microview Posted October 8, 2009 Share #1 Posted October 8, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Picture quality: wow! Obvious gain in resolution and colour accuracy too, over the M8. Easy setup as before; prefer battery state as shown on screen to old mini-view on top plate. Don't find download of uncompressed files noticeably slower with Sandisk reader/Intel iMac. DNG translation still superior with Capture One relative to Photoshop CS3 or Adobe Lightroom – have already deleted the latter from my computer! Framelines now less 'obtrusive' and as others have suggested, rangefinder focus seems somehow more clear. Shutter not as quiet as some have claimed but a 'nice' sound nonetheless. The 'cropped' images from a given lens on the M8 now seem wrong, so full frame is a very definite gain. And there's one feature I've not seen mentioned elsewhere: if you set Histogram--Std. Clip+ in the menu, after taking a shot overexposed areas show in red on screen without the need to call up the actual histogram. (They don't reappear in Play of course.) I am not aware of this facility with the M8. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 8, 2009 Posted October 8, 2009 Hi microview, Take a look here M9 first impressions.... I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Daniel Leung Posted October 8, 2009 Share #2 Posted October 8, 2009 I was taking some pictures in my friend's house with my M9 ( first time) last night using 28mm and 50mm F0.95 without filter, he has all these halogen lights that have very yellow tone, all my pictures turns out to be with very yellowish tone. I can certainly accpet the yellow tone on the 50mm but not the 28mm. they were way too yellow. I took pictures in his house b4 with the M8.2 but the yellowish tone were never this severe?! I am not sure why? DL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overgaard Posted October 8, 2009 Share #3 Posted October 8, 2009 I was taking some pictures in my friend's house with my M9 ( first time) last night using 28mm and 50mm F0.95 without filter, he has all these halogen lights that have very yellow tone, all my pictures turns out to be with very yellowish tone. I can certainly accpet the yellow tone on the 50mm but not the 28mm. they were way too yellow. I took pictures in his house b4 with the M8.2 but the yellowish tone were never this severe?! I am not sure why? DL You need to use white balance. That's it. I have a big WhiBal greycard in my photo bag and carry a small credit card size WhiBal card as well when out and about, and when the M9 is manually white balanced, even skin tones actually look great and right without any further adjustment. Halogen is extremely warm, so even if you choose the pre-setting for Tungsten (3200 Kelvin) the halogen will be reddish-yellow. And there's no pre-setting that fits with halogen spots (which anyways exist in different color temperatures from almost daylight to much more red and yellow than tungsten). leica.overgaard.dk - Thorsten Overgaard's Leica Pages - WhiteBal greycards for white balancing digital photography and video Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
odyocu Posted October 8, 2009 Share #4 Posted October 8, 2009 M9 is the result of evolution of M8. Therefore, it should give at least identical quality, and on FF sensor. I'm planning to buy the M9, provided the above sentence is proven to be correct. I love the M8 photos. These are so realistic and with excellent color and saturation. Despite the fact that M9 uses a very similar sensor (only FF difference), the glass in front is thicker, and color separation is also slightly different. Most people accept it as an improvement right away. The other difference is in the RAW conversion software. I remember that at first with C1 3.X.X we used to manually add camera profiles to get the best results. Then C1 4.X evolved to a point that it was perfect for me. With M9, one assumes that a similar (but possibly shorter) time to pass, for the supplied software to settle down. Reason for writing is that, I'm not taken away by most of the early galleries made by best names using the M9. It differs from the M8 IMO. What do you think? Are these identical or different cameras due to different hardware and software, or is the M9 really superior (except for the FF sensor)? Best regards, Seyhun Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Leung Posted October 8, 2009 Share #5 Posted October 8, 2009 You need to use white balance. That's it. I have a big WhiBal greycard in my photo bag and carry a small credit card size WhiBal card as well when out and about, and when the M9 is manually white balanced, even skin tones actually look great and right without any further adjustment. Halogen is extremely warm, so even if you choose the pre-setting for Tungsten (3200 Kelvin) the halogen will be reddish-yellow. And there's no pre-setting that fits with halogen spots (which anyways exist in different color temperatures from almost daylight to much more red and yellow than tungsten). leica.overgaard.dk - Thorsten Overgaard's Leica Pages - WhiteBal greycards for white balancing digital photography and video Thanks a lot for the info. I will look into this when I have time over the weekend Tks DL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidigital Posted October 8, 2009 Share #6 Posted October 8, 2009 Seyhun, I think that you are very observant in noting that there is subtle, but different look between M8 and M9 images. I've noticed the same thing. I've only had my M9 for a week so I haven't had a chance to articulate what that difference is yet ... I'm of the opinion that you have to shoot a camera for a few months to full understand the nuances. Kurt Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenKania Posted October 8, 2009 Share #7 Posted October 8, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I also wish owners of both cameras to give away their thoughts. Most reports are about "High ISO performance" and resolution. I'm more interested in the final picture quality, especially under normal shooting conditions. I'm on the waiting list anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnbuckley Posted October 8, 2009 Share #8 Posted October 8, 2009 I have had an M8 since November 2006, and had an M8.2 as well. I think the images coming from the M9 a) have more punch, and seem more substantial, seem darker, and less in need of exposure compensation to protect against blown highlights in bright light. I would leave my M8 at -2/3rds EV when in bright light; on the M9, I now have my daylight setting set without compensation. I do this because I noticed pictures that I would have expected to be exposed properly had a lot of room on the right side of the histogram. They are not identical cameras. The M8 is a wonderful camera, a Digital M. I am coming to believe that the M9 is more substantial -- there's that word again -- producing images with a deeper, more comprehensive look and "feel." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted October 9, 2009 Share #9 Posted October 9, 2009 As I have said in another thread, there are some comparisons you cannot measure. Try standing two women (or men) together and then try using numbers or measurements to prove one superior to the other. You can only measure certain features, but there are other intangible that can't be measured but are still very influential to you. I contend that the M9 does have a good measure of these intangibles that weigh heavily in its favour. However, only 'you' can can judge for yourself. A bit like 'which lens should I take to India?' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevem7 Posted October 9, 2009 Share #10 Posted October 9, 2009 I have been a HUGE fan of the M8 and M8.2. I know how the M8 files look. I know how much detail and sharpness they have at 100% and yes, the look is unique. I never saw that look in any other digital camera. When I had an M9 for three days to review I did my best to shoot what I could in those three days. I then wrote that basically the M9 is an upgraded M8. New FF sensor, somewhat improved ISO and the color is a bit different. More punchier out of camera. Now that I have my own M9 and have been studying the files side by side with M8 files I can say there is a difference and they are not the same in regards to sharpness and tone. The M8 sensor gives you crazy sharpness, even when viewed at 100%. I have some shots from the 24 elmarit, 28 cron and even the 90 cron that blow me away with the detail I see in my M8 files at 100% viewing. On the M9, at 100% you do not see the crazy detail of the M8. They do not have that bite, that brilliance. The M9 files are smoother, deeper, and not as sharp. Yes, velvety smooth. They look a bit different. Now, that is at 100% viewing. When resized down or printed, the M9 files are plenty sharp and look very rich. Just because they are more smooth than the M8 does not mean that is a bad thing. The M9 files are nice and rich and still plenty sharp. When resized for web, you do not notice the somewhat softer results that you do see at 100% but you do notice the improved color, tonality and richness of the file. I absolutely love the look of the M8 files and it may take me a while to get used to the M9 files as I am so used to the crazy sharp M8. It would probably be a cool exercise to shoot the M9 for a month or two and then go back to an M8 and shoot that for a week. My guess is we would be disappointed going back to the M8 after getting used to the M9 look. I do know that when I shot the M8 I was always saying "Holy S*&T that is sharp" and with the M9 I am saying "Holy S&*T that is smooth!" Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashwinrao1 Posted October 9, 2009 Share #11 Posted October 9, 2009 Very interesting commentary, Steve! I would be concerned about losing that sharpness, which is something that I adore about the m9. Smooth seems to be done quite well in the land of the CMOS-AA Filters of Canon and Nikon. Is the smoothness you describe different? I am obviously curious about your impressions, as you didn't mention this difference in your review? Might it be sample variation? Do you regret selling the M8, knowing what you know now? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted October 9, 2009 Share #12 Posted October 9, 2009 An interesting observation Steve. Hopefully, next month I will be shooting the M8 and the M9 in India. I won't be doing deliberate comparisons, just using them as seems appropriate at the time. It may or may not be valuable. With the M8, I never bothered to sharpen for output. What you say may indicate minimal output sharpening may be the go with the M9, depending on taste. Only time will tell and we can't hurry that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rolu Posted October 9, 2009 Share #13 Posted October 9, 2009 ... My guess is we would be disappointed going back to the M8 after getting used to the M9 look. I do know that when I shot the M8 I was always saying "Holy S*&T that is sharp" and with the M9 I am saying "Holy S&*T that is smooth!" Steve Steve, I think you put it very well. Could it be, that we are undergoing a change of our viewing pattern? After the clean, sharp, contrasty digital look (still more film like in the M8), the detail due to the higher resolution irritates us. Well - like going to a bigger format. Regards Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashwinrao1 Posted October 9, 2009 Share #14 Posted October 9, 2009 To Rolu, The 18 mp isn't really higher resolution, given the increase in sensor size, no? I wonder whether it's the noise reduction processing algorithm, the IR blocking glass on the sensor, sample variation, or all of the above that may be contributing? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevem7 Posted October 9, 2009 Share #15 Posted October 9, 2009 Very interesting commentary, Steve! I would be concerned about losing that sharpness, which is something that I adore about the m9. Smooth seems to be done quite well in the land of the CMOS-AA Filters of Canon and Nikon. Is the smoothness you describe different? I am obviously curious about your impressions, as you didn't mention this difference in your review? Might it be sample variation? Do you regret selling the M8, knowing what you know now? Hey Ashwin, I still need more shooting time with the M9 but the difference is not huge really. The M9 files are still sharp, just not bitingly sharp at 100% as the M8 files. I sort of mentioned it in the review when I said the M9 files are not quite as sharp as the M8 files but I need more time to really see if that is indeed fact, or if it is something else. So we have the M8 with its super sharp detailed files, and the M9 with its still sharp but smoother files. I love the M8 and M9 and would rather own the M9 as it also gives beautiful results. Just a little different than the M8's. Ill post some new full size images on my site tomorrow from the M9. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bo_Lorentzen Posted October 9, 2009 Share #16 Posted October 9, 2009 Steve, I suppose with the larger image area of the M9, when printing a 13x19 print, the M9 still resolve more than the M8 to the same print size. so the possible loss of a little crispness in these pixels probably don't translate to a practical difference. ? . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbgeach Posted October 9, 2009 Share #17 Posted October 9, 2009 Hi guys, I am new to the forum and planning on getting an M8. I have been a Canon user for a while, but want to take the jump. However, I just want to say something in regards to Steve's post. If the m8 looks bitingly sharp at 100% you should compare that to how the M9 looks at 70%. However, to rephrase that, try printing an 11x17 print from both cameras and compare the print. Because right now you are comparing an 11x17 (m9) print to an 8 x 10 (m8). Another easy test is to turn down the jpg on the m9 so that you make a 10mp file instead of 18 mp and then compare at 100%. It is extremely difficult to get a 100% crop super sharp without strong tripod, remote trigger and timer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevem7 Posted October 9, 2009 Share #18 Posted October 9, 2009 Hi guys, I am new to the forum and planning on getting an M8. I have been a Canon user for a while, but want to take the jump. However, I just want to say something in regards to Steve's post. If the m8 looks bitingly sharp at 100% you should compare that to how the M9 looks at 70%. However, to rephrase that, try printing an 11x17 print from both cameras and compare the print. Because right now you are comparing an 11x17 (m9) print to an 8 x 10 (m8). Another easy test is to turn down the jpg on the m9 so that you make a 10mp file instead of 18 mp and then compare at 100%. It is extremely difficult to get a 100% crop super sharp without strong tripod, remote trigger and timer. Yes, you are correct on the 70%. But I always got crazy sharp files from the M8 handheld (in good light). I can get great sharpness from the M9 as well, but its just not as extreme as the M8's. In any case, the M9 will have no problem printing large. It's a fabulous camera and improved over the M8 no doubt. The little difference in sharpness will make no difference in anyones images and I mentioned it here only because others were noticing a difference in the M9 samples. I feel it is due to the more smoother files of the M9 along with the richer color. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
playingolf Posted October 9, 2009 Share #19 Posted October 9, 2009 One obvious issue I saw in the inherent exceptional sharpness of the M8 was the same phenomena I experienced when shooting a Hasselblad with a Superslide back. Those chromes were amazingly sharp because they only used the "meat" of the sweet spot in the center of the Zeiss 6x6 lenses. Even to this day when I would mix some Superslides into my 35mm shows, the impact when those slides hit the screen was obvious and visceral, even to a casual viewer. Same with the M8. All Leica camera lenses are designed to perform at full frame, as all Hassy lenses were designed for 6x6. Using just the center, makes the edge-to-edge sharpness, and effective depth of field all contribute to razor sharpness. Full frame gives you the film bokeh back...BUT it comes at the expense of overall sharpness and effective DOF of the smaller sensors. It becomes even more obvious with a D-LUX 4, a tiny sensor is not a bad thing in many cases, just a different perspective on the shot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted October 9, 2009 Share #20 Posted October 9, 2009 Yes, you are correct on the 70%. But I always got crazy sharp files from the M8 handheld (in good light). I can get great sharpness from the M9 as well, but its just not as extreme as the M8's. In any case, the M9 will have no problem printing large. It's a fabulous camera and improved over the M8 no doubt. The little difference in sharpness will make no difference in anyones images and I mentioned it here only because others were noticing a difference in the M9 samples. I feel it is due to the more smoother files of the M9 along with the richer color. Steve Steve, I think the same for your successive comments. Some pictures of M8 seem to me better and sometimes I am unable to say what picture comes from M9 and which picture comes from M8. This by looking at pictures DNG I can post them here if you want, but I had tried M9 and my M8 several times and I have the same conclusion as to you! Please look at this thread: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/98684-m9-versus-m8-1-tests.html Best regards Henry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.