Image quality comparison of M9 vs D700

[QUOTE=x-ray;1653119]I almost fell out of my chair laughing so hard. If he's serious this doesn't say much for his ability or his friends judgment on print quality. I don't think the Phase backs are bad products although I've not shot with one however I do have a new Hasselblad CFV39 back and a Canon G10. I haven't shot them side by side but I've shot plenty and printed many prints from each. While the G10 is a nice camera it's not in the same universe in any way compared to the CFV39 back. Also were not even considering the difference in Zeiss glass vs the zoom on the G10. Sharpness, color depth and dynamic range are way beyond the the ability of the G10.

I use the G10 on sets where motion picture or video is being shot rather than my Canon 1dsII which is way too noisy. Comparing shots between the two canons under the same shooting conditions the 1DsII is clearly the winner. The G10 just can't separate tones particularly in darker values and noise in shadow areas is much higher. Chromatic. aberrations are much more pronounced in the G10 vs L primes that I normally shoot on the 1DsII. I've also found the Zeiss CF lenses to be much better in resolution and chromatic aberrations vs Canon L primes. I was actually shocked at the difference in the Zeiss and Canon glass.

You don't think he was really serious do you?[/QUOTE]



I know nothing about either of those two cameras or their image quality but I was surprised that anyone would devote so much space and effort to what seems like a fairly pointless comparison.
 
Anyone that would publish something like that can't be taken seriously on anything he writes if it's not a joke.
 
x-ray said:
I almost fell out of my chair laughing so hard. If he's serious this doesn't say much for his ability or his friends judgment on print quality. I don't think the Phase backs are bad products although I've not shot with one however I do have a new Hasselblad CFV39 back and a Canon G10. I haven't shot them side by side but I've shot plenty and printed many prints from each. While the G10 is a nice camera it's not in the same universe in any way compared to the CFV39 back. Also were not even considering the difference in Zeiss glass vs the zoom on the G10. Sharpness, color depth and dynamic range are way beyond the the ability of the G10.

I use the G10 on sets where motion picture or video is being shot rather than my Canon 1dsII which is way too noisy. Comparing shots between the two canons under the same shooting conditions the 1DsII is clearly the winner. The G10 just can't separate tones particularly in darker values and noise in shadow areas is much higher. Chromatic. aberrations are much more pronounced in the G10 vs L primes that I normally shoot on the 1DsII. I've also found the Zeiss CF lenses to be much better in resolution and chromatic aberrations vs Canon L primes. I was actually shocked at the difference in the Zeiss and Canon glass.

You don't think he was really serious do you?
Click to expand...


Yeah I totally agree - it was a comparison to get peoples panties in a knot. I've shot a Canon g11 and in comparison to (even) my 5d, it doesn't even register on the same scale in terms of IQ. I can tell print differences in ALL but maybe 1 or 2 circumstances between them.

Additionally, I'll agree that if you really want the highest IQ you can possibly get from a smaller digital camera, you get a 5d mkII and the lineup of Zeiss Distagons and Makro-Planars. With these, you get IQ and spacial qualities that are pretty close to medium format, but in a small package. I'm sure the m9 with ZM or Leica asph lenses would be similar, albeit very different in handling - rangefinder vs slr again.
 
Last edited:
What's disturbs me are the folks that stuff like this and believe it. A few people read this and start to repeat it and it becomes fact.
 
I bought an M9 to use the classic lenses, including the legendary Nikkor 10.5cm F2.5. Works great on the M9. Resolution sharp enough to see color aliassing on the M9 used wide-open. Resolution beyond that- kind of a waste.

Nikkor 10.5 F2.5, wide-open, on the M9.



I could pick up a D700, but simply have not. I have a lot of Nikon glass, use them mostly with an F2AS and F2SB. A lot? I have eight 105's alone.

Final image quality? Probably if you pixel-peep with the newest Leica or Zeiss lenses on the M9 you will see finer resolution mostly because the M9 does not have an Anti-Aliassing filter on it. Not the reason to buy an M9 over a D700.
 
Last edited:
I guess the bottom line is that other than the inherent benefits of an RF over an SLR, IQ won't be significantly better. If I need a lighter weight quality digital camera, my Oly E-P2 will fill the bill nicely for now given that I can use Leica standard and tele lenses with excellent results. It's main drawback is that the controls are not as intuitive as an M9 and the 2x crop factor, but at least focus is always spot on using with my M lenses as there are no RF cam coupling issues. Here's an example with my 135/4 Elmar wide open as well as a tighter crop of the same image to see more detail: http://photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=1009358
 
Last edited:
250swb said:
That is the last thing I thought of when buying an M9. I thought 'great a digital camera without any crop factor that can take my M lenses!' I didn't think 'great a digital rangefinder!'.
Click to expand...

You didn't need to think about it. You already had M lenses, which means you must have been familiar with a rangefinder. I was speaking of people who buy an M9 (or M8) and a lens or three based on the reputation of the glass, without having ever used a Leica previously, and failing to realize there's quite a paradigm shift and learning curve involved in switching from an SLR, particularly a modern AF SLR.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
I bought an M9 to use the classic lenses, including the legendary Nikkor 10.5cm F2.5. Works great on the M9. Resolution sharp enough to see color aliassing on the M9 used wide-open.
Click to expand...

Thanks for reminding me I have one of those! I shall give it a try on the M9 ASAP. I used to use it with the M8 (+ a clip-on 13.5cm BL finder and 52mm 486 filter) but honestly forgot about it since I can use a Leica 135mm on the M9.
 
The crop factor is easily avoided by using Olympus or Panasonic lenses to cover wide and normal focal lengths. The Lumix 20/1.7 for example makes for a sharp semi-wide that is Leica designed. The Sony NEX has less crop factor that's slightly tighter than an M8, but takes M lenses with adapter like the Oly.
 
Please don’t tempt me!

As many of you already know, I am a long-time Leica freak (especially about the M system), but Ben couldn’t be more right-on. As film slowly fades into the distant past, I am frequently asking myself if I wouldn’t do better with a Nikon D700 or a Canon D5ii.

The compactness of the Leica is compelling and with prime lenses one is forced to limit himself as to photographic variables, but in fact, all practicality lies with a FF dSLR.

When I have expressed to friends I could buy both systems, each with multiple great zoom lenses with cash left over, the inevitable response I get is – “yea, but then you’ll have a depreciating asset.”
 
I bought mine two and a half years ago and the new price is 400 euro more than I paid. D700's seem to hold their value more than most digitals.
 
It might be worth waiting for the successor of The Fuji S5 at the end of the year. Their current S5 was based on the Nikon D200 but it's sensor design had a superior dynamic range that was favored by studio photographers for it's excellent color, highlights and shadow detail.
 
I had both the M9 and D700 at the same time and for the Nikon I had R lenses. To be honest they both looked pretty good to me. I really never bothered to do a side by side test or anything like that. This is because the M9 is an entirely different thing. If you love rangefinders then you will use it over any SLR. That was the camera I ever reached for. Nothing else got any use.
 
I've used M's for over 25 years as well as Nikon SLRs for over 35 years. Image quality was slightly better with M lenses especially at large apertures. It's near slilence, low vibration and light weight made it fun to use and great for walking around. However, now that I've been doing more nature and birding photography, long lenses are more critcal for my needs.
 
nobbylon said:
Well said indeed.
I've still got a D700, by far the best camera I've used for ease of getting good results without too much fuss.
I sold the M9 because it didn't do anything I couldn't do with the D700.
I say 'i couldn't do' for all who like the M9.
Image quality wise and only noticeable when pixel peeping the M9 had a slight edge with the 50 summilux I used for a comparison but looking at the full image, no difference. Difference between 12 and 18 mp probably. I used a manual Nikkor 50 f2, a summicron R 50 and a 24-70 on the Nikon.
Personally I was disappointed with the M9. The D700 with a good zoom is just too easy to get nice pics, in focus, accurately exposed etc. No hassle in post from RAW using NX2.
The high iso is just in a different league compaired to the M9.
Add the weather sealing of the Nikon and it's a complete package.
It is big and I do miss the size of M cameras but for digital the D700 was my winner.
Click to expand...
So would the small sized Pentax K-5 bridge the gap?
 
I sold my 5DII and L lens set to buy an M9. I still work everyday with files from both. The M9 files seem so obviously superior to me. It's clear to me on screen and in prints. Just greater clarity, acuity, and depth, in my view.

I'm not trying to be controversial and certainly don't want to try to prove anything. There are some things I like better about a DSLR, but for image quality that's honestly my experience.

John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom