Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: Ben Rubinstein on October 01, 2009, 09:45:26 am
-
I suppose the people rich enough to buy one can also afford a screen big enough to read the review. For the rest of us it's beyond a joke. None of my screens (desktop/laptop) will go wider than 1280px and the review doesn't come close to fitting on it. Only review site, scrap that, only site that I've ever been on that requires such ridiculous minimum screen widths.
-
I suppose the people rich enough to buy one can also afford a screen big enough to read the review. For the rest of us it's beyond a joke. None of my screens (desktop/laptop) will go wider than 1280px and the review doesn't come close to fitting on it. Only review site, scrap that, only site that I've ever been on that requires such ridiculous minimum screen widths.
Thank God!
I thought I'd effed up my monitor somehow...illegible.
Rob C
-
I thought I'd effed up my monitor somehow...illegible.
Looks just fine in Mac Safari on my 1024 X 768 screen.
Dave
-
I suppose the people rich enough to buy one can also afford a screen big enough to read the review. For the rest of us it's beyond a joke. None of my screens (desktop/laptop) will go wider than 1280px and the review doesn't come close to fitting on it. Only review site, scrap that, only site that I've ever been on that requires such ridiculous minimum screen widths.
I had no trouble reading the review on my 1600 x 1200 desktop which is hardly state of the art. Though I am not likely to use these cameras, I always find Michael's reviews of Leica's and MFDBs interesting to learn about what is available at the high end. Since he is a leading proponent of ETTR, I was a bit surprised that Michael did not mention the Leica's histogram, which I understand does not make use of a JPEG preview when one is shooting raw and gives a better representation of the raw data. I was quite interested in how the histogram was implemented and hope he sees this post and gives us a description of the histogram.
-
I thought I'd effed up my monitor somehow...illegible.
The web page should display better now - not as easy to compare the three side-by-side 100% crops but at least legible at 800 px wide
Let us know.
-
I don't see any problem in the review -- except the M9 lust it creates. I can read it just fine and adjust the print font size easily in Firefox.
It's great to see Leica back in the game. I will probably never own an M9, but I'm beginning to feel I'll have to borrow or rent one for a few days to at least experience the gestalt. Then I may have to explain to my wife why I "need" this toy.
carl
-
I had no trouble reading the review on my 1600 x 1200 desktop which is hardly state of the art. Though I am not likely to use these cameras, I always find Michael's reviews of Leica's and MFDBs interesting to learn about what is available at the high end. Since he is a leading proponent of ETTR, I was a bit surprised that Michael did not mention the Leica's histogram, which I understand does not make use of a JPEG preview when one is shooting raw and gives a better representation of the raw data. I was quite interested in how the histogram was implemented and hope he sees this post and gives us a description of the histogram.
He does mention the blinkies and how they don't take jpeg into account.
-
The web page should display better now - not as easy to compare the three side-by-side 100% crops but at least legible at 800 px wide
Let us know.
Thanks for the adjustment: it`s perfect now and in tune with the usual display from What's New!
Rob C
-
Perfect, many thanks.
-
Sorry for the display problem. I posted the review then had to go out and couldn't fix the problem till I got back to a computer with editing software. Chris was kind enough to handle it for me.
As for the topic of histograms, I did indeed mention it...
– The highlight warning (when activated) is now very precise. It exactly matches the clipping indication in Lightroom, and is not influenced by the JPG setting (if any) as it is on so many cameras. In fact, if you do not have JPG generation turned on the settings for colour space aren't even available, which almost all other cameras do – the source of no end of confusion to many photographers.
Michael
-
Excellent review Michael I enjoyed reading it even though it convinced me I shall never buy or want to use a M9, not because I couldn't afford to or justify the the cost, fortunately I could. I'm afraid I belong to the camp that views the M9 as an anachronism and a rich man/woman's toy. Nevertheless I can appreciate the enjoyment those who buy one get from from owning and using a M9 and would defend their right to do so if they so desire.
-
Isn't comparing unsharpened files to those from an AA filterless camera misleading given that by the time you have sharpened the AA'd files you will probably have more resolution whereas you cannot regain more resolution from a camera that has no AA filter? (honest question) Anyone else notice the moire on the M9 ruler shot?
Infact following MR's last article, should it not be a comparison based on the final image that be used rather than unprocessed files?
One thing I did notice is the report that the highlight clipping now matches that in LR. As the LR histo is based on the enormous ProPhoto colour space that seems to me that the camera is telling you you have information where non will exist the moment you print or display, mapping is not a 'save all' solution relative to capturing the information in the first place based on the output medium. My own opinion though. It's actually why a lot of wedding shooters hate the ProPhoto space that LR uses, their output is never in such a wide colour space and they need to work with hundred of images fast, playing with mapping is not a solution unless you have the time or inclination to fiddle with each image seperately.
-
Hi,
I guess that we should compare correctly sharpened files. Problem is that we cannot define what correct sharpening is. Some of our perceived sharpness may also be an artifact of aliasing effects. So the issue is complex.
In my view the differences may not show up in prints. I have seen preciously little differences on A2 size prints from APS-C (12MP) and FF (24 MP) although the differences in the actual pixel views of the files were large.
The way to see it is that the Leica M9 is a small camera with very high performing lenses. It's probably not really better than DSLR competition at 21-24 MP nor is it worse. It's different...
Best regards
Erik
Isn't comparing unsharpened files to those from an AA filterless camera misleading given that by the time you have sharpened the AA'd files you will probably have more resolution whereas you cannot regain more resolution from a camera that has no AA filter? (honest question) Anyone else notice the moire on the M9 ruler shot?
Infact following MR's last article, should it not be a comparison based on the final image that be used rather than unprocessed files?
One thing I did notice is the report that the highlight clipping now matches that in LR. As the LR histo is based on the enormous ProPhoto colour space that seems to me that the camera is telling you you have information where non will exist the moment you print or display, mapping is not a 'save all' solution relative to capturing the information in the first place based on the output medium. My own opinion though. It's actually why a lot of wedding shooters hate the ProPhoto space that LR uses, their output is never in such a wide colour space and they need to work with hundred of images fast, playing with mapping is not a solution unless you have the time or inclination to fiddle with each image seperately.
-
Isn't comparing unsharpened files to those from an AA filterless camera misleading given that by the time you have sharpened the AA'd files you will probably have more resolution whereas you cannot regain more resolution from a camera that has no AA filter? (honest question) Anyone else notice the moire on the M9 ruler shot?
I noticed the moire in the M9 ruler shot also, it jumped right out at me as soon as I saw the image. I'm surprised he didn't notice this. I also agree that comparing non AA files to AA files without sharpening doesn't seem to be quite fair.
And that Canon image really looks like there was some camera shake involved, IMHO.
I really was expecting the M9 image to look better than it did in comparison to the Sony image.
-
Sharpening increases acutance (edge contrast) not resolution. These are different things and one needs to be very careful when doing comparisons not to confuse the two.
Michael
-
One needs to be really cautious about concluding anything from the comparison shots on a monitor for reasons Michael explained in his essay on the subject. The key thing is to see prints. I don't own one of these cameras, but I have seen prints (unsharpened or with minimal sharpening) from its files and they are stunning. What impressed me most was the quality of the sharpness from edge to edge on Super A3 size prints. Those Leica lenses really deliver on tonality and sharpness and the sensor captures it well.
-
Users waiting for a Lightroom Profile can, of course, create their own with the DNG Profile Editor.
-
Michael,
I may think that you over simplify things!
Best regards
Erik
Sharpening increases acutance (edge contrast) not resolution. These are different things and one needs to be very careful when doing comparisons not to confuse the two.
Michael
-
Michael,
I may think that you over simplify things!
Best regards
Erik
Care to elaborate?
Michael
-
... Anyone else notice the moire on the M9 ruler shot?...
+1
-
Users waiting for a Lightroom Profile can, of course, create their own with the DNG Profile Editor.
regarding the profile the comparision is completey useless as the "compare.jpg"-file has no profile
-
I too noticed the camera shake on the canon shot, whats up with that. Also I don't see how the M9 could be perceived as better then the Sony but that is only one example shown as I suspect many more were done. I would also like to point out to all the people who say the M9 provides the user a unique way of taking photographs. All DSLR's allow you to turn off all the dodads and shoot completely manual. As far as quality is concerned Michael has proved the point that in no way is the M9 4 to 5000 dollars better then what you can get else where.
-
Sorry Michael, good question!
Sharpening is a complex issue. Is the PSF (Point Spread Function) known, the original image can be reconstructed. This was pretty well demonstrated in the original images from the "Hubble Space Teleskop" which had a small error that could be reproduced. Now, the AA-filter works as a beam-splitter with well defined properties, so it's affects on the image may be reduced by appropriate processing.
On the other hand, passing image detail above the Nyquist limit will cause artifacts. The problem is that if this artifacts show up in color we call them "moiré" and react, if they are monochrome no one complains but they are still there. Aliasing may even improve perceived sharpness.
A very good example is here: http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/SigmaDP2...res_ACR-003.JPG (http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/SigmaDP2/Samples/Comparedto/Res/DP2_res_ACR-003.JPG)
As you can see, there is a lot of false information in the image, but we don't react because we don't see colorful artifacts.
So, my point is that the issue is quite complex. Processing needs to be optimized for the image. Making objective comparisons is an illusion.
I may also point to this page that contains links to some excellent info from Zeiss, no easy read but worth the effort:
http://83.177.178.241/ekr/index.php/photoa...-and-perception (http://83.177.178.241/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/22-a-very-god-article-about-mtf-and-perception)
Best regards
Erik
Care to elaborate?
Michael
-
"polycarbonate wonders"
...ahahahaha priceless! Very good one! Just started reading but had to say this!
-
Hi,
AFAIK there is a lot of magnesium, aluminium and stainless steel in those polycarbonate wonders...
Best regards
Erik
"polycarbonate wonders"
...ahahahaha priceless! Very good one! Just started reading but had to say this!
-
A very enjoyable and thoughtful review! Thank you!
To nitpick just a little, my first impression of the Canon shot was also of shake, as if there was some vertical camera motion.
-
Sorry Michael, good question!
Sharpening is a complex issue. Is the PSF (Point Spread Function) known, the original image can be reconstructed. This was pretty well demonstrated in the original images from the "Hubble Space Teleskop" which had a small error that could be reproduced. Now, the AA-filter works as a beam-splitter with well defined properties, so it's affects on the image may be reduced by appropriate processing.
On the other hand, passing image detail above the Nyquist limit will cause artifacts. The problem is that if this artifacts show up in color we call them "moiré" and react, if they are monochrome no one complains but they are still there. Aliasing may even improve perceived sharpness.
A very good example is here: http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/SigmaDP2...res_ACR-003.JPG (http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/SigmaDP2/Samples/Comparedto/Res/DP2_res_ACR-003.JPG)
As you can see, there is a lot of false information in the image, but we don't react because we don't see colorful artifacts.
So, my point is that the issue is quite complex. Processing needs to be optimized for the image. Making objective comparisons is an illusion.
I may also point to this page that contains links to some excellent info from Zeiss, no easy read but worth the effort:
http://83.177.178.241/ekr/index.php/photoa...-and-perception (http://83.177.178.241/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/22-a-very-god-article-about-mtf-and-perception)
Best regards
Erik
Erik, those articles are about the performance of lenses. I think in the context of the discussion, Michael's remark about taking care of the distinction between acutance versus resolution still makes sense. BUT I would add a thought: IF it's correct to say that a primary impact of the AA filter is to reduce acutance, then it would seem reasonable for one purpose of comparison to deploy a certain amount of acutance-restoring sharpening on the AA'd image, recognizing of course it is an extra step repairing what the AA filter damaged, not needed for the non-AA instrument. But if I were doing the comparison work between these cameras, I would still think it interesting and useful to see the difference of the initial starting point between the two sensor technologies before introducing any software fixes, and this is my sense of what Michael was trying to do. Different comparisons for different purposes are normal and sensible.
-
As far as quality is concerned Michael has proved the point that in no way is the M9 4 to 5000 dollars better then what you can get else where.
I didn't read this into the article at all. As well, I hope you understand there is no particular reason why there should be a lock-step relationship between the prices of two cameras and the image quality they deliver. All kinds of other factors relating to production cost, build and component quality, features, and the market determine prices.
-
I didn't read this into the article at all. As well, I hope you understand there is no particular reason why there should be a lock-step relationship between the prices of two cameras and the image quality they deliver. All kinds of other factors relating to production cost, build and component quality, features, and the market determine prices.
You are right all those factors do go into making up a price point. I suppose I have simply attached my own personal judgments to it. As a professional money has to factor into all your decisions. If you can get a tool that will, on output look the same to your client from a $2000 camera as it does from a $7000 one then you have just made $5000 more this year. If a salesman comes to me and says listen if you spend this much money on a camera your clients will immediately notice the difference and spend 3 times as much money on the same images you were doing before. So really this is where I am coming from, you might be different, but I still think a camera manufacturer has to be able to justify there price. And the most important justification is what that cameras final output is. As the image quality is the same then the build component quality and features need to be really really good.
On another note about the sample comparisons. I thought about it a bit more and it is actually a good test for IQ as the Leica has no mirror to shake the camera on exposure and the Sony has in body image stabilization for all lenses, you get a cleaner image. The Canon has no stabilization on the 50mm and a big ol' mirror, hence camera shake. Clearly a shown benefit when applied to acquiring the most detail.
-
BUT I would add a thought: IF it's correct to say that a primary impact of the AA filter is to reduce acutance, then it would seem reasonable for one purpose of comparison to deploy a certain amount of acutance-restoring sharpening on the AA'd image...
Mark,
An AA filter's purpose is not to reduce acutance, it's to reduce resolution, which it does by blurring detail.
Michael
-
You are right all those factors do go into making up a price point. I suppose I have simply attached my own personal judgments to it. As a professional money has to factor into all your decisions. If you can get a tool that will, on output look the same to your client from a $2000 camera as it does from a $7000 one then you have just made $5000 more this year. If a salesman comes to me and says listen if you spend this much money on a camera your clients will immediately notice the difference and spend 3 times as much money on the same images you were doing before. So really this is where I am coming from, you might be different, but I still think a camera manufacturer has to be able to justify there price. And the most important justification is what that cameras final output is. As the image quality is the same then the build component quality and features need to be really really good.
On another note about the sample comparisons. I thought about it a bit more and it is actually a good test for IQ as the Leica has no mirror to shake the camera on exposure and the Sony has in body image stabilization for all lenses, you get a cleaner image. The Canon has no stabilization on the 50mm and a big ol' mirror, hence camera shake. Clearly a shown benefit when applied to acquiring the most detail.
Except that Michael said he used mirror lock up and a big tripod. The 1Ds3 image does look shaken to me - coud be a passing truck? - or some lens aberation, but I presume the crop was from the centre field and it doesn't look like mine.
OTOH, I would still like an M9 because I like using rangefinders.
Mike
-
Mark,
An AA filter's purpose is not to reduce acutance, it's to reduce resolution, which it does by blurring detail.
Michael
Ya, but I didn't say the *purpose* was to reduce acutance - I was speculating that this is one of its *impacts*. I know the purpose is to mitigate moire etc. Anyhow, it turns my stomach every time I think about something blurring detail - unless of course it's the kind of picture which wants it's detail blurred - and even then I want to be in control of it. So kudos to Leica for taking the bold step of eliminating this piece of glass from the sensor. I wish Canon had done likewise with the 1Ds3, or at least offered photographers the choice - sure more engineering and cost, but I would have sprung for the no-AA model even if it cost a bit more.
-
Isn't comparing unsharpened files to those from an AA filterless camera misleading given that by the time you have sharpened the AA'd files you will probably have more resolution whereas you cannot regain more resolution from a camera that has no AA filter? (honest question) Anyone else notice the moire on the M9 ruler shot?
Infact following MR's last article, should it not be a comparison based on the final image that be used rather than unprocessed files?
One thing I did notice is the report that the highlight clipping now matches that in LR. As the LR histo is based on the enormous ProPhoto colour space that seems to me that the camera is telling you you have information where non will exist the moment you print or display, mapping is not a 'save all' solution relative to capturing the information in the first place based on the output medium. My own opinion though. It's actually why a lot of wedding shooters hate the ProPhoto space that LR uses, their output is never in such a wide colour space and they need to work with hundred of images fast, playing with mapping is not a solution unless you have the time or inclination to fiddle with each image seperately.
Nice review, I like the street pics too. The M9 is definitely an interesting camera, but I am unfortunately not in a position to look at it seriously now.
As far as detail/accutance goes, the best way would be to compare optimally processed files for each camera, and a print would in the end be even better. It is well known that some files take sharpening much better than others.
The followed image is a correctly sharpened handheld shot of a moving helicopter. It seems sharper to me than the sample shots of Michael (even after I tried sharpening them by the way).
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlangui...647680/sizes/o/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/3900647680/sizes/o/)
There is indeed moire in the M9 files.
Now, the real question I gess is, what % of street shots taken with a M9 will be focused well enough that the lack of AA filter really brings value? I confess never having used an M series camera. Tthat will be fixed in a few days thanks to a colleague owning a M7 and M8, he is telling me that few of his M8 images appear sharp when looked at 100% on screen.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I am not an expert on optical blur filters, but it is my impression
that their effect can be modeled as a convolution of the pre-filter
image by a suitable filter-dependent function. If this is correct, the
pre-filter image is in principle completely recoverable from the
post-filter data by deconvolution, which should therefore be performed
when a blur filter is present, if one wishes to study the resolution of
such a system. This technique does not affect the moire' reduction
properties of the blur filter.
Note that deconvolution is not the same thing as the usual sharpening
algorithms. The latter selectively boost high-frequency content in the
image, and so enhance zones of rapid transition.
Deconvolvers are available to photographers. For example, the program
Focus Magic appears to be one.
Best regards,
Burton Randol
-
I am not an expert on optical blur filters, but it is my impression
that their effect can be modeled as a convolution of the pre-filter
image by a suitable filter-dependent function. If this is correct, the
pre-filter image is in principle completely recoverable from the
post-filter data by deconvolution, which should therefore be performed
when a blur filter is present, if one wishes to study the resolution of
such a system. This technique does not affect the moire' reduction
properties of the blur filter.
Note that deconvolution is not the same thing as the usual sharpening
algorithms. The latter selectively boost high-frequency content in the
image, and so enhance zones of rapid transition.
Deconvolvers are available to photographers. For example, the program
Focus Magic appears to be one.
Best regards,
Burton Randol
This is a very interesting idea if true, because the implication is that we could eat our cake and have it in terms of the AA filter. But I'm skeptical. Even if it were possible to model the function one would have to know the function in order to model it, and as for Focus Magic, yes, it is presented as a deconvolution program, but it's not the most easily controllable piece of software for such subtle effects.
-
the thing of the m9 that Michael has got very right is it size lenses and way of working. To worry about who has the absolute best image quality well go buy a medium format. The one thing Michael does not say is when shooting strangers people tend to stay much more relaxed in front of a leica then some huge dslr. They stay themselves. Anyone want to run around with a canon or nikon d700 or 5d with a 35 or 28 1..4 , 50 1.4 85 1.4 and not have a shoulder ache at the end of the day . I can do that with my m9 . The dslrs for me are assignment cameras the leica for my soul and by the way I have never made more then 50 grand in a year. And no trust fund. I have leicas because I have to have them. David
-
Hi,
The AA filter works as a beam splitter. It's characteristics should be carefully matched to the sensor and balanced to the microlenses and the fill factor. Increasing the fill factor reduces the amount of blurring needed to avoid aliasing.
Technically speaking Michael is right about not being possible to increase resolution, except that resolution is related to a certain level of contrast. Increasing contrast on very small detail may increase resolution. On the other hand resolution is actually determined by the Nyquist limit, we cannot have real resolution above that limit. According to the old version Bruce Fraser's book "Image Sharpening with Adobe Photoshop CS2" pretty aggressive sharpening is needed with a small radius (for the Canon 300D he mentions 500% at 0.6 radius), a camera from Kodak having similar resolution but no AA-filter needed only 210%.
Increasing the fill factor acts in the same direction as an AA filter, so if we increase fill factor we may have less need for AA-filter. Increasing the fill factor also reduces resolution.
To my best knowledge, it is impossible to remove aliasing in post processing, what can be done is to remove the colorful artifacts caused by interaction between aliasing and the "Bayer" filter array. On the other hand it seems that non color artifacts matter little to observers.
Best regards
Erik
Erik, those articles are about the performance of lenses. I think in the context of the discussion, Michael's remark about taking care of the distinction between acutance versus resolution still makes sense. BUT I would add a thought: IF it's correct to say that a primary impact of the AA filter is to reduce acutance, then it would seem reasonable for one purpose of comparison to deploy a certain amount of acutance-restoring sharpening on the AA'd image, recognizing of course it is an extra step repairing what the AA filter damaged, not needed for the non-AA instrument. But if I were doing the comparison work between these cameras, I would still think it interesting and useful to see the difference of the initial starting point between the two sensor technologies before introducing any software fixes, and this is my sense of what Michael was trying to do. Different comparisons for different purposes are normal and sensible.
-
Hi,
The third installment of Erwin Puts's article on the M9 is released and available here: http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/camera/page157/page157.html (http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/camera/page157/page157.html)
He compares the M9 with M8 and Nikon D3X. His findings are:
The Nikon is slightly sharper than the M9
The M9 has issues with Moiré while the Nikon has almost none
The M9 is a major improvement over the M8
This may or may not contradict other authors experience. Mr. Puts is a well known expert on Leica cameras and certainly has no bias against Leica.
Best regards
Erik
Hi,
The AA filter works as a beam splitter. It's characteristics should be carefully matched to the sensor and balanced to the microlenses and the fill factor. Increasing the fill factor reduces the amount of blurring needed to avoid aliasing.
Technically speaking Michael is right about not being possible to increase resolution, except that resolution is related to a certain level of contrast. Increasing contrast on very small detail may increase resolution. On the other hand resolution is actually determined by the Nyquist limit, we cannot have real resolution above that limit. According to the old version Bruce Fraser's book "Image Sharpening with Adobe Photoshop CS2" pretty aggressive sharpening is needed with a small radius (for the Canon 300D he mentions 500% at 0.6 radius), a camera from Kodak having similar resolution but no AA-filter needed only 210%.
Increasing the fill factor acts in the same direction as an AA filter, so if we increase fill factor we may have less need for AA-filter. Increasing the fill factor also reduces resolution.
To my best knowledge, it is impossible to remove aliasing in post processing, what can be done is to remove the colorful artifacts caused by interaction between aliasing and the "Bayer" filter array. On the other hand it seems that non color artifacts matter little to observers.
Best regards
Erik
-
Burton's thoughts are spot on, but the key is knowing the behavior of the blur. Unfortunately it can be very complex.
-
Burton's thoughts are spot on, but the key is knowing the behavior of the blur. Unfortunately it can be very complex.
As I was thinking more about this idea, I'm wondering whether any of camera manufacturers would be prepared to divulge enough technical information about the nature of the blur so that a third-party, or if they won't divulge anything - they themselves could then market a "deconvolver" for it. This way the AA approach stays intact but we have a tool for undoing its damage. Too good to be true?
-
I was lucky enough to get an M9 within a few days of the release, and have now shot over 3000 frames with it. I agree with most of what Michael says in his review, but would add a couple of additional points.
1. The M9 manual says no collapsible lenses can be used with the M9, however I've had written confirmation from Leica that the recently discontinued 50mm Elmar-M can be used. This further adds to the M9's appeal as delivering the highest possible quality from a truly "pocketable" camera.
2. A number of reviewers have commented on the studio based S2 being weather sealed, while the M9 is not. This struck a chord as I abandoned the M8 when it failed on a few occasions in arduous but not extreme conditions. The first time was in Karachi in the sweltering heat and humidity just before the monsoon arrived. The M8 died, switching on and off and removing and replacing the battery failed to revive it. But after a few hours in an air-conditioned room it sprang back into life. After suffering the same experience on two or three subsequent occasions I threw in the towel and sold the camera. I took the M9 (with the original 0.922 firmware) on a trip to Sorrento and was out in a rain shower, the camera got wet but not excessively so, however it wouldn't power up. Luckily this time the problem was very temporary, and removing and replacing the battery brought it back to life. There have been no further failures despite being subsequently used in the rain.
3. Michael commented that he only saw one example of moire, unfortunately I'm seeing many more. The first, and least serious, category is with moire being visible on the camera's viewing screen but not in the downloaded file. This is very common (and still persists with the latest 1.022 firmware), it can be an inconvenience because sometimes you're tempted to retake the shot, but at least it's not a permanent impairment to the image. The second category is tiny incidences of blue/yellow artifact pattern (I'm classifying it moire, it may be something else) that virtually disappears in even fairly large prints. I've included a full frame and a 100% detail below that illustrates the scale and nature of this problem. Then there's the traditional moire problem often associated with fabrics, some have been easy to deal with but some have so far proven more intractable. I don't want to overstate this issue, out of 3000 shots I've lost only one frame to moire, and that may be the result of lack of processing skill on my part rather than the severity of the problem, however I can find thirty or forty M9 frames where moire is present to one degree or another.
[attachment=16936:Sorrento_Doors.jpg]
[attachment=16937:Doors_moire.jpg]
4. The final point I'd make is that sensor dust is proving to be a reasonably serious issue with the M9. I've cleaned the sensor once, but within a thousand frames it's been necessary to "spot" about ten to fifteen dust specs per shot. With a my Phase One back sensor cleaning is easy, and with my current model Canons it's hardly ever needed. But the M9 is like stepping back a few years in the history of digital photography! Not a show stopper, but neither is it completely trivial.
5. The wider metering capture area comes as a shock (after many years of Leica use), it seems a lot broader on the M9 than the M8 and M7. It's probably appropriate for auto exposure, but makes more considered exposure setting slightly more complicated.
6. The return to 1m frame lines is IMO a retrograde step, and Leica's explanation (that M9 shots won't be enlarged as much as M8 shots) seems plain daft.
Overall I'm delighted with the M9, if it can maintain a reasonable degree of operational robustness then I'll put up with a few little foibles to enjoy the unique combination of exquisite, filmic image quality in an exceptionally compact package. It's also easy to see how the "M" lineage can develop from here, and I look forward to a healthy Leica lineage of M10's and beyond, that will challenge the optics with yet more pixels and maybe other enhancements like camera based anti-shake, better weather proofing, and a self cleaning sensor!
-
I was lucky enough to get an M9 within a few days of the release, and have now shot over 3000 frames with it. I agree with most of what Michael says in his review, but would add a couple of additional points.
2. A number of reviewers have commented on the studio based S2 being weather sealed, while the M9 is not. This struck a chord as I abandoned the M8 when it failed on a few occasions in arduous but not extreme conditions. The first time was in Karachi in the sweltering heat and humidity just before the monsoon arrived. The M8 died, switching on and off and removing and replacing the battery failed to revive it. But after a few hours in an air-conditioned room it sprang back into life. After suffering the same experience on two or three subsequent occasions I threw in the towel and sold the camera. I took the M9 (with the original 0.922 firmware) on a trip to Sorrento and was out in a rain shower, the camera got wet but not excessively so, however it wouldn't power up. Luckily this time the problem was very temporary, and removing and replacing the battery brought it back to life. There have been no further failures despite being subsequently used in the rain.
6. The return to 1m frame lines is IMO a retrograde step, and Leica's explanation (that M9 shots won't be enlarged as much as M8 shots) seems plain daft.
Regarding #2: I am one of those reviewers and I still feel strongly that the digital M cameras should be sealed. That would also mean introducing a certain number of sealed M lenses such as, perhaps, a 35 Summicron, 50 Summicron, etc. Only photographers who needed the benefits of the sealing would also need the lenses.
Regarding #6: You may already know that I agree with you about that. Leica's reasons have nothing to do with enlargement (not sure what made you think that) but rather with favoring accuracy close up over accuracy at further distances. I feel the 2 meter frame lines, in the M8.2, make much more sense and are more useful overall.
Cheers,
Sean Reid
-
As I was thinking more about this idea, I'm wondering whether any of camera manufacturers would be prepared to divulge enough technical information about the nature of the blur so that a third-party, or if they won't divulge anything - they themselves could then market a "deconvolver" for it. This way the AA approach stays intact but we have a tool for undoing its damage. Too good to be true?
Short answer: yes. The AA filter is only part of the blur "big picture"; you also have the lens being used. The ideal deconvolution point spread function must take into account the characteristics of the AA filter and lens combined, and will only be ideal for one specific combination of lens, camera, sensor, focus distance, and focal length (zoom lenses). But that's not to say that a semi-generic PSF isn't good enough to be useful; the canned ones in Focus Magic and PS' Smart Sharpen (remove lens blur) work pretty well with a fairly wide variety of lenses and cameras.
If you really want a custom PSF, you'll need to make your own, like custom profiling your monitor or printer.
-
Hi,
I guess that this is not exactly easy, you either need a collimated light source or very small spots of light very far away. The PSF will be different across the image, due to lens aberrations.
IMHO the issue is a bit overblown. With some probability a sensor with AA-filter needs a bit more of sharpening than a sensor without.
Best regards
Erik
Short answer: yes. The AA filter is only part of the blur "big picture"; you also have the lens being used. The ideal deconvolution point spread function must take into account the characteristics of the AA filter and lens combined, and will only be ideal for one specific combination of lens, camera, sensor, focus distance, and focal length (zoom lenses). But that's not to say that a semi-generic PSF isn't good enough to be useful; the canned ones in Focus Magic and PS' Smart Sharpen (remove lens blur) work pretty well with a fairly wide variety of lenses and cameras.
If you really want a custom PSF, you'll need to make your own, like custom profiling your monitor or printer.
-
Regarding #6: You may already know that I agree with you about that. Leica's reasons have nothing to do with enlargement (not sure what made you think that) but rather with favoring accuracy close up over accuracy at further distances. I feel the 2 meter frame lines, in the M8.2, make much more sense and are more useful overall.
Cheers,
Sean Reid
Hello Sean, thanks for your comments but I beg to differ. On Leica's web site (at least their UK site) they have a FAQ sheet for the M9, which states,
"Why are the framelines calibrated at 1m, instead of 2m as in the M8.2?
As a result of the larger sensor size compared to the M8 and M8.2, a much smaller enlargement
factor of the lens arises. Therefore the proven setting of the LEICA M7/MP was selected for the
M9."
I'm sure however that we'd agree that "enlargement" in the normally understood photographic sense doesn't make much sense with respect to the frame line issue! But in fairness to Leica I wonder if this FAQ is simply a poor translation from the original German, which has confused "magnification" and "enlargement"?
-
Hello Sean, thanks for your comments but I beg to differ. On Leica's web site (at least their UK site) they have a FAQ sheet for the M9, which states,
"Why are the framelines calibrated at 1m, instead of 2m as in the M8.2?
As a result of the larger sensor size compared to the M8 and M8.2, a much smaller enlargement
factor of the lens arises. Therefore the proven setting of the LEICA M7/MP was selected for the
M9."
I'm sure however that we'd agree that "enlargement" in the normally understood photographic sense doesn't make much sense with respect to the frame line issue! But in fairness to Leica I wonder if this FAQ is simply a poor translation from the original German, which has confused "magnification" and "enlargement"?
Hi Gary,
Something got lost in communication between the engineers/product managers and the folks who wrote that copy. I've spoken directly to Stefan Daniel about the decision and reported on this topic in detail in my review. Quite simply, Leica chose a compromise FL optimization which would provide more accurate framing at close focus distances at the expense of framing accuracy at further distances. As I've written many times, I think 2 meters was a more useful choice and I strongly prefer the frame lines in the M8.2 to those in the M9. I've suggested to Leica, directly, that 2 meter frame lines be offered as an upgrade and it is something they will consider for the future.
The discussion of RF frame lines is often over-simplified. Mechanical frame lines can only be optimized for one focus distance (and at that distance they can be quite accurate). So the million dollar question is: "What distance is best?" There's no universal answer to that but my answer is 2 meters or just under that distance.
Cheers,
Sean
-
Mark,
An AA filter's purpose is not to reduce acutance, it's to reduce resolution, which it does by blurring detail.
Michael
Do you know of anyone that has through whatever means necessary managed to have the AA filter removed from a 1Ds3 or 5D2 and what their comments were on the before/after comparison?
Darren
-
I don't know of any company which provides this service on a 1DsMk3; MaxMax does for a 5DMk2. I haven't seen any results for either camera.
-
I don't know of any company which provides this service on a 1DsMk3; MaxMax does for a 5DMk2. I haven't seen any results for either camera.
Indeed, they only include 5D/D200 pics on their information page:
http://www.maxmax.com/hot_rod_visible.htm (http://www.maxmax.com/hot_rod_visible.htm)
-
And that Canon image really looks like there was some camera shake involved, IMHO.
Phew, it's not just me then :)
There's a whitish blob on the terracotta, the aspect ratio of which appears to be taller in the 1Ds3 shot than the other two (see attached image), at least to my eye. Sometimes taking all the precautions in the world can't make up for a minor earth tremor or a heavy train going by...
[attachment=17081:M9LL.jpg]
Another other option is that it's an extreme corner/edge crop, and the Canon lens is showing far more geometric distortion. If the latter is the case, then you've just given me a great excuse to go and buy some nice shiny new glass, thankyou Michael!