Pherdinand
the snow must go on
quite funny. There's a 7000$ new exotic camera released, and just within one week, everybody on this silly forum "played with it" and has somne card filled with images as examples or counterexamples. ANd then people complain about it.
Very silly.
Very silly.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
The M9 is a digital camera, not the second coming. It will be capable of much better technical results than most of the photographers using it, like all other full frame digital cameras over the last few years. The rest is just conversation. 
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Pherdinand, you should see online camera forums as more of a club of hobbyists. Something like a wiener dog club. The M9 is the new wiener dog breed someone has created somewhere. There were some who saw the new pups, some who actually held them in their hands, a lot of people who like wiener dogs, some people who just like to talk about wiener dogs, and some people who like to eat wiener dogs, although they're awfully skinny. And in general everybody just behaves like people in wiener dog clubs do.
mani
Well-known
JPSuisse
Well-known
Apropos Gabriel's statement and Lightroom: this is absolutely correct. You can give / assign a unique camera name with ExifTool and then ensure that all imports from a given "unique camera " have the same import settings. This was tricky for me at first.
Now: can somebody send me (or maybe make a download link) a DNG from an M9? I want to know how all the lens names I've been giving come up on the M9 in Lightroom. That would really be a help!!!
Thanks in advance!!!
JP
Now: can somebody send me (or maybe make a download link) a DNG from an M9? I want to know how all the lens names I've been giving come up on the M9 in Lightroom. That would really be a help!!!
Thanks in advance!!!
JP
sepiareverb
genius and moron
I had a bunch of files sent to me and would agree. I find myself lowering contrast a touch on M8 DNG files more often than not, I didn't need to do that on any of the M9 DNG files.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
no it's not silly to play with it.
It' ssilly to be so damn decided that i sucks or it's wonderful, when it's a totally new concept, new camera, obviously very well thought out with a lot of invested $ and effort, but obviously not known how it behaves on the long run and how to get the optimum out of it.
It's silly to judge it in any direction after a week.
It' ssilly to be so damn decided that i sucks or it's wonderful, when it's a totally new concept, new camera, obviously very well thought out with a lot of invested $ and effort, but obviously not known how it behaves on the long run and how to get the optimum out of it.
It's silly to judge it in any direction after a week.
OurManInTangier
An Undesirable
No one has let me anywhere near an M9, no one had the decency to invite me to any launch parties and no one has asked me for my astonishing insight into the workings of this new camera. I'm now in a serious huff which can only be broken by someone recognising my vast importance to photography as a whole and giving me an M9 to play with!
My toys are very much OUT OF THE PRAM
mani
Well-known
Well I'm hoping it's a big success, and would definitely buy it if I could also afford to keep my new M8 at the same time.
I had the camera to myself for about forty-five minutes and managed to take quite a few comparison shots with my own lens and SD card. I definitely didn't find out "how to get the optimum out of it" in that time, but I did get a lot of test DNGs that I thought were useful, and it also gave me some perspective on how it performs compared to the M8.
I felt it was certainly better to try the camera myself than to look at a little compressed jpeg online and say 'oooh that's such a great shot, I must buy the camera!' like so many other people do all the time, without being called 'silly'.
But thanks for your input.
victoriapio
Well-known
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.
SNIP...at the voice of reason and common sense prevail on these here Intertoobes?
I think Gabriel MA is onto something. Which lends the question, there is no Camera Raw driver for the M9 yet, is there? If not, then I suggest you wait until an M9 update for CS4, Lightroom or C1 becomes available before you start criticizing too much. I may be wrong and agree that there are probably similarities, but the RAW processing of the M8/8.2 and M9 has to have some significant differences.
ulrikft
Established
My main gripe, as stated before, after playing with a M9, is a) interface speed, and b) high iso. The first is a major problem for street photography imo, the second not so much. If the desicive moment is gone beacause your M-camera has not yet woken up from standby... well, that is in a.. very bad league.
Ricko of Fla
Established
M9 camera profiles have not been updated in Lightroom, so your pictures would not be as good as the M8 with the profiles for it.
Wait until the profiles are added to Light room before every one gets out of wack on how bad the M9 is.
O are you listening !!!
Wait until the profiles are added to Light room before every one gets out of wack on how bad the M9 is.
O are you listening !!!
mani
Well-known
I assume this is supposed to be shouting?
To start with, I don't use Lightroom, I use Raw Developer. I open files in this excellent programme without the public color profiles, as this is a good neutral place to start raw development - preferring to tweak the profiles myself, if necessary.
Raw Dev appears to correctly recognize the camera anyway, regardless of extra tweaks that may eventually be released.
When opened like this, and alongside M8 files opened in the same way, you can do some worthwhile comparisons for yourself.
Anyway, I'm definitely not deciding there's anything 'bad' about the M9, but I'm interested to see that everyone is suddenly deciding its the post-processing that makes all the difference to the IQ of a camera - I just read the exact same thing over on getdpi two minutes ago.
The other interesting response is that the first few days everyone was ooohing and ahhing about how the M9 colors were so much better than the M8 - then all of a sudden we're told that the color profiles don't exist yet, and we shouldn't base any judgements on what we're seeing now.
Still as I've said, the M9 does rock - would LOVE to get one. But I'm pretty sad about all the M8 bashing that went on last week, and all the flip-flopping I've read from people desperate to justify spending money they maybe couldn't afford in their GAS frenzy.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I'll tell you next weekJaap - while the OP is talking rubbish - this statement is also BS. As I think you know.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
What I do understand is that the red channel has been tweaked to be stronger to reduce noise. That obviously has a profound influence on the RAW development. As I understand, I will be able to try it myself shortly, C1, version 4.8.3 is profiled correctly for the M9, and ACR (LR) not yet. I opened a couple of DNGs in C1 4.8.2 as M8 files and the results were surprising to say the least. Brilliantly mauve skintones and bright neon greens.
mani
Well-known
When I opened the DNGs in RawDev the colors were very natural, but my personal preference was for the colors from the M8. I stress the italics. I don't use RD's M8 profile incidentally, I always use the generic color profile in that application (without any profile at all, DNGs look terrible of course), and so both cameras were opened with the same neutral profile.
I'm sure you're gonna love the M9 - it was certainly the quietest shutter I ever experienced and lovely in many ways. As you know, I'm jealous of the uncompressed DNG option (which I used throughout), and very jealous of the full-frame look for lenses like the Nocti, but some people just can't let their snobbery go: darnit if they're spending 7k on a camera, then they better let everyone know it's better than the old model in every conceivable way. Even when the evidence (in some respects) might be to the contrary.
Additional info: my exposures were indoors under mixed lighting and outdoors in daylight.
I was able to take my time, and as the dealers know me, they let me roam free with the camera for as long as I wanted. Naturally I didn't want to abuse this privilege, otherwise I'd still have the camera now..
Last edited:
Zoeica
Well-known
I shot 3 images with the new M9. For some odd reason, with 3 different lenses, I could not get a full in focus image. Maybe I got the Holga M9?
http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/zoeica/iholga/
http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/zoeica/iholga/
ampguy
Veteran
If you're into handheld IR photography, or sharp resolution, you'll also want to hang on to that M8.x ...