M9 comparison

[Hatch]

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.

Dang it man, don't give away the trade secrets 😀

I can't disagree with the Dave Lackey quote either.

One uses what one has.
That's part of the fun in getting a great shot.

 

[ktran]

Why does this matter though?

Sorry, it's in response to the third post on the first page 😉

It does matter, because it explains why MR also had to downrez the NEX-7 files. The 18 MP M9 sensor cropped to APS-C is about 6 MP.

As an aside, people also have this idea that APS-C is "slightly smaller than full-frame, but much larger than 4/3," when in reality, they are 1/3 and 1/4 the size of FF, respectively. People tend not to do too well with the inverse ratios needed to get to the 1.5, 1.6, etc. crop factors to begin with.

 

[RObert Budding]

Second Test Is Better

Second Test Is Better

The second test is much better conceived. So, yes, the NEX-7 does produce excellent images when the light is good.

 

[Godfrey]

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

...

Hello again, Bill!

I like that he went back and did the alternative test! This is more useful information, to me, as it tells me that I can get image quality with the appropriate M-bayonet normal lens on both cameras that is comparable to on par. If the user experience of the NEX 7 is good (note: I didn't say the same ... ;-), that says that it is a fine camera and a huge savings over the M9.

This test does not help with my other NEX 7 concern: imaging performance with wide-angle M-bayonet lenses. For the NEX 7 to be useful to me, I would be using 21 - 25 mm lenses quite a lot in addition to a 35-40-50 mm focal length as they provide my desired FoV choices. I'd love to see the same test once more, this time the NEX 7 fitted with a 24mm lens and the M9 fitted with a 35mm lens.

But hell, I may just get a NEX 7 and test it out before I purchase an M9. If it works well enough and I enjoy using it, I could stop right there.

 

[Teuthida]

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.

This is one more example of why you are the best resource on RFF. Your common sense is incredibly refreshing.

 

[Tom Rymour]

Has anybody had a word to say about Senor Reichmann's evocative people-in-public-places shots taken in San Miguel de Allende? That's what we should be discussing -- instead of how many angels can dance on the end of a pixel! Do you imagine that HCB wasted much time in anguished technical discourses about Kodak versus Agfa, or Tessar versus Sonnar. No sirree - the boy was out on the street, windin' film!