malcolm Posted September 23, 2009 Share #1 Posted September 23, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Although affordability is still an object, I am considering purchasing an M9. Having not seen one yet, I have some specific questions which may help with this decision: Frame lines and visibility while wearing glasses; shape of 75mm frame lines Durability of "paint" finishes (compared to previous black or silver chrome) IQ of compressed (8-bit) versus uncompressed (14-bit) images, especially at ISO 640-2500 "grippability" of textured materials on grey vs. black bodies. Thanks in advance for your responses. If you have any DNG images to illustrate, please include links to them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 23, 2009 Posted September 23, 2009 Hi malcolm, Take a look here Questions for M9 Owners. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Overgaard Posted September 24, 2009 Share #2 Posted September 24, 2009 Wearing glass you can see 50mm famelines easily wheras 35 adn 28 will cause you to move your head to see. The 75mm framelines are easily seen (of course) wearing glasses and are marked as corners. I would guess the 75mm frames fill 70-80% of the viewing field when you wear glasses. Some of your questions you might find in my article on the M9. Here's a link: leica.overgaard.dk - Thorsten Overgaard's Leica Pages - Leica M9 Digital Rangefinder Camera The question on compressed versus uncompressed is actually a good one. I've shot uncompressed all the time, also in the 1250 ISO samples on the page. I wonder if there would be a difference to compressed 1250 ISO. Else I think the compressed/uncompressed would be a question about editing in Lightroom and Photoshop.Few would have screens where they can even see the difference. So in print perhaps as well. It's a very good question in fact. Funny thing is that right now I'm sitting by a white MacBook with uncalibrated screen that I lend from somebody, and on that I can't even tell the difference between a final JPG and DNG (as the two samples shown in my article). Makes you think, doesn't it. I will include links to DNG files on my site later. Thanks for the idea. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted September 24, 2009 Share #3 Posted September 24, 2009 Thorsten, I do not own a M9 yet, but has tried out two of them. I wear spectacles (progressive, synthetic lenses) and the 28mm frame lines, while somewhat problematic, can be seen, and actually better than on my M4-P. I will use an external finder when possible as a less stressful alternative, as I did with film, but yes, the framelines can be used, e.g. when I have a flash in the shoe. There are no problems whatever with the 35mm frame. When the M8 was in the offing, LFI ran an article about the compression and explained the process. As it happened, the mag got access to an early pre-series M8 which did not compress its DNG files, and they tested it against a regular M8. They shot identical subjects, including one that was very demanding, the ivory-white fender of a car. They published very large crops of those images. As you know, LFI printing is simply superb -- look for instance at the Ur-MG car in the latest issue, which is eye-boggling -- with its prime quality paper and stochastic screen. And -- there was no difference. Period. Now you have a M8 which offers both methods. So do the test again and publish the differences here. If any. The old man from the Age of Letterpress Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted September 24, 2009 Share #4 Posted September 24, 2009 Some of your questions you might find in my article on the M9. Here's a link: leica.overgaard.dk - Thorsten Overgaard's Leica Pages - Leica M9 Digital Rangefinder Camera The question on compressed versus uncompressed is actually a good one. I've shot uncompressed all the time, also in the 1250 ISO samples on the page. I wonder if there would be a difference to compressed 1250 ISO. .... I will include links to DNG files on my site later. Thanks for the idea. There is an question that hasn't been answered about whether compressed files with a moderately high dark level (1250 and 2500) are going to lose much shadow detail through clipping the noise at low levels. Would you be willing to shoot some compressed and uncompressed examples and post links to them? thanks, scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adli Posted September 24, 2009 Share #5 Posted September 24, 2009 There might be no visible difference between compressed and uncompressed files, but personally I would never use compression on picture files as long as it is not lossless (per definition*) compression. Memory cards and disk space are cheap. No need to compromise. *lossless compression of files is compression that uses an algorithm that makes it possible to regenerate the exact same file as the uncompressed verison Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 24, 2009 Share #6 Posted September 24, 2009 That was not an MG, Lars, but a Morgan Trike . As for compressed vs. uncompressed, I was convinced by the LFI article as well, although I had question marks concerning the method, for the illustrative photo was the same photo developed in two ways in the computer, but when I aquired a DMR I gradually found out that uncompressed files are superior, specifically in the way they behave in Photoshop. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted September 24, 2009 Share #7 Posted September 24, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I gradually found out that uncompressed files are superior, specifically in the way they behave in Photoshop. Let me guess - "about a stop" better? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 24, 2009 Share #8 Posted September 24, 2009 Let me guess - "about a stop" better? Stop:confused: No, that has nothing to do with stops. That has to do with for instance sharpening, or or curves, etc, any photoshop manipulation that stresses the file. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adli Posted September 24, 2009 Share #9 Posted September 24, 2009 Stop:confused: No, that has nothing to do with stops. That has to do with for instance sharpening, or or curves, etc, any photoshop manipulation that stresses the file. This has to do with the nature of lossy compression. Lossy compression aims at discarding information that will have the least influence on the result. In large input files there is always a lot of information which will be discarded when you make you output file, but when you start prosessing your file, different processing may use different piceces of information. Compression thus reduces the space available for "file-tweaking" since some of the information in the file alreade is processed. All that said, I bulieve that the information lost in the compression in the M9 is marginal Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 24, 2009 Share #10 Posted September 24, 2009 I agree, it is not a large difference, but I found that, processing compressed and uncompressed files in the same session, that the uncompressed ones were clearly more robust. The difference, in my experience, was not marginal. Anyway, now I can experiment with files from the same camera Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhoersch Posted September 24, 2009 Share #11 Posted September 24, 2009 Let me guess - "about a stop" better? Sacarsms are wasted on Jaap. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 24, 2009 Share #12 Posted September 24, 2009 Teflon - that's me Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.