rscheffler
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.119 #6 · Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (fixed lens) | |
carstenw wrote:
18MP to 24MP is really not a big difference. I would be happy with either. The other factors are more important here. I am breathlessly awaiting the colour performance of the M.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Yes, I agree it's not that big a difference. But in a few one to one comparisons which I have played around with, the lower 18MP M9 sensor actually showed more resolution/ detail than the new M 24MP sensor...but it is so close that it's not worth sweating. The color and DR differences were much more obvious.
wayne seltzer wrote:
Maybe they should introduce some false detail and do some loam sharpening on the RAW image in order to keep up with the Merill's! Lol! 
Some people would think that a sensor like Foveon which sucks at iso's over 400 would be a more limiting big difference than the difference in MP between 18 and 24.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
hmm, I was drawing the comparison between the DP1 Merrill and the RX1, not the Leica's- and specifically mentioned the specific subject/ limited ISO criteria. In any case, there is a real resolution advantage with the Sigma when it comes to infinity/ distance shots at base ISO that objectively surpasses a bayer 24MP sensor. Pretty much to a person, ,all that have experience with both will admit this (and many who have used the RX1 and DP1M say this). As far as versatility, what more can you ask for at $800 (a tool that, for certain uses, is only outperformed by a D800, and there not by a huge margin!). But yes, if it was a $2700 RX1, I would expect more. The Leica M9 vs M240 was a totally different discussion and when I read "false detail", I actually thought that was were you were going with the M9! 
I've seen some DPM images where certain types of details in a given scene seem to be exaggerated. This was most obvious in shots with a mixture of natural elements, such as trees, and manmade objects, such as buildings. At a certain size in the image, straight-edged manmade objects had an exaggerated degree of sharpness while the organic objects seemed to be quite soft.
As for the Leica M and the marginal difference in linear resolution over the M9, there are subtle but still clear benefits of this additional resolution:
Over on LUF someone posted a couple comparison DNGs from the M9 vs. the M.
There are some slight differences in how fine details are rendered, which seems to boil down to the additional resolution of the M's sensor. But farther down in the thread, someone else posted conversions done with C1 where the degree of false detail in the M9 files was much less severe.
In the crops below from my conversion of these files with LR 4.3, you can see that the M9 creates a lot of false details, especially in the roof tiles crop. In the very small crop, you can see the difference in the vertical bank of windows, that I assume is correctly rendered in the M version. Also a lot more false colour and colour moire in the crop with the tree branches and shutters. Also, the crops were from the files viewed at 200% to make the differences more obvious.
For the comparison crops I resized the M file down to the M9's dimensions. Other than WB and tint adjustments to get them close, all other LR settings were the same, which implies to me it should be relatively easy to match up the two cameras in post for a unified look. But we'll need more samples to see how the two compare for skin tones, where I think there might be more differences.
M on the left side:
|
