jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Have they? I would say that if they can be classified as limited as that (which I doubt very much) that it is more of a reportage and travel camera.
biggambi
Vivere!
Here is a comparison of photos and the ensuing discussion on L Camera forum that some may find interesting. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/275508-new-leica-m-vs-m9-daylight.html
Exdsc
Well-known
I downloaded both RAW files and did a basic test:
*The M9 shot is overexposed, and the EXIF data for M9 lacks f stop number while for M10 its f8
M10 EXIF:
M9 EXIF:
I used RPP to convert the DNG files with L curve and and everything else on default. This is how files look after conversion in RPP:
M10:
M9:
Exdsc
Well-known
Exdsc
Well-known
A people camera will always be great for landscape as well, a landscape camera not so much - in digital photography and also with color film.
biggambi
Vivere!
I have to say that from what I am seeing in these pictures, the highlight rendition in the M10 is enough to make me want it. This aspect of digital has always bothered me. I believe the color can be adjusted to render proper skin tones if people are seeing problems in this area. If Leica perceives the same thing. I always preferred Kodachrome but that is not going to get me anywhere.
Exdsc
Well-known
*The M9 shot is overexposed and there is no number for what f stop was used in the M9 shot.
Even with overexposure, the M9 has more gradation in the highlights and a more neutral color rendition.
Exdsc
Well-known
The histogram for the RAW files:
M10:
M9:
The histogram from M10 RAW file looks a little too nice and processed for a RAW file. The M9 histogram is clearly overexposed, at least by 1.5 to 2 stops.
M10:
M9:
The histogram from M10 RAW file looks a little too nice and processed for a RAW file. The M9 histogram is clearly overexposed, at least by 1.5 to 2 stops.
Exdsc
Well-known
-The histogram shots are from the DNG RAW files in faststone image viewer before conversion in RPP, Photoshop cannot open RAW files... you need acr.
-The M10 shot is properly exposed and processed... the clouds look sharpened.
-The M9 shot is overexposed and the f stop number omitted from the EXIF data.
-RPP knows very well how to deal with M9 RAW files, its an old camera and M9 users love RPP. RPP should have a problem with M10, but it does not seem to be the case here.
From a suspicious perspective, something stinks in these two shots but even despite all the "suspiciousness", the M9 still looks 'better' imo.
-The M10 shot is properly exposed and processed... the clouds look sharpened.
-The M9 shot is overexposed and the f stop number omitted from the EXIF data.
-RPP knows very well how to deal with M9 RAW files, its an old camera and M9 users love RPP. RPP should have a problem with M10, but it does not seem to be the case here.
From a suspicious perspective, something stinks in these two shots but even despite all the "suspiciousness", the M9 still looks 'better' imo.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
-It is incorrect to capitalize RAW. It is not an acronym.
-There is not much interest in including f-stops in digital M files as they are guesstimates only.