Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: M9  (Read 34797 times)
woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


M9
« Reply #20 on: August 24, 2009, 10:15:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
I probably wasn't clear enough. My point is that there will be no practical image quality difference between 10 and 18MP considering all the things that will typically go wrong with focusing.

Cheers,
Bernard

Come on Bernard, if you want a 20 by 30 inch print 10 mp isn't going to be as good as 18mp (all things being equal)
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7523



WWW
M9
« Reply #21 on: August 24, 2009, 10:26:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: woof75
Come on Bernard, if you want a 20 by 30 inch print 10 mp isn't going to be as good as 18mp (all things being equal)

Sure... if everything is done perfectly, which will never be the case with a manually focused rangerfinder camera.

Anyway, enough said, spend your money on a M9 if you think there is value to be found.  

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


M9
« Reply #22 on: August 24, 2009, 10:59:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
Sure... if everything is done perfectly, which will never be the case with a manually focused rangerfinder camera.

Anyway, enough said, spend your money on a M9 if you think there is value to be found.  

Cheers,
Bernard

No, I'm saying if all is done equally badly or equally well.
Logged
Christopher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 944


WWW
M9
« Reply #23 on: August 24, 2009, 04:05:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
Sure... if everything is done perfectly, which will never be the case with a manually focused rangerfinder camera.

Anyway, enough said, spend your money on a M9 if you think there is value to be found.  

Cheers,
Bernard


I'm pretty sure, that a 18Mp FF M9 used for landscape work would blow a 1DsMk3 or d3x right out of the water in terms of final image quality. Sure when working with app. between 1.2 and 5.6 Liveview is helpful, but I never missed it before when doing landscape work. Can I proof that ? No, not until Leica actually sells a M9 ^^
Logged

mas55101
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 77


M9
« Reply #24 on: August 24, 2009, 04:17:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Christopher
I'm pretty sure, that a 18Mp FF M9 used for landscape work would blow a 1DsMk3 or d3x right out of the water in terms of final image quality. Sure when working with app. between 1.2 and 5.6 Liveview is helpful, but I never missed it before when doing landscape work. Can I proof that ? No, not until Leica actually sells a M9 ^^

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.
Logged
woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


M9
« Reply #25 on: August 24, 2009, 04:48:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: mas55101
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.
CCD, no anti alias filter, better lenses.
Logged
Jeremy Payne
Guest
M9
« Reply #26 on: August 24, 2009, 04:51:33 PM »
ReplyReply

This is my favorite part ... when people start arguing about how well a non-existent camera will perform ...
Logged
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2907

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
M9
« Reply #27 on: August 24, 2009, 06:07:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: mas55101
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.

Leica voodoo.
Logged

mas55101
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 77


M9
« Reply #28 on: August 24, 2009, 06:16:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Jeremy Payne
This is my favorite part ... when people start arguing about how well a non-existent camera will perform ...
If I had a dog, he could beat up your dog, if they were the same size, or maybe the same weight.  What about length of teeth?

BTW, the upcoming 9/9/09 M9 announcement was tentatively announced on the leica forum a couple days ago.  My only point in posting this was that for those of us waiting for a digital version of the "Texas Leica," this might just be it.  Didn't mean to start an argument about historic versus current technology or how to count pixels.

M
Logged
pschefz
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 244


M9
« Reply #29 on: August 24, 2009, 06:51:01 PM »
ReplyReply

the m8 files at 160 and 320 have almost the detail of 22mpix canons...not quite, but pretty close....and since we are talking ccd detail, a FF 18mpix m9 (ccd) would easily top the canons and nikons in terms of resolution....
leica had a hell of a time fitting a smaller chip and it tok them years to really resolve the whole color shift issue....i just don't see how they can fit it in now....i  would not mind the camera being thicker but the leica freaks were complaining about the m8....making the body as slim as possible AND fitting the sensor AND working out the color issues (with the light hitting the sensor at these extreme angles) seems a lot to ask....

unlike the S2, this one i would be in line for...recession or not.....

also: leica is opening stores now? the first one is in palm beach...i heard they had one in moscow...but here as well? i guess things are going well!
Logged

schefz.com
artloch.com
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7523



WWW
M9
« Reply #30 on: August 24, 2009, 07:40:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: woof75
No, I'm saying if all is done equally badly or equally well.

You might have oustanding vision and a remarkable ability to focus accurately and quickly with a manual lens, but then your abilities are IMHO far above average.

Having compared pretty extensively hand held/manual focused images shot with a D3 and D3x (about the same pixel count ratio), I don't see how that could be true in average. Sure, the M9 would deliver better images now and then when the focus has been hit perfectly by chance in bright daylight conditions at low ISO, but not in a repetitive fashion. There are in fact rare cases when I managed to focus with perfect accuracy the D3 itself with MF... Thom Hogan has written pretty extensively about this, and his view is that getting the max out of a D3 even with a tripod is already pretty challenging for many shooters.

Anyway, let's stop this here, I might be wrong and that would be good news for all the M series users.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
parasko
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 22


M9
« Reply #31 on: August 24, 2009, 07:47:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Christopher
I'm pretty sure, that a 18Mp FF M9 used for landscape work would blow a 1DsMk3 or d3x right out of the water in terms of final image quality.

...again...why you would use a Leica M system for landscape work is beyond me....personally, I'd be carrying a light tripod/dslr/tilt&shift lenses....
...but to create quite large prints of street scenes with a camera as small as an M (instead of using a Mamiya 7 for example, which is too big for this type of work-YMMV), would be terrific!

...choose the right tool for the job!...if that tool ever exists!
« Last Edit: August 24, 2009, 07:50:44 PM by parasko » Logged
mas55101
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 77


M9
« Reply #32 on: August 24, 2009, 08:11:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: pschefz
the m8 files at 160 and 320 have almost the detail of 22mpix canons...not quite, but pretty close....and since we are talking ccd detail, a FF 18mpix m9 (ccd) would easily top the canons and nikons in terms of resolution....
leica had a hell of a time fitting a smaller chip and it tok them years to really resolve the whole color shift issue....i just don't see how they can fit it in now....i  would not mind the camera being thicker but the leica freaks were complaining about the m8....making the body as slim as possible AND fitting the sensor AND working out the color issues (with the light hitting the sensor at these extreme angles) seems a lot to ask....

unlike the S2, this one i would be in line for...recession or not.....

also: leica is opening stores now? the first one is in palm beach...i heard they had one in moscow...but here as well? i guess things are going well!
Someone did a refit with an M8 shell and a piece of glass, the size of a 24x36 sensor, and showed that the camera would indeed have to be a tad thicker.  So, the Mamiya 7 is a bit bigger than an M, too.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5071


M9
« Reply #33 on: August 24, 2009, 09:08:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: John Camp
But there are two reasons why 18mp would make sense: (1) it would not threaten to cannibalize Leica's own 39mp and *extremely* expensive S2 (as a 24mp CCD with M glass might do); and (2) the whole raison d' etre of M is street shooting, in which high ISO capability is prized...imagine an M CCD with the the ISO response of a D3 and 18mp...
On 1, the idea that a company would try to help one product by holding down the performance of another makes no sense in a competitive market place: if a company can make a product that takes sales from another of its products but abstains, other companies will take those sales instead by not hobbling their competing products, so the company will be even worse off. Leica has to give such a camera the best sensor it can get hold of.

On 2, you do exactly what I warned against: rehashing the misguided dogma that having slightly fewer, slightly bigger pixels on the same sensor size will give better image quality at high ISO speeds when judged sanely, by looking at equal sized prints. Anyway, if Leica stays with Kodak Full Frame type CCD's, it will not be in the hunt for high ISO performance against today's best CMOS (or MOS) sensors. It would do better to showcase the quality of its lenses by offering high sensor resolution.

P. S. Bernard's comment on 18MP being more than one can likely make much use of in hand-held rangerfinder style photography makes me think that this "street photography" will naturally move to new, smaller formats with more moderate resolutions, say 10 or 12 MP, just as Leica moved photography to the new, smaller 35mm format long ago. But Leica has lens investments to protect ...
« Last Edit: August 24, 2009, 09:18:34 PM by BJL » Logged
georgl
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


M9
« Reply #34 on: August 25, 2009, 03:05:34 AM »
ReplyReply

"I probably wasn't clear enough. My point is that there will be no practical image quality difference between 10 and 18MP considering all the things that will typically go wrong with focusing."

When they stay with the 6,8m-pixel-pitch (18MP FF) focusing won't be more demanding than with the M8.

The M-rangefinders are manual cameras, which makes focusing on moving objects very difficult but careful focusing is actually quite easy when you get used to it. The M focus accuracy also doesn't depend on focal length (unlike any AF/MF-SLR) - it's about as precise as a SLR with focal lengthes below 90mm (given the standard viewfinder magnification) but actually more precise with the the normal & WA-lenses.

I don't think there are many camera-systems available with higher per-pixel-quality than the M8+M-lenses, and a FF would increase sensor-size by 80% and bring us a mre sophisticated sensor-architecture (the one from the M8 was introduced in 2004).

Handheld, 50Asph and I could even focus these objects (seeing that they still weren't infinity):
[attachment=16217:L9997861.jpg][attachment=16218:L9997861_3.jpg]
Logged
KevinA
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 883


WWW
M9
« Reply #35 on: August 25, 2009, 03:10:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: mas55101
Finally, it looks like the  digital equivalent  to rangefinder medium format is coming Sept 9th.  A 35mm 18MB M9.  It should resolve at least as well as a 645.  Would anyone care to stretch that to 6x7?

Oh come come, on the release of "M8" there were  claims of 5x4 quality, a FF M9 must be pushing those 10x8 users, we can only guess at the "S" results,, 11x14 maybe even 20x24! all in camera you can hold in one hand.

Kevin.
Logged

Kevin.
MarkL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 329


M9
« Reply #36 on: August 25, 2009, 06:10:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: KevinA
Oh come come, on the release of "M8" there were  claims of 5x4 quality, a FF M9 must be pushing those 10x8 users, we can only guess at the "S" results,, 11x14 maybe even 20x24! all in camera you can hold in one hand.

Kevin.

The more expensive the camera, the greater the hyperbole on the internet as people try to justify their purchases.
Logged
MarkL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 329


M9
« Reply #37 on: August 25, 2009, 06:12:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Jeremy Payne
This is my favorite part ... when people start arguing about how well a non-existent camera will perform ...

Closely followed by not citing a source for the information on the non-existent camera
Logged
woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


M9
« Reply #38 on: August 25, 2009, 09:16:58 AM »
ReplyReply

There's certainly the possibility that it could be a rather nice camera for someone like me who prefers the look of a phase back to a cmos based dslr. Whether it will pan out we will see but it's very interesting to me as I love the look I get from my P21 but I hate hate hate the weight and ergonomics of it all. (and also I always shoot equivalent of a 28mm lens which I also hate Mamiya's offering).
Logged
Dan Wells
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 329


WWW
M9
« Reply #39 on: August 25, 2009, 11:43:41 AM »
ReplyReply

If the image quality were D3x standard (or above), it could be a very interesting alternative for certain uses - it would not be hard to put a live view focus feature in as a complement to the rangefinder (exactly as the D3x has 51 point AF PLUS live view focus) - my question is whether Leica will be too conservative to do that? A small, light camera with superb glass that printed 24x36 inches would have its appeal (it could also use a lighter tripod than a big DSLR, and have no mirror slap). It would actually be more of a replacement for "Texas Leicas" than for earlier M cameras, because it would, as Bernard points out, require more careful focusing than a film Leica, BUT it would have image quality that would have required 6x7 cm from a film camera (exactly what a Mamiya RF gave). If someone (probably not Leica) got really creative, it would even be possible to construct a rangefinder/ live view camera that had a tilt/shift sensor! Of course you'd have to use the live view to see the effect of movements, but no mirror opens that possibility.

                              -Dan
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad