Erwin Puts' M9 Part 3 review

[sandymc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi Sandy,

the D3x uses a (Sony?) CMOS 24.5 MP sensor, which results in 6 µm pixels - instead of 6.8 µm of the Kodak sensor used in the M8/9. This gives a 12% better sensor resolution over the Leica chips.

 

Yes, but the advantage the Nikon is getting looks a lot bigger than what could be accounted for by the 12%........

 

Sandy

[luigi bertolotti]

To add a "civil and restrained" critic : was it worth to use graphs and long explanations about, to demonstrate that M9 sensor, when cropped to M8 dimension, gives the same results ? From the specs, it ought to be obvious; but he ends with the promise of a next part: usually, Puts becomes more interesting the more he goes in depth (even if, doing so, he sometimes tends to a difficult prose) : so, I wait for the next part and admit he has another chance.

 

Then, becoming me a bit malicious, I wonder if he has been intimately hurt for not having been included in the handful of M9 beta testers... of course I don't know him personally.. could be that he's in a mood in which likes to evidence that a good Nikon, after all, can make pics as good or even better than a M9...

[kojo sebas]

You all seem to be giving a very simplistic interpretation to what Erwin Putts is saying and ruffling your feathers. Erwin Putts does also state in the review:

 

The center graph shows a very good result with almost film-like properties. Compared to the D3X we might even state that the M9 tends in its image qualities to a analog representation while the Nikon has a more digital representation. For Leica cross overs this behavior is very pleasant. And non-Leica migrants might see favor in this combination of film like properties and excellent optical performance.

 

Aren't those the very qualities that attract us to the M digital range?

 

in addition on the M8 M9 Putts also writes:

The resolution is now identical to that of the M8, and the shape of the curve is the same as the shape of the M9 non-cropped, just shifted to the left. These figures demonstrate that the M8 can capture the same level of definition as the M9 when both pictures have the same scale and magnification. With other words, if you do not exploit the 1.33 factor of the bigger M9 sensor to the full, then the M8 might be as good as the M9. Of course the M9 has a higher potential for bigger enlargements, but if you restrict yourself to high quality A4 prints, then the M8 is a good alternative to the M9. I have expanded on this topic as I got numerous questions from readers who are concerned about the status and future use of the M8 in the light of the boosted expectations around the M9. As can be seen in this part of the report, the M9 is without doubt a big step forward compared to the M8, at least performance-wise, but that does not imply that the M8 is not a formidable picture machine.

 

And Putts also explains the rationale of this:

 

This theoretical disadvantage of the small Leica negative was already noticed by the early Leica pioneers when comparing Leica enlargements with 6x9cm contact prints. Their solution was the rule to get as close as possible to the scene so that there was no cropping necessary when enlarging and every precious grain clump could be used for the print. So I set up the M8 in front of the test chart and chose a distance that fills the sensor area with the total area of the test pattern.

 

Seems very logical to me 'get in close".

 

This is an important point to consider given that it suggests that the results we get are also a result of the way we use our M cameras and our technique rather than mere pixel peeking and our ability to buy on not buy what is most expensive and latest.

 

Sadly, the better technology we have at our disposal the more irate we seem to get instead of marveling at these developments and finding new ways of expanding our expression. All of these are very good cameras, so it is pointless trying to establish what is the best. It all depends what you want to do and an M9 is not the tool for telephoto sports photography. Sadly, leicaphiles are no longer only ruffling their feathers at those who dare to criticize Leica, but now it has descended into a fight between M8 and M9.

 

Instead of attempting to understand what Putts is getting at a lot of you have taken to criticize

Kojo

[pascal_meheut]

You all seem to be giving a very simplistic interpretation to what Erwin Putts is saying and ruffling your feathers.

Instead of attempting to understand what Putts is getting at a lot of you have taken to criticize

 

End of "civil and restrained". As usual, a newcomer knows better and explains to us all what we were not smart enough to understand by ourselves.

 

Thanks a lot. BTW, can you tell me where the shutter button is on my Leica M?

[luigi bertolotti]

Kojo, remember that Puts isn't "Putts"... ; I was not ruffling my feathers and, being undoubtly a Leicaphile, I haven't any doubt that a Nikon, film or Digital, can bring pictures as fine as Leica's... I love Leicas for other reasons and am firmly convinced they take excellent pictures. And Erwin Puts is a deep and knowledged tester... we are all accustomed to discuss his findings: in this case, some of us found some weak points in his analsys, period.

[eronald]

End of "civil and restrained". As usual, a newcomer knows better and explains to us all what we were not smart enough to understand by ourselves.

 

Thanks a lot. BTW, can you tell me where the shutter button is on my Leica M?

 

Pascal,

 

I can certainly find it on my D3x. Which is a camera I can unreservedly recommend to anyone on forum, by the way -provided an SLR is what they are looking for.

 

As for Erwin's review, what can we expect? M9, Alpha 900, 5DII, 1Ds3, D3x are all in the same imaging league, and each has its peculiarities, eg superb Leica lenses on the M9, in-camera stabilization on the Alpha 900, video recording on the 5DII etc. The differentiators are not to be found in the actual image anymore.

 

The M9 seems job well done - congrats Leica! and hopefully all here will interpret Erwin's test as a "license to buy" this very nice object.

 

BTW, am I the only one here to be surprised at the spectacular color rendering differences?

 

Edmund

[luigi bertolotti]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...

 

BTW, am I the only one here to be surprised at the spectacular color rendering differences?

 

Edmund

 

No by sure... and this is an element which gives to some of us, I think, a sort of perplexity on Puts' test : why not some appropriate comment about ? Can it be that the WB hasn't be correctly managed ? All of us know that correct color reproduction is a very delicate and technically complex test ... and this, indeed, was not one of the goals of Puts' test/comparision, but difference is so evident that no explanation about is someway strange.

[glenerrolrd]

While Erwin makes it too easy to find fault with his analysis(or at least his efforts to communicate them). ..he always seems to come up with some new insights. I thought he did a very nice job in explaining why the M9 files had a smoother ..more film like look...and that the Nikon files were more easily seen as digital. I am up to near 1000 images on the M9 and have used it side by side with the M8(as a relevant comparison).

 

Smoother ,better color depth and higher resolution are the three things that come to mind when comparing files taken at the same time and the same subject. The bokeh seems smoother than with the M8 . The M8 has the look of the DMR files or at least a close variant.

 

While I can t always follow Erwin s evidence ...I frequently find new insights that make his reports worth reading.

[Jamie Roberts]

Yikes!

 

I won't dispute his graphs, but holy heck what is he doing to those files?

 

The M9 files aren't white balanced (as has already been mentioned) and the shot of the girl is patently out of focus (already mentioned).

 

But what hasn't been mentioned is why Puts would publish something so clearly flawed in its comparison and analysis?

 

The M8 shot at the end, FWIW, is also overexposed, and that's why there is a lack of highlight detail. You can see it's probably exposing nearly a full stop above the D3x or M9--look at the extra shadow detail.

 

So my overall impression is a shrug, except for the extra-lousy skin tones on the D3x (of course all that says is that the reviewer is doing something really wrong here with all of the cameras )

[ho_co]

You all seem to be giving a very simplistic interpretation to what Erwin Putts is saying and ruffling your feathers....

I agree, and I'm glad Kojo had the guts to stand up to the guff. There's a lot of thoughtful input here, but also a certain amount of missing the point, particularly with some of the early "let's bash Puts again" posts.

 

 

... But what hasn't been mentioned is why Puts would publish something so clearly flawed in its comparison and analysis? ...

 

That's what's bothering me. Why the variations in WB? Were the cameras manually set for WB, or left on auto? Why weren't the files whitebalanced in post-processing?

 

What really has me confused is the M8 file. The girl in the Esser chart looks clearly out of focus, as do the combs. But the "Cafe" textile at upper left is very sharp. And they're all supposedly from the same original.

 

There's another aspect, as Kojo pointed out, and that's us: Now in part 3 we're complaining about white balance and focus because we're seeing them in big part-enlargements. But these are the same files we saw in part 2, at which time we just shrugged off the differences.

 

Those still reading this thread have some appreciation for the thoroughness Erwin shows in his testing. That's why we read him, after all.

 

So Jamie's question is on the mark: All sorts of things seem to be wrong here. How did that come about?

[rosuna]

While Erwin makes it too easy to find fault with his analysis(or at least his efforts to communicate them). ..he always seems to come up with some new insights. I thought he did a very nice job in explaining why the M9 files had a smoother ..more film like look...and that the Nikon files were more easily seen as digital. I am up to near 1000 images on the M9 and have used it side by side with the M8(as a relevant comparison).

 

Smoother ,better color depth and higher resolution are the three things that come to mind when comparing files taken at the same time and the same subject. The bokeh seems smoother than with the M8 . The M8 has the look of the DMR files or at least a close variant.

 

While I can t always follow Erwin s evidence ...I frequently find new insights that make his reports worth reading.

 

I agree...

[eronald]

So Jamie's question is on the mark: All sorts of things seem to be wrong here. How did that come about?

 

Maybe because Erwin is actually taking pictures with lenses mounted on the cameras under fairly realistic conditions? Any camera rangefinder issues, lens mount issues, sensor planarity problems etc will come to light if you do this, leading to inconsistencies across the frame. If you just mount a lens on a bench tester you don't see these problems.

 

I'd really like to know where those images were focused, I cannot quite figure it out.

 

I think that we should have a look at the actual files from Erwin's tests. Are they available?

 

Edmund

[carstenw]

I think what is happening in the M8 shot, if I understand his description correctly, is that he filled the frame with the subject with all three shots, and then enlarged the M8 shot by 1.33x, so what we are looking at is a 100% from an interpolated image. I am not sure if the original M8 shot was sharp, since we see no crop from it, but I think he is too professional to use an out-of-focus shot for resolution testing, regardless of whether or not I agree with his writing in general.

 

I didn't read the whole article, but unless he talks about colour, the white balance is irrelevant here. I think he was just looking at resolution, wasn't he?

[pascal_meheut]

I didn't read the whole article, but unless he talks about colour, the white balance is irrelevant here. I think he was just looking at resolution, wasn't he?

 

If WB is off so that something which should be white is not, constrast will be lower and the perceived resolution too, unless I'm wrong.

[carstenw]

The differences are pretty slight. The M9 image has slightly tinged greys.

[eronald]

The differences are pretty slight. The M9 image has slightly tinged greys.

 

Well Carsten, if you think the girls look the same in the N and the L shot, then maybe you should call your wife over to give you her opinion. To me the color seems radically different here, reddish i one case, yellow in the other. No disrespect intended, each person has a different color vision.

 

Edmund

[carstenw]

If you think "slightly different" means "the same", I guess your wife is happy with you too, Edmund.

[luigi bertolotti]

Part 4 has arrived... who starts ? Very interesting the WAs vignetting-correction tests : wonderful the 24 (and Zeiss 15, too), and I have been surprised that old Summilux 35 result hasn't even been displayed, for Puts says there is no difference between no correction and manual lens recognition.

M8-M9 comparision shots are much more significant, I seem, than in part 3.

[markgay]

Many of the comments in this thread are direct, even brutal, but then Erwin doesn't mince words (sometimes mangles but doesn't mince) and I'm sure he poked a few people in the chest with comments like this:

The current behavior of looking at image files at 100+% on a computer screen and study individual pixels has aptly been called pixel peeking and has hardly anything to do with appreciating or evaluating photographs or pictures. You did not study grain patterns under the microscope in AgX days, did you?

 

And he's bang on. Plenty of people are guilty of posting badly composed shots (I'd be more plain but this is a community) and then magnifying the hell out of some tiny corner to prove God knows what.

 

Erwin is an amateur, one who puts in a chunk of work which others are happy to peruse. Sometimes his reports seem a bit thin for the length, other times Erwin Puts things in perspective and that's why I, and I'm sure others, still go back and read him.

 

Sorry for that ,

Mark

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[ho_co]

...I didn't read the whole article, but unless he talks about colour, the white balance is irrelevant here. I think he was just looking at resolution, wasn't he?

Carsten--Right on. He says the same thing in part 4.

 

... I think he is too professional to use an out-of-focus shot for resolution testing ....

Agreed. Particularly after showing us his through-focus graphs in the previous section. This isn't sloppiness on his part.

 

... I think what is happening in the M8 shot, if I understand his description correctly, is that he filled the frame with the subject with all three shots, and then enlarged the M8 shot by 1.33x, so what we are looking at is a 100% from an interpolated image. I am not sure if the original M8 shot was sharp, since we see no crop from it...

He does show us a very sharp 100% crop in the "Cafe" textile moire M8 shot. The "upressing" seems to be the culprit in that one.

 

I wonder if the Esser girl and combs shots are also post-interpolation.

 

 

So my two questions:

A) How did he enlarge to 1.33x (since apparently the particular algorithm matters)?

Why do the Esser girl and combs look out of focus when the textile corner is bitingly sharp?