? this sucks! i don't want to spend all this money! c'est la vie! looks like i'll have a black paint and a grey m9 in the future. i'll probably do one m8 and one m9 until they are more readily available. cheers jesse Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
diogenis Posted September 25, 2009 Share #32 Posted September 25, 2009 Listen to put things into perspective: The M9 is a M8+33% more sensor and some more features. It is a better camera in everything except shutter speed which is 1/8000th on an M8. You got 2x M8s. You should judge if you really want to get rid of them two in place of only one Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.