rdeleskie
Well-known
(I posted the below on dpreview. I thought I would post it here for those who don't wander over that way. If the duplication bothers anyone, let me know and I will delete this post).
More pictures are appearing on Flickr. For me, this individual has provided the most telling examples so far:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/moojie/tags/gxrmounta12/
I'd love to hear what people have to say. I will lead with my initial impressions (realizing we are looking at compressed images on Flickr, we don't the photographer's PP process, etc.):
1. Visible noise at even low ISOs, particularly in those troublesome blues. However, the noise looks like very fine grain to me. The pattern is regular and not blotchy. I personally don't find it offensive (at the ISOs on offer in these particular photographs), and it may add to the film-like quality that some of these images exude to me. I'm not sure yet if this will be an issue for me personally or not.
2. The level of fine detail is excellent. To me, it doesn't look artificially processed the way it often does in typically [over]sharp digital images. I also see very little haloing. The detail is just...there.
Take a look at the this picture at the original size:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/moojie/6123564968/
The intricate, latice-like structure is remarkably defined. Take the image into Lightroom or Aperture and add just a bit of sharpening and you'll see how quickly the lattice starts to lose exact definition (I tried three different methods of sharpening). To me, it's perfect the way it is. I was very impressed with the rendering of detail in this image.
3. The 50/2 Summicron pictures look like they were taken with a 50/2 Summicron. I don't have the collapsible, but I have a DR from roughly that period (1956). The 50/3.5 Elmar shots also have the signature I would expect if I shot them on film.
I am very heartened by this. I don't own the 15/4.5 Super-Wide Heliar or the 50/1.1 Nokton, so I can't comment on those pictures.
4. Corner softness and vignetting is a bit of a mixed bag. Some of the 15mm Heliar shots seem to have blur in the corners, some are quite sharp, relatively speaking. I don't see any colour shift, but I see a bit of vignetting. Frankly, they look good enough for me (I personally wouldn't expect corner to corner perfection from a 15mm lens, even accounting for the crop factor). I'd like to hear from some people who are more experienced with corner peeping than I am
.
5. Check out the moiré in the bicycle baskets. There's the downside to having no AA filter.
Overall, I am impressed with the technical quality of these images - they are very much along the lines of what I have been hoping for. However, I may be seeing through my expectations instead of looking at the reality. I'd really love to hear what you folks think, good and bad.
Particularly, what do you M8 and M9 owners think?
More pictures are appearing on Flickr. For me, this individual has provided the most telling examples so far:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/moojie/tags/gxrmounta12/
I'd love to hear what people have to say. I will lead with my initial impressions (realizing we are looking at compressed images on Flickr, we don't the photographer's PP process, etc.):
1. Visible noise at even low ISOs, particularly in those troublesome blues. However, the noise looks like very fine grain to me. The pattern is regular and not blotchy. I personally don't find it offensive (at the ISOs on offer in these particular photographs), and it may add to the film-like quality that some of these images exude to me. I'm not sure yet if this will be an issue for me personally or not.
2. The level of fine detail is excellent. To me, it doesn't look artificially processed the way it often does in typically [over]sharp digital images. I also see very little haloing. The detail is just...there.
Take a look at the this picture at the original size:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/moojie/6123564968/
The intricate, latice-like structure is remarkably defined. Take the image into Lightroom or Aperture and add just a bit of sharpening and you'll see how quickly the lattice starts to lose exact definition (I tried three different methods of sharpening). To me, it's perfect the way it is. I was very impressed with the rendering of detail in this image.
3. The 50/2 Summicron pictures look like they were taken with a 50/2 Summicron. I don't have the collapsible, but I have a DR from roughly that period (1956). The 50/3.5 Elmar shots also have the signature I would expect if I shot them on film.
I am very heartened by this. I don't own the 15/4.5 Super-Wide Heliar or the 50/1.1 Nokton, so I can't comment on those pictures.
4. Corner softness and vignetting is a bit of a mixed bag. Some of the 15mm Heliar shots seem to have blur in the corners, some are quite sharp, relatively speaking. I don't see any colour shift, but I see a bit of vignetting. Frankly, they look good enough for me (I personally wouldn't expect corner to corner perfection from a 15mm lens, even accounting for the crop factor). I'd like to hear from some people who are more experienced with corner peeping than I am
.5. Check out the moiré in the bicycle baskets. There's the downside to having no AA filter.
Overall, I am impressed with the technical quality of these images - they are very much along the lines of what I have been hoping for. However, I may be seeing through my expectations instead of looking at the reality. I'd really love to hear what you folks think, good and bad.
Particularly, what do you M8 and M9 owners think?
Last edited: