M8 vs M9 files part 2
- Thread starter nsng
- Start date
- Status
Thanks again for taking the trouble to make the comparisons, to me it's timely information but it wouldn't have changed my decision on getting the M9.
Simply, I don't own a M8, though your part 1 results were pretty close, I would have chosen M9 because of the FF, this is the single most important consideration of mine. Other enhancements are bonus to me, even the need of using a IR filter is no longer applicable to M9.
I actually would have appreciated more if you have made comparisons based on actual/equivalent focal lengths of these lenses on how the perspective of a 24mm on a M8 yields a different result of an actual 35mm on a FF. That would have been my 2nd most important criterion for waiting and choosing a FF RF, it so happens that it's Leica which leads the market in introducing the first FF RF allowing the use of all fine Leitz optics. If Epson or Nikon rushed out a FF RF which accepts leica optics, I would have chosen them, no question asked. That would have been my 3rd most important criterion.
I leave out the cost of owning the Leica as it's simply not possible today to benchmark it against an alternative. I made decision based on value, not cost. A decision choosing the right tool for my shooting style, an inconspicuous camera and it happens to be a Leica.
Thanks Ng.
Simply, I don't own a M8, though your part 1 results were pretty close, I would have chosen M9 because of the FF, this is the single most important consideration of mine. Other enhancements are bonus to me, even the need of using a IR filter is no longer applicable to M9.
I actually would have appreciated more if you have made comparisons based on actual/equivalent focal lengths of these lenses on how the perspective of a 24mm on a M8 yields a different result of an actual 35mm on a FF. That would have been my 2nd most important criterion for waiting and choosing a FF RF, it so happens that it's Leica which leads the market in introducing the first FF RF allowing the use of all fine Leitz optics. If Epson or Nikon rushed out a FF RF which accepts leica optics, I would have chosen them, no question asked. That would have been my 3rd most important criterion.
I leave out the cost of owning the Leica as it's simply not possible today to benchmark it against an alternative. I made decision based on value, not cost. A decision choosing the right tool for my shooting style, an inconspicuous camera and it happens to be a Leica.
Thanks Ng.
Hmm.., trying to make sense out of these tests.
1. Am I right to say that for this to be meaningful, we have to first assume that both 28 CRON & 35 LUX are able to out-resolve the sensors at the shooting aperture?
2. Given that the first assumption is true, it is obvious that the M9 would surely have an advantage due to its large size/more pixels without the pix frame. It's like comparing resolution between 645 and 6x6.
The way I see is that the test result merely confirmed point 2. It does not infer that point 1 is valid though.
BTW, if the difference is only apparent at A1 size, me think it is virtually no difference for most applications.
Cheers,
YOL
1. Am I right to say that for this to be meaningful, we have to first assume that both 28 CRON & 35 LUX are able to out-resolve the sensors at the shooting aperture?
2. Given that the first assumption is true, it is obvious that the M9 would surely have an advantage due to its large size/more pixels without the pix frame. It's like comparing resolution between 645 and 6x6.
The way I see is that the test result merely confirmed point 2. It does not infer that point 1 is valid though.
BTW, if the difference is only apparent at A1 size, me think it is virtually no difference for most applications.
Cheers,
YOL
Thanks to TS for the trouble in doing up the test. Clearly M9 is the winner though M8 is very close behind. But I think the resolution / pixel peep should not be the nature of the test. We know the beautiful glow of leica lenses what interest me particularly is the bokeh characteristic. And this is being compromise with a cropped factor. The DOF sweetest spot lies in the corner hence the need for FF photography.
They are using the same sensor just bigger but at a higher MP so iso noise level will break even with M8. Hence resolution and noise is no longer relevant for potential M9 buyer. They are paying it for the "sweet spots in the corner".
Nevertheless, much appreciated. If you can, I hope to see an M8/M9 image side by side with a summilux 50 asph test closest focus distance on a piece of newspaper. That will be the right test for me
They are using the same sensor just bigger but at a higher MP so iso noise level will break even with M8. Hence resolution and noise is no longer relevant for potential M9 buyer. They are paying it for the "sweet spots in the corner".
Nevertheless, much appreciated. If you can, I hope to see an M8/M9 image side by side with a summilux 50 asph test closest focus distance on a piece of newspaper. That will be the right test for me
Ansel
Senior Member
Ooh, what is that multi-colored letters on the last M8 pic? Fringes? Is it the camera or the glass? ...
The multi-coloured letters are the result of the M8 not having an anti-aliasing sensor filter. Problem solved in M9
- Status
Similar threads
