M9 Review

[Ben Rubinstein]

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.

[Rob C]

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

[DaFu]

I thought I'd effed up my monitor somehow...illegible.

Looks just fine in Mac Safari on my 1024 X 768 screen.

Dave

[bjanes]

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.

[Christopher Sanderson]

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.

[ceyman]

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

[douglasf13]

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.

[Rob C]

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

[Ben Rubinstein]

Perfect, many thanks.

[michael]

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

[seany]

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.

[Ben Rubinstein]

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.

[ErikKaffehr]

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.

[dealy663]

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.

[michael]

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

[Mark D Segal]

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.

[method]

Users waiting for a Lightroom Profile can, of course, create their own with the DNG Profile Editor.

[ErikKaffehr]

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]

Michael,

I may think that you over simplify things!

Best regards
Erik

Care to elaborate?

Michael

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Anyone else notice the moire on the M9 ruler shot?...

+1