M9 Sample pictures enclosed:

Like, this post from Pnet

"Guido H , Sep 09, 2009; 10:31 a.m.
I just downloaded one of the M9 test images (the Gurkhin) from dpreview and printed it in 16x20" size on my Epson 3800. Incredible - it's sharper than my Mamiya 7 pics, sharper than the Hasselblad, sharper and cleaner than everything I have!

Oh dear, what to do..."

Gotta love Leica evangelists. :)
 
Well yeah we should not be pessimistic right now, it is just a review and yeah raw files must be seen...

By the way I noticed some strange bokeh on some photos. It is like double image rather than blur...Did you realize that too? Especially the lamp and figures hanging from church ceiling...

Check out the photo #8 and follow the column upwards, it is so ugly...
 
Last edited:
I never judge a camera by images posted online. Monitors are not calibrated the same, etc.. There are so many variables. It is not the same experience as in shooting with a camera and doing your own processing. Everyone sees the world and processes images differently. I reserve judgement until I can actually use the camera and experience processing the files for myself on my own computer.
 
Sorry, I stand corrected. I saw that shot, but the lighting, though perhaps dim, is still relatively well-balanced compared to the real world situations where I would be shooting @ ISO 800 & above, e.g., dim bars & clubs lit by crappy red gels, beer promotion signs, & Xmas-tree lights. In my experience w/the M8, I think I could get similar results as the church ceiling shot @ ISO 1250, albeit w/some Noise Ninja applied.

Then again, I don't have extensive experience looking @ or working w/raw files from the 5D, D700, etc., so perhaps my expectations are too high.

fdigital said:
ISO 1600 on the church roof one - looks good
Click to expand...
 
Hmm, I hoped for d700/5dmkII performance on the ISO-side, this is more similar to a900-performance i suspect. Will be interesting to see raw-images when they are out.

For those asking why you resize: You can't compare 100% view in different megapixels, that is unfair for the higher megapixel image. You either have to resize up or down to get it fair.
 
Pickett Wilson said:
I don't think the point is whether the output of the camera is actually better than existing cameras...there are amazing FF cameras out there already so the bar is pretty high. I think the whole point is that finally there is a FF sensor in an M digital.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely right.

I don't get deciding the performance of a digital camera from its sensor noise *only*. It's akin to judging how good a car is simply from the sound of the machine (isn't that a music band name...).

It also has to be balance with the overall experience, your style of shooting, your bias towards heft/form-factor/grip-size, smoothness of operation, your back muscle strength.

What separates the M9 from CanoNikon behemoths are: 1) the lenses, those manual focus, sparkling tiny lenses now are alive again in their full capacity. 2) the form/size, it's the size that enables those unmistakable gait of a passionate photographer capturing precious moments on the street as they unfold. 3) the rangefinder!!!

Who cares about the sensor's high ISO ceiling. It's good enough.

I hate to point this out but most of these M9's will end up shooting daylight vacation photos of rich camera-heads anyways.

And those photo-journalists who will take one to a war-zone or documentary projects would not give a whit about high ISO noise. If they ever did, Tri-X won't be world-famous.
 
Last edited:
fdigital said:
One thing I'm really impressed with on first glance is the color and the dynamic range of these photos - both of which seem to be very very impressive. Both aspects seem to edge out what I'm used to seeing from top of the line japanese DSLRS. Just look at the blues in the sky pics!
Click to expand...

Hi Gavin

Are you talking about the images from dpreview? I'm tempted to buy the M9 myself, but I have to say that:

1. the dynamic range doesn't appear to be any improvement over the M8 - there are rather ugly stepped transitions into blown highlights in many of the shots.

2. the color doesn't appear to me to be as good as the M8 either imho. The skintones in the images - especially the portrait of the woman - aren't as natural and 'dimensional' as M8 skintones at all.

3. Any and all of the above statements are meaningless - mine and yours - as the images are not very good at all. (and even the large versions are just jpegs).

So I guess you're in the middle of that wonderful rationalization process that leads to spending large amounts of $$ on a camera you really don't need. Just like me, in fact. :)
 
Noise reduction at the expense of detail -- please pay attention to the details! Including jpegs vs dng and the numerous post processing options, let alone proper exposure. The single most important variable is pixel size. My D700 has better noise performance at high ISO than the online RAWs I've looked at, but less details because of fewer
pixels. Files with lots of noise processing have less noise, bit less fine detail. Etc, etc. I suspect the dng's from the m9 will be comparable to the D3x. This may be the best digital m9 to get-- market forces will insist that future M's have more megapixel (on the same sensor size). It would be exceptional if a M9x with 12 megapixels on a full frame sensor become available, or future M's withe the same sensor but better battery life, faster processing, etc.
 
Those that complain about the sharpness in the 18mm shots.. seriously? That is.. just weird, the 18mm shot is _very_ sharp.
 
I saw over at GetDpi that Erik has updated his shots on Flickr with link for DNG/RAW download if anyone fancy to play with them...
 
Agree w/you on the 1st point, but I think there are plenty of photojournalists that care about high ISO noise (or lack thereof). The relative merits of Tri-X & other B&W isn't really relevant because 1 of the great things about digital is that it's such an improvement over high-speed color film @ high ISOs.

shadowfox said:
I hate to point this out but most of these M9's will end up shooting daylight vacation photos of rich camera-heads anyways.

And those photo-journalists who will take one to a war-zone or documentary projects would not give a whit about high ISO noise. If they ever did, Tri-X won't be world-famous.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom