M9 comparison photos on dpreview

daveywaugh

daveywaugh

Blah
Local time
7:09 AM
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
354
Just checked out the M9 comparisons on dpreview... I don't even shoot digital, let alone own an M9, but was interested nonetheless.

I really like the Leica output and feel it easily compares to the other 'big name' Canon and Nikons. I had the impression that M9 pixel peepers were kind of embarrassed.. as though the sensor could't *really* compare to other FF sensors but IMO I prefer the M9 to the 5DmkII and D3s.

Anyway just an observation. Check it out anyway.
 
fdigital said:
I don't know - the 5d mkII looks pretty damn impressive to me in this comparison
Click to expand...

Yep it sure looks better at 6400 than the M9 at 2500.

Its strange though, the M9 at iso 800 looks really soft. Miss focused perhaps. Or is the 75mm summarit diffraction limited at f11?
 
Last edited:
Correctly exposed, the M9 at 2500 does fine and I shoot the 5DII all the time. As far as the rendering of the image, I prefer the M9.
 
jamato8 said:
Correctly exposed, the M9 at 2500 does fine and I shoot the 5DII all the time. As far as the rendering of the image, I prefer the M9.
Click to expand...

Yes in clean low light the M9 is fine, but put it in muddy low light and it suffers big time. The M9 loses to the 5D II around from ISO 800+
 
Yes, at low ISO the M9 output is fantastic, and takes a lot of manipulation while still retaining decent tonal range - which is fortunate as the meter is frankly a bit weak.

I can shoot transparency with my M6's internal meter fine, but the M9 seems to get easily fooled by bright highlights somehow.
 
leicashot said:
Yes in clean low light the M9 is fine, but put it in muddy low light and it suffers big time. The M9 loses to the 5D II around from ISO 800+
Click to expand...

I noticed this with my M8. With perfect exposure in even conditions I could get very acceptable results at ISO 2500. Using it in a gallery with deep shadows and lit displays, monitors etc it was a disaster at anything over ISO 640. When I can get a digital rangefinder that offers what these current full frame DSLRs offer regarding ISO I'll be a happy camper ... provided I can afford the thing of course! :D
 
Interesting to see the performance of the D3S at 12800 ... pretty much on a par with the M9 at 1600. :eek:
 
M9 only loses out in high ISO department. Not that I'm saying its unusable, but at the same ISO, the canon is much much cleaner.
 
You do notice, though, that the Canon lens they used gets significantly softer towards the edge while the Leica lens doesn't. I guess what they say about Leica lenses is true after all ;)
 
Unless Canon starts making a mechanical rangefinder, this sort of stuff doesn't matter. We all know the M9 is behind in terms of high ISO, but we still prefer it anyway.
 
No, I didn't notice that the Canon lens gets significantly softer towards the edge. And that's even considering that the Canon image is magnified slightly more due to the higher pixel count (one of the issues with DPR reviews is that higher pixel count sensors are at an inherant disadvantage due to this).

EDIT: I agree in large part with jsrockit. All these cameras do an excellent job. The choice between a rangefinder and SLR is about which camera and lenses you wish to use. IQ is moot at this level of excellence.
 
Last edited:
The M9 doesn't look that bad at all (I don't own one BTW). That is not to say that the Canon and Nikon are not better and have an extended usable range, but I would not be unhappy with that level of noise from the M9. At least the detail is preserved at 2500. These things are all relative and don't indicate absolute usability at any given ISO for any given camera.
 
The whole IQ fetish is completely silly. Its the photographic equivalent of arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Give Joseph Koudelka a 2 mpx iphone and he'll take better photos than all of us put together armed with our 24 mgpx full frame 13 fps whatevers.

I've become convinced thst the vast majority of Leica owners have bought them as some measure of psychological compensation for their self-realization that they have no aesthetic talent. Ergo, let's delude ourselves into believing that the "best" equipment will make up for our complete lack of creativity.
 
j j said:
No, I didn't notice that the Canon lens gets significantly softer towards the edge. And that's even considering that the Canon image is magnified slightly more due to the higher pixel count (one of the issues with DPR reviews is that higher pixel count sensors are at an inherant disadvantage due to this).
Click to expand...

Actually, I had another look and you're right, it doesn't get softer. The problem is that the Canon seems to be focused a bit closer than the Leica (most noticeably if you look at the Queen of hearts card). Coincidentally I moved the cursor to the Kodak grey scale and attributed the softness to the lens whereas it's soft due to the fact that it's further back.

In any case, I'm perfectly happy with my Canon 5DII and have no real interest in the M9 anyways regardless of how well or how badly it performs.
 
Teuthida said:
I've become convinced thst the vast majority of Leica owners have bought them as some measure of psychological compensation for their self-realization that they have no aesthetic talent. Ergo, let's delude ourselves into believing that the "best" equipment will make up for our complete lack of creativity.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is the fashionable thing to say... but is it really true or are you just making generalizations because someone chose to spend a lot of money on a item that they enjoy using?

Also, since when does someone's level of ability come into play when you are buying a consumer device to enjoy during one's free time?

IQ is overrated a lot of the time i.e. people chasing the latest and greatest when in reality the improvements are incremental. However, IQ can be a factor if you are printing large or expect a certain level of detail across the full frame.
 
Teuthida said:
Give Joseph Koudelka a 2 mpx iphone and he'll take better photos than all of us put together armed with our 24 mgpx full frame 13 fps whatevers.
Click to expand...

Or maybe he'll just use it to make phone calls and not take any pictures with it at all.

Also, please speak for yourself and your own talents. We others might take better photos then Koudelka ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom