M10 upgrade

M10 upgrade

  • Yes I am planning to upgrade

    Votes: 25 20.7%
  • Nope, not worth it for me

    Votes: 96 79.3%

  • Total voters
    121
Not right now.--particularly if M10 is priced a $10K or higher. Just don't have that kind of cash on hand. Also--hate to say it--Olympus EM-5 has pretty much all the qualities of an M--small size, quiet operation,etc--and with more and better features--for about 1/6 the price of the current M9.

So if the M10 does come in at $10k, I'll just stick with the M9,and maybe buy the M10 ( or M11, if I have to wait tht long) down the line when I can afford to. Or I might just bid adieu to Leica and stick with the Olympus MFTs.....
 
7670889494_ca6e482243_h.jpg


1600, summicron-c 40. very noisy, and required a lot of NR in PP. lots of detail went away. i like the way the photo looks, but i'd like it even more if there were more details.
 
1600, summicron-c 40. very noisy, and required a lot of NR in PP. lots of detail went away. i like the way the photo looks, but i'd like it even more if there were more details.

Is this the M9?

You will get far better results with Portra400@1600. Sample -
6270834775_07aedb66c9_z.jpg


I've heard that the M9 is usable till 2500 with noise reduction, so I am a bit surprised.
 
Not a great photograph by any means, but an example of the M9P at ISO 2500. Processed from DNG through ACR with the Luminance and Chroma sliders set at 50.



And the original color version.



Cheers,

Antonio
 
1600, summicron-c 40. very noisy, and required a lot of NR in PP. lots of detail went away. i like the way the photo looks, but i'd like it even more if there were more details.

Wow, Adam that is noisy as all hell!

I was toying with the idea of an M9 but since 95% of my shots are taken at night or in dark interiors i think I'll stick with my R-D1. It does pretty well @1600.

What's your take on this?
 
Wow, Adam that is noisy as all hell!

I was toying with the idea of an M9 but since 95% of my shots are taken at night or in dark interiors i think I'll stick with my R-D1. It does pretty well @1600.

What's your take on this?

I know the question is not directed at me, but please see my post above. I think Adam´s result may be due to really challenging lighting and underexposure in the dark areas. Not representative of the M9's low light performance in my opinion.

Regards,

Antonio
 
I know the question is not directed at me, but please see my post above. I think Adam´s result may be due to really challenging lighting and underexposure in the dark areas. Not representative of the M9's low light performance in my opinion.

Regards,

Antonio

Yes, Antonio. Your example is quite good.
 
Back
Top Bottom