M8 produces sharper photos than the M9: M8 is a better buy!!!!

Focusing noct

Focusing noct

Hi Dave,

I haven't used the Noct with an M8, but with extensive use on film, and the RD1, I never had focus issues. Those who do, with properly aligned gear, I'm assuming focus, and then move the camera for the shot, changing the distance.

This set here are shots where focus is mainly in the middle.

D&A said:
...

1. Having shot with various M8, M8.2 and a few M9 bodies, I've noticed each can be ever so slightly different in precise focusing and therefore with ultra fast lenses, exactly what part of the subject is in focus. In order words, slight biases toward front or rear focsuing, ever so slight, enough to through a fast lens like the Noct 50mm f1 wide open, just slightly out of focus (or slight focus shift. THis also of course goes for focus repeatablity. Use a Noct on either of these two cameras, take a shot and repeat 6 times. No dount, some of the shots will have a slightly different focusing point, which will and can be seen.

...
Click to expand...
 
ulrikft said:
The M8 is in the ballpark of my d700 sharpness wise...
Click to expand...

I'd say that the M8 gives alot higher per-pixel sharpness than the D700. And then I've only used the M8 with ONE lens (CV 28/2), while having owned and used over 40 lenses for the D700.
Of course "per pixel" is only relevant if the pixel count is the same, but 10 versus 12 mpix is a very small difference.
 
Trying the camera, I set it on Pull 80 then forgot to change. Strangely, Auto ISO starts at ISO160 and does not let you set Pull 80 manually.
 
yanidel said:
Trying the camera, I set it on Pull 80 then forgot to change. Strangely, Auto ISO starts at ISO160 and does not let you set Pull 80 manually.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see. 🙂 It's common that auto ISO-functions (on any camera) does this, since "pull" often gives less good results. Which not all photographers realize, and that was why I asked.

I'm not very fond of that particular picture of yours, but I checked out the blog, and I love many of the others! Great work.
 
Hi ampguy,

The M9 I've been shooting with has been on loan...but have shot with it fairly extensively in comparison to the M8. Many of the earlier extensive test files have been left at an out of state location where I do additonal work and once I get back there would be happy to post some. I think at home I have some recent comparitive ones (M8 & M9)....but they were testing other parameters of each camera with the same lens, but NOT changing camera to subject distance to compensate, in order that cameras are essentially equal...so this wouldn't tell much in regards to resolution differences between the two cameras. With this in mind, these most recent shots though do compare a lux 35mm ASPH on an M8 (effective 47mm) vs. a VC 50mm on an M9...but I personally wouldn't use such comparisions to determine acuity and resolving differences...as these particular lens's are just too different....especially at the f-stops I used them at. I was examining other qualitative differences of the two cameras.

Regarding your comments made on the Noct.....it's somewhat different when using on the M8 & M9. Focusing is critical and must be tripod mounted. With all the different bodies I used the f1.0 version on...and for all intent and purposes, each body focused correctly with most all lenses....although there could on occasion, be slight differences between focusing accuracy of some bodies and the Noct shot at f1.0.

Of course if one is comparing the M8 vs. the M9 with this particular lens wide open (tripod mounted)...and compensated for subject to camera distance...one could focus the lens on each body tested on a singular subject until the shapest focus could be achieved, regardless of what it appeared like in the internal RF window. Then the differences seen with each camera takes focusing accuracy out of the equation and differeces seen is primarily due to differences between the M8 & M9. Unfortunately I don't believe the OP did most of this, so what differences were seen is hard to know whether its due to focusing differences, camera differences, maybe both...especially that most alll was done hand held, I believe.

Dave (D&A)
 
Last edited:
Makten said:
Ah, I see. 🙂 It's common that auto ISO-functions (on any camera) does this, since "pull" often gives less good results. Which not all photographers realize, and that was why I asked.

I'm not very fond of that particular picture of yours, but I checked out the blog, and I love many of the others! Great work.
Click to expand...
thanks, what I am most surprised when comparing shots at Pull80 and ISO160, it is the cyan drift in the sky. Note that I am still using my UV/IR filter on the 60mm Hexanon for the moment (for protection). Is it the cause of it ? Why does it not show at ISO160 then ?
 
Last edited:
yanidel said:
thanks, what I am most surprised when comparing shots at Pull80 and ISO160, it is the cyan drift in the sky. Note that I am still using my UV/IR filter on the 60mm Hexanon for the moment (for protection). Is it the cause of it ? Why does it not show at ISO160 then ?
Click to expand...

When "pulling" the exposure, you can't be sure that the sensor hasn't clipped the highlights of one of the RGB channels in the "real" (ISO 160) exposure. That means that the colors might be off, especially in highlights.

Your UV/IR filter will give cyan shift to some extent on any camera, if a wide enough lens is used, because of the angle of the infalling light differing over the image frame. In theory it shouldn't be a problem on M9 since there's already an IR filter in front of the sensor, but perhaps this filter is weaker than the auxillary one. The UV/IR filter will also block other wavelengths a tiny bit, which means it can mess with the colors in other ways.

Probably there's some interference between the sensor filter and the lens filter. I'd suggest you get rid of the one infront of the lens.

Edit: Since you're refering to a 60 mm lens, I'd say the problem is not due to the filter, but rather the "pull" of the exposure. If one channel is clipped and the exposure is pulled, that channel will act underexposed compared to the other. This will mess up the color balance.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Makten said:
When "pulling" the exposure, you can't be sure that the sensor hasn't clipped the highlights of one of the RGB channels in the "real" (ISO 160) exposure. That means that the colors might be off, especially in highlights.

Your UV/IR filter will give cyan shift to some extent on any camera, if a wide enough lens is used, because of the angle of the infalling light differing over the image frame. In theory it shouldn't be a problem on M9 since there's already an IR filter in front of the sensor, but perhaps this filter is weaker than the auxillary one. The UV/IR filter will also block other wavelengths a tiny bit, which means it can mess with the colors in other ways.

Probably there's some interference between the sensor filter and the lens filter. I'd suggest you get rid of the one infront of the lens.

Edit: Since you're refering to a 60 mm lens, I'd say the problem is not due to the filter, but rather the "pull" of the exposure. If one channel is clipped and the exposure is pulled, that channel will act underexposed compared to the other. This will mess up the color balance.
Click to expand...
thanks for the information, I'll buy a neutral filter than to replace my UV/IR when on the M9.
 
Makten said:
I'd say that the M8 gives alot higher per-pixel sharpness than the D700. And then I've only used the M8 with ONE lens (CV 28/2), while having owned and used over 40 lenses for the D700.
Of course "per pixel" is only relevant if the pixel count is the same, but 10 versus 12 mpix is a very small difference.
Click to expand...

Hmm, my experience is that if I sharpen m8-files and d700-files as much as they can take, they end up resolving about the same amount of detail. It might be that the 50 2.5 I've been using isn't up to the task on the m8, but still.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom