M9 comparison

Bill,

Thanks for the M9-NEX 7 comparison. It is intriguing, and does not stir any disgust or horror for me ... cameras are tools, whether Sony or Leica or Canikolytaxonic. What works to make great photos, both technically and for me, personally, is all that matters.

You used a normal, 50mm focal length lens for a 35mm format camera to compare the NEX 7 vs M9 and your results stand as far as sensor performance with that lens goes.

However, this is a portrait telephoto lens for the NEX 7 and does not show what the difference in performance might be if you chose lenses with equivalent field of view on the two formats. A normal lens for the NEX 7 is a 35mm focal length. And a traditional RF camera's 35mm lens field of view on the M9 is achieved by a 24mm focal length on the NEX 7.

My question is: Could you replicate your test by using similar field of view lenses ... normal and wide angle equivalents for the format ... on the two cameras? Yes, I know you would be testing apples against oranges in once sense as the lenses are different. But as a practical comparison, this will tell me a lot about what to expect with the NEX 7 using lenses more appropriate to the FoV choices that most RF camera users tend to be comfortable with.

Thanks in advance!
 
Conclusion:
NEX7 has a sensor that has higher resolving power than that of M9.

Is that something hard to admit?
 
uhoh7 said:
Maybe it's the idea that the unwashed are now shooting with RF glass ?
Click to expand...

Naw, it has more to do with the fact that the owners/lusters of the P&S de jour are compelled to draw the comparison with the most expensive camera they can find.

The "great unwashed" can't afford Leica glass, and they don't like the idea that Leica can't fulfill demand for their lenses and M9s.
 
A 24 mpix sensor resolves a little more detail than an 18 mpix sensor. Wow, whoda thunk it? Why should this be controversial? It sounds like a profound grasp of the obvious.

What's more interesting to me is that a 24 pix sensor with an anti-alias filter resolves just a little more detail than an 18 mpix sensor without one.
 
Bill Pierce said:
Here’s an article that will have a lot of RF folks going nuts. But it’s a further update on the position of the rangefinder in the current world.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/sony_nex_7_rolling_review.shtml#m9
Click to expand...

RF cameras are basically obsolete. This is a dance we perform called Nostalgia. Focus peaking will do away with optical RF mechanisms. How could it not? And now the M9, beyond the reach of all but the wealthiest working photographers....

(p.s. I own 3 Leica film cameras...)
 
Luminous Landscape also proved the Canon G10 is virtually as good as a high megapixel digital "medium format" back. They then proved that a digital medium format back absolutely killed 8x10" film. Ergo a Canon G10 is at least as good, if not better than 8x10 film. I therefore don't see the need to pay extra for a Sony Nex 7 (which I guess - by a process of deduction - beats 20x24'" film).
 
It is completely unsurprising the NEX 7 surpasses the M9 in terms of basic sensor performance. People don't buy a M9 because it has a state-of-the-art sensor. They buy a M9 for the reasons mentioned above. The M8 proved people value the M aesthetic despite its sensor (IR sensitivity and mediocre signal-to-noise/dynamic range). I totally get this because I value my X-100's sensor performance and ease of use despite the mediocre AF system.

MR's job is to drive people to his web site where he sells courses and tutorials and advertises a variety of products from others. He is simply is running a business. This comparison may be somewhat meaningless, but it is also harmless.

I see the NEX 7 an an alternate to the M9/M8. It is small and one can use M-mount lenses. It has a competent finder and operates well with manual lenses. It has all the issues any other APS-C camera has when one wants to use lenses originally designed for 135 format media. It will work fine with some manual lens designs and will require post-processing intervention to address artifacts when used with others. The NEX-7 does give people a viable option to enjoy a digital camera with some of the advanages of a rangefinder at a reasonable price. Not to long ago we only had the M8 and the RD-1.

What I do find interesting is: the NEX has an AA filter. I hope the LL comparison puts an end to the myth that even a competently engineered AA filter means resolution is excessively degraded.
 
AA filter at 24mpix crop-frame

AA filter at 24mpix crop-frame

willie_901 said:
What I do find interesting is: the NEX has an AA filter. I hope the LL comparison puts an end to the myth that even a competently engineered AA filter means resolution is excessively degraded.
Click to expand...

The Nex 7 AA Filter is optimized for a much smaller pixel size
 
Pablito said:
RF cameras are basically obsolete. -- Focus peaking will do away with optical RF mechanisms. How could it not?
Click to expand...
I am not that impressed with the focus peaking on the NEX-5N. It keeps on telling my action shots are in focus while they very clearly are not. I need to use it more with faster lenses to really conclude on the performance of this feature. And getting an EVF should not hurt.

For static subjects, the focus peaking (well, the magnified view really) is a great tool and will easily match rangefinder performance.
 
sojournerphoto said:
His methodology's all to cock.
Click to expand...


What I find pseudo-amusing is that the "who cares!" gang, paradoxically, don't care about the methodology but care about the assertions made w/methodology full of holes.

Had the comparison been made with say, oh...a Nikon D3, there'd be lots of heckling.

I just found it interesting. I've never seen an M9 crop of a 50mm Summilux so lacking in crispness at f/2.8. I have borrowed a few (if even for hardly a day), and the shots I took handheld with my pre-asph at f/2.8 were not this bad.

Granted, I do see a slight resolution difference at a pixel-peeping level between the M8 and the M9...but what's on that page tells me something's awry. Of course, that should brand anyone as an "apologist". ::sigh::

The so-called post-debate is useless. Minds are made.
 
The experiment on Luminous Landscape only reflects real word results, if you have the habit of cropping all your M9 images to less than half their original size. It's like comparing 135 and 120 film by cropping the 120 negative to 135 size first. It may be an interesting experiment but it hardly reflects real world usage. I don't doubt the NEX-7 has a better sensor than the M9, I just don't find this experiment very useful.

Leaving comparisons aside, the NEX-7 looks really great. I didn't like the smaller NEX cameras because they were too small and didn't even have a hot shoe. This one looks much better. The crop factor is more attractive than Four Thirds. This may very well be the first choice to get high quality images with Leica-M lenses.
 
"Here is what I have decided to do, since I am more interested in real world results that are relevant to my photography rather than pure pixel peeping. I cropped the M9 images to the same field of view as the NEX. A typical such cropping is shown above. I then resized the NEX files from 24 MP down to 18 MP so that they matched in both field of view and resolution."

This is a poorly conceived test (what I've come to expect from Luminous Landscape). Much better to select different focal lengths so that the same angle of view is produced by the cameras. Then there would be no reason to crop the Leica image.
 
Meh... I don't pay much attention to his words or site....especially when you spell "fanboi" incorrectly *smirk* :D

Cheers,
Dave
 
A number of folks here were critical of the Luminous Landscape’s comparison of the Sony Nex-7 and the Leica M9 image quality because he used the same lens on both cameras, thus producing images with 2 different fields of view. In the second installment of this comparison (which is part of huge evaluation of the Nex-7), he uses two different lenses (a Leica 50 and Leica 35) to produce similar fields of view with the two different cameras.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/nex_7_vs_m9_part_deux.shtml

On this Rangefinder Forum site, in this thread, there were a few rather nasty remarks directed at Michael Reichmann and the Luminous Landscape site. This man and his associates have provided an immense amount of useful information to the photographic community for a considerable period of time. On the Rangefinder Forum I expect a little over-the-top enthusiasm for the M9, the only digital rangefinder currently in production. But I have been proud to be associated with a site that doesn’t do the opposite and regularly go into “mad dog” mode on anything outside of its primary interest. Let’s not start to slip in that direction.
 
Both tests seem reasonable to me, maybe the only reasonable tests out there - ignore megapixels and all else, how do the files look enlarged? Accepting a cropped view or switching lenses (as LL has done) are the only two real options.
 
I think MR's rebuttal should put an end to any nasty comments. If you don't have a horse in the race and are looking for a reasonable alternative cost wise to an M9 this should be good news.

Bob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom