jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Depends on how you look at it. As it has a larger area, it will be less enlarged, leading to higher resolution in the print.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
The M9's higher pixel count is due to the larger sensor, the pixels aren't closer together. Although the resolution is increased in the M9, this is a relative resolution when comparing the M9 to the M8, not an absolute one.
EDIT: Jaapv is correct though, thats a way of looking at it as well.
The DOF is the same on both sensors, the Angle Of View changes but not the Depth Of Field. Any LTM or M lens mounted can cover either sensor, changing DOF only is the case when a lenses' covering circle is made to fit a sensor size.
EDIT: Jaapv is correct though, thats a way of looking at it as well.
The DOF is the same on both sensors, the Angle Of View changes but not the Depth Of Field. Any LTM or M lens mounted can cover either sensor, changing DOF only is the case when a lenses' covering circle is made to fit a sensor size.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I've heard this theory before about the filters being like a beacon on the lens but I have yet to notice it attracting attention to my camera when shooting public events.
The shutter sound they notice!
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I can give you the same argument for the DOF
Technically you are right provided the camera-subject distance is unchanged and the same lens is used. However, in practice, to get the same field of view, the lens will be changed or the photographer will step back when using the smaller format, resulting in a wider DOF.
Last edited:
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Right you are, Jaap.
At least we got it all covered now
At least we got it all covered now
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
I've heard this theory before about the filters being like a beacon on the lens but I have yet to notice it attracting attention to my camera when shooting public events.
The shutter sound they notice!
Keith, I guess this also has to do with the position of the sun. I think NL is at a higher longitude (or is it latitude?) resulting in more moments where the sun more often hits these filters in angles that will cause reflections.
I got particularly annoyed when walking the streets with the camera on a neck strap, there would be this purple bright spot dancing ahead of me and people would turn their head to see where the purple flashing reflections came from. Sucking in my stomach to have the camera dangle at another angle got me purple in the face.
I'd still consider the M9 over the M8 if I had any (financial) grounds for considerations like that.
Paul T.
Veteran
As nksyoon suggests, this whole argument - that the M9 is less sharp because it has an IR filter built-in - is built on a fallacy.
It is the AA filter that introduces blur. The M9, like the M8, does not have an AA filter. It is the AA filter that has been removed in some experiments with Nikons in search of sharper photos.
The lack of an IR filter (or, rather the inclusion of a weak IR filter) on the M8 came about for a completely different reason; they wanted to minimise reflections and other effects, as the sensor was so close to the lens. it has no direct connection with sharpness.
Again, as pointed out, some people do take the IR filters off their cameras, but this is so they can do IR photos.
Hence, if you're going to diss the M9 (on the basis of the briefest and most obviously inadequate of tests), you'd be better off saying it's useless because you can't do IR photography with it.
It is the AA filter that introduces blur. The M9, like the M8, does not have an AA filter. It is the AA filter that has been removed in some experiments with Nikons in search of sharper photos.
The lack of an IR filter (or, rather the inclusion of a weak IR filter) on the M8 came about for a completely different reason; they wanted to minimise reflections and other effects, as the sensor was so close to the lens. it has no direct connection with sharpness.
Again, as pointed out, some people do take the IR filters off their cameras, but this is so they can do IR photos.
Hence, if you're going to diss the M9 (on the basis of the briefest and most obviously inadequate of tests), you'd be better off saying it's useless because you can't do IR photography with it.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Small, even moderate, differences in sharpness in different high end cameras and lenses is easily equalized by a couple of clicks in photoshop. The entire discussion when dealing with digital capture seems related to angels on the head of a pin.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
As good as photoshop is and any other sharpening software for that matter, I don't see how it can compensate for a genuine lack of sharpness out of the camera ... there has to be some sort of slight image quality trade off surely!
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here!
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here!
Paul T.
Veteran
No, you're not wrong. Garbage in, garbage out. There's something very fatiguing about looking at over-sharpened photos.
I hate that the over-sharpened look, complete with artefacts, is becoming so common - especially with modern flat-screen TVs, which seem to have over-sharpening set as default to make up for over-compression and poor quality at source.
I hate that the over-sharpened look, complete with artefacts, is becoming so common - especially with modern flat-screen TVs, which seem to have over-sharpening set as default to make up for over-compression and poor quality at source.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Keith, all images from digital cameras requiring sharpening. Some more, some less. But with proper sharpening, it's really hard to tell the difference among good quality cameras and lenses.
ulrikft
Established
Two similarly framed shots with a M8 and a M9 will give more detail in the M9 shot, end of discussion. That is the objective, simple truth.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
ulrikft, that's true in an absolute sense, but like with film, whether you can tell the difference depends on final print size, etc. Whether the difference is worth $4,000 is still another issue.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I seldom, in fact hardly ever, sharpen images from my M8 ... I could not possibly want or need any image sharper than what I get directly from that camera's raw output!
That said I don't place a high priority on sharpness ... I'm content with clarity!
ulrikft
Established
ulrikft, that's true in an absolute sense, but like with film, whether you can tell the difference depends on final print size, etc. Whether the difference is worth $4,000 is still another issue.
Of course. That is the important distinction. Is the measured difference enough to make you change? The M8 is in the ballpark of my d700 sharpness wise, my upressed d700 shots are not as good as the M9 on pure resolution, but the difference is not huge (if someone want full files, I can fix that, they are online). But if I use smart sharpen and work the d700, they take a lot of sharpening and get close to the original M9 file, but then again I can sharpen the M9 too... so, it is an advantage to the M9, wether or not it is important, is up to you
ulrikft
Established
ulrikft, that's true in an absolute sense, but like with film, whether you can tell the difference depends on final print size, etc. Whether the difference is worth $4,000 is still another issue.
Of course. That is the important distinction. Is the measured difference enough to make you change? The M8 is in the ballpark of my d700 sharpness wise, my upressed d700 shots are not as good as the M9 on pure resolution, but the difference is not huge (if someone want full files, I can fix that, they are online). But if I use smart sharpen and work the d700, they take a lot of sharpening and get close to the original M9 file, but then again I can sharpen the M9 too... so, it is an advantage to the M9, wether or not it is important, is up to you
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Keith, you might be really surprised at how good those M8 files could look properly sharpened
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Don't you? What are the sharpening settings in your RAW processor? If they are default you sharpen considerably without knowing itI seldom, in fact hardly ever, sharpen images from my M8 ... I could not possibly want or need any image sharper than what I get directly from that camera's raw output!
That said I don't place a high priority on sharpness ... I'm content with clarity!
D&A
Well-known
On a per pixel basis, image wise, there are small differences depending which image parameter one is examined between M8 and M9 files. It's's close for all intent and purposes. Yet when comparing the "native" sized files out of each camera, of course there is an approx 30% increase of resolution from the M9 when both horizontal & vertical axis are taken into consideration. If examining the files on a monitor at 100%, the differences and rendering of details with the M9 is of course greater. In large format prints, whether differences can or will be seen will depend on a number of factors....first and foremost how large the print will be made. At what point subtle or notable differences in these large scale prints can be seen, will also depend on subject matter, viewing distance etc. In the case of large format prints, the increase in # of pixels is generally more of an adavantage than the slight decrease in acuity sometimes seen in M9 files when compared to M8 files (when all appropriate and proper "controls" are employed).
Yes there are other factors that complicates things a bit in these comparisons, like camera to subject distance when filling the frame of each camera exactly the same as the other...just one example.
All things being equal and using just the native files out of the camera, no question the M9 will have in most cases an advanatge in large format prints. To extend this further as pointed out, just how close M8 files scaled up will come close to matching the native M9 files, is also dependent on technique and quality of scaling-up, definitely subject dependent and some other important parameters such as lighting, will play a significant role. The eye can sometimes be fooled.
Still at some point as one prints larger..especially past 20x24 and greater....interpolation/sharpning techniques are still no substitute for quality native files and here again we are starting with two cameras that on a per pixel bases are very close...its just that one is starting with far more pixels....you can't get around that at some point ie: printing larger and larger. On the other hand the approx 30% increase in these additional pixels (taking both axis into consideration), isn't hugh but certainly contributes. As is often said...every bit helps. Although its not specific nor pertinant for this case here (M8 vs M9)...how maliable a digital file is, in how it handles post processing, scaling up and other digital manipulations, can often superceed an increase in the number of pixels found in another camera its being compared to. We all know its not always about the amount of pixels but the quality of those pixels! In this case the quality of the M8 and M9 pixels is roughly equivelent. Please notice I said roughly!
Finally we're taking about examining differences between these two cameras, especially when printing large. Whether that really matters to others viewing a particular "large" print and if it adds or detracts from the impact of that print....that's a completely different question. There have been notable images made with digital cameras, even ones that recently that won accolades from judges and the public, and if one looks close, the image is quite pixelated...so its all relative!
One thing I think most all of us can agree on, is both the M8 & M9 are superb picture taking cameras, both can print very large, especially if all steps in the chain are handled correctly and with aplomb...and each has certain advantages and characteristics that may be geared to how the camera and its files are subsequently used. I of couse left out advnatges of higher ISO performance, speed at which each respective cameras handles (ie processing of files, image review etc.)...and restricted my comments to the paraments mentioned above.
Dave (D&A)
Yes there are other factors that complicates things a bit in these comparisons, like camera to subject distance when filling the frame of each camera exactly the same as the other...just one example.
All things being equal and using just the native files out of the camera, no question the M9 will have in most cases an advanatge in large format prints. To extend this further as pointed out, just how close M8 files scaled up will come close to matching the native M9 files, is also dependent on technique and quality of scaling-up, definitely subject dependent and some other important parameters such as lighting, will play a significant role. The eye can sometimes be fooled.
Still at some point as one prints larger..especially past 20x24 and greater....interpolation/sharpning techniques are still no substitute for quality native files and here again we are starting with two cameras that on a per pixel bases are very close...its just that one is starting with far more pixels....you can't get around that at some point ie: printing larger and larger. On the other hand the approx 30% increase in these additional pixels (taking both axis into consideration), isn't hugh but certainly contributes. As is often said...every bit helps. Although its not specific nor pertinant for this case here (M8 vs M9)...how maliable a digital file is, in how it handles post processing, scaling up and other digital manipulations, can often superceed an increase in the number of pixels found in another camera its being compared to. We all know its not always about the amount of pixels but the quality of those pixels! In this case the quality of the M8 and M9 pixels is roughly equivelent. Please notice I said roughly!
Finally we're taking about examining differences between these two cameras, especially when printing large. Whether that really matters to others viewing a particular "large" print and if it adds or detracts from the impact of that print....that's a completely different question. There have been notable images made with digital cameras, even ones that recently that won accolades from judges and the public, and if one looks close, the image is quite pixelated...so its all relative!
One thing I think most all of us can agree on, is both the M8 & M9 are superb picture taking cameras, both can print very large, especially if all steps in the chain are handled correctly and with aplomb...and each has certain advantages and characteristics that may be geared to how the camera and its files are subsequently used. I of couse left out advnatges of higher ISO performance, speed at which each respective cameras handles (ie processing of files, image review etc.)...and restricted my comments to the paraments mentioned above.
Dave (D&A)
Last edited:
ampguy
Veteran
Hi Dave,
Since you've got an M8 and M9, it would be great to see comparisons, and maybe make a DNG file or two available if possible. Maybe on a new thread ...
Since you've got an M8 and M9, it would be great to see comparisons, and maybe make a DNG file or two available if possible. Maybe on a new thread ...