michael_b_elmer Posted September 27, 2009 Share #21 Posted September 27, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) What you see as moire is just from image resizing and web compression. Nothing more. The whole tests just confirms what I thought. The d3x still remains on top even though they are using a AA Filter. 24Mp is just a little more than 18. However I think the m9 is doing quite well. Could someone please explain to me why in Mr. Puts' article the M9 pic's are smaller and show less of the motive than those of the D3x. They are both supposed to be FF, the FOV of the 35 mm lenses should be the same, and the number of pixels should not affect the content and size of the picture, but only the number of pixels within the frame, as far as I understand. But others may correct me and explain to me how Mr Puts' comparison can be correct. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 27, 2009 Posted September 27, 2009 Hi michael_b_elmer, Take a look here More m9 from Erwin Puts. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Jeff S Posted September 27, 2009 Share #22 Posted September 27, 2009 I have good distance vision, and never seem to have trouble focusing the 75 on an M8. What I'd like to see is a reducing magnifier for the M9, to bring the 28 mm frame lines into clear view with wearing glasses, increasing eye relief. Sort of a poor man's a la carte viewfinder change. Is that possible?scott See .85 mags from Tim Isaac...match Technical Services - E-Clypse EyeCup MAG. I don't own an M9, but if the VF mag is .68 as the M8.2 (I think so), then this would be equivalent to having a .58 VF, which I once had on the M7. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander † Posted September 27, 2009 Share #23 Posted September 27, 2009 I did not really understand his graphs. What are the segments that he refers to in his tests? Jeff So seeing from Jaap's and Jono's responses I'm im good company:D, but seriously does anyone know? Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted September 27, 2009 Share #24 Posted September 27, 2009 I did not really understand his graphs. What are the segments that he refers to in his tests? Jeff I am happy, that I am not alone, who doesn't understand what Puts really means. When he compares the Leica to the Nikon at f: 2.8 he changes the parameters of his graphs. The MTF for Leica starts at 0.5 and goes to 2.5, for Nikon it starts at 0.1 to 1 or 0.2 to 1.2. I hope this makes any sens in context with his conclusion that the Nikon is better, but i just don't get it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted September 27, 2009 Share #25 Posted September 27, 2009 What you see as moire is just from image resizing and web compression. Nothing more. The whole tests just confirms what I thought. The d3x still remains on top even though they are using a AA Filter. 24Mp is just a little more than 18. However I think the m9 is doing quite well. The test just confirms that the Top-Nikon shows nice colours which are clearly lacking on the Leica: look at the thing on the bottom of the test-pic between the magazine-cover and the combs and scissors - Nikon with a fancy pink and Leica only with a boring silver. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandymc Posted September 27, 2009 Share #26 Posted September 27, 2009 So seeing from Jaap's and Jono's responses I'm im good company:D, but seriously does anyone know? Jeff Erwin is using Imatest - you can find out all that you ever wanted to know, and probably a lot you didn't want to know, from their web site here: Imatest - Imatest Documentation Sandy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander † Posted September 27, 2009 Share #27 Posted September 27, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thanks Sandy, I've had a look at your link but simply too much information I'm afraid. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Albertson Posted September 27, 2009 Share #28 Posted September 27, 2009 The charts were interesting, but I'm off to my newsagent to see if they have that issue of Stern with the Heidi Klum cover (so I can shoot my own tests). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_b_elmer Posted September 27, 2009 Share #29 Posted September 27, 2009 The test just confirms that the Top-Nikon shows nice colours which are clearly lacking on the Leica: look at the thing on the bottom of the test-pic between the magazine-cover and the combs and scissors - Nikon with a fancy pink and Leica only with a boring silver. I agree that the missing pink (lilac) is striking - but are the pic's really comparable - or is Mr. Puts comparing apples and pears??? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest EarlBurrellPhoto Posted September 27, 2009 Share #30 Posted September 27, 2009 What makes me discount all his pseudo-technical graphics is where he says the M9 doesn't show IR contamination. Leica says right in the M9 catalog description that it does, although less than the M8. And several local guys who have used (and one who owns) an M9 confirmed to me that they can see some IR contamination in the M9 shots. I'm not insinuating that his photo example is bogus BTW, but my daddy always taught me "don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bybrett Posted September 27, 2009 Share #31 Posted September 27, 2009 What makes me discount all his pseudo-technical graphics is where he says the M9 doesn't show IR contamination. Leica says right in the M9 catalog description that it does, although less than the M8. And several local guys who have used (and one who owns) an M9 confirmed to me that they can see some IR contamination in the M9 shots. I'm not insinuating that his photo example is bogus BTW, but my daddy always taught me "don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see" Correct. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted September 27, 2009 Share #32 Posted September 27, 2009 I agree that the missing pink (lilac) is striking - but are the pic's really comparable - or is Mr. Puts comparing apples and pears??? Well, one might call it missing pink (lilac) though I have never met a Nikonian who said his photos were missing magenta. For sure it's no magenta in this example but it's always nice to learn about different colours. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xjr Posted September 27, 2009 Share #33 Posted September 27, 2009 What does it matter anyway ? I mean all these comparisons....do they mean anything ? Bottom line the leica weighs 0.585kg and the nikon 1.22kg ,less than half and to me when you add the finest lenses ever made the comparison stops there...end of. Oh one more thing...I wonder if one were to compare their prices as used items a year from now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bybrett Posted September 27, 2009 Share #34 Posted September 27, 2009 What does it matter anyway ? I mean all these comparisons....do they mean anything ?Bottom line the leica weighs 0.585kg and the nikon 1.22kg ,less than half and to me when you add the finest lenses ever made the comparison stops there...end of. Oh one more thing...I wonder if one were to compare their prices as used items a year from now. Excellent synopsis. Cheers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckw Posted September 27, 2009 Share #35 Posted September 27, 2009 A quote from the article: "Stunning as the M9 pictures are, they must be put in context and then the Nikon D3x images are just better. " What does he mean when he says the M9 pictures must be put in context, context of what? I'm not at present arguing that this statement is either true or not true, I just don't know what the statement means! Chuck Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted September 27, 2009 Share #36 Posted September 27, 2009 Did he take focus shift into account with his 35/1.4 asph? I did a rather exhaustive analysis of the focusing accuracy of the M9 with the 1.4/35 asph (assuming that this lens will take a prominent place on the M9 because of its classical focal length). I placed the M9 in front of the familiar test chart (the nine star charts in three rows of three columns) at a distance of 1.35meter. I again assume that the Leica user will exploit the format size to its optimum and will get as close to the scene as possible. At closer distances the focusing accuracy is more critical. I made a range of eleven exposures with through focus steps of 1 cm (from 1.30 to 1.40) on the tripod. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eronald Posted September 27, 2009 Share #37 Posted September 27, 2009 Maybe Erwin is just being honest? Edmund Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenerrolrd Posted September 27, 2009 Share #38 Posted September 27, 2009 On focusing accuracy....I think he is correct on both his major points. 1. As digital sensors reach the limits of today s lenses ....focusing accuracy takes on new importance. You at the limits of the CRF with the 75-135 lenses and it takes great eyes and skill to "nail the focus" . You could see misses in the M8 files and you will definitely see it in the M9 files. 2. The magnifier extends the length of the rangefinder and makes it more likely that you can get something in focus. Two tests I did to convince myself......first stack 2 extenders and focus on the ruler...and tell me you can see it better without a magnifier. Second make a few targets and shoot a dozen images at each distance. How many are critically sharp. I did this with DAG (and I think he knows a little something about rangefinders). He could not consistently focus a 135mm well enough to calibrate it on an M8. It looked good at 2m but was off at 10mm.....you can move the focus enough at 10m to throw it out of focus ..without changing the rangefinder patch alignment. He stacked the magnifiers . The megapearl magnifier has the advantage of an adjustable diopter which is nice...but I dont think it quite has the contrast of the Leica magnifiers. Using magnifiers is a balance between visibility of the brightlines and increasing the rangefinder length. I use the 1.4x for 75-135 ,the 1.25x for the 50 and maybe the 35 ....28 no magnifier. Wider than the finder I go back to the 1.25x. I do agree that the diopter is more important than the magnifier. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted September 27, 2009 Share #39 Posted September 27, 2009 So seeing from Jaap's and Jono's responses I'm im good company:D, but seriously does anyone know? Jeff Jeff . . . . does anyone care? Sorry, I shouldn't be cynical, but we all know that the M9 takes decent snaps . . . as does the D3x. But they're totally different beasts. The idea that anybody would choose one over the other because the snaps are a bit more decent boggles my brain! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoppyman Posted September 27, 2009 Share #40 Posted September 27, 2009 I respect much work by Erwin Puts and find his (currently out of print) Lens Compendium to be an excellent resource. I am often puzzled by his methodology in these tests and I have no doubt that some subtleties are lost in the English versions too. That last is not a complaint. These articles are offered freely to all. For this article I am really puzzled by quite a few aspects. How can the D3x images have a clearly visible larger area? The reference "a bg format with a moderate lens may give better results than a small format with an excellent lens." doesn't have any relevance for me here since the D3x and M9 sensor areas areas are nominally the same I don't understand the reference to measuring the nominal distance between flange and sensor location with three different lenses. Surely that value is fixed for the specific camera and the lens mounted is irrelevant? Does Erwin mean the plane of sharpest focus from each lens set the same? That is comparing adjustments of the three sample lenses and again is not germane to the camera performance comparison. I follow why a 35mm lens has been selected as a common focal length for the 24x36 sensors. However the Summilux chosen is one of the lenses known most prone to focus shift. I'm not familiar with the new Zeiss design mentioned for the Nikon nor the focus shift characteristics of any NIkon mount lenses. Choosing that lens for the M9 is reasonable to compare it to this new other design on the Nikon, I guess, as a lens comparison but just muddies the camera comparison for me. I don't think that any valid conclusions can be reached on moire based on looking at the reduced size web images. We don't yet have the next part though. The other variations not visibly considered are the moire processing setting/option of the conversion software. It would seem consistent with Leica's approach if that processing is not applied in camera with DNG captures. The same situation for sharpening and noise reduction in the camera too. Personally I much prefer Leica's approach (which is no surprise I imagine). I am completely flummoxed by the conclusion thus far that the "D3x images are just better" Very different cameras in almost every aspect and with very different strengths too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.