BerndReini Posted September 29, 2009 Author Share #21 Posted September 29, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) The built-in UV/IR filter might actually make the M9 a bit less sharp on a per pixel level than the M8. Yes, the advantages of the larger sensor and its real-world advantages is exactly what I was talking about. And sharpness is only one advantage I mentioned. If you agree with this, then why are we arguing? Just because I am excited about this new camera and can't wait to buy it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 Hi BerndReini, Take a look here A controversial thread? M9 blows the M8 out of the water.. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
plasticman Posted September 29, 2009 Share #22 Posted September 29, 2009 @Plasticman The M9-shots are every bit as sharp as M8-shots on pixel-level. Why shouldn't they with the same pixel-pitch and no AA-filter? Possibly the slightly thicker cover-glass, and also possibly the noise-reduction algorithm applied to the DNG file? I have no idea, to be honest. Naturally the difference isn't significant in anything but a one-to-one comparison of the central area of the sensor (and barely visible then) - a pretty meaningless test, in most senses, but useful when evaluating statements such as that the pretty much identical sensor-profile of the M9 'blows the M8 out of the water'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted September 29, 2009 Share #23 Posted September 29, 2009 The built-in UV/IR filter might actually make the M9 a bit less sharp on a per pixel level than the M8. Yes, the advantages of the larger sensor and its real-world advantages is exactly what I was talking about. And sharpness is only one advantage I mentioned. If you agree with this, then why are we arguing? Just because I am excited about this new camera and can't wait to buy it? Oh come on - "arguing"? This is absurd. I objected to the 'blows the M8 out of the water' and this is unreasonable now? As I said - enjoy the new camera! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted September 29, 2009 Share #24 Posted September 29, 2009 I've just been told that Ulkrift has attacked me in this thread for 'obsessively running down the M9' or words to that effect. Not wanting to derail the thread now - but two points I want to make clear: 1. NOWHERE am I running-down the M9. I've made a personal choice based on my own comparisons to keep hold of my M8 for now. My participation in threads like this is purely in defense of the old camera, which in my opinion has been getting an unfair bashing on this forum, probably because of totally natural buyer's enthusiasm. As an owner of the M8 I don't really see there's anything wrong in wanting to redress the balance somewhat, and I haven't anywhere stated anything negative about the M9, to the best of my knowledge. Where I personally see the M8 does something better, I say so. 2. Both myself and Ulkrift made a personal undertaking to Andy Barton that we'd block the other person on the forum. I've kept to that. As I hadn't been quoted on this thread before Ulkrift's post, I assume he hasn't. I don't appreciate being attacked behind my back. Anyway, feels like the break I took was a good idea. This place has turned nastier in my opinion, since the new camera came along. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpattinson Posted September 29, 2009 Share #25 Posted September 29, 2009 Personally, I could care less about camera vs. camera - it's images that 'blow me out of the water'. As far as I can determine, the M9 is not going to substantially increase my ability to create images over what I can do with the M8. If it had substantially better high ISO (ie - 3 stops or so), or substantially better DR (couple more stops of highlight detail), or even better/faster focusing - then it might let me produce something that would 'blow me out of the water' vs my M8... but it doesn't. It's a lovely camera, it's better than the M8, if I didn't already own an M8 I'd be on the waiting list. As it is, I will wait for a second hand one Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted September 29, 2009 Share #26 Posted September 29, 2009 Personally, I could care less about camera vs. camera - it's images that 'blow me out of the water'. As far as I can determine, the M9 is not going to substantially increase my ability to create images over what I can do with the M8. If it had substantially better high ISO (ie - 3 stops or so), or substantially better DR (couple more stops of highlight detail), or even better/faster focusing - then it might let me produce something that would 'blow me out of the water' vs my M8... but it doesn't. It's a lovely camera, it's better than the M8, if I didn't already own an M8 I'd be on the waiting list. As it is, I will wait for a second hand one My feelings exactly (although with the dollar vs European currency rates at the moment, we might not need to wait for the used market). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted September 29, 2009 Share #27 Posted September 29, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Balderdash. Why would you want anything sharper than your eyes can ever see? Reminds me of the guy who buys a $10,000 stereo sound system to listen to with his $35 ears. My original observation was just a polite way of saying that the OP had missed critical focus on this shot. As such it's not easy to judge camera (or lens) sharpness. I'm not sure why you felt the need to get your knickers in such a twist about it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest EarlBurrellPhoto Posted September 29, 2009 Share #28 Posted September 29, 2009 The M9 files are also effectively 14bit, incidentally. As I've said before, there are many reasons to want a full-frame digital-M, but I've yet to see any proof that the sensor really delivers this supposed quantum leap in quality. As others have noted, there's even a tiny bit less sharpness, and at low ISOs I can discern a tiny amount more color differentiation in the M8 files than in the M9 files. YMMV. The most important thing is that people are happy with their equipment. But we went through all of this nonsense before with the M8 ("as good as MF", "better than the 5D" etc etc). I guess it was only to be expected that the same sort of meaningless d*ck-measuring was gonna accompany the release of the M9. Well I'm glad someone with lots of posting history said what I was thinking but afraid to post, being a newcomer. I'd add that the residual IR contamination in the M9 is a problem only because the camera won't correct cyan drift when you do need to use an IR filter. Hopefully that will be fixed in a firmware update. I tend to think Leica had as their main priority fitting a full-frame sensor for the people who can't wrap their heads around using one focal length wider, so they didn't spend much time or resources making quantum improvements elsewhere (one measely stop of noise improvement still leaves the M9 2-3 stops behind the curve). Now that FF has been solved, I'm confident they will bring the M10 to 2009 standards...even if it takes them 3 more years to do it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted September 29, 2009 Author Share #29 Posted September 29, 2009 Let me say this again: my intention is not to offend anyone, but I think people who are getting the M9 should be very excited about it. I will hang on to my M8 as a backup for now. It is a great camera, "blows out of the water" is a bold statement, but so is btw. the M9 being "2-3 stops behind the curve." Really? ISO 2500 with another camera equals ISO 320 with the M9? That's 3 stops, and whoever makes such a statement has something to prove as far as I am concerned. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thpeters Posted September 29, 2009 Share #30 Posted September 29, 2009 Let me say this again: my intention is not to offend anyone, but I think people who are getting the M9 should be very excited about it. I will hang on to my M8 as a backup for now. It is a great camera, "blows out of the water" is a bold statement, but so is btw. the M9 being "2-3 stops behind the curve." Really? ISO 2500 with another camera equals ISO 320 with the M9? That's 3 stops, and whoever makes such a statement has something to prove as far as I am concerned. This whole tread what you starting with is so unimportant, who cares really about it? Just shoot pictures and enjoy instead of again a needless discussion between M8 and M9. Theo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted September 29, 2009 Author Share #31 Posted September 29, 2009 I will. I was hoping to get people excited that are waiting for their M9 and confirm them in their decision. Instead, I ruffled the feathers of all these folks that don't want to buy it and got them all excited. That's the forum for you. Fun. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted September 29, 2009 Share #32 Posted September 29, 2009 I will. I was hoping to get people excited that are waiting for their M9 and confirm them in their decision. Instead, I ruffled the feathers of all these folks that don't want to buy it and got them all excited. That's the forum for you. Fun. Y'know what Bernd - maybe some other people can get excited about their own front garden without crapping on the neighbor's lawn. And by tomorrow, when both of us have forgotten this discussion, I'll still be loving your images. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted September 29, 2009 Author Share #33 Posted September 29, 2009 Good. I'm glad we could make up. I don't know why this happens, but I get so into this stuff and next thing you know I get worried about upsetting people I respect, but I still can't let go of the argument. Again, no hard feelings. I'm happy Leica came through with something we thought was impossible and we all have the luxury of buying their stuff and still have enough time to bicker over it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted September 29, 2009 Share #34 Posted September 29, 2009 I will. I was hoping to get people excited that are waiting for their M9 and confirm them in their decision. Instead, I ruffled the feathers of all these folks that don't want to buy it and got them all excited. That's the forum for you. Fun. I'm with you, I wouldn't have put it quite as bluntly, but after 3 months with an M9, that's just how I feel about it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted September 29, 2009 Share #35 Posted September 29, 2009 I will. I was hoping to get people excited that are waiting for their M9 and confirm them in their decision. Instead, I ruffled the feathers of all these folks that don't want to buy it and got them all excited. That's the forum for you. Fun. But you titled it "a controversial thread?" I have no view on the subject, but I just knew it would be fun to follow. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted September 30, 2009 Author Share #36 Posted September 30, 2009 My original observation was just a polite way of saying that the OP had missed critical focus on this shot. Something is happening during the resizing and uploading of these pictures to the browser. In the big file, focus is dead on and the eyes are razor sharp. I just realized that something is getting lost. This is really what made me hesitate posting pictures in the first place. If anyone has experienced this problem and can offer a solution, I would love to hear it, so I can replace the files. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest roey Posted September 30, 2009 Share #37 Posted September 30, 2009 Something is happening during the resizing and uploading of these pictures to the browser. In the big file, focus is dead on and the eyes are razor sharp. I just realized that something is getting lost. This is really what made me hesitate posting pictures in the first place. If anyone has experienced this problem and can offer a solution, I would love to hear it, so I can replace the files. Everytime you downsample a bitmap you lose sharpness. If you use PS to do the resize you might want to use the "Bicubic Sharper" method. In Lightroom you can use the output sharpening options of the export dialog. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jruffolo Posted September 30, 2009 Share #38 Posted September 30, 2009 Whilst I'm waiting for my M9; DMR- Blows M9 out of the water? http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/people/99744-self-portrait.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted September 30, 2009 Author Share #39 Posted September 30, 2009 If you want eyelashes, yes. If you shoot that picture as wide as mine, no. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean Cristophe Posted September 30, 2009 Share #40 Posted September 30, 2009 If the M9 results blow the M8 results "out of the water" the/your M8 must of been a pretty lousy camera. The M9 is marginally better at high iso, but not all that great, and I sense a slightly different color rendition.... but not better or worse just a tad different. I still think both cameras a re pretty much equal other than the obvious difference. I can see a added value for wide-angle users and for people whom "crop" a lot. Myself being a 35/50 user ... 28 and 35 on the M8 I see no reason for a switch other than the "I want" part. Don't get me wrong "I want" as well ... however "I don't need" ... but in the end the "I want" might prevail, but not quite yet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.