Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: leica M9 as good as Phase P40, P30 and P21  (Read 13441 times)
woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #20 on: January 18, 2011, 11:02:57 AM »
ReplyReply

I agree, I see almost no IQ improvement in the DLSR's over the last few years.
Logged
Tim Jones
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 53


« Reply #21 on: January 18, 2011, 12:15:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Have M9 and  I am constantly blown away with the results.  It is a joyful experience to use, but even better when you open the files.
Not sure if its the sensor, the lenses or the physics of rangefinder. Maybe it all adds up.
www.tjphoto.net
Logged
Doug Peterson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2894


WWW
« Reply #22 on: January 18, 2011, 12:34:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Not sure if its the sensor, the lenses or the physics of rangefinder. Maybe it all adds up.

Yes. Yes. Yes. And Yes.
Logged

DOUG PETERSON (dep@digitaltransitions.com), Digital Transitions
Dealer for Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Profoto
Office: 877.367.8537
Cell: 740.707.2183
Phase One IQ250 FAQ
Guy Mancuso
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1126


WWW
« Reply #23 on: January 18, 2011, 01:27:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Which converter do you use for the M9 Guy?

Sorry I use C1 for pretty much all my cams. Today I have the Phase of course but i also recently got a Sony 850 for certain gigs and C1 does a nice job on those. But I am very prejudice on C1 and i fully admit it been a user since the 1ds days. It went ugly for a time being but the latest version is damn good.
Logged

Guy Mancuso
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1126


WWW
« Reply #24 on: January 18, 2011, 01:45:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Also i have said this many times and I know it will ruffle the dust feathers of all the Canon, Nikon and Sony shooters but IMHO for the best IQ nothing still beats a CCD sensor. I love CCD sensors and had several Leica's with CCD's the DMR, M8 and obviously shot the M9 and almost every digital back including the S2 and I just prefer CCD even though I have a Sony in my stable which is a nice cam. Between the M9 sensor and the M glass it is basically a mini MF cam in technical(sensor) terms and understand completely why folks like it. Also lets not leave out good raw conversion which is very important. The biggest issue with RF is the versatility of the system as a whole but if you can work within it than it is a powerful tool in your arsenal.
Logged

woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #25 on: January 18, 2011, 03:48:28 PM »
ReplyReply

If only they'd put a CCD in a great dslr body with all the flexibility and handling advantages. I don't understand why they don't.
Logged
Doug Peterson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2894


WWW
« Reply #26 on: January 18, 2011, 03:52:01 PM »
ReplyReply

If only they'd put a CCD in a great dslr body with all the flexibility and handling advantages. I don't understand why they don't.

CCD doesn't do high ISO or live view or video. Lack of AA filter can lead to moire (not as much of a problem as in the days of 9 and 12 micron CCDs but still an occasional annoyance).

99% of consumers (and that is market that the vast vast majority of what Canon/Nikon sells to by revenue) would not be willing to make that compromise for the better color, tonality, DR, and overall image quality.

It's that simple.
Logged

DOUG PETERSON (dep@digitaltransitions.com), Digital Transitions
Dealer for Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Profoto
Office: 877.367.8537
Cell: 740.707.2183
Phase One IQ250 FAQ
Guy Mancuso
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1126


WWW
« Reply #27 on: January 18, 2011, 04:08:48 PM »
ReplyReply

CCD doesn't do high ISO or live view or video. Lack of AA filter can lead to moire (not as much of a problem as in the days of 9 and 12 micron CCDs but still an occasional annoyance).

99% of consumers (and that is market that the vast vast majority of what Canon/Nikon sells to by revenue) would not be willing to make that compromise for the better color, tonality, DR, and overall image quality.

It's that simple.

Could not have said it better myself. Also big issue is just imagine 100k or more customers complaining about moire what a PR nightmare that will be. They simply will not chance it and CCD do cost more I believe but don't quote me. LOL
Logged

geesbert
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 554



WWW
« Reply #28 on: January 18, 2011, 04:34:15 PM »
ReplyReply

one of the best features of the M9 is that it has a manual focus system that works much better than manual focus on any modern SLR, Medium Format or 35mm. Manual focus was good with matte screens with a split screen, when it was correctly calibrated, but today with only matte screens it is just not precise enough.

With the M9 I manage to nail focus much more often than with my Canon 1dsmk3, and it hardly feels much slower.
Logged

-------------------------
WWW.RANDLKOFER.COM
DeeJay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 250


« Reply #29 on: January 18, 2011, 07:22:09 PM »
ReplyReply

I really want to use one of these, but that focusing just scares me off the investment.

But that said, I don't want to invest in a high end back if 35mm dslr or rangefinder technology is starting to equal it at much lower cost.

Logged
David Klepacki
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 185


« Reply #30 on: January 18, 2011, 07:53:25 PM »
ReplyReply

How's your M9 for long exposures (multiple minutes)? Better or worse than the Phase backs?

M9 can be better.  The non-plus backs are limited to a few minutes of exposure, and even the latest P40+ is limited to only one minute of exposure.  The M9 may be limited to about 30 seconds, but due to the faster M lenses, as fast as F 0.95, the amount of exposure that is needed for the same scene is typically much less.  A "fast" lens in medium format is typically F2.8, and even the latest digital large format lenses are only as fast as F4.  So, the larger format lenses can require exposures that are eight to sixteen times longer.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2011, 08:08:27 PM by David Klepacki » Logged
David Klepacki
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 185


« Reply #31 on: January 18, 2011, 08:01:51 PM »
ReplyReply

How well does it work for subjects closer than 1m. (or any number of other situations where a small format rangefinder is not well suited to the task) Wink

Ultimately, IQ is only part of the picture. Horses for courses, use the tool that makes sense for the job you're asking it to do.

M9 can be better for closer than 1m.  Depth of field can be larger due to the smaller format, so macro work can be preferable.  Also, the Phase One 645 cameras do not have any waist level finder, often making it difficult to do some close up work.  With the M9, you can easily use the Visoflex as shown in the image below:
« Last Edit: January 18, 2011, 11:39:13 PM by David Klepacki » Logged
David Klepacki
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 185


« Reply #32 on: January 18, 2011, 08:04:57 PM »
ReplyReply

If only they'd put a CCD in a great dslr body with all the flexibility and handling advantages. I don't understand why they don't.

It's called the Leica S2.

Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8388



WWW
« Reply #33 on: January 18, 2011, 11:27:28 PM »
ReplyReply

I've tried using canons and nikons instead of phase backs before and they weren't close enough for me but this M9 is a revelation.

If I may ask, which ones of the Canons and Nikons were you using?

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

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

Posts: 8028


WWW
« Reply #34 on: January 19, 2011, 12:02:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Or Pentax 645D...

You really believe that CCD-s are superior to CMOS. DSLRs were mostly CCD based, but CMOS took over much doe to lower noise.

Best regards
Erik

It's called the Leica S2.


Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8028


WWW
« Reply #35 on: January 19, 2011, 12:26:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Sorry Doug,

CCD vs. CMOS doesn't relate to color and probably also not to tonality and DR. Both sensor types simply detect photons. Early DSLRs were mostly using CCDs and they mostly had AA-filters.

Color is dependent on CGA (Color Grid Array) and not on CCD vs. CMOS.

I don't argue about implementation. Very well possible that some vendors make better compromises than others. Phase seems to put a lot of effort in individual calibrations of their backs and they may capitalize on that with Capture One using proprietary information.

It is very probable that DSLRs are biased to high ISO performance. The choice of CGA (Color Grid Array) may be affected by that, leading to some "color blindness" on some DSLRs. There was an article on DxO-mark comparing color filters on recent Canon and Nikon cameras detecting some color blindness on the Canon.

It seems that Sony's Alpha 900 has "better color" than the Nikon D3X, although both use a similar Sony made sensor. The Nikon has better high ISO characteristics but is said to have less good color. This may be a design compromise in the CGA. Nikon probably has better processing pipe line (14 bits against Sony's 12 bits) making for better DR.

Lenses matter a lot. A good lens will transfer more contrast for fine detail. MTF falls almost linearly with frequency, so a sensor with twice the size will have twice the "microcontrast", add to that a very good lens and an MFDB has a real advantage. The Leica M9 doesn't benefit from sensor size but their new lenses designed in the "Kölsch era" seem to be truly excellent designs, the "Mandler era" design are according to my understanding closer to main stream.

http://www.imx.nl/photo/optics/optics/page93.html

Best regards
Erik



CCD doesn't do high ISO or live view or video. Lack of AA filter can lead to moire (not as much of a problem as in the days of 9 and 12 micron CCDs but still an occasional annoyance).

99% of consumers (and that is market that the vast vast majority of what Canon/Nikon sells to by revenue) would not be willing to make that compromise for the better color, tonality, DR, and overall image quality.

It's that simple.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2011, 02:00:28 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1697


« Reply #36 on: January 19, 2011, 02:33:51 AM »
ReplyReply

CMOS took over much doe to lower noise.
http://www.dalsa.com/sensors/products/ccd_vs_cmos.aspx
Logged
siebel
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


WWW
« Reply #37 on: January 19, 2011, 03:36:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Thats what I've found. You can't tether with the Leica but I use the P21, P30 and P40 from phase and I find the image quality of the Leica to be at least as good as the Phase backs. I don't find any difference in quality between the phase backs, there all slightly different but only slightly and I wouldn't put one above the others in terms of IQ. Unless your doing massive prints of course.. Up to 17 by 13 inches or so though the Leica is as good and has very similar image characteristics. Oh yes, the lenses on the Leica are better too.

I cringe whenever I  see subject headings like this one.

Usually, the writer does not set out clear criteria for the comparison, often is comparing equipment of different generations(P21 is so old it's discontinued), has very narrow application of the gear etc, etc. etc.
By all means, express your opinion, but have some respect and dedicate more time and effort to the piece. Otherwise you run the risk of slandering a brand.
X is better than y - how, why, when, and in whose hands and with what level of expertise?
Give us more info or you risk appearing to be no more than a brand-whore.
Logged

Bryan Siebel

In the end, it's all about the image.
www.bryansiebel.com
siebel
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


WWW
« Reply #38 on: January 19, 2011, 04:00:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Sorry Doug,

CCD vs. CMOS doesn't relate to color and probably also not to tonality and DR. Both sensor types simply detect photons. Early DSLRs were mostly using CCDs and they mostly had AA-filters.

Color is dependent on CGA (Color Grid Array) and not on CCD vs. CMOS.

I don't argue about implementation. Very well possible that some vendors make better compromises than others. Phase seems to put a lot of effort in individual calibrations of their backs and they may capitalize on that with Capture One using proprietary information.

It is very probable that DSLRs are biased to high ISO performance. The choice of CGA (Color Grid Array) may be affected by that, leading to some "color blindness" on some DSLRs. There was an article on DxO-mark comparing color filters on recent Canon and Nikon cameras detecting some color blindness on the Canon.

It seems that Sony's Alpha 900 has "better color" than the Nikon D3X, although both use a similar Sony made sensor. The Nikon has better high ISO characteristics but is said to have less good color. This may be a design compromise in the CGA. Nikon probably has better processing pipe line (14 bits against Sony's 12 bits) making for better DR.

Lenses matter a lot. A good lens will transfer more contrast for fine detail. MTF falls almost linearly with frequency, so a sensor with twice the size will have twice the "microcontrast", add to that a very good lens and an MFDB has a real advantage. The Leica M9 doesn't benefit from sensor size but their new lenses designed in the "Kölsch era" seem to be truly excellent designs, the "Mandler era" design are according to my understanding closer to main stream.

http://www.imx.nl/photo/optics/optics/page93.html

Best regards
Erik

You're a pretty brave man to take on someone with Doug's knowledge, experience and real-world acumen on this issue. I can't wait for the reply.

My understanding of colour in the digital era is that what happens on/in the sensor is but a part of an interconnected complex. The variables include optics, anti-reflection coatings, the sensors behaviour, analog-digital conversion, image processing and not to forget final display media to name but a few.

You are entitled to your view, but I think it's very simplistic.
Logged

Bryan Siebel

In the end, it's all about the image.
www.bryansiebel.com
woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #39 on: January 19, 2011, 09:40:55 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm not exactly a brand whore, I own Mamiya, phase and leica. The qualifications are all in the thread if you read it.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad