Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down

Author Topic: M9 Review  (Read 18097 times)

Gary Ferguson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 550
    • http://
M9 Review
« Reply #40 on: October 02, 2009, 06:06:30 pm »

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!

Logged

sreidvt

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14
M9 Review
« Reply #41 on: October 02, 2009, 10:26:14 pm »

Quote from: Gary Ferguson
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


Logged

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
M9 Review
« Reply #42 on: October 03, 2009, 08:28:44 am »

Quote from: MarkDS
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.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2009, 08:35:13 am by Jonathan Wienke »
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
M9 Review
« Reply #43 on: October 03, 2009, 09:15:45 am »

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

Quote from: Jonathan Wienke
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.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Gary Ferguson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 550
    • http://
M9 Review
« Reply #44 on: October 03, 2009, 09:24:50 am »

Quote from: sreidvt
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"?
Logged

sreidvt

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14
M9 Review
« Reply #45 on: October 03, 2009, 03:30:13 pm »

Quote from: Gary Ferguson
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
« Last Edit: October 03, 2009, 03:54:10 pm by sreidvt »
Logged

dreed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1715
M9 Review
« Reply #46 on: October 04, 2009, 02:35:26 pm »

Quote from: michael
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
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
M9 Review
« Reply #47 on: October 04, 2009, 03:06:35 pm »

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.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

dreed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1715
M9 Review
« Reply #48 on: October 05, 2009, 09:00:11 am »

Quote from: MarkDS
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
Logged

AdrianW

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 40
M9 Review
« Reply #49 on: October 09, 2009, 07:06:58 pm »

Quote from: dealy663
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!
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up