Paul Luscher
Well-known
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.....
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.....
LCT
ex-newbie
I like much my Zuiko lenses but Oly will make a rangefinder when pigs can fly.
porktaco
Well-known
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.
ramosa
B&W
I still use an M8So the question for me is M9 or M10 for crazy money no doubt.
same situation here. the expected M10 specs and exorbitant cost are making the M9 (or, heck, even the M6 TTL) look better and better ...
anerjee
Well-known
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 -
I've heard that the M9 is usable till 2500 with noise reduction, so I am a bit surprised.
Is this the M9?
You will get far better results with Portra400@1600. Sample -
I've heard that the M9 is usable till 2500 with noise reduction, so I am a bit surprised.
porktaco
Well-known
well, is was very dark. i think in a reasonably well lit situation, 1600 could have been ok
ajramirez
Established
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
And the original color version.
Cheers,
Antonio
astro8
Well-known
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?
ajramirez
Established
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
Fraser
Well-known
There is nothing wrong with the M9 at 1600iso, porktaco that pic must have been about 5 stops underexposed.
1600iso
12fbpic1600room by f4saregreat!, on Flickr
1600iso
12fbpic1600room by f4saregreat!, on Flickr
astro8
Well-known
Yes, Antonio. Your example is quite good.
dogberryjr
[Pithy phrase]
Not upgrading, and in fact I've sold my M9. It wasn't an easy decision, but I just didn't love it $5000 to 7000 worth.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
You are spot-on. The only part of it that is more or less exposed correctly, the side of the toilet, looks ok.
NR after the raw conversion always looks worse than for instance the latest version of ACR btw.
