Message for all M8/8.2 owners

S

SixPM

Member
Local time
5:37 AM
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
23
View My Gallery
Just a quick word to say don't sell or upgrade your camera yet, because the M9's dynamic range is far shorter than the M8/8.2 unless it is a firmware issue which I doubt. The harsh characteristic of the M9 is upsetting to say to least, after I've tried and played with the camera at the launch party, I don't feel that I'm working with a full frame camera as I'm still looking through the same lines in the viewfinder as in the M8/8.2. The only main difference apart from the M9 badge was the M9's buffer can now capture 6-7 frames in RAW before it needs to wait before further shots can be taken.

I'm now so use to the soft wide dynamic range image files from my M8.2 which give me options to process what mood to go for, that I found the M9's image files are unacceptably because of lacking in highlight and shadow details meant I'm stuck with a contrasty image with little room to maneuver in term of image manipulation. Tthe argument of the 18mp oppost to the M8's 10.2 is irrelevant in this case, as the quality of file is all that matters, plus the M8's file can already makes beautiful 36" x24" prints with little fuss once interpolated with today's software.

I sure plenty people in this forum still shoots their 6MP Epson RD1 camera like me along with their other higher megapixel camera for the same reason - image quality.

I strongly suggest to test drive the camera before making the purchase.
 
As someone who more than "played with an M9 at a launch party," but actually got out and shot 4 gigs with one over 5-6 hours in light varying from sunset to night to dawn to noon - at ISOs from Pull-80 to 2500, in DNG, uncompressed DNG, and JPEG, I'd say the original premise of this thread is completely in error. The M9 has excellent DR - at least as good as the M8.

I predict that when firm test numbers are available, they will show it probably has slighty better DR.

Attached are a full-frame and a crop shot in direct morning light on the M9 with my name-sake lens. Detail in sunlit whites and colors, and deep inside the shaded stores. DNG original.

I certainly won't disagree with the idea of test-driving the camera, though (which is what I did). Or sticking with your M8 if you don't need a "21mm" that can go past f/4.5, or if 18 Mpixels is overkill.
 

Attachments

  • 75plazadetail.jpg
    75plazadetail.jpg
    116.1 KB · Views: 0
  • 75plazaRFF.jpg
    75plazaRFF.jpg
    137.5 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Summilux75 said:
As someone who more than "played with an M9 at a launch party," but actually got out and shot 4 gigs with one over 5-6 hours in light varying from sunset to night to dawn to noon - at ISOs from Pull-80 to 2500, in DNG, uncompressed DNG, and JPEG, I'd say the original premise of this thread is completely in error. The M9 has excellent DR - at least as good as the M8.

I predict that when firm test numbers are available, they will show it probably has slighty better DR.

Attached are a full-frame and a crop shot in direct morning light on the M9 with my name-sake lens. Detail in sunlit whites and colors, and deep inside the shaded stores. DNG original.

I certainly won't disagree with the idea of test-driving the camera, though (which is what I did). Or sticking with your M8 if you don't need a "21mm" that can go past f/4.5, or if 18 Mpixels is overkill.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your response and image files, but the image you shown here still look contrasty to me. My own observation when comparing the two sensors under similar condition tells me the M9 files are harsher than the M8. Obviously, I'll stick to my views of my first impression until proven otherwise with further testing.
 
swoop said:
Holy crap. Those images were shot with a 75 'lux and there's that much detail in the crop?

ugh, I'm definitely picking one of these up next month.
Click to expand...

No, they're obviously rubbish because... um... er...

Because it's always easier for some people to believe threads that knock Leica than to admit that actually, they're pretty bloody good. I shot about 300 pics with M8 and M8.2 on Saturday, the latter with the 24 Summilux on the front, and the sharpness and detail were staggering. I can't see why the M9 won't offer more of the same.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
I don't think it is relevant to post such a strong (as thread title message) statement after "played with the camera at the launch party". IMHO out-of camera JPG contrast settings have very little to do with the dynamic range.

Toomas
 
Was the camera set to capture uncompressed DNGs?

Was the camera set to capture uncompressed DNGs?

SixPM said:
Obviously, I'll stick to my views of my first impression until proven otherwise with further testing.
Click to expand...

Did you ensure that the M9 was set to capture uncompressed DNGs?
 
It is absolute blather. The sensor is basically the same as the M8, the noise floor is one stop lower, so the dynamic range is one stop wider (before sensor experts weigh in, yes I know it is simplistic, but it is borne out by the reports of actual users). In daily use the image quality between the M8 and M9 is very similar, allowing for the difference in enlargement due to the elimination of the crop factor and higher Mp count, both of which favour the M9. My guess is that the OP did not know how to handle the different exposure measuring fields and got less than satisfactory results through simple user error.
 
What I found when testing out the M9, was that the DR was exactly like the M8. And while testing out the M9 I had the M8 and M8.2 to compare with each other. I did not find the M9 to have more contrast and lower DR.

SixPM said:
I don't feel that I'm working with a full frame camera as I'm still looking through the same lines in the viewfinder as in the M8/8.2.
Click to expand...

^Are you sure about that? When I put a 35 Summilux on the M9 the frame lines were for a 35mm lens, unlike my M8 when it looks like the viewing angle of 50mm lens. Sure the M9 viewfinder is the same as the M8, but the lines are accurate for the focal length.
 
Yes - and he claims the M9 buffer is an improvement because it can store 6-7 files. Quite good for the file size, actually, but the M8 does 10-11 DNG files before one fills the buffer. I am starting to doubt that the OP has ever even used either of the cameras....🙄
 
Oh dear more hyperbole.

Oh dear more hyperbole.

I have some shots from a 'launch day' on my SD card at home. After only a quick inspection I'd say that the unprocessed RAW shots were perhaps a little less contrasty than those from my M8, but certainly not lacking in either detail or latitude.

I did find that I'd have to upgrade my PC if I bought one though as the 18MP files killed Lightroom. 😱

Nice, but the FF thing doesn't really bother me so I'll stick with my M8 for now, however I do hope they'll add some of the new M9 (ISO quicj select and manual lens selection) options to the next M8 firmware update though.
 
Last edited:
Shot a bunch of frames at Samy's last week, honestly I can not say the M9 is remotely lacking in DR, let alone falling behind my 8.2

Not doubting the OP's experience, but wondering what caused that experience, I do not believe it is the general camera.

Bo
 
jaapv said:
Yes - and he claims the M9 buffer is an improvement because it can store 6-7 files. Quite good for the file size, actually, but the M8 does 10-11 DNG files before one fills the buffer. I am starting to doubt that the OP has ever even used either of the cameras....🙄
Click to expand...

The M8's buffer was better than my 8.2, which only lasts 3 shots before our of breath (DNG plus Jpeg), I'm stating my feelings and opinion here and my intention is to ask not to sell the 8.2 and jump to the M9 immediately just as a precausion. I'm a Lecia user, improvements comes from views and criticism and there is nothing wrong with that is there?
 
SixPM said:
Thank you for your response and image files, but the image you shown here still look contrasty to me. My own observation when comparing the two sensors under similar condition tells me the M9 files are harsher than the M8. Obviously, I'll stick to my views of my first impression until proven otherwise with further testing.
Click to expand...

Something tells me that you are using Lightroom. Because Lightroom has "standard" settings when you import an image into it. If your development settings seem different on your M9 shots than the M8, I'd take a look at whether you've got a "default" for you M8 where the settings are not exactly the same as for the "default" for your M9. I'd look at the "embedded" camera profile. Since the M9 is a new camera, I'd be surprised to see that any currently-available commercial RAW-processing software can even recognize and apply the correct color profile and/or camera profile.

I'd be looking at other moving parts in the workflow before blaming the camera. This sort of trigger-happy threads blasting a product that hardly got to the market (i.e. M8) from the hands of less-than-careful users are usually the first thing to come out. And then the bashers more than gleefully grab it as their flagship bash-du-jour.

But who says that the voice of reason and common sense prevail on these here Intertoobes? 🙄
 
SixPM said:
Yes, I'm referring to RAW DNG files and not jpegs. I believe first impression are very important, I trust my natural instinct everytime.
Click to expand...

Interesting comments... So first impressions are more important than those derived from careful analysis and consideration, particularly side by side comparisons? Maybe you are right, maybe wrong; however, one has to love it when a person proclaims their first impressions and instincts more credible than objective analysis and comparison.

Sounds awfully like you have dug yourself a trench and will refuse to budge no matter what anyone says to the contrary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom