Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: 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?
-
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?
-
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 ;-)
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
any details? or just the usual m9 rumor? a FF 18mpix m9 sounds like a dream to me....
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.)
-
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...
-
....... 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.
-
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?
-
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/ (http://www.rockgarden.net/download/60MP_from_6x7/)
Try to get that amount of detail with any 35mm-digital-solution...
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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!
-
....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
-
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
Come on Bernard, if you want a 20 by 30 inch print 10 mp isn't going to be as good as 18mp (all things being equal)
-
Come on Bernard, if you want a 20 by 30 inch print 10 mp isn't going to be as good as 18mp (all things being equal)
Sure... if everything is done perfectly, which will never be the case with a manually focused rangerfinder camera.
Anyway, enough said, spend your money on a M9 if you think there is value to be found.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Sure... if everything is done perfectly, which will never be the case with a manually focused rangerfinder camera.
Anyway, enough said, spend your money on a M9 if you think there is value to be found.
Cheers,
Bernard
No, I'm saying if all is done equally badly or equally well.
-
Sure... if everything is done perfectly, which will never be the case with a manually focused rangerfinder camera.
Anyway, enough said, spend your money on a M9 if you think there is value to be found.
Cheers,
Bernard
I'm pretty sure, that a 18Mp FF M9 used for landscape work would blow a 1DsMk3 or d3x right out of the water in terms of final image quality. Sure when working with app. between 1.2 and 5.6 Liveview is helpful, but I never missed it before when doing landscape work. Can I proof that ? No, not until Leica actually sells a M9 ^^
-
I'm pretty sure, that a 18Mp FF M9 used for landscape work would blow a 1DsMk3 or d3x right out of the water in terms of final image quality. Sure when working with app. between 1.2 and 5.6 Liveview is helpful, but I never missed it before when doing landscape work. Can I proof that ? No, not until Leica actually sells a M9 ^^
Why would you think the image quality would be better? All sensors are the same size and of good quality, so if quality lenses are used, all should be the same.
-
Why would you think the image quality would be better? All sensors are the same size and of good quality, so if quality lenses are used, all should be the same.
CCD, no anti alias filter, better lenses.
-
This is my favorite part ... when people start arguing about how well a non-existent camera will perform ...
-
Why would you think the image quality would be better? All sensors are the same size and of good quality, so if quality lenses are used, all should be the same.
Leica voodoo.
-
This is my favorite part ... when people start arguing about how well a non-existent camera will perform ...
If I had a dog, he could beat up your dog, if they were the same size, or maybe the same weight. What about length of teeth?
BTW, the upcoming 9/9/09 M9 announcement was tentatively announced on the leica forum a couple days ago. My only point in posting this was that for those of us waiting for a digital version of the "Texas Leica," this might just be it. Didn't mean to start an argument about historic versus current technology or how to count pixels.
M
-
the m8 files at 160 and 320 have almost the detail of 22mpix canons...not quite, but pretty close....and since we are talking ccd detail, a FF 18mpix m9 (ccd) would easily top the canons and nikons in terms of resolution....
leica had a hell of a time fitting a smaller chip and it tok them years to really resolve the whole color shift issue....i just don't see how they can fit it in now....i would not mind the camera being thicker but the leica freaks were complaining about the m8....making the body as slim as possible AND fitting the sensor AND working out the color issues (with the light hitting the sensor at these extreme angles) seems a lot to ask....
unlike the S2, this one i would be in line for...recession or not.....
also: leica is opening stores now? the first one is in palm beach...i heard they had one in moscow...but here as well? i guess things are going well!
-
No, I'm saying if all is done equally badly or equally well.
You might have oustanding vision and a remarkable ability to focus accurately and quickly with a manual lens, but then your abilities are IMHO far above average.
Having compared pretty extensively hand held/manual focused images shot with a D3 and D3x (about the same pixel count ratio), I don't see how that could be true in average. Sure, the M9 would deliver better images now and then when the focus has been hit perfectly by chance in bright daylight conditions at low ISO, but not in a repetitive fashion. There are in fact rare cases when I managed to focus with perfect accuracy the D3 itself with MF... Thom Hogan has written pretty extensively about this, and his view is that getting the max out of a D3 even with a tripod is already pretty challenging for many shooters.
Anyway, let's stop this here, I might be wrong and that would be good news for all the M series users.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I'm pretty sure, that a 18Mp FF M9 used for landscape work would blow a 1DsMk3 or d3x right out of the water in terms of final image quality.
...again...why you would use a Leica M system for landscape work is beyond me....personally, I'd be carrying a light tripod/dslr/tilt&shift lenses....
...but to create quite large prints of street scenes with a camera as small as an M (instead of using a Mamiya 7 for example, which is too big for this type of work-YMMV), would be terrific!
...choose the right tool for the job!...if that tool ever exists!
-
the m8 files at 160 and 320 have almost the detail of 22mpix canons...not quite, but pretty close....and since we are talking ccd detail, a FF 18mpix m9 (ccd) would easily top the canons and nikons in terms of resolution....
leica had a hell of a time fitting a smaller chip and it tok them years to really resolve the whole color shift issue....i just don't see how they can fit it in now....i would not mind the camera being thicker but the leica freaks were complaining about the m8....making the body as slim as possible AND fitting the sensor AND working out the color issues (with the light hitting the sensor at these extreme angles) seems a lot to ask....
unlike the S2, this one i would be in line for...recession or not.....
also: leica is opening stores now? the first one is in palm beach...i heard they had one in moscow...but here as well? i guess things are going well!
Someone did a refit with an M8 shell and a piece of glass, the size of a 24x36 sensor, and showed that the camera would indeed have to be a tad thicker. So, the Mamiya 7 is a bit bigger than an M, too.
-
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...
On 1, the idea that a company would try to help one product by holding down the performance of another makes no sense in a competitive market place: if a company can make a product that takes sales from another of its products but abstains, other companies will take those sales instead by not hobbling their competing products, so the company will be even worse off. Leica has to give such a camera the best sensor it can get hold of.
On 2, you do exactly what I warned against: rehashing the misguided dogma that having slightly fewer, slightly bigger pixels on the same sensor size will give better image quality at high ISO speeds when judged sanely, by looking at equal sized prints. Anyway, if Leica stays with Kodak Full Frame type CCD's, it will not be in the hunt for high ISO performance against today's best CMOS (or MOS) sensors. It would do better to showcase the quality of its lenses by offering high sensor resolution.
P. S. Bernard's comment on 18MP being more than one can likely make much use of in hand-held rangerfinder style photography makes me think that this "street photography" will naturally move to new, smaller formats with more moderate resolutions, say 10 or 12 MP, just as Leica moved photography to the new, smaller 35mm format long ago. But Leica has lens investments to protect ...
-
"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."
When they stay with the 6,8µm-pixel-pitch (18MP FF) focusing won't be more demanding than with the M8.
The M-rangefinders are manual cameras, which makes focusing on moving objects very difficult but careful focusing is actually quite easy when you get used to it. The M focus accuracy also doesn't depend on focal length (unlike any AF/MF-SLR) - it's about as precise as a SLR with focal lengthes below 90mm (given the standard viewfinder magnification) but actually more precise with the the normal & WA-lenses.
I don't think there are many camera-systems available with higher per-pixel-quality than the M8+M-lenses, and a FF would increase sensor-size by 80% and bring us a mre sophisticated sensor-architecture (the one from the M8 was introduced in 2004).
Handheld, 50Asph and I could even focus these objects (seeing that they still weren't infinity):
[attachment=16217:L9997861.jpg][attachment=16218:L9997861_3.jpg]
-
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?
Oh come come, on the release of "M8" there were claims of 5x4 quality, a FF M9 must be pushing those 10x8 users, we can only guess at the "S" results,, 11x14 maybe even 20x24! all in camera you can hold in one hand.
Kevin.
-
Oh come come, on the release of "M8" there were claims of 5x4 quality, a FF M9 must be pushing those 10x8 users, we can only guess at the "S" results,, 11x14 maybe even 20x24! all in camera you can hold in one hand.
Kevin.
The more expensive the camera, the greater the hyperbole on the internet as people try to justify their purchases.
-
This is my favorite part ... when people start arguing about how well a non-existent camera will perform ...
Closely followed by not citing a source for the information on the non-existent camera
-
There's certainly the possibility that it could be a rather nice camera for someone like me who prefers the look of a phase back to a cmos based dslr. Whether it will pan out we will see but it's very interesting to me as I love the look I get from my P21 but I hate hate hate the weight and ergonomics of it all. (and also I always shoot equivalent of a 28mm lens which I also hate Mamiya's offering).
-
If the image quality were D3x standard (or above), it could be a very interesting alternative for certain uses - it would not be hard to put a live view focus feature in as a complement to the rangefinder (exactly as the D3x has 51 point AF PLUS live view focus) - my question is whether Leica will be too conservative to do that? A small, light camera with superb glass that printed 24x36 inches would have its appeal (it could also use a lighter tripod than a big DSLR, and have no mirror slap). It would actually be more of a replacement for "Texas Leicas" than for earlier M cameras, because it would, as Bernard points out, require more careful focusing than a film Leica, BUT it would have image quality that would have required 6x7 cm from a film camera (exactly what a Mamiya RF gave). If someone (probably not Leica) got really creative, it would even be possible to construct a rangefinder/ live view camera that had a tilt/shift sensor! Of course you'd have to use the live view to see the effect of movements, but no mirror opens that possibility.
-Dan
-
Closely followed by not citing a source for the information on the non-existent camera
If I'm correct the source was a French camera dealer that put it up on their site, then quickly removed it, there has also been talk of a German site that was taking pre-orders for Sept.
The French site wether it was a deliberate mistake or genuine mistake we will never know, it did by all accounts look promising. I hope it does turn out to be true and I hope the M9 is everything a Leica "M" should be and fills a bigger niche than the M8. It will have it's compromises and knockers that don't see the point of a RF or a range of manual focus fast lenses that can be used wide open. It will be expensive for its paper spec, which to most will mean it is overpriced, others will just say it's being undervalued by those that "don't get it" and so the fors and againsts will disappear up their own backsides arguing it's worth again. No doubt others will just get on with it and not care about its weaknesses and exploit its good points.
I have a romantic notion I would buy one but I know in reality there will be other things to spend my money on.
Kevin.
-
I think live-view would be really great for a RF-camera like the M9 but it's unlikely that we will see this technology in the M9, maybe in future models (they already said that they won't come up with a regular DSLR anymore but an EVF-solution). The reason is simple: the fill-rate and overall IQ of todays full-frame CCDs (the new 6µm-generation from Kodak and Dalsa seem close) is unsurpassed (if you don't believe it, just take a look at some P40+/P65+/H3DII-50-samples). The downside is the low speed (about 120MB/s is the maximum data output of their four channel sensor which results in 1.5fps @ 37,5MP and a little over 2fps @ 24MP) and the power consumption/heat that makes live-view really difficult.
-
There's certainly the possibility that it could be a rather nice camera for someone like me who prefers the look of a phase back to a cmos based dslr. Whether it will pan out we will see but it's very interesting to me as I love the look I get from my P21 but I hate hate hate the weight and ergonomics of it all. (and also I always shoot equivalent of a 28mm lens which I also hate Mamiya's offering).
that is exactly what i love about the m8....the files really remind me of the P20...great back but i much prefer the much smaller size/weight and handling....and actually focus is easier on the m8 then on anything with a P20....and of course making that a P21 is even better!
-
If an M9 has the IQ of the M8, but full frame 35mm, I'll buy it and use it in place of my RZ/Aptus 54s for digital editorial.
-
On 1, the idea that a company would try to help one product by holding down the performance of another makes no sense in a competitive market place: if a company can make a product that takes sales from another of its products but abstains, other companies will take those sales instead by not hobbling their competing products, so the company will be even worse off. Leica has to give such a camera the best sensor it can get hold of.
On 2, you do exactly what I warned against: rehashing the misguided dogma that having slightly fewer, slightly bigger pixels on the same sensor size will give better image quality at high ISO speeds when judged sanely, by looking at equal sized prints. Anyway, if Leica stays with Kodak Full Frame type CCD's, it will not be in the hunt for high ISO performance against today's best CMOS (or MOS) sensors. It would do better to showcase the quality of its lenses by offering high sensor resolution.
P. S. Bernard's comment on 18MP being more than one can likely make much use of in hand-held rangerfinder style photography makes me think that this "street photography" will naturally move to new, smaller formats with more moderate resolutions, say 10 or 12 MP, just as Leica moved photography to the new, smaller 35mm format long ago. But Leica has lens investments to protect ...
(1) What are you talking about? Haven't you heard of the D300, the D90, the D70, the D5000? All of those Nikons (and a similar string of Canons) are helping some Nikon products by holding down the performance of others. Same with almost every expensive product you can think of, from watches to cars. You've heard that there is a Boxter and a Carrera and a Turbo? If a 24mp CCD camera selling in the neighborhood of $10,000 and using the best glass in the world was available, and challenged the quality of what is going to be the most expensive system in the world -- probably $50,000 for starters -- don't you think there might be some cannibalization, as happened when the D700 came out and D3 sales dropped?
(2) There's a big gap between 24mp and 18mp, and generally, full-frame lower-megapixel cameras (the 1DIII, the D3) have better high ISO response than the high mp ff products. My point being that giving up some possible resolution for higher ISO response would be a decent trade, if that trade was available.
(3) Bernard always knows what he's talking about, but he's also a guy who makes very careful, studied landscape shots. A street photographer may take 200 shots in two hours. Something a little out of focus? That's okay, it's part of the aesthetic. Some of them don't work at all? That's okay, toss them, which is what happens with most street photos. And some of them will be exquisitely focused. I mean, how many of HCBs shots do you know? He was a guy who shot for decades, one of the best photogrpahers in the world, and I doubt that anyone but a student of his would recognize the equivalent of more than one shot a year, or so. That's street photography. You don't get a lot of keepers, and that's fine. An 18mp M with D3 ISO and a 75mm lux would be a dream. If you like Ms.
-
Regarding point 1, companies design products to suit markets, which includes product differentiation. You don't want low end products stealing from high end ones. Years ago I worked for a UK company that made expansion cards for its computers. They had 16KB and 32KB units. Both had the same memory chip inside, but the 16KB one had some pins disabled to restrict the accessible size to 16KB. Why do that? Well, they needed a range of products to suit the market, and it was more profitable to sell two units, one priced low, one priced high, than one 32KB unit priced low, or priced high and alienating users who want 16KB. Using the same chip in both reduced costs as they could increase the purchase orders and hence bulk discounts on the memory chips, and simplified design as there was really only one chip. Nikon could easily add proper MLU to the D90. So why don't they? Product differentiation.
-
(1) What are you talking about? Haven't you heard of the D300, the D90, the D70, the D5000?
(2) ... generally, full-frame lower-megapixel cameras (the 1DIII, the D3) have better high ISO response than the high mp ff products.
On (1) Those are differentiated on production cost as well as performance, which makes perfect sense: models that cost less to make than other models in exchange for lower performance level can profitably be sold at a lower price, serving a different market segment.
What makes no sense is a design choice to impair performance of a new product without reducing the cost of making the product, at least not when a rival can make a competing product for similar cost without that performance impairment. This often actually increases costs: once there is a market for the higher resolution option, designing just it is cheaper than designing both it and the lower resolution option. And Kodak has a current 6 micron cell design.
Sensors of the same size with fewer, bigger photosites are not significantly cheaper to make, so opting for lower resolution in a new sensor design for the sake of deliberately lower IQ makes no business sense. New sensors with more, smaller pixels do sell at a higher price, as in the Sony A550 vs A500 or A380 vs A330, but that is a matter of the market putting a higher value on the new higher resolution sensor, not higher production costs. Using lower res. sensors in the A230 and A500 does make those models cheaper for Sony to make because they are old designs, with production lines already in place, so for a while it is cheaper to keep using those lines than retool for the news sensors. But the cost/benefit analysis is quite different when one talks about designing and putting into production a new sensor with lower resolution. The only time that new designs have lower resolution is for the sake of high frame rates models like the EOS-1D series, D1, etc.
Didn't we go through this before with all the claims and arguments that the Canon 5DMkII would have a new sensor of lower resolution than the 1DsMIII to avoid stealing sales from the latter?
On (2), do I have to say it a third time? I have seen no good evidence or arguments for the frequent claim that fewer, bigger pixels on the same size of sensor using the same basic sensor technology gives better IQ when images are compared fairly, displayed at equal size. Calculations of per pixel S/N ratios and related DR calculations do not predict the results of such comparisons because more pixels allows printing at higher PPI which reduces visible noise levels, potentially offsetting lower per pixel S/N measurements. I wonder how the Nikon D700 and D3X compare at equal print size and equally high ISO, as an example of two equal sized sensors using the same basic technology but different pixel counts.
-
On (2), do I have to say it a third time? I have seen no good evidence or arguments for the frequent claim that fewer, bigger pixels on the same size of sensor using the same basic sensor technology gives better IQ when images are compared fairly, displayed at equal size. Calculations of per pixel S/N ratios and related DR calculations do not predict the results of such comparisons because more pixels allows printing at higher PPI which reduces visible noise levels, potentially offsetting lower per pixel S/N measurements. I wonder how the Nikon D700 and D3X compare at equal print size and equally high ISO, as an example of two equal sized sensors using the same basic technology but different pixel counts.
[/quote]
I wouldn't say it a third time. I wouldn't have said it the first time. That you have seen no evidence for a proven fact does not mean it is not a fact. I have seen the differences in different sensors. Having used a D700, p21, and 5d Mk2, I am in a position to corroborate the current explanation of the relationship of pixel density to noise and pixel number to print resolution.
Dpreview has a good explanation as well as listings of pixel densities on new sensors. The 700 is 1.4. Do the math; look at 40x60 prints; shoot all at 800 and higher. You will see.
MAS
-
On (2), do I have to say it a third time? I have seen no good evidence or arguments for the frequent claim that fewer, bigger pixels on the same size of sensor using the same basic sensor technology gives better IQ when images are compared fairly, displayed at equal size. Calculations of per pixel S/N ratios and related DR calculations do not predict the results of such comparisons because more pixels allows printing at higher PPI which reduces visible noise levels, potentially offsetting lower per pixel S/N measurements. I wonder how the Nikon D700 and D3X compare at equal print size and equally high ISO, as an example of two equal sized sensors using the same basic technology but different pixel counts.
I wouldn't say it a third time. I wouldn't have said it the first time. That you have seen no evidence for a proven fact does not mean it is not a fact. I have seen the differences in different sensors. Having used a D700, p21, and 5d Mk2, I am in a position to corroborate the current explanation of the relationship of pixel density to noise and pixel number to print resolution.
Dpreview has a good explanation as well as listings of pixel densities on new sensors. The 700 is 1.4. Do the math; look at 40x60 prints; shoot all at 800 and higher. You will see.
MAS
Interesting, MAS. Are you saying that if you shoot the same scene with the D700 and 5Dii, and make 8x10, 20x30, and 40x60 prints of the shots, the D700 has considerably less noise in the pictures at all sizes? How does the detail of the D700 stack up to the 5Dii at 40x60?
-
Interesting, MAS. Are you saying that if you shoot the same scene with the D700 and 5Dii, and make 8x10, 20x30, and 40x60 prints of the shots, the D700 has considerably less noise in the pictures at all sizes? How does the detail of the D700 stack up to the 5Dii at 40x60?
At high ISO, yes-substantially less noise with D700. At 40x60, the 5D MK2 is noticeably more detailed.
-
At high ISO, yes-substantially less noise with D700. At 40x60, the 5D MK2 is noticeably more detailed.
Thanks, that's the first I've heard that. Most say the D700 is slightly better, but not substantially. Are you talking high ISO like 3200, or like 12,800?
-
That you have seen no evidence for a proven fact does not mean it is not a fact.
Of course not, but when people keep stating something as fact without any evidence, or with bogus evidence (like per pixel S/N measurements) I think skepticism is justified.
I have seen the differences in different sensors. Having used a D700, p21, and 5d Mk2, I am in a position to corroborate the current explanation of the relationship of pixel density to noise and pixel number to print resolution.
The P21 has a far larger sensor and very different pixel technology, so the most useful comparisons I can imagine from those would be equal sized prints at equally high ISO from the D700 and 5D MkII, or maybe JPEG conversions to the same pixel count from both. And what I have read reported is that the 5DMkII does as well or better in that comparison; do you see differently?
Dpreview has a good explanation ...
DPReview has the usual bogus explanation based on per pixel performance measurements, ignoring the effect of higher PPI, or other options for equalizing resolution by trading away resolution for noise reduction n post-processing a higher pixel count image.
P. S. Correction/clarification. I realize that I have expressed myself poorly in a couple of posts in this thread. I was assuming without stating it that comparisons are made between lower pixel count and higher pixel count sensors at a size that "makes sense" for the lower pixel count option: a size at which its images look sharp, so that the extra pixels of the other sensor option do not add noticeably to resolution/detail//sharpness. Maybe 300PPI for the lower pixel count image, depending on how good your eyes are.
In that situation, the higher pixel count image is being printed at a PPI so high that its additional high spatial frequency detail and noise are not resolved by the viewer's eyes but get blurred or "dithered", rendering invisible the highest frequency noise. This is where experiments by John Sheehy and other show that the extra noise of the higher pixel count image basically disappears, roughly equalizing visible noise (and visible resolution).
So in situations like this when you do not want or need the extra resolution, you can get rid of the extra high frequency noise that comes with it. A more reliable method is a bit of low pass filtering of the image, perhaps as part of the interpolation ("demosaicing") from RAW to JPEG, perhaps by converting direcvt from RAW to JPEGs' of the same pixel count as the lower pixel count sensor. This can discard the spatial details that are on a scale finer than the lower pixel count sensor gives and discard with it the high frequency noise that goes with it. DPReview would probably then complain that "at high ISOs, resolution is lost to NR smearing"; very strange since the solution advocated by DPReview of lower pixel counts causes an equivalent loss of resolution at all ISO speeds, not just high ones.
-
This sounds like wishful thinking, particularly the 18MP, which is too low to be credible for 24x36mm format these days. ...
But it seems I was wrong! Unless the PDF brochure http://litpixel.com/m9_brochure_english_RZ_low.1.pdf (http://litpixel.com/m9_brochure_english_RZ_low.1.pdf) is an elaborate hoax, Leica and Kodak are using Kodak's previous generation 6.8 micron pixel technology for the M9 sensor, basically the same as in the M8 and way back to the Olympus E-1.
-
But it seems I was wrong! Unless the PDF brochure http://litpixel.com/m9_brochure_english_RZ_low.1.pdf (http://litpixel.com/m9_brochure_english_RZ_low.1.pdf) is an elaborate hoax, Leica and Kodak are using Kodak's previous generation 6.8 micron pixel technology for the M9 sensor, basically the same as in the M8 and way back to the Olympus E-1.
It's an all-new sensor with several new technologies that Kodak developed for Leica's S2. If the DMR is any indication, the M9's 18MP with no AA filter will be about equivalent to a 27MP CMOS sensor with AA filter.
-
I was going to weigh in here, but georgl beat me too it. These are important considerations.
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/ (http://www.rockgarden.net/download/60MP_from_6x7/)
Try to get that amount of detail with any 35mm-digital-solution...
-
It's an all-new sensor with several new technologies that Kodak developed for Leica's S2.
We know it is new, as Kodak had no previous 24x36mm, 6.8 micron pixel pitch sensor, but what specifically do we know about the use of "new technologies ... developed for Leica's S2."? Improved micro-lenses?
-
We know it is new, as Kodak had no previous 24x36mm, 6.8 micron pixel pitch sensor, but what specifically do we know about the use of "new technologies ... developed for Leica's S2."? Improved micro-lenses?
At this point it's speculation, but informed speculation. A couple of technologies Kodak developed for the S2 and will also benefit an M camera are:
-> the placement of the IR filter between the photo sites and the microlenses. This has the potential of reducing or eliminating the need for an additional IR filter.
-> reduced sensitivity to noise without the excessive image smoothening (the 'plastic' look) of previous noise reduction technology, giving an additional stop of high-ISO performance without a noise or 'plastic' penalty.
-
doods, this is SO last week news.
now THIS. THIS is news (http://www.teddillard.com/2009/09/new-leica.html).
(http://www.teddillard.com/uploaded_images/Picture-3-767457.png)
(...hope you all have a great holiday!)
-
Does anybody have an idea about what the price on the M9 will be? Maybe about 15.000 US$?
-
At this point it's speculation, but informed speculation. A couple of technologies Kodak developed for the S2 and will also benefit an M camera are:
-> the placement of the IR filter between the photo sites and the microlenses. This has the potential of reducing or eliminating the need for an additional IR filter.
For sure: that is just fixing a problem unique to the M8 sensor and not suffered by the sensors for the E-1 or the DMR back, which do have IR filters. So zero progress over the six year old E-1 sensor on that count.
-> reduced sensitivity to noise without the excessive image smoothening (the 'plastic' look) of previous noise reduction technology, giving an additional stop of high-ISO performance without a noise or 'plastic' penalty.
I see nothing "informed" about that speculation, and anyway it is about improvement in processing after the sensor, not the sensor itself. The only place there has been a jump of one-stop in high ISO performance without a resolution loss to extra NR processing is when micro-lenses have been added to a sensor type that previously did not have them. But the E-1, M8 and R digital back all have micro-lenses already; all Kodak can do is incrementally improve them, as Kodak already did once from E-1 to DMR and M8.
P.S. Here is everything I can see from Leica itself, from page 34 of the leaked M9 brochure under "Optimized Sensor":
1. "... The special layout of the microlenses found in the M9 sensor makes it tolerant of oblique light rays impinging on its surface, thus assuring uniform exposure and extreme sharpness from corner to corner in every image.
2. A newly developed sensor filter ensures the suppression of undesirable infrared light.
3. The conscious decision to do without a moiré filter, a cause of image deterioration through loss of resolution, ensures maximum resolution of fine detail.
Item 2 is a weaselly way of acknowledging the error in omitting the IR filter from the M8; it is nothing new as earlier sensors like that for the DMR back and Olympus E-1 has such filters. The brochure's language suggesting that this is a technological innovation smells of PR hype.
Item 1 refers to the great Kodak innovation of offset microlenses ... already present on the M8 and in Kodak's 39MP 44x33mm MF sensor. So maybe the offset microlenses have been improved for the M9 to handle to more severely oblique incidence at the corners of the larger sensor, but given the hype in item 2, it also seems quite possible that this does not represent any new progress over the M8. I have to wait at least a few days more, I suppose.
Item 3 could be a good idea, but it is nothing new.
And nothing I can see anywhere refers to adopting sensor technologies developed for the S2, despite what I have read in various forum posts.
-
And nothing I can see anywhere refers to adopting sensor technologies developed for the S2, despite what I have read in various forum posts.
Apparently your sources aren't as good as mine
-
Apparently your sources aren't as good as mine
Well, that is a thorough demolition of my facts and arguments.
May I remind you that your sources' first claim is outright nonsense, since putting IR filters on the sensor is not an idea "developed for the S2", but which has been in use for years!
My source is a very lengthy PDF brochure from Leica (or an amazingly good fake). And if Leica has more to say, such as about technology developed for the S2, I would expect that to be said proudly in that brochure. Instead, it talks more about Cuban boxers than about new sensor technology.
Do you care to identify your sources, and/or explain why you consider them to be more reliable that what Leica says in the brochure? Hopefully you have something better to offer that claims made in various other forums!
My confidential source [meaning my wild guesses] says that the main innovation is that the offset microlenses already used in the M8 have been enhanced a bit, to handle the greater incident angles near the edges of the larger sensor.
-
May I remind you that your sources' first claim is outright nonsense, since putting IR filters on the sensor is not an idea "developed for the S2", but which has been in use for years!
He said that the filter is between the microlenses and the sensor pits. The traditional location for filters is the cover glass, is it not. Not that I know anything about this silly argument as I am not an internet expert.
-
Well, that is a thorough demolition of my facts and arguments.
May I remind you that your sources' first claim is outright nonsense, since putting IR filters on the sensor is not an idea "developed for the S2", but which has been in use for years!
The new development was not putting the IR filter on the sensor, it's sandwiching the IR filter between the microlenses and the photosites. Go back to reading comprehension 101.
My source is a very lengthy PDF brochure from Leica (or an amazingly good fake). And if Leica has more to say, such as about technology developed for the S2, I would expect that to be said proudly in that brochure. Instead, it talks more about Cuban boxers than about new sensor technology.
My sources are Kodak's public documents in the last year or so related to sensor development for (quoting the Kodak documents) "a partner with very high image quality requirements". This at a time when it was known that Kodak was developing the S2 sensor. I put two and two together and guessed that this partner Kodak was referring to is Leica - which has been confirmed to me privately. Do you believe that all the technical details will be spilled in a PDF document? What matters to most potential customers is the results. Do Canon or Nikon explain how they accomplish the high ISO performance of their most recent cameras?
Do you care to identify your sources, and/or explain why you consider them to be more reliable that what Leica says in the brochure?
Not until after September 9th. Do you like your words with salsa?
-
My sources are Kodak's public documents in the last year or so related to sensor development for (quoting the Kodak documents) "a partner with very high image quality requirements".
We are getting somewhere; can you give me links to those public documents? My request for sources is a real question, not rhetorical, since a great number of claims stated as facts in forums are nothing more than speculations or "imaginative interpretations" of the facts. Do you not think it possible that Kodak might refer to Hasselblad as "a partner with very high image quality requirements"? I agree Leica is also a good candidate for that description.
As to my reading comprehension, I can only comprehend what is available for me to read, which so far is still only the M9 brochure, which says only the following about the following about the IR filter:
"A newly developed sensor filter ensures the suppression of undesirable infrared light."
Nothing there about new IR filter technology developed specifically for the S2, or specifically for Leica.
-
As to my reading comprehension, I can only comprehend what is available for me to read, which so far is still only the M9 brochure, which says only the following about the following about the IR filter:
"A newly developed sensor filter ensures the suppression of undesirable infrared light."
Nothing there about new IR filter technology developed specifically for the S2, or specifically for Leica.
Nothing said about UV light either. Although newer Leica lens designs might have some UV-filtering built into the glass, I would carefully test the old lenses for the need of a filter.
Edmund
-
We are getting somewhere; can you give me links to those public documents? My request for sources is a real question, not rhetorical, since a great number of claims stated as facts in forums are nothing more than speculations or "imaginative interpretations" of the facts. Do you not think it possible that Kodak might refer to Hasselblad as "a partner with very high image quality requirements"? I agree Leica is also a good candidate for that description.
As to my reading comprehension, I can only comprehend what is available for me to read, which so far is still only the M9 brochure, which says only the following about the following about the IR filter:
"A newly developed sensor filter ensures the suppression of undesirable infrared light."
Nothing there about new IR filter technology developed specifically for the S2, or specifically for Leica.
Sorry, I don't collect documents for the sake of winning arguments on the internet. That the partner is Leica was confirmed to me privately, I do not feel comfortable revealing the source.
-
The M9 is an exciting small camera, and if the sensor resolves in the same way the M8 sensor did, then I reckon the enlargments made from the M9 will be similar to if not better than a 25 megapixel canon or nikon dslr.
-
Anyone know why the S2's high ISO limit is 1250 instead of the 1600 or higher number bounced around at PMA?
And if the the M9 uses similar sensor technology will it also only go to ISO 1250?
Sorry just read the M9 pdf brochure that's floating around - this indicates high limit of 2500. So if true, then why can't the S2 do this and what are the differences between their sensors?
-
The M9 is an exciting small camera, and if the sensor resolves in the same way the M8 sensor did, then I reckon the enlargments made from the M9 will be similar to if not better than a 25 megapixel canon or nikon dslr.
That's all well and good, but a note to Leica. For this or any camera they introduce to have any real professional validity, they must address the past issues with the M-8, IR, focus, white balance, tethering software that works, etc. etc. etc.
I love my M-8 but would never, ever, ever rely on it solely for a paying project, because I know what it can do, I also know what it might do and the might is the problem.
I love that Leica continues, I like the fact that a real camera maker is in charge of making real cameras, but if they want to make a product that people take to war, even if that war is a white studio with problematic celebreties, then they need to address usability and reliability and do it in an upfront manner.
BC
-
That's all well and good, but a note to Leica. For this or any camera they introduce to have any real professional validity, they must address the past issues with the M-8, IR, focus, white balance, tethering software that works, etc. etc. etc.
I love my M-8 but would never, ever, ever rely on it solely for a paying project, because I know what it can do, I also know what it might do and the might is the problem.
I love that Leica continues, I like the fact that a real camera maker is in charge of making real cameras, but if they want to make a product that people take to war, even if that war is a white studio with problematic celebreties, then they need to address usability and reliability and do it in an upfront manner.
BC
There is a steep learning curve with digital technology especially when compared to film, and that punishes small companies such as Leica, despite the excellence of their past products, and many current ones. I guess tests will show how much Leica have learnt, and how much they still have to learn. And it can't be easy having to partner with another company to both design and manufacture the sensor.
-
[Speaking of Leica] And it can't be easy having to partner with another company to both design and manufacture the sensor.
I think this "problem" is often overstated; sometimes it makes sense to do what you do best, and outsource the rest. For example, Nikon does quite well using outsourced sensors in most of its DSLRs, and even Canon outsources most of it sensors, the ones in most of its compacts.
-
That's all well and good, but a note to Leica. For this or any camera they introduce to have any real professional validity, they must address the past issues with the M-8, IR, focus, white balance, tethering software that works, etc. etc. etc.
I love my M-8 but would never, ever, ever rely on it solely for a paying project, because I know what it can do, I also know what it might do and the might is the problem.
I love that Leica continues, I like the fact that a real camera maker is in charge of making real cameras, but if they want to make a product that people take to war, even if that war is a white studio with problematic celebreties, then they need to address usability and reliability and do it in an upfront manner.
BC
i believe leica has learned their lesson with the m8....and it seems now that the m9 has been out in the wild (in the hands of photographers) for quite some time....i guess they were waiting to announce it on the magic date?!....either way....
also consider that the first sensor they used was an older kodak model which i doubt they had made for them....many first cameras had problems like these....an none had some many obstacles.....first of which is size of the body......
the m9 is truly a miracle....olympus has been very proud about their ep1.....nothing compared to the m9....at almost the same size....
but as a m8 owner i tend to agree with you....in the beginning it was an adventure....towards the end though they had it all worked out...mine worked perfectly (with the right filters...)
also: aperture worked great tethered with the m8....
i am pretty sure we will see reviews and raw dngs tomorrow.....and i am prepared to be blown away.....my only real problem with the m8 was the crop factor and the just a little too small pixel count....18mpix and a couple of years in sensor technology later....
hey but maybe they will blow it with the price....
-
I think this "problem" is often overstated; sometimes it makes sense to do what you do best, and outsource the rest. For example, Nikon does quite well using outsourced sensors in most of its DSLRs, and even Canon outsources most of it sensors, the ones in most of its compacts.
There is a difference between buying someone elses sensor, and outsourcing the manufacturing. Nikon designs its own sensors, possibly with input from Sony, we just don't know, and then outsources manufacturing.
-
Nikon designs its own sensors, possibly with input from Sony, we just don't know, and then outsources manufacturing.
Most Nikon DSLR's use sensors designed primarily by Sony, though in some cases with input from Nikon. In current models, only the 12MP FX D3/D700 sensor is a pure Nikon design, while the D3X, D300, D90, D5000 etc. use Sony sensors that are also used in Sony (and sometimes Pentax and now Leica) cameras. That outsourcing is probably a cost advantage, increasing total sales of the sensor and so improving economies of scale. Canon also exploits the economies of scale of outsourcing most of its compact camera sensors, thus sharing R&D costs will all other users of those sensors.
The Leica X takes the same cost saving route of using an existing relatively high volume sensor. The M9 and S2 use unique and inherently expensive sensors, but they still share the costs of the basic sensor cell design with many other Kodak sensors made for Hasseleblad etc. This is probably far less expensive than Leica setting up its own sensor design capabilities.
-
Most Nikon DSLR's use sensors designed primarily by Sony, though in some cases with input from Nikon.
What is your source for that statement? I think the current cameras use basically the D300 sensor (which I understand to be a Sony-Nikon collaboration made by Sony) and the D3x sensor (same thing) and the D3/D700 one which is a Nikon design outsourced to an unknown chip fab.
Note: Minor edit to correct facts.
-
Most Nikon DSLR's use sensors designed primarily by Sony, though in some cases with input from Nikon. In current models, only the 12MP FX D3/D700 sensor is a pure Nikon design, while the D3X, D300, D90, D5000 etc. use Sony sensors that are also used in Sony (and sometimes Pentax and now Leica) cameras. That outsourcing is probably a cost advantage, increasing total sales of the sensor and so improving economies of scale. Canon also exploits the economies of scale of outsourcing most of its compact camera sensors, thus sharing R&D costs will all other users of those sensors.
The Leica X takes the same cost saving route of using an existing relatively high volume sensor. The M9 and S2 use unique and inherently expensive sensors, but they still share the costs of the basic sensor cell design with many other Kodak sensors made for Hasseleblad etc. This is probably far less expensive than Leica setting up its own sensor design capabilities.
Maybe all this sensor talk is interesting, but frankly I'm more concerned with the files. As I said to a friend of mine lately, I've seen 6 different companies process files from the old Phillips 6MP CCD, and I saw 6 different results. It's not the sensor. It's how you process the data. Also, now that we know the Leica is a Kodak sensor (for sure), the fact that it is truly a proprietary sensor is a little suspect, too. It could well be that the microlens shift they do is enough to claim it's a Leica-designed CCD, on a fairly standard configuration chip.
What.
Ever.
I just got done processing some shots from the M9, shot today, by me, at ISO 800. Whoever makes the sensor, and whoever is building the processing, it doesn't matter. I find the files unacceptable. If you want to see them, screen shots at 100% are here (http://www.h2hreviews.com/blog/Leica-M9-tests--ISO-800.html).
I'm sorry, normally I try to temper my statements a bit more, but this entire hoopla over this camera is simply a joke, and a very expensive one. To top off the release webcast with a statement from a musician... that did it for me, and I LIKE Seal. I'd LOVE for Leica to put as much time and money into making a good file as they do selling sizzle.
-
What is your source for that statement? I think the current cameras use basically the D300 sensor (which I understand to be a Sony-Nikon collaboration made by Sony) and the D3x sensor (same thing) and the D3/D700 one which is a Nikon design outsourced to an unknown chip fab.
Correct on those models, but you are overlooking the less expensive models that are the vast majority of DSLR's made by Nikon! Never heard of the D5000, D3000, D90, D60 or D40?
A. Sensors designed entirely by Sony or by Sony with input from Nikon:
D3X --- Sony sensor as in A900, A850
D300, D300s, D90, D5000 --- 12MP Sony EXMOR CMOS (possibly with some Nikon input, but I have not read that claimed by Nikon)
D3000, D60 --- 10MP Sony CCD (possibly with some Nikon input) as in Sony A230, A330, and various older models.
D40: 6MP CCD, designed by Sony with some Nikon input as far as I know, previously used in various Konica-Minolta and Pentax bodies and a lot of Nikon models.
[Earlier models D100, D70, D50: as for D40, while the D1, D1H and D1X used CCDs of Sony/Nikon designs, I believe.]
B. Sensor designed by Nikon alone
D3/D700 --- Nikon CMOS
[Earlier model D2H use a Nikon design neither CMOS nor CCD.]
Fairly clearly the vast majority of Nikon's current (and past) DSLR sales come from list A, using Sony or Sony/Nikon designs.
-
Correct on those models, but you are overlooking the less expensive models that are the vast majority of DSLR's made by Nikon! Never heard of the D5000, D3000, D90, D60 or D40?
A. Sensors designed entirely by Sony or by Sony with input from Nikon:
D3X --- Sony sensor as in A900, A850
D300, D300s, D90, D5000 --- 12MP Sony EXMOR CMOS (possibly with some Nikon input, but I have not read that claimed by Nikon)
D3000, D60 --- 10MP Sony CCD (possibly with some Nikon input) as in Sony A230, A330, and various older models.
D40: 6MP CCD, designed by Sony with some Nikon input as far as I know, previously used in various Konica-Minolta and Pentax bodies and a lot of Nikon models.
[Earlier models D100, D70, D50: as for D40, while the D1, D1H and D1X used CCDs of Sony/Nikon designs, I believe.]
B. Sensor designed by Nikon alone
D3/D700 --- Nikon CMOS
[Earlier model D2H use a Nikon design neither CMOS nor CCD.]
Fairly clearly the vast majority of Nikon's current (and past) DSLR sales come from list A, using Sony or Sony/Nikon designs.
"but you are overlooking the less expensive models "
No. I said "I think the current cameras use basically the D300 sensor " which means the D300, the D90 and the D5000 and maybe others, I lose track. I thought that was so well known it was not worth writing it out in full.
Otherwise your information is incorrect, and without sources.
The D3x sensor is manufactured by Sony, but results from a collaboration between Nikon and Sony. You have no knowledge about who did what, unless you can cite sources, which I doubt.
The D300 and many other cameras (which you list) use a sensor manufactured by Sony, and designed by Sony and Nikon. That is well known, though no-one outside the design teams knows how much each partner contributed. You claim to know, but you do not cite sources. There are statements online that indicate that Nikon supplied key design skills. But quite what, I know not.
I have no idea about the D40 sensor.
Earlier professional Nikon digital cameras used Nikon designs. You forget that Nikon was one of the first companies to commercialise digital SLR cameras, until Canon overtook them for many years. It is quite possible that they lacked some key expertise which was later supplied by Sony. Again, we do not know. And nor do you.
I have no idea what each partner contributes, although Sony does the fabrication. The fact that Sony do not supply anyone else surely tells us a lot.
Regarding the idea that it is best to outsource design, the truth is that if you can design in house, you have more freedom, rather than having to rely on others. It means that you can invest on the long term and innovate based on your own needs. You don't have to wait until a third party produces something. If you look at the latest Leica M9 examples, ISO 1600 is awful. (I accept that the first images might not be representative.) The hard bit to get, and which differentiates is intellectual capital.
-
Maybe all this sensor talk is interesting, but frankly I'm more concerned with the files. As I said to a friend of mine lately, I've seen 6 different companies process files from the old Phillips 6MP CCD, and I saw 6 different results. It's not the sensor. It's how you process the data. Also, now that we know the Leica is a Kodak sensor (for sure), the fact that it is truly a proprietary sensor is a little suspect, too. It could well be that the microlens shift they do is enough to claim it's a Leica-designed CCD, on a fairly standard configuration chip.
What.
Ever.
I just got done processing some shots from the M9, shot today, by me, at ISO 800. Whoever makes the sensor, and whoever is building the processing, it doesn't matter. I find the files unacceptable. If you want to see them, screen shots at 100% are here (http://www.h2hreviews.com/blog/Leica-M9-tests--ISO-800.html).
I'm sorry, normally I try to temper my statements a bit more, but this entire hoopla over this camera is simply a joke, and a very expensive one. To top off the release webcast with a statement from a musician... that did it for me, and I LIKE Seal. I'd LOVE for Leica to put as much time and money into making a good file as they do selling sizzle.
Hello Ted. In general what you say makes sense. But I do think the sensor matters i.e. the actual physical hardware, as that determines the base noise level and so on.
How come you got to play with an M9? Sorry if you said this elsewhere.
-
The D3x sensor is not quite the A900 sensor - they are clearly related, but the D3x sensor is modified for 14-bit readout and has a different (presumably more expensive) filter pack on it (better AA filter, possibly other modifications), at a minimum. Any D3x shooter will tell you that it has a depth, created by exceptional dynamic range, that NO other DSLR can match (which is borne out by various tests). The Alphas are close, and offer exceptional value, but the D3x has a few tweaks to it that nobody has yet matched! It'll be interesting to see if Sony matches or exceeds it in the proposed "Alpha 950".
-Dan
-
I just got done processing some shots from the M9, shot today, by me, at ISO 800. Whoever makes the sensor, and whoever is building the processing, it doesn't matter. I find the files unacceptable. If you want to see them, screen shots at 100% are here (http://www.h2hreviews.com/blog/Leica-M9-tests--ISO-800.html).
That's indeed disapointing for ISO800, but was that from a production camera?
Besides, the image seems to be a good deal under-exposed in pretty challenging light.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
"but you are overlooking the less expensive models "
No. I said "I think the current cameras use basically the D300 sensor " which means the D300, the D90 and the D5000 and maybe others, I lose track
But the D40, D60 and D3000 do not use the D300's CMOS; they use CCDs, and they already account for a large proportion of Nikon DSLR sales.
Otherwise your information is incorrect, and without sources.
An interesting accusation, since you provide no sources for your claims, and one has already been sown to be inaccurate above.
The D3x sensor is manufactured by Sony, but results from a collaboration between Nikon and Sony.
The D300 and many other cameras (which you list) use a sensor manufactured by Sony, and designed by Sony and Nikon. That is well known
I have not read anything about any Nikon input to those sensors. Descriptions of the A900 and A700 say the sensors are Sony 'Exmor', and nothing I have read suggests any Nikon input, though it might be there. I mentioned possible Nikon input to the 12MP Sony Exmor sensor of thr A700, D300, etc. but perhaps should have mentioned the same possibility for the 24MP Sony Exmor sensor of the D3X. But the only Nikon input I have read about is with the earlier CCD sensors.
Earlier professional Nikon digital cameras used Nikon designs.
I mentioned the D2H: what other early models are you referring too? Sony was at least the principal creator of the D1, D1H and D1X sensors as far as I know (can you quote sources to th contrsary) and before that, it was Kodak CCDs. Anyway my original comment was about CURRENT Nikon models, so we are wandering off-topic a bit.
I have no idea what each partner contributes, although Sony does the fabrication. The fact that Sony do not supply anyone else surely tells us a lot.
Which sensors are you talking about? The 6MP sensor of the D40 has been used by Pentax and Konica-Minolta; the 10MP CCD of the D60, D3000 etc. is also used by Pentax; the 12MP CMOS of the D300 etc. is probably now used in the new Leica X1. The only recent sensors used exclusively by Nikon or only Nikon+Sony are the two 24x36mm ones, for the D3, D700, D3X, etc. and who else would use them? Canon is the only other maker of DSLRs in that format!
Regarding the idea that it is best to outsource design, the truth is that if you can design in house, you have more freedom, rather than having to rely on others. It means that you can invest on the long term and innovate based on your own needs. You don't have to wait until a third party produces something.
Agreed that there are advantages to in-house design, and it *sometimes* the best route. But my point is that it is not always the best way to proceed, as illustrated by the fact that Canon and Nikon do not always do it that way. The advantages of in-house design must be weighed (case by case?) against the cost advantages of sharing sensor designs with other camera makers.
And as we have been discussing, there is middle way: design collaboration with an experienced sensor design partner, like Nikon with Sony, Olympus with Panasonic, Pentax with Samsung, and maybe Leica with Kodak.
-
But the D40, D60 and D3000 do not use the D300's CMOS; they use CCDs, and they already account for a large proportion of Nikon DSLR sales.
An interesting accusation, since you provide no sources for your claims, and one has already been sown to be inaccurate above.
I have not read anything about any Nikon input to those sensors. Descriptions of the A900 and A700 say the sensors are Sony 'Exmor', and nothing I have read suggests any Nikon input, though it might be there. I mentioned possible Nikon input to the 12MP Sony Exmor sensor of thr A700, D300, etc. but perhaps should have mentioned the same possibility for the 24MP Sony Exmor sensor of the D3X. But the only Nikon input I have read about is with the earlier CCD sensors.
I mentioned the D2H: what other early models are you referring too? Sony was at least the principal creator of the D1, D1H and D1X sensors as far as I know (can you quote sources to th contrsary) and before that, it was Kodak CCDs. Anyway my original comment was about CURRENT Nikon models, so we are wandering off-topic a bit.
Which sensors are you talking about? The 6MP sensor of the D40 has been used by Pentax and Konica-Minolta; the 10MP CCD of the D60, D3000 etc. is also used by Pentax; the 12MP CMOS of the D300 etc. is probably now used in the new Leica X1. The only recent sensors used exclusively by Nikon or only Nikon+Sony are the two 24x36mm ones, for the D3, D700, D3X, etc. and who else would use them? Canon is the only other maker of DSLRs in that format!
Agreed that there are advantages to in-house design, and it *sometimes* the best route. But my point is that it is not always the best way to proceed, as illustrated by the fact that Canon and Nikon do not always do it that way. The advantages of in-house design must be weighed (case by case?) against the cost advantages of sharing sensor designs with other camera makers.
And as we have been discussing, there is middle way: design collaboration with an experienced sensor design partner, like Nikon with Sony, Olympus with Panasonic, Pentax with Samsung, and maybe Leica with Kodak.
No my claims were not inaccurate.
Unfortunately this is getting too pendantic and head up arse. In reality, you have no more information than me, otherwise you would have mentioned it. It is public knowledge that Nikon and Sony collaborate on many sensors, but you do not know who does what and neither do I. The rest is supposition, and hot air. So what precisely is your point?
"there is middle way: design collaboration with an experienced sensor design partner, like Nikon with Sony"
Which is exactly what I have been saying.
-
Hello Ted. How come you got to play with an M9? Sorry if you said this elsewhere.
Oops. Sorry, I didn't realise the links to the pictures answered the question. Hohum!
-
OMG, it's really sharp:
D3x, ISO100
(http://optyczne.pl/upload2/16588_d3x_scena0100_01.png)(http://optyczne.pl/upload2/16596_d3x_scena0100_02.png)
M9, ISO80
(http://optyczne.pl/upload2/22376_xx_scena0080_01.png)(http://optyczne.pl/upload2/22383_xx_scena0080_02.png)
other sensitivities:
http://optyczne.pl/?news=2204 (http://optyczne.pl/?news=2204)
-
I have a hard time believing that what are showing on your site is any close to what the DSLRs can achieve
Same here - I am shooting with a 1DSMK3 daily and have a close friend with a d3X and we are getting 100% crops a lot sharper than what is being shown.
If comparison samples like these are to be made then it needs to be very clear how the shots are taken, with what glass, how they are processed etc.
As it stands I simply know from experience the crops shown from the Nikon and Canon are not good examples of what these DSLR's are capable of. Not to mention they vary greatly between ISO in terms of sharpness - which leads me to assume they were shot with a zoom (and not a very good one at that).
-
we should be getting crisper files with great micro detail from the m9...ccd, no AA filter.....but i don't really see a big step or anything that might not be helped in post....
the dsIII shots just look like they are out of focus....and some are sharper then others.....either way they look like they were shot with a zoom...
i tested the m8 against the 5d (and d3) and the m8 jumped out at me....at base iso a noticeable difference....
nothing really "jumps" out at me....other then the obvious noise at higher iso with the m9, which is to be expected....
i have some raw m9 dng files from different sources that i have looked at and so far i have to say i am a little disappointed....
-
The D3x sensor is not quite the A900 sensor - they are clearly related, but the D3x sensor is modified for 14-bit readout and has a different (presumably more expensive) filter pack on it (better AA filter, possibly other modifications), at a minimum. Any D3x shooter will tell you that it has a depth, created by exceptional dynamic range, that NO other DSLR can match (which is borne out by various tests). The Alphas are close, and offer exceptional value, but the D3x has a few tweaks to it that nobody has yet matched! It'll be interesting to see if Sony matches or exceeds it in the proposed "Alpha 950".
-Dan
Iliah Borg owns and has tested multiple samples of the A900 and D3x, and he finds the color much better with the A900, and I believe he's said the AA filter is also slightly weaker in the Sony. Either way, he uses the A900 more often because of the color, and only uses the D3x when needing the better shadow details (enough so that he actually sold one of his D3xs.) Basically, my point is that the D3x does not make better images than the A900...just different, and I know of a few people who own both and would agree.
-
That's indeed disapointing for ISO800, but was that from a production camera?
Besides, the image seems to be a good deal under-exposed in pretty challenging light.
Cheers,
Bernard
Yes, it was a production camera, I shot those today. It is slightly underexposed, as I mentioned, but the noise is throughout the tonal range, as you can see. The light was far from challenging, for a decent state of the art meter. It is not, however, a controlled test by any stretch... as I said in the post, we'll be getting the metrics done ASAP.
It was, though, all I really needed to see. And, I might add, not too far from many, many other file evaluations that have been posted everywhere today.
-
i have some raw m9 dng files from different sources that i have looked at and so far i have to say i am a little disappointed....
One the other hand, we might have to wait until Raw developper ot Capture One Pro supports the M9 to get more certainty about what can be achieved with top converters.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Slough, I agree we are getting bogged down in details, so let me put it this way:
Leica, Nikon, and Olympus are major sensor buyers who likely have some influence on the designs of the sensors made for them by Kodak, Sony and Panasonic respectively. None simply buys what the sensor makers have in the catalog. How does Nikon's involvement in the design of the Sony-made 10 MP CCD, and the Sony-made 12MP and 24MP EXMOR CMOS sensors differ from Leica's involvement in the design of the sensors for the M8, M9 and S2?
Your point seemed to be that Leica in a worse and more dependent position than Nikon.
-
Hi!
I found a couple of decent samples on "DPReview":
http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/leicam9_...l1070439_aw.jpg (http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/leicam9_preview/originals/l1070439_aw.jpg)
http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/leicam9_...l1070505_aw.jpg (http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/leicam9_preview/originals/l1070505_aw.jpg)
http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/leicam9_...ls/l1070617.jpg (http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/leicam9_preview/originals/l1070617.jpg)
I noticed that the 1600 ISO is quite "blotchy", same type of hard to reduce noise I have at high ISO on my Alpha 900.
It's hard to draw conclusion from the DPReview samples, though because to little is known about parameters and correctness of exposure.
Best regards
Erik
Yes, it was a production camera, I shot those today. It is slightly underexposed, as I mentioned, but the noise is throughout the tonal range, as you can see. The light was far from challenging, for a decent state of the art meter. It is not, however, a controlled test by any stretch... as I said in the post, we'll be getting the metrics done ASAP.
It was, though, all I really needed to see. And, I might add, not too far from many, many other file evaluations that have been posted everywhere today.
-
Hi!
I found a couple of decent samples on "DPReview":
http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/leicam9_...l1070439_aw.jpg (http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/leicam9_preview/originals/l1070439_aw.jpg)
http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/leicam9_...l1070505_aw.jpg (http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/leicam9_preview/originals/l1070505_aw.jpg)
http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/leicam9_...ls/l1070617.jpg (http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/leicam9_preview/originals/l1070617.jpg)
I noticed that the 1600 ISO is quite "blotchy", same type of hard to reduce noise I have at high ISO on my Alpha 900.
It's hard to draw conclusion from the DPReview samples, though because to little is known about parameters and correctness of exposure.
Best regards
Erik
I really hope that there is some good C1 support. Lightroom just doesn't cut it when it comes to noise :@
-
One the other hand, we might have to wait until Raw developper ot Capture One Pro supports the M9 to get more certainty about what can be achieved with top converters.
Cheers,
Bernard
i looked at the raws in aperture, my preferred developer for leica m8 files (and many others....).....
there is a lot of talk on the leica forum about the new firmware...which came out today?! and most of the files i have seen are the old firmware...which is something like 0.9.. the new one is a 1.0... so i guess leica handed these first camera out with a pre production firmware.....
-
Same here - I am shooting with a 1DSMK3 daily and have a close friend with a d3X and we are getting 100% crops a lot sharper than what is being shown.
If comparison samples like these are to be made then it needs to be very clear how the shots are taken, with what glass, how they are processed etc.
As it stands I simply know from experience the crops shown from the Nikon and Canon are not good examples of what these DSLR's are capable of. Not to mention they vary greatly between ISO in terms of sharpness - which leads me to assume they were shot with a zoom (and not a very good one at that).
Maybe its more than 100%.
-
Maybe its more than 100%.
Could be - the text on the website doesnt say.
A google translation of the site says
Anticipating what tomorrow will show, we present a comparison of cuttings from the camera's RAW files Leica M9 and Canon EOS 1Ds MkIII, Nikon D3x and Sony A900. A comparison was made using 50 mm lenses, half-closed to f/8.0.
Files from all the cameras were triggered Dcraw program without sharpening.
If they used a Canon and Nikon 50mm lens at F8 then they were Very, Very badly focused! I mean seriously.. if these are 100% crops from 1 DSMK3 and D3X with 50mm lens's at F8 then they are very poorly executed examples. I cant speak to the Sony as I have had no experience with it - but I have heaps of files from the 1DSMK3 with the 50mm F1.2L lens and they are WAY sharper than the blurry splotch they are trying to pass off.
I am not sure what 'Dcraw' is - but Adobe Camera RAW would have been my choice for a meaningful comparison
-
Hi,
Dcraw is a raw converter developed and maintained by Dave Coffin, parts of Dcraw are used by many vendors, like Adobe. I don't think Dcraw sharpens just demosaics, so the images are softer than they used to be. Using a standard converter like DC-raw may be a good idea to make a level playing field. We don't know what is going on in commercial raw-converters.
As the Leica lacks AA-filter it needs little sharpening, whereas the Canon has AA filter so it needs a lot of sharpening with small radius. It may be better to compare images with ideal sharpening, but than we need to define ideal sharpening.
Best regards
Erik
Could be - the text on the website doesnt say.
A google translation of the site says
If they used a Canon and Nikon 50mm lens at F8 then they were Very, Very badly focused! I mean seriously.. if these are 100% crops from 1 DSMK3 and D3X with 50mm lens's at F8 then they are very poorly executed examples. I cant speak to the Sony as I have had no experience with it - but I have heaps of files from the 1DSMK3 with the 50mm F1.2L lens and they are WAY sharper than the blurry splotch they are trying to pass off.
I am not sure what 'Dcraw' is - but Adobe Camera RAW would have been my choice for a meaningful comparison
-
Maybe I'm just insane, but those ISO comparisons cited above seem to me to have been taken of a printed picture, and what you're seeing could be a fuzzy halftone dots in a commercial print job -- like the label on a box of grapes or a bottle of wine. I don't know why anybody would do that, but that's what it looks like.
-
Slough, I agree we are getting bogged down in details, so let me put it this way:
Leica, Nikon, and Olympus are major sensor buyers who likely have some influence on the designs of the sensors made for them by Kodak, Sony and Panasonic respectively. None simply buys what the sensor makers have in the catalog. How does Nikon's involvement in the design of the Sony-made 10 MP CCD, and the Sony-made 12MP and 24MP EXMOR CMOS sensors differ from Leica's involvement in the design of the sensors for the M8, M9 and S2?
Your point seemed to be that Leica in a worse and more dependent position than Nikon.
Yes, I think we agree on most of what you wrote above. And yes, I think that last statement is true, though it is no more than speculation on my part. Why do I suspect that it is the case?
Well Nikon is a large company with a large budget, and proven world class expertise in sensor design e.g. D3 sensor which is class leading. Leica is a small company, with no previous proven sensor expertise, known for its world class optics i.e. camera lenses, microscopes, binoculars etc. So that is consistent with Nikon having significant input into the design of the sensors that it buys from Sony, such that they can improve the performance, and consistent with Leica having minor input into the sensors that it buys from Kodak. And as I understand it Kodak sensors have never been known for low noise. Of course this is pure conjecture, based on circumstantial evidence alone, and you would be quite entitled to blow a raspberry, and say that you disagree, or that you cannot draw any conclusion. In any case, it is a rather academic point with little real use.
-
Could be - the text on the website doesnt say.
A google translation of the site says
If they used a Canon and Nikon 50mm lens at F8 then they were Very, Very badly focused! I mean seriously.. if these are 100% crops from 1 DSMK3 and D3X with 50mm lens's at F8 then they are very poorly executed examples. I cant speak to the Sony as I have had no experience with it - but I have heaps of files from the 1DSMK3 with the 50mm F1.2L lens and they are WAY sharper than the blurry splotch they are trying to pass off.
I am not sure what 'Dcraw' is - but Adobe Camera RAW would have been my choice for a meaningful comparison
Actually, ACR is probably among the worst converters to use for a comparison of any Kodak sensor, as it deals with sharp cut color filtration rather poorly (same with A900.) As far as Dcraw, it was also not great for comparison, because, according to Iliah, "white balance and black point are wrong for M9, which puts it in an unfavorable position, including noise and colour. "
-
Actually, ACR is probably among the worst converters to use for a comparison of any Kodak sensor, as it deals with sharp cut color filtration rather poorly (same with A900.) As far as Dcraw, it was also not great for comparison, because, according to Iliah, "white balance and black point are wrong for M9, which puts it in an unfavorable position, including noise and colour. "
They could slap on the lens and shoot. My 1DsmkIII would turn in bad unsharp files if I did. As I know I have to microadjust everything by about +9, with a decent lens it produces sharp results. It had two trips to Canon to get to that state, plus one for a new shutter, but I can now produce biting sharp images. I think Canon now have some very good primes and Canon has lots of advantages over Leica. All things considered I would love a M9.
Kevin.
-
Hi,
If you check out the actual test you would see that they tested Canon, Nikon, Sony and the Leica. The Canon, Nikon and Sony images were almost identical and the M9 sharper. Some scaling was probably involved as the image sizes should differ a bit between Nikon and Leica.
My guess is that what we see is the absence of AA-filter which essentially means that we need more sharpening on DSLR trio. My polish is worse than my russian so I did not read the article just looked at the pictures.
Best regards
Erik
They could slap on the lens and shoot. My 1DsmkIII would turn in bad unsharp files if I did. As I know I have to microadjust everything by about +9, with a decent lens it produces sharp results. It had two trips to Canon to get to that state, plus one for a new shutter, but I can now produce biting sharp images. I think Canon now have some very good primes and Canon has lots of advantages over Leica. All things considered I would love a M9.
Kevin.
-
I wonder why nobody complains about the missing automatic sensor cleaning? I just noticed that this is missing when I saw the sensor cleaning part of Michael's video and it took me by surprise because I consider this is a standard feature nowadays. Well, some will say that we can be happy that a full-frame M camera could be realized at all but I wouldn't want to buy a camera without it anymore. Thinking about it some more: The D3X also does not support automatic sensor cleaning. Well, I guess I'm happy that I have a 5D Mark II.
-
Hi,
If you check out the actual test you would see that they tested Canon, Nikon, Sony and the Leica. The Canon, Nikon and Sony images were almost identical and the M9 sharper. Some scaling was probably involved as the image sizes should differ a bit between Nikon and Leica.
My guess is that what we see is the absence of AA-filter which essentially means that we need more sharpening on DSLR trio. My polish is worse than my russian so I did not read the article just looked at the pictures.
Best regards
Erik
I own various SLRs and an M8. The Leica wides wipe the floor with anything else. And any current SLR wipes the floor with the Leica on general usability, as well as being more reliable.
I just did a test with my D3x and a $100 Nikon 50/1.8. When sharpened, it looks just about like the M9 on a similar crop posted on the Leica forum -
If you want the Leica close sharpness, wide wides, miniature size, and Leica handling - which are all totally great - get the Leica. If all you want is quickly shot usable images, and occasional telephoto shots, and a camera which always works out of the bag, get a D700 or a D3x and enjoy the high ISO.
Edmund
-
I wonder why nobody complains about the missing automatic sensor cleaning? I just noticed that this is missing when I saw the sensor cleaning part of Michael's video and it took me by surprise because I consider this is a standard feature nowadays. Well, some will say that we can be happy that a full-frame M camera could be realized at all but I wouldn't want to buy a camera without it anymore. Thinking about it some more: The D3X also does not support automatic sensor cleaning. Well, I guess I'm happy that I have a 5D Mark II.
That kind of sensor cleaning is unavoidable really, no matter what camera you have at some point you are going to have to clean the sensor manually. I don't see this as being a big issue on the M9 mostly because you'd use primarily prime lenses which in my experience practically stopped all my dirty sensor issues when i strated using them over my zooms.
-
Wow, look I am really glad that you are interested in testing the Leica, but a handheld shot in the camera store
is
not
a
test.
You've got a flimsily backed opinion at best.
I did the same today (took a few shots with the M9 at a store) and also thought the file just looked ok. But that doesnt tell me what it can or can't do compared to the other guys. You need a controlled situation for that.
-
That kind of sensor cleaning is unavoidable really, no matter what camera you have at some point you are going to have to clean the sensor manually. I don't see this as being a big issue on the M9 mostly because you'd use primarily prime lenses which in my experience practically stopped all my dirty sensor issues when i strated using them over my zooms.
I've always assumed more lens changes = more sensor dust
-
I've always assumed more lens changes = more sensor dust
Not if you can only afford one Leica lens. 8-p
-
I've always assumed more lens changes = more sensor dust
I suppose all things being equal when dust gets in it can settle on the sensor or somewhere else with any camera. But if you are using a zoom lens the dust that settles away from the sensor can get pumped around the mirror box by the volume of air the zoom action shifts, giving it a second, third, forth, or more chances of landing on the sensor.
Steve
-
That kind of sensor cleaning is unavoidable really, no matter what camera you have at some point you are going to have to clean the sensor manually. I don't see this as being a big issue on the M9 mostly because you'd use primarily prime lenses which in my experience practically stopped all my dirty sensor issues when i strated using them over my zooms.
sensor cleaning work very well on my Rebel Xsi, one year with almost every day use and no dust, even one speck, M8 has dust almost after every shooting day
-
Why would you think the image quality would be better? All sensors are the same size and of good quality, so if quality lenses are used, all should be the same.
I had made 2 A2 prints before. One with Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III + TS-E 24 f/3.5L and one with Leica M8 + M 35 f/1.4 ASPH Titanium. Both print showed up in same details but 1Ds III has 21 M.P.
-
Hi,
A lot of stuff influences image quality:
- Focusing accuracy
- Camera vibration
- Diffraction
- Processing (with sharpening playing a major role)
- Optical Low Pass filter (also known as AA-filter)
- Lens sharpness
The difference in resolution may matter little, 18 to 21 MPixel it's about 8% more pixels along each axis
Best regards
Erik
I had made 2 A2 prints before. One with Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III + TS-E 24 f/3.5L and one with Leica M8 + M 35 f/1.4 ASPH Titanium. Both print showed up in same details but 1Ds III has 21 M.P.
-
Hi,
A lot of stuff influences image quality:
- Focusing accuracy
- Camera vibration
- Diffraction
- Processing (with sharpening playing a major role)
- Optical Low Pass filter (also known as AA-filter)
- Lens sharpness
The difference in resolution may matter little, 18 to 21 MPixel it's about 8% more pixels along each axis
Best regards
Erik
The quote addressed the M8, not M9. So its 10mpix v. 21mpix.
-
The quote addressed the M8, not M9. So its 10mpix v. 21mpix.
thanks.
-
Hi,
A lot of stuff influences image quality:
- Focusing accuracy
- Camera vibration
- Diffraction
- Processing (with sharpening playing a major role)
- Optical Low Pass filter (also known as AA-filter)
- Lens sharpness
The difference in resolution may matter little, 18 to 21 MPixel it's about 8% more pixels along each axis
Best regards
Erik
I agree, but you can't compare the 1Ds MkIII (or whatever) and the M9 without comparing the quality of the photograph, not just the 'image quality'. So none of those parameters matter in either camera comparison if the camera can't get you the picture you want and which expresses the moment. If a DSLR breaks the mood by being a camera thats in the face of the people being photographed it doesn't matter what the camera can do in theory, because its not able to do it in practice because it distracts them. If on the other hand the M9 allows a free'er approach thats helps you blend into the background and find the photograph, it then hardly matters that the camera doesn't have IS or AF, a grainy shallow focus image will be a triumph in comparison to the DSLR. And likewise you wouldn't use the M9 for a sports camera where you need to be on the touchline with a 500mm lens would you?
So pixel peeping comparisons rarely coincide in real life with two wildly different cameras meant for different approaches to photography. Its pointless.
Steve