M9

[douglasf13]

Could be - the text on the website doesnt say.
A google translation of the site says



If they used a Canon and Nikon 50mm lens at F8 then they were Very, Very badly focused! I mean seriously.. if these are 100% crops from 1 DSMK3 and D3X with 50mm lens's at F8 then they are very poorly executed examples. I cant speak to the Sony as I have had no experience with it - but I have heaps of files from the 1DSMK3 with the 50mm F1.2L lens and they are WAY sharper than the blurry splotch they are trying to pass off.

I am not sure what 'Dcraw' is - but Adobe Camera RAW would have been my choice for a meaningful comparison

  Actually, ACR is probably among the worst converters to use for a comparison of any Kodak sensor, as it deals with sharp cut color filtration rather poorly (same with A900.)  As far as Dcraw, it was also not great for comparison, because, according to Iliah, "white balance and black point are wrong for M9, which puts it in an unfavorable position, including noise and colour. "

[KevinA]

Actually, ACR is probably among the worst converters to use for a comparison of any Kodak sensor, as it deals with sharp cut color filtration rather poorly (same with A900.)  As far as Dcraw, it was also not great for comparison, because, according to Iliah, "white balance and black point are wrong for M9, which puts it in an unfavorable position, including noise and colour. "

They could slap on the lens and shoot. My 1DsmkIII would turn in bad unsharp files if I did. As I know I have to microadjust everything by about +9, with a decent lens it produces sharp results. It had two trips to Canon to get to that state, plus one for a new shutter, but I can now produce biting sharp images. I think Canon now have some very good primes and Canon has lots of advantages over Leica. All things considered I would love a M9.

Kevin.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

If you check out the actual test you would see that they tested Canon, Nikon, Sony and the Leica. The Canon, Nikon and Sony images were almost identical and the M9 sharper. Some scaling was probably involved as the image sizes should differ a bit between Nikon and Leica.

My guess is that what we see is the absence of AA-filter which essentially means that we need more sharpening on DSLR trio. My polish is worse than my russian so I did not read the article just looked at the pictures.

Best regards
Erik

They could slap on the lens and shoot. My 1DsmkIII would turn in bad unsharp files if I did. As I know I have to microadjust everything by about +9, with a decent lens it produces sharp results. It had two trips to Canon to get to that state, plus one for a new shutter, but I can now produce biting sharp images. I think Canon now have some very good primes and Canon has lots of advantages over Leica. All things considered I would love a M9.

Kevin.

[knweiss]

I wonder why nobody complains about the missing automatic sensor cleaning? I just noticed that this is missing when I saw the sensor cleaning part of Michael's video and it took me by surprise because I consider this is a standard feature nowadays. Well, some will say that we can be happy that a full-frame M camera could be realized at all but I wouldn't want to buy a camera without it anymore. Thinking about it some more: The D3X also does not support automatic sensor cleaning. Well, I guess I'm happy that I have a 5D Mark II.

[eronald]

Hi,

If you check out the actual test you would see that they tested Canon, Nikon, Sony and the Leica. The Canon, Nikon and Sony images were almost identical and the M9 sharper. Some scaling was probably involved as the image sizes should differ a bit between Nikon and Leica.

My guess is that what we see is the absence of AA-filter which essentially means that we need more sharpening on DSLR trio. My polish is worse than my russian so I did not read the article just looked at the pictures.

Best regards
Erik

I own various SLRs and an M8. The Leica wides wipe the floor with anything else. And any current SLR wipes the floor with the Leica on general usability, as well as being more reliable.

I just did a test with my D3x and a $100 Nikon 50/1.8. When sharpened, it looks just about like the M9 on a similar crop posted on the Leica forum -

If you want the Leica close sharpness, wide wides, miniature size, and Leica handling - which are all totally great - get the Leica. If all you want is quickly shot usable images, and occasional telephoto shots, and a camera which always works out of the bag,  get a D700 or a D3x and enjoy the high ISO.

Edmund

[chex]

I wonder why nobody complains about the missing automatic sensor cleaning? I just noticed that this is missing when I saw the sensor cleaning part of Michael's video and it took me by surprise because I consider this is a standard feature nowadays. Well, some will say that we can be happy that a full-frame M camera could be realized at all but I wouldn't want to buy a camera without it anymore. Thinking about it some more: The D3X also does not support automatic sensor cleaning. Well, I guess I'm happy that I have a 5D Mark II.

That kind of sensor cleaning is unavoidable really, no matter what camera you have at some point you are going to have to clean the sensor manually. I don't see this as being a big issue on the M9 mostly because you'd use primarily prime lenses which in my experience practically stopped all my dirty sensor issues when i strated using them over my zooms.

[cjmonty]

Wow, look I am really glad that you are interested in testing the Leica, but a handheld shot in the camera store
is
not
a
test.

You've got a flimsily backed opinion at best.  

I did the same today (took a few shots with the M9 at a store) and also thought the file just looked ok.  But that doesnt tell me what it can or can't do compared to the other guys.  You need a controlled situation for that.

[MarkL]

That kind of sensor cleaning is unavoidable really, no matter what camera you have at some point you are going to have to clean the sensor manually. I don't see this as being a big issue on the M9 mostly because you'd use primarily prime lenses which in my experience practically stopped all my dirty sensor issues when i strated using them over my zooms.

I've always assumed more lens changes = more sensor dust

[John Camp]

I've always assumed more lens changes = more sensor dust

Not if you can only afford one Leica lens. 8-p

[250swb]

I've always assumed more lens changes = more sensor dust

I suppose all things being equal when dust gets in it can settle on the sensor or somewhere else with any camera. But if you are using a zoom lens the dust that settles away from the sensor can get pumped around the mirror box by the volume of air the zoom action shifts, giving it a second, third, forth, or more chances of landing on the sensor.

Steve

[photoshutter]

That kind of sensor cleaning is unavoidable really, no matter what camera you have at some point you are going to have to clean the sensor manually. I don't see this as being a big issue on the M9 mostly because you'd use primarily prime lenses which in my experience practically stopped all my dirty sensor issues when i strated using them over my zooms.

sensor cleaning work very well on my Rebel Xsi, one year with almost every day use and no dust, even one speck, M8 has dust almost after every shooting day

[achrisproduction]

Why would you think the image quality would be better?  All sensors are the same size and of good quality, so if quality lenses are used, all should be the same.

I had made 2 A2 prints before.  One with Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III + TS-E 24 f/3.5L and one with Leica M8 + M 35 f/1.4 ASPH Titanium.  Both print showed up in same details but 1Ds III has 21 M.P.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

A lot of stuff influences image quality:

- Focusing accuracy
- Camera vibration
- Diffraction
- Processing (with sharpening playing a major role)
- Optical Low Pass filter (also known as AA-filter)
- Lens sharpness

The difference in resolution may matter little, 18 to 21 MPixel it's about 8% more pixels along each axis

Best regards
Erik

I had made 2 A2 prints before.  One with Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III + TS-E 24 f/3.5L and one with Leica M8 + M 35 f/1.4 ASPH Titanium.  Both print showed up in same details but 1Ds III has 21 M.P.

[TMARK]

Hi,

A lot of stuff influences image quality:

- Focusing accuracy
- Camera vibration
- Diffraction
- Processing (with sharpening playing a major role)
- Optical Low Pass filter (also known as AA-filter)
- Lens sharpness

The difference in resolution may matter little, 18 to 21 MPixel it's about 8% more pixels along each axis

Best regards
Erik

The quote addressed the M8, not M9.  So its 10mpix v. 21mpix.

[achrisproduction]

The quote addressed the M8, not M9.  So its 10mpix v. 21mpix.

thanks.  

[250swb]

Hi,

A lot of stuff influences image quality:

- Focusing accuracy
- Camera vibration
- Diffraction
- Processing (with sharpening playing a major role)
- Optical Low Pass filter (also known as AA-filter)
- Lens sharpness

The difference in resolution may matter little, 18 to 21 MPixel it's about 8% more pixels along each axis

Best regards
Erik

I agree, but you can't compare the 1Ds MkIII (or whatever) and the M9 without comparing the quality of the photograph, not just the 'image quality'. So none of those parameters matter in either camera comparison if the camera can't get you the picture you want and which expresses the moment. If a DSLR breaks the mood by being a camera thats in the face of the people being photographed it doesn't matter what the camera can do in theory, because its not able to do it in practice because it distracts them. If on the other hand the M9 allows a free'er approach thats helps you blend into the background and find the photograph, it then hardly matters that the camera doesn't have IS or AF, a grainy shallow focus image will be a triumph in comparison to the DSLR. And likewise you wouldn't use the M9 for a sports camera where you need to be on the touchline with a 500mm lens would you?

So pixel peeping comparisons rarely coincide in real life with two wildly different cameras meant for different approaches to photography. Its pointless.

Steve