Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: M9  (Read 36539 times)
Dan Wells
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 355


WWW
M9
« Reply #80 on: September 09, 2009, 04:24:10 PM »
ReplyReply

The D3x sensor is not quite the A900 sensor - they are clearly related, but the D3x sensor is modified for 14-bit readout and has a different (presumably more expensive) filter pack on it (better AA filter, possibly other modifications), at a minimum. Any D3x shooter will tell you that it has a depth, created by exceptional dynamic range, that NO other DSLR can match (which is borne out by various tests). The Alphas are close, and offer exceptional value, but the D3x has a few tweaks to it that nobody has yet matched! It'll be interesting to see if Sony matches or exceeds it in the proposed "Alpha 950".

                                        -Dan
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8246



WWW
M9
« Reply #81 on: September 09, 2009, 04:33:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: teddillard
I just got done processing some shots from the M9, shot today, by me, at ISO 800.  Whoever makes the sensor, and whoever is building the processing, it doesn't matter.  I find the files unacceptable.  If you want to see them, screen shots at 100% are here.

That's indeed disapointing for ISO800, but was that from a production camera?

Besides, the image seems to be a good deal under-exposed in pretty challenging light.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

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

Posts: 5164


M9
« Reply #82 on: September 09, 2009, 04:36:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Slough
"but you are overlooking the less expensive models "
No. I said "I think the current cameras use basically the D300 sensor " which means the D300, the D90 and the D5000 and maybe others, I lose track
But the D40, D60 and D3000 do not use the D300's CMOS; they use CCDs, and they already account for a large proportion of Nikon DSLR sales.
Quote from: Slough
Otherwise your information is incorrect, and without sources.
An interesting accusation, since you provide no sources for your claims, and one has already been sown to be inaccurate above.

Quote from: Slough
The D3x sensor is manufactured by Sony, but results from a collaboration between Nikon and Sony.

The D300 and many other cameras (which you list) use a sensor manufactured by Sony, and designed by Sony and Nikon. That is well known
I have not read anything about any Nikon input to those sensors. Descriptions of the A900 and A700 say the sensors are Sony 'Exmor', and nothing I have read suggests any Nikon input, though it might be there. I mentioned possible Nikon input to the 12MP Sony Exmor sensor of thr A700, D300, etc. but perhaps should have mentioned the same possibility for the 24MP Sony Exmor sensor of the D3X. But the only Nikon input I have read about is with the earlier CCD sensors.

Quote from: Slough
Earlier professional Nikon digital cameras used Nikon designs.
I mentioned the D2H: what other early models are you referring too?  Sony was at least the principal creator of the D1, D1H and D1X sensors as far as I know (can you quote sources to th contrsary) and before that, it was Kodak CCDs. Anyway my original comment was about CURRENT Nikon models, so we are wandering off-topic a bit.

Quote from: Slough
I have no idea what each partner contributes, although Sony does the fabrication. The fact that Sony do not supply anyone else surely tells us a lot.
Which sensors are you talking about? The 6MP sensor of the D40 has been used by Pentax and Konica-Minolta; the 10MP CCD of the D60, D3000 etc. is also used by Pentax; the 12MP CMOS of the D300 etc. is probably now used in the new Leica X1. The only recent sensors used exclusively by Nikon or only Nikon+Sony are the two 24x36mm ones, for the D3, D700, D3X, etc. and who else would use them? Canon is the only other maker of DSLRs in that format!

Quote from: Slough
Regarding the idea that it is best to outsource design, the truth is that if you can design in house, you have more freedom, rather than having to rely on others. It means that you can invest on the long term and innovate based on your own needs. You don't have to wait until a third party produces something.
Agreed that there are advantages to in-house design, and it *sometimes* the best route. But my point is that it is not always the best way to proceed, as illustrated by the fact that Canon and Nikon do not always do it that way. The advantages of in-house design must be weighed (case by case?) against the cost advantages of sharing sensor designs with other camera makers.

And as we have been discussing, there is middle way: design collaboration with an experienced sensor design partner, like Nikon with Sony, Olympus with Panasonic, Pentax with Samsung, and maybe Leica with Kodak.

Logged
Slough
Guest
M9
« Reply #83 on: September 09, 2009, 05:21:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BJL
But the D40, D60 and D3000 do not use the D300's CMOS; they use CCDs, and they already account for a large proportion of Nikon DSLR sales.

An interesting accusation, since you provide no sources for your claims, and one has already been sown to be inaccurate above.


I have not read anything about any Nikon input to those sensors. Descriptions of the A900 and A700 say the sensors are Sony 'Exmor', and nothing I have read suggests any Nikon input, though it might be there. I mentioned possible Nikon input to the 12MP Sony Exmor sensor of thr A700, D300, etc. but perhaps should have mentioned the same possibility for the 24MP Sony Exmor sensor of the D3X. But the only Nikon input I have read about is with the earlier CCD sensors.


I mentioned the D2H: what other early models are you referring too?  Sony was at least the principal creator of the D1, D1H and D1X sensors as far as I know (can you quote sources to th contrsary) and before that, it was Kodak CCDs. Anyway my original comment was about CURRENT Nikon models, so we are wandering off-topic a bit.


Which sensors are you talking about? The 6MP sensor of the D40 has been used by Pentax and Konica-Minolta; the 10MP CCD of the D60, D3000 etc. is also used by Pentax; the 12MP CMOS of the D300 etc. is probably now used in the new Leica X1. The only recent sensors used exclusively by Nikon or only Nikon+Sony are the two 24x36mm ones, for the D3, D700, D3X, etc. and who else would use them? Canon is the only other maker of DSLRs in that format!


Agreed that there are advantages to in-house design, and it *sometimes* the best route. But my point is that it is not always the best way to proceed, as illustrated by the fact that Canon and Nikon do not always do it that way. The advantages of in-house design must be weighed (case by case?) against the cost advantages of sharing sensor designs with other camera makers.

And as we have been discussing, there is middle way: design collaboration with an experienced sensor design partner, like Nikon with Sony, Olympus with Panasonic, Pentax with Samsung, and maybe Leica with Kodak.

No my claims were not inaccurate.

Unfortunately this is getting too pendantic and head up arse. In reality, you have no more information than me, otherwise you would have mentioned it. It is public knowledge that Nikon and Sony collaborate on many sensors, but you do not know who does what and neither do I. The rest is supposition, and hot air. So what precisely is your point?

"there is middle way: design collaboration with an experienced sensor design partner, like Nikon with Sony"

Which is exactly what I have been saying.
Logged
Slough
Guest
M9
« Reply #84 on: September 09, 2009, 05:24:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Slough
Hello Ted. How come you got to play with an M9? Sorry if you said this elsewhere.

Oops. Sorry, I didn't realise the links to the pictures answered the question. Hohum!  
Logged
Czornyj
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1424



WWW
M9
« Reply #85 on: September 09, 2009, 05:42:02 PM »
ReplyReply

OMG, it's really sharp:

D3x, ISO100


M9, ISO80


other sensitivities:
http://optyczne.pl/?news=2204
« Last Edit: September 09, 2009, 05:43:44 PM by Czornyj » Logged

Josh-H
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1910



WWW
M9
« Reply #86 on: September 09, 2009, 07:05:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I have a hard time believing that what are showing on your site is any close to what the DSLRs can achieve

Same here - I am shooting with a 1DSMK3 daily and have a close friend with a d3X and we are getting 100% crops a lot sharper than what is being shown.

If comparison samples like these are to be made then it needs to be very clear how the shots are taken, with what glass, how they are processed etc.

As it stands I simply know from experience the crops shown from the Nikon and Canon are not good examples of what these DSLR's are capable of. Not to mention they vary greatly between ISO in terms of sharpness - which leads me to assume they were shot with a zoom (and not a very good one at that).
« Last Edit: September 09, 2009, 07:36:26 PM by Josh-H » Logged

pschefz
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 244


M9
« Reply #87 on: September 09, 2009, 07:25:13 PM »
ReplyReply

we should be getting crisper files  with great micro detail from the m9...ccd, no AA filter.....but i don't really see a big step or anything that might not be helped in post....

the dsIII shots just look like they are out of focus....and some are sharper then others.....either way they look like they were shot with a zoom...

i tested the m8 against the 5d (and d3) and the m8 jumped out at me....at base iso a noticeable difference....

nothing really "jumps" out at me....other then the obvious noise at higher iso with the m9, which is to be expected....

i have some raw m9 dng files from different sources that i have looked at and so far i have to say i am a little disappointed....
Logged

schefz.com
artloch.com
douglasf13
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 547


M9
« Reply #88 on: September 09, 2009, 07:34:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Dan Wells
The D3x sensor is not quite the A900 sensor - they are clearly related, but the D3x sensor is modified for 14-bit readout and has a different (presumably more expensive) filter pack on it (better AA filter, possibly other modifications), at a minimum. Any D3x shooter will tell you that it has a depth, created by exceptional dynamic range, that NO other DSLR can match (which is borne out by various tests). The Alphas are close, and offer exceptional value, but the D3x has a few tweaks to it that nobody has yet matched! It'll be interesting to see if Sony matches or exceeds it in the proposed "Alpha 950".

                                        -Dan

  Iliah Borg owns and has tested multiple samples of the A900 and D3x, and he finds the color much better with the A900, and I believe he's said the AA filter is also slightly weaker in the Sony.  Either way, he uses the A900 more often because of the color, and only uses the D3x when needing the better shadow details (enough so that he actually sold one of his D3xs.)  Basically, my point is that the D3x does not make better images than the A900...just different, and I know of a few people who own both and would agree.

« Last Edit: September 09, 2009, 07:34:59 PM by douglasf13 » Logged
teddillard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 664


WWW
M9
« Reply #89 on: September 09, 2009, 08:15:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
That's indeed disapointing for ISO800, but was that from a production camera?

Besides, the image seems to be a good deal under-exposed in pretty challenging light.

Cheers,
Bernard

Yes, it was a production camera, I shot those today.  It is slightly underexposed, as I mentioned, but the noise is throughout the tonal range, as you can see.  The light was far from challenging, for a decent state of the art meter.  It is not, however, a controlled test by any stretch...  as I said in the post, we'll be getting the metrics done ASAP.  

It was, though, all I really needed to see.  And, I might add, not too far from many, many other file evaluations that have been posted everywhere today.
Logged

Ted Dillard
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8246



WWW
M9
« Reply #90 on: September 09, 2009, 08:39:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: pschefz
i have some raw m9 dng files from different sources that i have looked at and so far i have to say i am a little disappointed....

One the other hand, we might have to wait until Raw developper ot Capture One Pro supports the M9 to get more certainty about what can be achieved with top converters.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

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

Posts: 5164


M9
« Reply #91 on: September 09, 2009, 09:21:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Slough, I agree we are getting bogged down in details, so let me put it this way:

Leica, Nikon, and Olympus are major sensor buyers who likely have some influence on the designs of the sensors made for them by Kodak, Sony and Panasonic respectively. None simply buys what the sensor makers have in the catalog. How does Nikon's involvement in the design of the Sony-made 10 MP CCD, and the Sony-made 12MP and 24MP EXMOR CMOS sensors differ from Leica's involvement in the design of the sensors for the M8, M9 and S2?

Your point seemed to be that Leica in a worse and more dependent position than Nikon.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7703


WWW
M9
« Reply #92 on: September 09, 2009, 10:19:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi!

I found a couple of decent samples on "DPReview":

http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/leicam9_...l1070439_aw.jpg
http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/leicam9_...l1070505_aw.jpg
http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/leicam9_...ls/l1070617.jpg

I noticed that the 1600 ISO is quite "blotchy", same type of hard to reduce noise I have at high ISO on my Alpha 900.

It's hard to draw conclusion from the DPReview samples, though because to little is known about parameters and correctness of exposure.

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: teddillard
Yes, it was a production camera, I shot those today.  It is slightly underexposed, as I mentioned, but the noise is throughout the tonal range, as you can see.  The light was far from challenging, for a decent state of the art meter.  It is not, however, a controlled test by any stretch...  as I said in the post, we'll be getting the metrics done ASAP.  

It was, though, all I really needed to see.  And, I might add, not too far from many, many other file evaluations that have been posted everywhere today.
Logged

Christopher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 944


WWW
M9
« Reply #93 on: September 09, 2009, 10:52:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Hi!

I found a couple of decent samples on "DPReview":

http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/leicam9_...l1070439_aw.jpg
http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/leicam9_...l1070505_aw.jpg
http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/leicam9_...ls/l1070617.jpg

I noticed that the 1600 ISO is quite "blotchy", same type of hard to reduce noise I have at high ISO on my Alpha 900.

It's hard to draw conclusion from the DPReview samples, though because to little is known about parameters and correctness of exposure.

Best regards
Erik

I really hope that there is some good C1 support. Lightroom just doesn't cut it when it comes to noise :@
Logged

pschefz
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 244


M9
« Reply #94 on: September 09, 2009, 11:24:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
One the other hand, we might have to wait until Raw developper ot Capture One Pro supports the M9 to get more certainty about what can be achieved with top converters.

Cheers,
Bernard


i looked at the raws in aperture, my preferred developer for leica m8 files (and many others....).....

there is a lot of talk on the leica forum about the new firmware...which came out today?! and most of the files i have seen are the old firmware...which is something like 0.9.. the new one is a 1.0... so i guess leica handed these first camera out with a pre production firmware.....
Logged

schefz.com
artloch.com
simplify
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 201


M9
« Reply #95 on: September 10, 2009, 12:29:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Josh-H
Same here - I am shooting with a 1DSMK3 daily and have a close friend with a d3X and we are getting 100% crops a lot sharper than what is being shown.

If comparison samples like these are to be made then it needs to be very clear how the shots are taken, with what glass, how they are processed etc.

As it stands I simply know from experience the crops shown from the Nikon and Canon are not good examples of what these DSLR's are capable of. Not to mention they vary greatly between ISO in terms of sharpness - which leads me to assume they were shot with a zoom (and not a very good one at that).

Maybe its more than 100%.
Logged
Josh-H
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1910



WWW
M9
« Reply #96 on: September 10, 2009, 02:20:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: simplify
Maybe its more than 100%.

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

Quote
Anticipating what tomorrow will show, we present a comparison of cuttings from the camera's RAW files Leica M9 and Canon EOS 1Ds MkIII, Nikon D3x and Sony A900. A comparison was made using 50 mm lenses, half-closed to f/8.0.

Files from all the cameras were triggered Dcraw program without sharpening.

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
« Last Edit: September 10, 2009, 02:23:57 AM by Josh-H » Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7703


WWW
M9
« Reply #97 on: September 10, 2009, 02:47:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Dcraw is a raw converter developed and maintained by Dave Coffin, parts of Dcraw are used by many vendors, like Adobe. I don't think Dcraw sharpens just demosaics, so the images are softer than they used to be. Using a standard converter like DC-raw may be a good idea to make a level playing field. We don't know what is going on in commercial raw-converters.

As the Leica lacks AA-filter it needs little sharpening, whereas the Canon has AA filter so it needs a lot of sharpening with small radius. It may be better to compare images with ideal sharpening, but than we need to define ideal sharpening.

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: Josh-H
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
« Last Edit: September 10, 2009, 02:51:59 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1259


M9
« Reply #98 on: September 10, 2009, 02:47:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Maybe I'm just insane, but those ISO comparisons cited above seem to me to have been taken of a printed picture, and what you're seeing could be a fuzzy halftone dots in a commercial print job -- like the label on a box of grapes or a bottle of wine. I don't know why anybody would do that, but that's what it looks like.
Logged
Slough
Guest
M9
« Reply #99 on: September 10, 2009, 11:55:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BJL
Slough, I agree we are getting bogged down in details, so let me put it this way:

Leica, Nikon, and Olympus are major sensor buyers who likely have some influence on the designs of the sensors made for them by Kodak, Sony and Panasonic respectively. None simply buys what the sensor makers have in the catalog. How does Nikon's involvement in the design of the Sony-made 10 MP CCD, and the Sony-made 12MP and 24MP EXMOR CMOS sensors differ from Leica's involvement in the design of the sensors for the M8, M9 and S2?

Your point seemed to be that Leica in a worse and more dependent position than Nikon.

Yes, I think we agree on most of what you wrote above. And yes, I think that last statement is true, though it is no more than speculation on my part. Why do I suspect that it is the case?

Well Nikon is a large company with a large budget, and proven world class expertise in sensor design e.g. D3 sensor which is class leading. Leica is a small company, with no previous proven sensor expertise, known for its world class optics i.e. camera lenses, microscopes, binoculars etc. So that is consistent with Nikon having significant input into the design of the sensors that it buys from Sony, such that they can improve the performance, and consistent with Leica having minor input into the sensors that it buys from Kodak. And as I understand it Kodak sensors have never been known for low noise. Of course this is pure conjecture, based on circumstantial evidence alone, and you would be quite entitled to blow a raspberry, and say that you disagree, or that you cannot draw any conclusion. In any case, it is a rather academic point with little real use.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2009, 11:55:33 AM by Slough » Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad