M9 comparison

His methodology's all to cock.

He cropped the M9 frame to match the Nex 7 frame. I think the Nex 7 has a sensor that is 2/3 the size of the M9 ('crop factor 1.5'). This means that he cropped the Leica down to 18Mp * 2/3^2 = 8Mp. Then he downsized the N7 frame to 18Mp. Even ignoring the downsizing algorithm and sharpening, 18Mp is very very different to 8Mp.

All the test tells you is that an N7 uncropped can resolve more detail with the same lens than a heavily cropped M9 frame. None of this is useful.

I don't know if the N7 with equivalent lenses can out resolve an M9. I'm not really concerned - they're probalby so close it doesn't matter. I do think it sad that MR is posting such a flawed experiement as a test and hasn't had the technical sense to deal with the (flawed) criticism he posts in the postscript.

None of this is written as a 'Leica Fan Boy' as he seems wont to insultingly brand those who question his approach.

I suggest the site is best ignored as its primary purpose appears to be to get people to spend money.;

Mike
 
digitalintrigue said:
What methodology would you suggest for this comparison?
Click to expand...


I wouldn't really. They're not comparable. But,

if you really wanted to know which resolved the best you'd need to take the lenses you'd actually use, with identical fields of view and shoot the same scene then compare. I'd suggest comparing in three or four ways:

1. Both images optimally sharpened to taste at 100% on screen

2. Both images upressed to the same size and optimally sharpened on screen. This could be to N7 resolution or greater, as long as you don't downsize the bigger file. I might go for a two simes upsizing of the bigger file. This helps you see what's actually there, but introduces reizing variables.

3. I'd make some properly big prints with the pictures (say 30 by 20 or a bit bigger). For me this is the best way to see what the difference is in use as I make paper prints. I did this when testing a 1Ds3 against a Mamiya 7 with Ektar.

4. Finally I'd make some small prints - 10 by 8, 9 by 6 - and see that it didnt matter and that I might as well use what I like.

One additional advantage of this approach, apart from the fact that it avoids disadvantaging one camera by only using a part of it's sensor(!) is that it allows you to see how things will work with the lens you will use. There's not a lot of point for a 50mm 'full frame' shooter to walk around with a Nex7 and a 50 Superduperlux.

Best

Mike


Edited to add that the difference in resolutoin between any half decent lenses is going to be less than the difference between a full Nex7 frame and a heavily cropped (8Mp) M9 frame. It's not a magic Leica, just a machine:)
 
Michael said it - "The M9 is 18 Megapixels, while the NEX-7 is 24 Megapixels. This makes doing comparisons quite difficult. "

And "WTF".

Some people will care. I don't.
 
Since I will never shoot a 50/1.4 ASPH on a NEX 7 the comparison is of little use to me (I won't use one on an M9, either.) But your methodology #2 appears 'sound' to me.
 
If the NEX-7 had a true optical viewfinder, an optical rangefinder that properly interfaced with my Leica lenses, was built of brass or some other resilient material with heft, had the excellent ergonomic feel of a Leica M and a host of other M-like qualities, then I'd buy it.
Oh yeah, I already did. It's the M9.

Phil Forrest
 
Heh, that's kinda what my question was pointing out. ;) Although if a comparison must be done between these apples and those oranges, perhaps there is a better way than the one on LL.
 
What methodology would you suggest...

My methodology would be pretty simple. I’d just take a lot of similar pictures with both cameras and make fairly big prints. That takes a lot of time and certainly isn’t going to meet muster with scientific methodology. But, oddly enough, it isn’t that different from some of Leica’s testing methods. They have incredible optical benches, e.t.c., for testing. But, at least a few years back, they used to also post prints on the cafeteria wall for everybody to check out.

I have not done any of this with a Nex 7, but it does seem an interesting camera whose small size and quiet, quick operation would interest folks with Leica and Leicaflex lenses but not M9 money.

The comparisons that I have run with the better cameras that I use have not been too flattering to Leica. Image quality directly related to the sensor is fine, but certainly not the best of the lot. Nor is this aspect of image quality the only factor in evaluating a camera.

Perhaps it’s the nature of the sensor surface rather than film, perhaps it’s looser standards, perhaps it’s my imagination or something particular to my equipment, but the rangefinder focusing accuracy of lenses out of the box has also been a problem and does not seem as good as it was for the M3’s through 6’s that were my film workhorses. In the film days I had all my M body rangefinders null-nulled by Norm Goldberg (Don’s father) and the cams on my lenses reground if necessary to match them. This may be even more necessary with the digital bodies.

And then there is the question of high ISO performance. I never used film Leicas for landscape work, that got done on bigger format cameras. The little Leicas were to go anywhere with very little and come back with pictures. When Kodak came out with P3200 and I no longer had to backstop myself with a few rolls of weird recording films, I was a very happy camper. These days, using a big DSLR just because it out performs a smaller camera at high ISO’s does not make me a happy camper.

I think you evaluate camera performance on a number of personal criteria, but I think the buzz on the Nex 7 from a number of photographers who used the early releases make it of interest to anyone wanting high technical quality from a small, unobtrusive camera. The fact that it can accept Leica and Leicaflex lenses make it particularly interesting to this forum. Dpreview, http://www.dpreview.com/news/2011/12/14/sonynex7review gave it one of the best reviews it has ever given a camera. To automatically dismiss it in favor of a digital Leica doesn’t make much sense if you are interested in pictures. It does make sense if you are only interested in owning Leicas.
 
Hi, not surprise to have more resolving power with more pixels, but my question is why the market has stucked with apsc sensors or when are the brands going to quit on dslr´s no one needs mirrors anymore...
I hate sensor crop can´t widthstand the fact of having 28mm infinite dof and 42mm fov with an apsc sensor and a 28mm lens, can´t rival a ff camera even the canon 5d (1st one)
Can´t see myself trying to focus decently (fast) a RF lens on a nex 5, 7 or any like that...

BR
 
Bill Pierce said:
To automatically dismiss it in favor of a digital Leica doesn’t make much sense if you are interested in pictures. It does make sense if you are only interested in owning Leicas.
Click to expand...

Or if you are sensitive to ergonomics, full frame, simplified menus, and / or optical VFs.
 
Bill Pierce said:
What methodology would you suggest...

My methodology would be pretty simple. I’d just take a lot of similar pictures with both cameras and make fairly big prints. That takes a lot of time and certainly isn’t going to meet muster with scientific methodology. But, oddly enough, it isn’t that different from some of Leica’s testing methods. They have incredible optical benches, e.t.c., for testing. But, at least a few years back, they used to also post prints on the cafeteria wall for everybody to check out.

I have not done any of this with a Nex 7, but it does seem an interesting camera whose small size and quiet, quick operation would interest folks with Leica and Leicaflex lenses but not M9 money.

The comparisons that I have run with the better cameras that I use have not been too flattering to Leica. Image quality directly related to the sensor is fine, but certainly not the best of the lot. Nor is this aspect of image quality the only factor in evaluating a camera.

Perhaps it’s the nature of the sensor surface rather than film, perhaps it’s looser standards, perhaps it’s my imagination or something particular to my equipment, but the rangefinder focusing accuracy of lenses out of the box has also been a problem and does not seem as good as it was for the M3’s through 6’s that were my film workhorses. In the film days I had all my M body rangefinders null-nulled by Norm Goldberg (Don’s father) and the cams on my lenses reground if necessary to match them. This may be even more necessary with the digital bodies.

And then there is the question of high ISO performance. I never used film Leicas for landscape work, that got done on bigger format cameras. The little Leicas were to go anywhere with very little and come back with pictures. When Kodak came out with P3200 and I no longer had to backstop myself with a few rolls of weird recording films, I was a very happy camper. These days, using a big DSLR just because it out performs a smaller camera at high ISO’s does not make me a happy camper.

I think you evaluate camera performance on a number of personal criteria, but I think the buzz on the Nex 7 from a number of photographers who used the early releases make it of interest to anyone wanting high technical quality from a small, unobtrusive camera. The fact that it can accept Leica and Leicaflex lenses make it particularly interesting to this forum. Dpreview, http://www.dpreview.com/news/2011/12/14/sonynex7review gave it one of the best reviews it has ever given a camera. To automatically dismiss it in favor of a digital Leica doesn’t make much sense if you are interested in pictures. It does make sense if you are only interested in owning Leicas.[/quote]

And this is where I disagree.:angel: I buy cameras and lenses because of what I want which means aesthetics, ergonomics, "feel", preference, whatever. To buy a camera that looks like a Sony blob, Nikon blob, Canon blob, etc. does not make sense to ME. I personally have found my "sweet spot", the M-mount Leica camera in either film or digital. No reason to change IMO.

To universally declare that one (meaning ME or anyone else with similar taste) would only buy a Leica because he wants ONLY a Leica is stereotype garbage. It becomes an absolute and I dismiss any discussion where someone defends absolutes.

Personally, I looked at the NEX 5 and now the 7 and find it distastefully designed and does nothing more than what I use now or what I plan on buying in the future. Simple. Everyone has their own tastes and that is the way it should be, so please, the real measure if you want one is what one does with whatever camera/lenses he or she uses.:angel: I reckon I could spend the next 50 years with one camera and die a happy soul.
Click to expand...
 
Pretty chunky beast for a compact camera, although resolution, dynamic range and high iso are nice, all facets of the sensor and Sony's expertise in the area of sensor production. Now if only they could get someone like the chap who designed the Olympus Pen, so it wasn't so goddamn ugly..
 
Dave Lackey has said, “the real measure if you want one is what one does with whatever camera/lenses he or she uses.” I think Dave is dead right in that cameras are tools for taking pictures. Where we disagree (and remember, both of us are talking about what works best for us) is that Dave can stick with one camera body and many times I can’t.

Let’s look at the specific situation of someone covering a news event that requires high speed, fixed focal length lenses. You are going to need several bodies so that you can use several of these lenses with different focal lengths simultaneously. Obviously an M9 would be a good choice in situations that didn’t demand very high ISO’s. But several M9 bodies is a bit expensive. And I can buy 5 Nex 7 bodies for the price of a single M9 body. Two or three Nexi (plural of Nex?) with M mount lenses I already own would not only be easier on my wallet but easier on my back than my current rig of three DSLR’s.

Another situation - discreet street shooting... A single M9 would be excellent if people didn’t keep walking up to you and saying, “Is that a digital Leica? What do you think of it?” And then wanting to talk to you for the next 10 minutes. On the street, I’ve used a number of small, “amateur” cameras. Wear a loud enough shirt and have several street maps and brochures that you often refer to and you can get away with tourist-like murder. For those who essentially said the Nex was small and ugly - this is a huge advantage for candid street photography!! The high image quality is just a bonus.
 
Bill Pierce said:
Another situation - discreet street shooting... A single M9 would be excellent if people didn’t keep walking up to you and saying, “Is that a digital Leica?
Click to expand...


Sorry to go OT, but I had two people ask me if mine was an MP last weekend. Only the second time anyone's even noticed it, so I tink that some of the fuss is a bit overstated.

I can still see the value of the nexi etc, and slr's too. ll's good to those who just want to use them. Funny, I used to want the best cars, but now I enjoy driving pretty much anything. It's the same making phoos, though slow responses still irritate a bit - I find the M9 wake up time when it's hanging off my shoulder catches me out compared to either film bodies or dslr.

Mike
 
The dirision and outright hatred the nex cameras have inspired from certain quarters is remarkable.

Many reasons to not be interested in the n7, but it's a hellva camera, and no camera EVER has packed that rez into such a small footprint.

The crop alone is reason enough to prefer the M9, and the RF sets the cameras apart.

Maybe it's the idea that the unwashed are now shooting with RF glass ?

6518293537_41d9eaba14_z.jpg


leica 28/2 on 5n
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom