delander † Posted October 10, 2009 Author Share #21 Posted October 10, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Which color is the right color, the M9 or M8? M8 is much nearer. But in the M9 shot there was an area of pure white wall which was cropped out by the M8. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 10, 2009 Posted October 10, 2009 Hi delander †, Take a look here M9 v M8 sharpness. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Doc Henry Posted October 10, 2009 Share #22 Posted October 10, 2009 As I read some comments about the sharpness of the M9 versus the M8, I thought I would do a simple test - as you do.To me in terms of sharpness they look the same. Jeff Jeff, I agree with you http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/98684-m9-versus-m8-1-tests.html i can post here another pictures if you want ! Regards Henry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJones Posted October 10, 2009 Share #23 Posted October 10, 2009 Jeff,I agree with you http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/98684-m9-versus-m8-1-tests.html i can post here another pictures if you want ! Regards Henry just saw this thread http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/98684-m9-versus-m8-1-tests.html perfect - this is exactly what I was looking for. Thanks for posting!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted October 10, 2009 Share #24 Posted October 10, 2009 Which color is the right color, the M9 or M8? The M9 is the steel-grey one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 10, 2009 Share #25 Posted October 10, 2009 So it's really just for with the set of lenses I have and how much is it worth to me to switch given the cost of M9. So there's a concrete question to look at. I suggest you start by using your existing lenses on the M9 before selling anything. See how things shake out in practice and then maybe start shifting lenses as needed. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted October 10, 2009 Share #26 Posted October 10, 2009 Jeff-- One other recommendation about the color difference: Set both cameras manually to the same exposure instead of leaving them on Auto. (To me it looks as if the M9 image didn't get as much exposure as the M8 shot; that would follow from the white patch you mention missed by the M8.) Because the M9 sensor uses different filters, there will probably still be situations where the two show slight color variations. You've already done fine in setting both to Daylight WB. Use of a WhiBal card would allow post-correction, but here you're more interested in how the cameras behave up front. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander † Posted October 10, 2009 Author Share #27 Posted October 10, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Jeff--One other recommendation about the color difference: Set both cameras manually to the same exposure instead of leaving them on Auto. (To me it looks as if the M9 image didn't get as much exposure as the M8 shot; that would follow from the white patch you mention missed by the M8.) Because the M9 sensor uses different filters, there will probably still be situations where the two show slight color variations. You've already done fine in setting both to Daylight WB. Use of a WhiBal card would allow post-correction, but here you're more interested in how the cameras behave up front. As it happens they both were shot at 1/125 at f5.6 on auto. I have since adjusted the colours to match quite closely and I'm not worried about the colour difference which I feel is due to the portion of white wall included in the M9 shot but not the M8. With regard to the brightness of the images I normally use -2/3 comp on my M8, this time I decided on a level playing field. This was intended as a test of the sharpness of the sensor assembly and I think it shows that the two sensors have the same sharpness in the centre - whatever that means. As we move away from the centre, well that is up to Sean Reid et al to determine. The conditions here are good for a sharpness test, water droplets on the surface coupled with a very easy picture for a rangefinder to focus on. If I was to do this again, I would do what Sean Reid suggested and bracket focus over a number of exposures instead of just having three goes and choosing the best. Anyway I'm pretty happy that the intrinsic sharpness of the M9 is the same as the M8. For me that means that I can take a photo with my 75/M9 and have a similar image to a 50/M8 but with 18Mp instead of 10Mp. Now to actually take some more interesting photos than the back of a wet car! Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 10, 2009 Share #28 Posted October 10, 2009 Now to actually take some more interesting photos than the back of a wet car! Jeff Actually, as resolution test subjects go it was a nice change of pace. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJones Posted October 10, 2009 Share #29 Posted October 10, 2009 So there's a concrete question to look at. I suggest you start by using your existing lenses on the M9 before selling anything. See how things shake out in practice and then maybe start shifting lenses as needed. Cheers, Sean yes. definitely no selling things off the bat. Hopefully I can rent one even for a day. I'll know. It'll be migration process but a fun one Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thompsonkirk Posted October 10, 2009 Share #30 Posted October 10, 2009 These aren't really right or wrong colors. As someone mentioned above, you could deal with most of the difference in color by including a WB reference in the frame & using an Eyedropper tool for middle gray. Beyond WB differences, you'll see mostly the differences in RAW converter profiles. The 'right' color would be what you got if you profiled each of your lenses separately with the LR/ACR calibratiion function, A Macbeth color chart, & 2 sets of lights (Tung & Day). Hi, Delander: I didn't mean to say you were just a web photographer! I meant only that the display of the images on the web couldn't prove what differences you'd see in a 'real' print. In medium & large prints the difference between M8 & M9 would probably be visible less resolution than in smoothness of tonal transitions. Kirk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander † Posted October 10, 2009 Author Share #31 Posted October 10, 2009 Hi, Delander: I didn't mean to say you were just a web photographer! I meant only that the display of the images on the web couldn't prove what differences you'd see in a 'real' print. In medium & large prints the difference between M8 & M9 would probably be visible less resolution than in smoothness of tonal transitions. Kirk No worries Kirk. What I did do here was to use as low a jpg compression in PS that would get me under the 240Kb file size limit. That was compression level 11, just one down from the best. I wanted to show the result with as little influence as poss from jpg comprerssion. I'm pretty happy with the prints I get from the M8, I do expect the M9 to be better particualarly for a discerning eye. I'm pleased that Leica went for FF and more Mp in the M9, exactly the right decision. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted October 10, 2009 Share #32 Posted October 10, 2009 What you've proved for sure is that nobody who photographs primarily for web posting (72 ppi) has any need for an M9. Hard to be sure at this resolution, but it looks to me like the M9 is offering smoother tonal transitions that will make a significant difference in medium-sized (A3) & larger prints. Kirk Imho, this is the point about M8/9 comparision: on web pics, I have not yet seen examples that make me think that M9 gives a leap; and I am in trouble... my M8 works fine, and for my needs I will never go beyond A3 (except for panos... I just made printed an excellent pano from 4 Summarit 75/M8 frames - 1 meter wide) : so I'm not so confident that buying the M9 I definitely will gain something... as a declared Leicaphile, my obvious thought would be "someday, I'll bring it" ... but that day is becoming uncertain in my mind... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander † Posted October 10, 2009 Author Share #33 Posted October 10, 2009 Basically Luigi the M9 'decrops' if that is a word, the M8 image and does away with the need for external filters. It gives you more Mp to play with if you use appropriate lenses. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted October 10, 2009 Share #34 Posted October 10, 2009 Basically Luigi the M9 'decrops' if that is a word, the M8 image and does away with the need for external filters. It gives you more Mp to play with if you use appropriate lenses. Jeff Uhm.. yes yes... right... sometime I think that I want a M9 just to enjoy my 21 asph as "a real 21"... ; but sometime I also think that could achieve something similar saving a lot of money, with the new CV 15 in M mount... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulrikft Posted October 11, 2009 Share #35 Posted October 11, 2009 I understand what you're after but you might find the testing to be a nightmare because there are so many variables involved. Ultimately, what is it that you want want to know from the testing? With respect to the pictures you want to make with the M9, what aspect in all this concerns you most? Cheers, Sean A different lens/resize-test will, imo, be far more "realistic" than the typical 100% crop without resizing that many do. I can't imagine any real life comparisons for that kind of comparisons, besides checking how much larger you can print the files from one camera, or you constantly and consequently frame wider on the M9.. but that is me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted October 11, 2009 Share #36 Posted October 11, 2009 A different lens/resize-test will, imo, be far more "realistic" than the typical 100% crop without resizing that many do. You've made this point many times and I don't think many actually disagree. I do still think there is some value in making a direct 'crop' comparison and it is interesting to see if there is any apparent difference in sharpness out of the camera. I'm not sure Jeff's crops are actually that useful in judging sharpness because the 'low detail' subject matter makes such comparison difficult and rather moot. I'd be interested to see somebody wearing some tightly woven fabric taken with a lens like the 50/F1.4 ASPH at F5.6 or thereabouts. I find that lens so sharp around F5.6 on the M8 that I often get moire in very fine patterned detail. I'd be interested to see how the M9 copes in that scenario. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 11, 2009 Share #37 Posted October 11, 2009 A 100% crop is simply looking at one part of the file itself without resizing. It is the file at its native size - a JPEG version (hopefully very lightly compressed) of what was made by the camera. Of course many of us would love to compare prints but that doesn't work for a group of photographers who are spread all over the world. We simply are not all in one physical place and we would need to be in order to compare prints. And even if we were comparing prints, there are a lot of variables we would need to keep in mind - which printer? which paper? what ink? what size? what ppi setting? A print is at least one generation further removed from what comes out of the camera. The print is the digital file's final destination (for many of us) but it is not the file itself or even a crop of it. A crop of a file seen at native size *is* part of the file itself and experienced photographers can actually tell a lot from looking at 100% crops. Much is often made of the (roughly) 72 ppi resolution of monitors. But it is important to understand that all this does is to spread a given number of pixels across a broader area - there's no reduction of information (simply from viewing at that res.) but instead a different distribution of it. PPI is of course pixels per inch. (DPI refers to dots per inch and is a print measure - there of course are no ink dots on a monitor). A print made from a file sized to 240 ppi, for example, is simply spreading the same visual information (in the printing source file) across a smaller area. In many respects, a print is more forgiving than a view (full or cropped) of the actual digital file on screen. Noise is less obvious in the print and some differences in resolution are lost as the ink absorbs into the paper (spreading a bit as it does that). The idea that looking at a file at 100% size on screen is not useful is, in my view, mistaken. Such a view simply shows us a piece of the actual file itself - the source for all kinds of potential prints, etc. I think the important thing is to understand the 100% crop in context - it will often reveal differences that are hidden in a print, especially if one is using a very high quality monitor. And the print, which we see through light reflection, is very different from the monitor image, which we see through light transmission. But with practice one learns how to relate the latter to the former. So unless we're all going to start traveling to a given location to look at prints together, I think the most useful thing is that we consider 100% crops in context. And the more one prints, the better he or she gets at understanding how the look of the digital file itself will relate to the look of a given print. As far as resizing files to match their pixel dimensions, etc. - that can be useful if we want to compare two files at the size at which we would send them to the printer. So it makes sense sometimes, for example, when comparing the noise in a 21 MP file to that in a 12 MP file. And, for that reason, myself and other have been doing this for certain reviews, presentation of information in threads, etc. For better or worse, the monitor (hopefully a very good one) is the medium we (as a group of photographers who communicate over the web) have in common as a way of sharing information in pictures. We can write about our impressions of prints but the monitor is where we "see" (to the extent possible) what another is talking about. That being the case, I think the task is to find out how best to use that medium of the monitor *and* how to relate that information to the specific kinds of prints we (individually) are making. Ansel Adams (who was a great printer - one's feeling about his work itself being beside the point) often wrote that the negative is the score and the print is the performance. For digital work we might think of the RAW file as the negative, the JPEG or TIFF as an intermediary, and the print as the performance. We can't actually look at RAW files so the best we can do is to look at the intermediary. We can't normally fit a large digital file on our screens all once so we often look at it in sections. Can a skilled musician tell a lot about a composition from the score? I would say yes. Can experienced photographers and printers tell a lot about a picture from seeing the actual intermediary file (as a JPEG, TIFF, etc.) - I would again say yes. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 11, 2009 Share #38 Posted October 11, 2009 Agreed, a 100% crop is self explanatory. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 11, 2009 Share #39 Posted October 11, 2009 Agreed, a 100% crop is self explanatory. It should be. But, strangely enough, people often discuss it as a magnification of the file - puzzling. Cheers LCT, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted October 11, 2009 Share #40 Posted October 11, 2009 just saw this thread http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/98684-m9-versus-m8-1-tests.htmlperfect - this is exactly what I was looking for. Thanks for posting!! Hi MJones, It is normal and thanks for your message. I wanted to know if M8 would be less good than M9. According to me, this is not the case. But i nevertheless ordered M9 ...to follow Kind 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.