Is 10 meg enough, Dlux-4 M8, Looking for insight from users

17"x22" prints with M8 are fantastic!!!!!

17"x22" prints with M8 are fantastic!!!!!

I have used medium format 6x9 for years, and let me tell you, the M8 combined with the Epson 3800 (3880 new) and Epson Exhibition Fiber 17"x22" is blowing my mind! Yes, it is that good! I frame them in 20"x25" frames. Perfect for the gallery. I have no complaints!!! The MP war is over!!!
 
I have both the M8 and the G10.

Both serve different masters.

M8 most often. Outstanding images and 10MP is all I need.

G10 for when I ride my Motorcycle and need something to grab a shot.
More MP, less quality by a long shot. If I crash, the first thing out of my mouth would not be "is my camera OK"

It would be if I was carrying the M8

Probably doesn't answer your question, but then the question is an "Apples/Oranges" one.
 
I have an M8 and an M9, and had an M8.2. To me, the M9 has a far more film-like or non-airbrushed look, even at A4: it's a question of fine texture. Yes, the M8 is great - until you try an M9.

Cheers,

R.
 
Yep, I agree the megapixel war is over. Several years ago I produced several window display shots for a hair salon. They were shot on Fuji S2 Pro, 6 mp. I interpolated them in Photoshop upto 'A2' size. 22x17(?). Only the hardiest of nerds with there nose against the glass may have noticed.
The sky is the limit. If it had been film on my medium format it could have been better, but then it could be argued that 5x4 or 10x8 cameras would have been better still.
As for the earlier comment about Canon wanting a pissing contest. I agree completely. Never mind cameras, as a rider of Kawasaki's for some years the Japanese ethos of 'continual improvement' was well known in the biking world.

Steve.
 
Roger Hicks said:
I have an M8 and an M9, and had an M8.2. To me, the M9 has a far more film-like or non-airbrushed look, even at A4: it's a question of fine texture. Yes, the M8 is great - until you try an M9.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...
Yes- that is right, Roger, the M9 does show better transitions, both in colour and (micro)contrast. But the reason is not the higher megapixel count as such, - after all the pixel pitch is identical to the M8- but the fact that the enlargement through the system is less.
 
jaapv said:
Yes- that is right, Roger, the M9 does show better transitions, both in colour and (micro)contrast. But the reason is not the higher megapixel count as such, - after all the pixel pitch is identical to the M8- but the fact that the enlargement through the system is less.
Click to expand...

I am not convinced of this. Are you suggesting that a full-frame 10 MP sensor would deliver identical results to a full-frame 18 MP sensor?

More information at a given enlargement size means smoother transitions and better texture.

Given identical 'pixel quality' then more pixels = more information = better quality. 'Pixel quality' can be reduced in all sorts of ways, most notably by trying to pack too many of them onto a chip. Not packing too many onto a chip = bigger chips for more pixels.

Cheers.

R.
 
No, I'm not suggesting that as such - but I am pointing out the relationship between Mp-sensor size-pixel pitch and magnification. The end result is not more Mp= better, but more Mp on a larger sensor==better. Or maybe just larger sensor=better. Otherwise a 12 Mp mini P&S would have the same performance as a 12 MP DSLR. As for the M8-M9, the main reason of the better performance is the larger sensor at the same pixel pitch, which, of course results in a higher MP count as well. I still wonder what a similar ff sensor in an M9 @ 10 Mp instead of 18 Mp would do. At the very least it would work wonders in ISO performance.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps an idea would be to wait around and see how the Sony NEX's sensor holds up. From what I've heard, it's low light capability is quite remarkable.
 
I took my Dlux-4 to a gig recently. Set the ISO to 400 and the lens as wide open as it would go, shutter speed set to around 1/80 - 1/100. Had to crop quite a few as I wasn't right at the front. Very pleased with the results, better than I expected.

4666816755_29c94d5472.jpg


4666815257_459005ee9d.jpg


4667440686_a3425b12f2.jpg


some more on my Flickr
 
The d lux 4 convinced me to get an M8. The D lux is an amazing little camera but i found it over complcated and dificult to wade through the menues. I wanted a "real", manual camera to match my other Ms and the M8 made sense.

The cannon is a great camera for what it is. I have a G6 that I use every day for work and it is still going strong at 6MP :)
 
The M9 needs the extra pixels to keep the pixel density the same as the M8, because the sensor is a larger area. I've come to the conclusion for myself that I won't "upgrade" from my 5D-I to a 5D-II at least on the basis of pixel count, because for the print sizes I do I'll just be paying for higher-cap cards and more computing power/HD space for data that the printer driver will ultimately toss out.
 
I think the D-Lux 4 menus are quite easy to use, but I understand the need for M simplicity. I prefer it to my Canon G9. I like the M8.2 for more pixels, and had been on a list for a M9 since January. I agree with you guys about asking yourself if you really need the larger files. Right now, I honestly don't. I would like the FF of the M9 for higher ISO though, and other improvements, but for several thousand dollars more, it makes me cringe.
 
Ben Z said:
The M9 needs the extra pixels to keep the pixel density the same as the M8, because the sensor is a larger area. I've come to the conclusion for myself that I won't "upgrade" from my 5D-I to a 5D-II at least on the basis of pixel count, because for the print sizes I do I'll just be paying for higher-cap cards and more computing power/HD space for data that the printer driver will ultimately toss out.
Click to expand...
Not quite correct, Ben. The larger amount of information provided by the larger pixel count of the sensor, even if the pixel pitch is the same, will result in smoother colour and contrast transitions, which is visible even on smaller prints. It is not about resolution, really. Btw, I've learned that it is not correct to let the printer toss out the extra data. It is far better to scale the image down to printer resolution in photoshop.The bonus is that you will be able to judge your sharpening correctly in that case.
 
Last edited:
jaapv said:
Not quite correct, Ben. The larger amount of information provided by the larger pixel count of the sensor, even if the pixel pitch is the same, will result in smoother colour and contrast transitions, which is visible even on smaller prints. It is not about resolution, really. Btw, I've learned that it is not correct to let the printer toss out the extra data. It is far better to scale the image down to printer resolution in photoshop.The bonus is that you will be able to judge your sharpening correctly in that case.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification. All that I was trying to convey was that the increase in pixel count from M8-M9 is in direct proportion to the increase in sensor area like between my 8MP 1.6-crop 20D and the 12MP full-frame 5D.

Theoretically I can appreciate why in identically-framed (i.e. FOV) shots from M9 and M8, the win should go to the M9, but in the prints I made I found, as I have with the 20D-5D, it's what I would call a subtle improvement.

BTW have you noticed the one-sided red corner phenomenon with wide angle lenses on the M9 that I've been reading about? Going back to the images I shot I couldn't find any evidence of it, but again, it could be my subject matter. Didn't shoot any blank white walls.

Also in my comment about the printer driver I was merely making a point. In fact I do scale the image in PS before printing, however in that case also, data is being discarded.
 
Last edited:
boxerjim-
Since you are indeed a RF kinda' guy, you might want to look at picking up an Epson RD-1 as a much lower cost alternative. It's 6 MP but it has the same sensor as the Nikon D-100. It does extremely well in low light at 1600. For the price of the M8, you could also get some vintage glass with character.

As for me, I use the RD-1 but also have the D-Lux3 for it's true portability. It's light and small enough to wear from a lanyard around your neck all day long, and you'll forget it's even there.
 
Ben Z said:
Thanks for the clarification. All that I was trying to convey was that the increase in pixel count from M8-M9 is in direct proportion to the increase in sensor area like between my 8MP 1.6-crop 20D and the 12MP full-frame 5D.

Theoretically I can appreciate why in identically-framed (i.e. FOV) shots from M9 and M8, the win should go to the M9, but in the prints I made I found, as I have with the 20D-5D, it's what I would call a subtle improvement.

BTW have you noticed the one-sided red corner phenomenon with wide angle lenses on the M9 that I've been reading about? Going back to the images I shot I couldn't find any evidence of it, but again, it could be my subject matter. Didn't shoot any blank white walls.

Also in my comment about the printer driver I was merely making a point. In fact I do scale the image in PS before printing, however in that case also, data is being discarded.
Click to expand...

Yes, very true, I can only agree, also to the subtleness. I had red-edge problems only once, on an ZM Biogon 21 that I miscoded, after recoding it correctly it was gone.
 
I've heard that ~10 megapixels is the upper limit for handheld photography. Any higher, and motion blur (even at 1/250) and depth of field (even at f/16) limits the detail you'll see in the image.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom