Topic: M9 (Read 45057 times)

mas55101 · « **on:** August 22, 2009, 02:15:34 pm »

Finally, it looks like the digital equivalent to rangefinder medium format is coming Sept 9th. A 35mm 18MB M9. It should resolve at least as well as a 645. Would anyone care to stretch that to 6x7?

feppe · « **Reply #1 on:** August 22, 2009, 02:53:19 pm »

Quote from: mas55101

Finally, it looks like the digital equivalent to rangefinder medium format is coming Sept 9th. A 35mm 18MB M9. It should resolve at least as well as a 645. Would anyone care to stretch that to 6x7?

I guess I missed the memo which announced 35mm full frame is now medium format. How on earth would an 18MP 35mm FF sensor "resolve at least as well as a 645" - apart from Leica magic?

Christopher · « **Reply #2 on:** August 22, 2009, 03:21:05 pm »

Quote from: feppe

I guess I missed the memo which announced 35mm full frame is now medium format. How on earth would an 18MP 35mm FF sensor "resolve at least as well as a 645" - apart from Leica magic?

You will see ;-)

feppe · « **Reply #3 on:** August 22, 2009, 03:30:40 pm »

Quote from: Christopher

You will see ;-)

Oh, come on, I'm already excited about the S2, now this At least M9 (supposedly) wouldn't require a second mortgage...

mas55101 · « **Reply #4 on:** August 22, 2009, 03:36:29 pm »

Quote from: feppe

I guess I missed the memo which announced 35mm full frame is now medium format. How on earth would an 18MP 35mm FF sensor "resolve at least as well as a 645" - apart from Leica magic?

I guess you did miss the memo. Read Michael's articles on the print quality available from 35mm sensors. Read what other people are getting for prints. These are not the 11x14 or even 16x20 long held to be 35mm film maximums. People are printing 30x40 and larger, in the same arena formerly reserved for medium format film.

We've been at that level of quality for a few years already; it's just coming out as a rangefinder, finally.

feppe · « **Reply #5 on:** August 22, 2009, 04:05:48 pm »

Quote from: mas55101

I guess you did miss the memo. Read Michael's articles on the print quality available from 35mm sensors. Read what other people are getting for prints. These are not the 11x14 or even 16x20 long held to be 35mm film maximums. People are printing 30x40 and larger, in the same arena formerly reserved for medium format film.

We've been at that level of quality for a few years already; it's just coming out as a rangefinder, finally.

I'll believe it when I see it. There's much more to IQ than megapixels and unwieldy print sizes (30x40, really?). Not to mention my skepticism with Leica, given their atrocious track record with the M8 debacle.

pschefz · « **Reply #6 on:** August 22, 2009, 04:25:18 pm »

any details? or just the usual m9 rumor? a FF 18mpix m9 sounds like a dream to me....

BJL · « **Reply #7 on:** August 22, 2009, 06:14:30 pm »

Quote from: mas55101

Finally, it looks like the digital equivalent to rangefinder medium format is coming Sept 9th. A 35mm 18MB M9.

This sounds like wishful thinking, particularly the 18MP, which is too low to be credible for 24x36mm format these days. Kodak, the most likely sensor supplier, is using 6 micron pixel pitch in its latest high end sensors, including that for the Leica S2, and that gives 24MP. Other sensor suppliers like Dalsa, Sony and Panasonic are likewise at 6 microns and below in all their recent camera sensors.

mas55101 · « **Reply #8 on:** August 22, 2009, 06:22:25 pm »

Quote from: BJL

This sounds like wishful thinking, particularly the 18MP, which is too low to be credible for 24x36mm format these days. Kodak, the most likely sensor supplier, is using 6 micron pixel pitch in its latest high end sensors, including that for the Leica S2, and that gives 24MP. Other sensor suppliers like Dalsa, Sony and Panasonic are likewise at 6 microns and below in all their recent camera sensors.

Actually, in the interest of pixel density, 18mp is already a stretch.

BJL · « **Reply #9 on:** August 22, 2009, 06:33:02 pm »

Quote from: mas55101

Actually, in the interest of pixel density, 18mp is already a stretch.

Not a single digital camera sensor maker agrees (22MP is the current minimum in 24x36mm format), so why should I believe that? Do not bother talking about per pixel performance while ignoring the fact that number of pixels also affects visible noise levels and such. (for comparison, 35mm film has billions of very low grade "pixels", in the form of silver halide crystals.)

John Camp · « **Reply #10 on:** August 22, 2009, 10:27:14 pm »

Quote from: BJL

Not a single digital camera sensor maker agrees (22MP is the current minimum in 24x36mm format), so why should I believe that? Do not bother talking about per pixel performance while ignoring the fact that number of pixels also affects visible noise levels and such. (for comparison, 35mm film has billions of very low grade "pixels", in the form of silver halide crystals.)

But there are two reasons why 18mp would make sense: (1) it would not threaten to cannibalize Leica's own 39mp and *extremely* expensive S2 (as a 24mp CCD with M glass might do); and (2) the whole raison d' etre of M is street shooting, in which high ISO capability is prized...imagine an M CCD with the the ISO response of a D3 and 18mp...

250swb · « **Reply #11 on:** August 23, 2009, 04:20:44 am »

Quote from: John Camp

....... the whole raison d' etre of M is street shooting, in which high ISO capability is prized...imagine an M CCD with the the ISO response of a D3 and 18mp...

The street shooting raison d'etre of the M series was founded well before you could even get fast film (hence the early design of fast lenses). But the advent of using very high ISO's as a raison d'etre for an M9 would equally ruin the other 'street' raison d'etre of the Leica M and its lenses, shallow DOF. Unless of course Leica have designed a new ultra fast shutter?

I for one appreciate the ability of the D3 to make photo's from nothing, on days to dark to see, and make the pro's life easier. But I abhore the idea of all Leica M9 photo's being made to resemble bright daylight on the dullest of days. Give the kids a toy and they will use it, and all we get are high ISO clinical demonstrations recording what the world isn't really like, and which conversely is the strength of the Leica M as it is now, the 'raison d'etre' if you like.

MarkL · « **Reply #12 on:** August 23, 2009, 05:02:29 am »

Quote from: mas55101

Finally, it looks like the digital equivalent to rangefinder medium format is coming Sept 9th. A 35mm 18MB M9. It should resolve at least as well as a 645. Would anyone care to stretch that to 6x7?

Source?

georgl · « **Reply #13 on:** August 23, 2009, 05:17:54 pm »

The 18 megapixels are indeed strange, because they match a 6,8µm pixel-pitch. But the new CCD-architecture by Kodak has a 6µm pixel-pitch which would result in 24MP. Always remember: we're talking about pixel-pitch, not pixel size! As I was told by Kodak, the actual sensitive area of the pixels has barely changed over the last architecture-generations (9µm, 6,8µm, 6µm), only the gaps between those areas became smaller!
The 6,8µm-architecture was introduced in 2004 and the new generation (introduced with the H3DII-50 and now S2 with microlenses) seems to be superior to the previous generation regarding noise and DR (just like DALSA).

There are lots of strange comparisons Digital vs. Film, most of them with horrible film-processing. Some claim a 35mm Velvia is similar to their 11MP 1ds, some compare it to their 6MP D100 and other claim 3MP as digital aquivalent...

Velvia has 80lp/mm at a realistic contrast of 1:1,6 which would result in about 24MP at 35mm. But film also has grain and contrast slowly decreases with higher frequencies and additionally has to be multiplied with the scanner-MTF. But from my own experience, clearly visible >10MP are not a serious problem with well-processed 35mm-scans (which would result in about 25MP in 645 and 45MP in 6x7).

I've tried it carefully with my M8, the files are clean but don't contain more information than a properly done, oversampled, denoised and sharpened professional scan. Occassionally I still like to put some Velvia/Ektar (Dynamic Range of up to 15 stops!) in my MP and pay for the scan, but mostly I stay with B&W (Imagelink HQ, only 25ASA but bloody sharp!)

Here's a properly scanned 6x7 slide (even when f16 might cause slight diffraction and Provia isn't as sharp as Velvia!): http://www.rockgarden.net/download/60MP_from_6x7/

Try to get that amount of detail with any 35mm-digital-solution...

John Camp · « **Reply #14 on:** August 23, 2009, 06:00:53 pm »

Quote from: 250swb

The street shooting raison d'etre of the M series was founded well before you could even get fast film (hence the early design of fast lenses). But the advent of using very high ISO's as a raison d'etre for an M9 would equally ruin the other 'street' raison d'etre of the Leica M and its lenses, shallow DOF. Unless of course Leica have designed a new ultra fast shutter?

I for one appreciate the ability of the D3 to make photo's from nothing, on days to dark to see, and make the pro's life easier. But I abhore the idea of all Leica M9 photo's being made to resemble bright daylight on the dullest of days. Give the kids a toy and they will use it, and all we get are high ISO clinical demonstrations recording what the world isn't really like, and which conversely is the strength of the Leica M as it is now, the 'raison d'etre' if you like.

Just because you have a high ISO capability doesn't mean you're required to use it.

BernardLanguillier · « **Reply #15 on:** August 23, 2009, 07:19:44 pm »

Quote from: mas55101

Finally, it looks like the digital equivalent to rangefinder medium format is coming Sept 9th. A 35mm 18MB M9. It should resolve at least as well as a 645. Would anyone care to stretch that to 6x7?

Tripod usage and careful focus with live view would be the only option to tap into such a resolution in 35 mm format... doesn't make any sense to me in a rangefinder camera.

Cheers,
Bernard

MarkL · « **Reply #16 on:** August 24, 2009, 07:40:37 am »

Quote from: BernardLanguillier

Tripod usage and careful focus with live view would be the only option to tap into such a resolution in 35 mm format... doesn't make any sense to me in a rangefinder camera.

Cheers,
Bernard

Agreed. If I can take a tripod I can take an slr and it will also be once heck of a lot cheaper than this M9 will be.

parasko · « **Reply #17 on:** August 24, 2009, 10:21:12 am »

Quote from: mas55101

Finally, it looks like the digital equivalent to rangefinder medium format is coming Sept 9th.

This is the first time I've read a confirmed date. From which source?

parasko · « **Reply #18 on:** August 24, 2009, 10:36:46 am »

Quote from: BernardLanguillier

Tripod usage and careful focus with live view would be the only option to tap into such a resolution in 35 mm format... doesn't make any sense to me in a rangefinder camera.

Cheers,
Bernard

....then you don't get rangefinder photography...it's not just about resolution and format...I know it has been said many times before but the sense of freedom that rangefinder photography brings to street shooting is really something special..you do feel like you are in the scene...it's not for everyone and you do only appreciate a rangefinder re: street photography but it is very much unlike a dslr. Hopefully if the rumours are true, the rumoured price of $US8000 will reduce slightly once all the hype dissipates...that is, if the rumours are true (and if there are no problems this time round!!).

An 18mp ff (problem-free) rangefinder...bring it on!

BernardLanguillier · « **Reply #19 on:** August 24, 2009, 10:55:06 am »

Quote from: parasko

....then you don't get rangefinder photography...it's not just about resolution and format...I know it has been said many times before but the sense of freedom that rangefinder photography brings to street shooting is really something special..you do feel like you are in the scene...it's not for everyone and you do only appreciate a rangefinder re: street photography but it is very much unlike a dslr. Hopefully if the rumours are true, the rumoured price of $US8000 will reduce slightly once all the hype dissipates...that is, if the rumours are true (and if there are no problems this time round!!).

An 18mp ff (problem-free) rangefinder...bring it on!

I probably wasn't clear enough. My point is that there will be no practical image quality difference between 10 and 18MP considering all the things that will typically go wrong with focusing.

Cheers,
Bernard

Author Topic: M9 (Read 45057 times)