M9 first impressions...

[Daniel Leung]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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."

 

I used to own a M8 and M8.2. I agreed with you that the pictures of M9 seems darker. it also happens to me twice already that the M9 doesn't response at all after I turned it on and trying to take shots. I have to remove the base plate and battery, put it back and restart the camera and its back to normal then

 

DL

 

DL

[Daniel Leung]

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

 

thank you for bringing out that the M8 is sharper and M9 is smoother. I do have the exact same feeling. I have developed some pictures that I took the other night with the M9 and I will see how thee look other than with very yellowsih tone as the thread that I posted earlier. I notice the M9 images is softer than the M8 when viewing the picture with the computer. that is why I want to see the image in prints. will keep you guys posted

 

DL

[chris_tribble]

Thorsten - I note your comment here with interest.

 

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

 

Not sure if you've been following the discussion here.

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/101279-compressed-versus-uncompressed.html#post1070010

 

If not - I'd be interested to hear your comments. Our concern has been that under certain kinds of light images from the M9 (and the M8 for that matter) are either very yellow or (if manually white balanced - and I've been using a WhiBal grey card for years) then although the overall appearance is greatly improved, there's still an unacceptable yellow blotching across lighter areas of the image (this is to do with noise in the blue channel).

 

Hans has made some really useful comments on what might be going on here - but I think there's either a need for some form of firmware / profiling fix - or maybe there's an issue in certain kinds of artificial light that's down to the Kodak CCD sensor? I don't have this issue with Canon 5D2 - CMOS sensor...

 

As I say - this goes back a long time to the M8 as well, but is something that I've got hung up on when seeing what the limits of the new toy are - maybe unhelpful pixel peeping, but interesting if others are spotting a problem too.

 

Very interested to hear comments. I give below a shot of the problem space in our flat with a WhiBal in the image. You can download DNG from http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/862415/L1001219.dng

 

Really interested to hear your opinion...

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[carstenw]

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.

 

Steve, I don't have an M9 yet, but I am curious about this comment, and the possible reasons for it. Unlike a previous poster, I do think that comparing the M8 and M9 at the pixel level can be interesting, although of course not for final print reasons. Rather, they have the same pixel pitch, and the sensors are apparently strongly related, so one might expect the same look from 100% crops from the middle of the picture. If after doing this, the images have a different look, then of course I would like to know why.

 

The sensor cover is thicker, and has a stronger IR filter this time. I believe the thicknesses are 0.5mm and 0.8mm respectively. I wonder if this could be a reason.

[jonoslack]

Steve, I don't have an M9 yet, but I am curious about this comment, and the possible reasons for it. Unlike a previous poster, I do think that comparing the M8 and M9 at the pixel level can be interesting, although of course not for final print reasons. Rather, they have the same pixel pitch, and the sensors are apparently strongly related, so one might expect the same look from 100% crops from the middle of the picture. If after doing this, the images have a different look, then of course I would like to know why.

 

The sensor cover is thicker, and has a stronger IR filter this time. I believe the thicknesses are 0.5mm and 0.8mm respectively. I wonder if this could be a reason.

 

HI There Carsten

I think you're probably right that the thickness of the cover glass has an impact. I've noticed a difference as well in terms of 100% pixel peeping. I think Leica's explanation of why they chose .8 and not more rather bears this out.

 

Actually I've noticed three differences, one is a fraction of loss of sharpness, the other is a noticeable increase in colour subtlety comparing the M9 without a filter and the M8 with one. There is also less tendency for the red channel to blow out (even though neither lightroom nor Aperture quite have the profiles right yet).

 

Of course, in terms of detail on a print, the extra sensor size and more pixels will more than make up for the slight loss of sharpness (even without extra sharpening), but won't take away the increased colour subtlety.

[kidigital]

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."

 

Very good description, John. I shoot a lot of images wide-open, even during daylight because I like the look I can get with subject separation off of the background. It is certainly much easier shooting wide open with the M9 as I'm finding I get less blown highlights than when I was shooting with the M8 in similar situations.

[ArtZ]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

... - but I think there's either a need for some form of firmware / profiling fix - or maybe there's an issue in certain kinds of artificial light that's down to the Kodak CCD sensor? I don't have this issue with Canon 5D2 - CMOS sensor...

 

As I say - this goes back a long time to the M8 as well, but is something that I've got hung up on when seeing what the limits of the new toy are - maybe unhelpful pixel peeping, but interesting if others are spotting a problem too.

 

Really interested to hear your opinion...

 

Chris, as I said on the other thread Compressed versus Uncompressed, I believe this is a CCD issue.

 

I have posted here before these cropped images taken with my M8. These are severe cases of "blooming" that you won't see on CMOS sensors.

 

On the M8, the blue channel is very noisy (I suppose also in the M9) which produces the yellow blotching across lighter areas of the image at high ISO and low light conditions. I doubt this can be fixed with a color profile or, even with a new firmware version. Probably, Leica just needs a new anti-blooming gate/circuit providing better control of the blue channel.

 

IMHO, I suppose both phenomena are related.

 

 

@Chris Tribble: Please, change sample pictures because that bottle of "La Veuve Clicquot" makes me very thirsty...

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Overgaard]

Thorsten - I note your comment here with interest.

 

 

Not sure if you've been following the discussion here.

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/101279-compressed-versus-uncompressed.html#post1070010

 

If not - I'd be interested to hear your comments. Our concern has been that under certain kinds of light images from the M9 (and the M8 for that matter) are either very yellow or (if manually white balanced - and I've been using a WhiBal grey card for years) then although the overall appearance is greatly improved, there's still an unacceptable yellow blotching across lighter areas of the image (this is to do with noise in the blue channel).

 

Hans has made some really useful comments on what might be going on here - but I think there's either a need for some form of firmware / profiling fix - or maybe there's an issue in certain kinds of artificial light that's down to the Kodak CCD sensor? I don't have this issue with Canon 5D2 - CMOS sensor...

 

As I say - this goes back a long time to the M8 as well, but is something that I've got hung up on when seeing what the limits of the new toy are - maybe unhelpful pixel peeping, but interesting if others are spotting a problem too.

 

Very interested to hear comments. I give below a shot of the problem space in our flat with a WhiBal in the image. You can download DNG from http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/862415/L1001219.dng

 

Really interested to hear your opinion...

 

Wow, that's quite a photo to adjust.

 

First, the great thing with grey cards (or white paper) used to adjust white balance manually is that it (seem to) bypass whatever odd presettings a camera might have. It read the actual kelvin and adjust to daylight.

 

But the white balancing adjustment poses the same trouble as light metering: Where to measure. In your shot, if you were to meter the light, where would you do it. In the kitchen, the hallway or the living room. If the latter was chosen, the living room would be clear daylight and the kitchen would look like the entrance to heaven with glowing white light through the hallway.

You simply can't have the kitchen, hallway and living room perfectly well lit - because they aren't the same amount of light.

 

The same goes for using WhiBal or a piece of white paper. Where do you hold it so that the color temperature the camera "reads" from it is the right one. Should you hold it under the paper lamp with Tungsten, against the wall, or perhaps in the hallway so it was hit by both the natural light from the kitchen as well as the Tungsten light from the hallway. In any case you couldn't get even natural white light throughout the picture. Because for daylight film the kitchen will be natural and the hallways will be yellow-red. For a camera adjusted to Tungsten the hallway should look white and the kitchen will be bluish. And having taken the photo probably late in the afternoon the outdoor light will be colder than daylight, hence the difference even bigger in color temperature.

 

If one haven't used manual white balance with a grey card before taking it, it can be adjusted after the fact, in Lightroom. But then we still have the problem with the very mixed light temperatures.

But on top of that we have a sensor at 1600 ISO, taking a photo of scene with very little light. The sensors base ISO is 160 which mean that is what it can "see," and anything above that it has to imagine (using algorithms to amplify the information that is [not] there into how it might look).

Then, next step is Lightroom where the white balance adjustment has to to imagine (using algorithms to amplify the information that is [not] there into how it might look if the light temperature would have been different.

 

So all in all it's an impossible shot. See my take on it in Lightroom below

1. DNG file straight through Lightroom

2. white balance adjustment applied on the white closet in the kitchen

3. white balance adjustment applied on the white wall in the hallway (midway between the lamp and the painting.

4. white balancing adjustment applied to the kitchen closet, then adjusting colors in Lightroom:

Desaturating red -31, orange -50, yellow -25

Increasing luminance orange +25, yellow +15

Thats close to where I would leave it, except I would lighten it up 2/3 EV in exposure.

5. My final edition with adjustment to exposure, increased fill light, increased contrast, further increasing luminance of yellow.

 

So far so good. Next thing is the actual sensor and software in the M9. My view is that the presettings of the M9 needs adjustment to be usable. The reason I think so is that when I use greycard and manual white balance, I get colors very close to the right ones (i not actual right ones, including skin tones). But when I use the presettings, I get odd colors - usually too warm (yellow, orange, red) but at the same time some bluish as if someone had tried to cool it all down. It basically reminds me of mixed light (cold and warm in same picture).

 

But right now it is as it is, so I work with what is there and basically have no idea what the technical explanation is. I just conclude that manual white balance will make life easier and pictures better, and if I want to stay out of trouble, I don't go higher than 800 ISO. If I want it to be really smooth, I use 200 ISO.

 

I'm sure Leica Camera AG will provide some new firmware updates along the way that will help ISO and colors. I also know that RAW converters grow increasingly good (look at the last 3-4 years) wy I shoot uncompressed DNG so that when better RAW converters come about, I have the files.

 

If there is a strong blue in the files? Perhaps there is, but it's mostly in the forbidden zone (for me) above 800 ISO. I'm more concerned about the orange/red/yellow skin tones. But it is all things we can work around to get right. And if Leica helps, and if Adobe helps, it will end up being real nice files without much work.

 

I know it ca be real interesting to discuss the technical aspects. But for me, I look at the hallway photo ad then decide which mood I want to apply in it. I generally have a hard time with Tungsten and halogen light because i make things look dirty. Skin tones, blue eyes of beautiful women and children, bright white and sparkling clean walls suddenly start to look tired, old and dirty in Tungsten light, So that is the general problem I have with mixed light; that I prefer the bright and clean colors of daylight. So I often (avoid such pictures or) adjust so that the tungsten is daylight and the incoming blue light is bluish.

But in this hallway photo, the yellowish light may stay a bit yellow and warm. Is it the right mood is shows. It might be, and that would be the test (to me) if the photo is ok.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Overgaard]

Chris, as I said on the other thread Compressed versus Uncompressed, I believe this is a CCD issue.

 

I have posted here before these cropped images taken with my M8. These are severe cases of "blooming" that you won't see on CMOS sensors.

 

On the M8, the blue channel is very noisy (I suppose also in the M9) which produces the yellow blotching across lighter areas of the image at high ISO and low light conditions. I doubt this can be fixed with a color profile or, even with a new firmware version. Probably, Leica just needs a new anti-blooming gate/circuit providing better control of the blue channel.

 

IMHO, I suppose both phenomena are related.

 

 

@Chris Tribble: Please, change sample pictures because that bottle of "La Veuve Clicquot" makes me very thirsty...

 

New lens I would say ;-)

 

No, I don't know. Have a look at the blue fringing from my 21mm f/2.8 version I here leica.overgaard.dk - Thorsten Overgaard's Leica Pages - Leica 19m Elmarit-R f/2.8 version I and II sample photos

 

That is the lens, and I don't even think t's because of the angle how the light rays hit the sensor. I simply think it just didn't show on film, whereas tiny details really show on digital (and which have lead me to consider changing all my lenses to ASPH to avoid fringing and milky looking details).

 

I wonder which profile you used to which lens, how the original looked (exposure wise) and where those crops are from in the picture.

[odyocu]

Steve,

 

Thanks a lot for your observations.

This is exactly what I was expecting from the "thicker glass" and the "better" color filtering of the sensor unit.

 

That is; M9 may be capable of giving better and correct colors, even better film like apparance than the M8, while on the pixel basis, it not be as sharp. but then the advantage of 18/10 MP comes in, and for a given equal photo size (on the monitor or while printing) it may give better resolution than the M8. All that remains may be the advantages/disadvantages of using a given lens on FF format vs sweet spot. Since the pixel density is the same, M9 should be the winner, since m8 gives a cropped version of the same photo.

 

I think I'll buy the M9 eventually.

 

Best regards

 

Seyhun

 

 

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

[chris_tribble]

Thorsten - many thanks for comments - and I agree that this is a real torture test. As with any aspect of photography (exposure, WB, DOF etc.) the photographer / print maker has to accept compromises. As in the case above, the example where the WB is taken from a white surface in the kitchen gives the best result for the scene as a whole - and this is where I would select whichever camera I was working with. The problem is that when you make this adjustment, in comes the yellow noise patches.

 

First issue seems to be that the sensor as currently configured (must be through firmware - like you I don't know about the technical side - I'm just a photographer ) is prone to giving far too warm and interpretion of artificially lit scenes -- hence the unacceptable yellows that other posters have mentioned.

 

Second issue could be related to an exaggeration of the yellow patch effect at high ISOs - I'll try to work on this.

 

Looks like that for the moment with this kind of lighting, we're going to have to live with things as they are. I just hope that someone from Leica is following this discussion... Maybe I'll send an email there...

 

Best

[chris_tribble]

@Chris Tribble: Please, change sample pictures because that bottle of "La Veuve Clicquot" makes me very thirsty...

 

The widow was a present for my wife and has to wait a bit before we broach it... the Glenlivet is the one that leaves me feeling thirstier... But I promise to crop them out if this discussion continues...

[Mauribix]

Chris and Thorsten, I read without comments at the moment, but thank you for going that deep into an issue I've found with my M9 too.

My concerns for the "yellowish" tones is there, as well as the comment made by Steve, affirming that the M8's files are a bit "sharper" than the M9's.

Anyway, for what that concerns the yellowish cast, I found C1 to be still the best raw developer for the M9 (waiting for a new LR release), and the yellowish cast is better controlled with it.

Did you find the same?

[Shootist]

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.

 

 

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

 

Could this have anything to do with a slightly stronger AA filter incorperated in the seensor cover glass along with the IR cut/blocking filter?

 

Or as other have stated just the extra thickness of the cover glass.

[Mauribix]

Could this have anything to do with a slightly stronger AA filter incorperated in the seensor cover glass along with the IR cut/blocking filter?

 

Or as other have stated just the extra thickness of the cover glass.

 

I was thinking about the AA/IR filter too.

[ArtZ]

New lens I would say ;-)

 

No, I don't know. Have a look at the blue fringing from my 21mm f/2.8 version I here leica.overgaard.dk - Thorsten Overgaard's Leica Pages - Leica 19m Elmarit-R f/2.8 version I and II sample photos

 

That is the lens, and I don't even think t's because of the angle how the light rays hit the sensor. I simply think it just didn't show on film, whereas tiny details really show on digital (and which have lead me to consider changing all my lenses to ASPH to avoid fringing and milky looking details).

 

I wonder which profile you used to which lens, how the original looked (exposure wise) and where those crops are from in the picture.

 

Thorsten,

 

Actually, each picture was taken with different lenses. The first one was taken with a Leica Summilux 50 Asph (I know, it's completely out of focus...) and the second one with a CV Nokton 35/1.2. (you can check it on the EXIF data). I probably still have other pictures taken with different lenses and my other M8 presenting the same issue.

 

I don't think this is chromatic aberration due to the lens but due to blooming. It's a well known phenomenon with CCD sensors: CCD vs. CMOS

 

I'm not an expert on CCD and/or CMOS sensors, though this effect can be easily observed in TV cameras, consummer photo/video cameras with CCD sensors and other CCD devices. Anti-blooming on CCD sensors requires specific engineering.

 

Chris, be careful with the Glenlivet

[ArtZ]

...No, I don't know. Have a look at the blue fringing from my 21mm f/2.8 version I here leica.overgaard.dk - Thorsten Overgaard's Leica Pages - Leica 19m Elmarit-R f/2.8 version I and II sample photos...

 

Thorsen,

 

Kelly Preston is not John Travolta's wife? Was she there also for the Scientology Church?

[chris_tribble]

Chris and Thorsten, I read without comments at the moment, but thank you for going that deep into an issue I've found with my M9 too.

My concerns for the "yellowish" tones is there, as well as the comment made by Steve, affirming that the M8's files are a bit "sharper" than the M9's.

Anyway, for what that concerns the yellowish cast, I found C1 to be still the best raw developer for the M9 (waiting for a new LR release), and the yellowish cast is better controlled with it.

Did you find the same?

 

re the Yellow issue - I don't think it's to do with IR filtration anyway (phew!) Two shots below - one with an IR filter on, the other without. The final shot shows the scene white balanced against the WhiBal card - again - extreme blues in the non electrically lit area + yellow cast in the shadows (noise not an issue though at 400).

 

BTW - interested to see how well the 21 holds up vignetting wise with an IR filter on...

[Guest EarlBurrellPhoto]

Let's be honest, we know if we look hard enough we're bound to find the IQ compromises in the M9. Leica was under tremendous pressure from people with a psychological aversion to any crop factor (and all their intricate maths and mumbojumbo arguments to "support" their position) to come out with a "full" frame ASAP. Remember in March at PMA according to Leica's spokespersons, due to shortcomings of current technology, it was still "impossible"...luckily, brand-new cutting-edge technology just happened to break through and Leica created the M8 in five months! Alright, we know that was BS...but seriously, I think we should all quit pixelpicking (the digital equivalent of nitpicking) and thank Leica profusely for not putting another half-done prototype on the market. Sure the M10 will probably have much-improved high-ISO noise, and not need IR filters even sometimes, and may even have more sharpness than the M8, but for those who don't want to wait a year or even two, the M9 gives us that holy grail of "full" frame with an amazingly little amount of compromise. Kudos to Leica, that's all I can say.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[stevem7]

Let's be honest, we know if we look hard enough we're bound to find the IQ compromises in the M9. Leica was under tremendous pressure from people with a psychological aversion to any crop factor (and all their intricate maths and mumbojumbo arguments to "support" their position) to come out with a "full" frame ASAP. Remember in March at PMA according to Leica's spokespersons, due to shortcomings of current technology, it was still "impossible"...luckily, brand-new cutting-edge technology just happened to break through and Leica created the M8 in five months! Alright, we know that was BS...but seriously, I think we should all quit pixelpicking (the digital equivalent of nitpicking) and thank Leica profusely for not putting another half-done prototype on the market. Sure the M10 will probably have much-improved high-ISO noise, and not need IR filters even sometimes, and may even have more sharpness than the M8, but for those who don't want to wait a year or even two, the M9 gives us that holy grail of "full" frame with an amazingly little amount of compromise. Kudos to Leica, that's all I can say.

 

I agree 100%. I love this M9 and I really do not care that it is not as bitingly sharp as the M8. It is still sharp, and gives us better DR, color, FF, better high ISO and a few other goodies. Leica has a winner here no doubt.

 

BTW, I started my Leica M9 diary page last night here:

 

MY ONGOING LEICA M9 DIARY - OCTOBER 2009

 

I will be updating it daily with new images, findings and other cool stuff on the M9. Hopefully it will help some of you guys who are waiting for one to pass the time.