rscheffler wrote:
I'm liking the M more and more, but will let Charles and Joe88 be the early adopter testers.
Just read Yannidel's blog post about it, and he seems a bit reserved about it's image quality, at least in the sense that the new sensor might no longer have a certain Leica-look to it. I have to admit the images in the M brochure, from that perspective, are not the most inspiring. Too early to say. On paper at least, the M seems to address my main complaints about the M9.
edwardkaraa wrote:
Thank you for the link, Ron!
I personally am not very attached to a Leica look, because I don't believe it really exists. I know there are Canon looks, Nikon looks, Sony looks, but they keep on evolving constantly. The Sony nex color is related to my A900 color, but they are not the same. Moving from CCD to CMOS and a completely different supplier will have some effect about the color. I am more concerned about purely IQ issues, like banding, high iso noise, sensor cover cracking... you know, the usual Leica issues.
Then I'm a bit surprised you intend to get an M-E, as so far there is no concrete evidence it isn't anything more than a renamed and slightly stripped down M9, where banding, high ISO noise and the same Kodak sensor have been issues in the past.
I know what you're saying about the brand specific looks. However, I shoot the M9 and Canon DSLRs side by side and the M9's files are inherently richer, the shadows deeper. The Canon files in comparison are relatively flat. Can it be equalized in post? For the most part it can, but my feeling is the M9's files are closer to how I want my images to appear.
No, I used it in stealthy and quiet situation that doesn't involve fast moving subject so I haven't seen any jello effect yet. Pretty handy and as a bonus the shutter speed can go up to 1/8000s. If it has a flip up screen it will be even stealthier. Um, the M doesn't have flip up screen, wish it has one for the waist level shooting
edwardkaraa wrote:
It's a scanning shutter. Have you tried it on moving subjects?
Anyway, I don't see why the M shouldn't have it. It's just an inherent feature of video and LV.
rscheffler wrote:
Then I'm a bit surprised you intend to get an M-E, as so far there is no concrete evidence it isn't anything more than a renamed and slightly stripped down M9, where banding, high ISO noise and the same Kodak sensor have been issues in the past.
I know what you're saying about the brand specific looks. However, I shoot the M9 and Canon DSLRs side by side and the M9's files are inherently richer, the shadows deeper. The Canon files in comparison are relatively flat. Can it be equalized in post? For the most part it can, but my feeling is the M9's files are closer to how I want my images to appear. ...Show more →
Of course, one of the reasons I got the A900 is that I liked the colors out of the camera. I'm not a fan of PP and usually I only adjust WB, and very rarely the contrast, so I prefer a camera that gives me nice files to start with. I couldn't live with Canon colors. I used them for 5 years and I'm not going back there. But I do expect this to be a very subjective matter. For instance many M users claim M8 color at base iso to be better than the M9. (that is a trend I find everywhere, original 1Ds vs 1Ds2/3, Nikon D2X vs D3X... Etc. Nostalgia more than anything else IMO). Many claim CCD colors are better than CMOS. I honestly am not very convinced. I heard from forum members that Leica colors are not nice out of the camera, and that it needs a lot of tweaking in PP. Many have custom profiles made for their M8/9. So I will have to see for myself if I like the colors OOC or not.
As for the ME, honestly I expect all the problems of the M9 to have been resolved after 4 years and in a new/old clone that is basically the same body. It's a sure value I believe. The M is now the unknown entity, no body knows how it will perform in real world use. It might turn out to have problems, and we will have to wait for serious reviews and reports on actual use. I am not going to wait 6 months without a FF camera only to find out that it's not for me. Well, that is my reasoning, and it makes sense for me
I only tried it a couple of times, and while the photos looked good at screen size, they did show some weird "jelly" effects at 100% magnification. But certainly it does help in stealthy situations since the shutter is completely silent.
aleksanderpolo wrote:
No, I used it in stealthy and quiet situation that doesn't involve fast moving subject so I haven't seen any jello effect yet. Pretty handy and as a bonus the shutter speed can go up to 1/8000s. If it has a flip up screen it will be even stealthier. Um, the M doesn't have flip up screen, wish it has one for the waist level shooting
edwardkaraa wrote:
For instance many M users claim M8 color at base iso to be better than the M9. (that is a trend I find everywhere, original 1Ds vs 1Ds2/3, Nikon D2X vs D3X... Etc. Nostalgia more than anything else IMO).
I don't think it has to do with nostalgia. Its just personal taste.
I have had both M8 and M9. Love the M9 over the M8 for almost everything (except the 1/8000...). But colors of the M8 at 160 ISO just had a great look. Felt to me like kodachrome.
The M9 has slightly different colors, and I personally preferred the ones from the M8. Just personal taste.
Bijltje wrote:
I don't think it has to do with nostalgia. Its just personal taste.
I have had both M8 and M9. Love the M9 over the M8 for almost everything (except the 1/8000...). But colors of the M8 at 160 ISO just had a great look. Felt to me like kodachrome.
The M9 has slightly different colors, and I personally preferred the ones from the M8. Just personal taste.
I have read on another forum that Ricoh GXR-M emulates M9 color with great success. I don't know how true is that, but interesting nonetheless because the GXR has a Sony CMOS sensor. Anyway, I always believed color has to do with the CFA design and density as well as the raw converter/in-camera processing.
How come folk expected the "M10" to be so much more? Just seen pre-order price of the "M" at around £5k. Less than the M9-P!
After looking at things, I'm curious why they didn't just use a Sony sensor. Iso6400 was good a few years ago, seems odd to not take full advantage of modern technology. Perhaps they're still struggling to get away from the shackles of Kodak ;-)
ricardovaste wrote:
How come folk expected the "M10" to be so much more? Just seen pre-order price of the "M" at around £5k. Less than the M9-P!
After looking at things, I'm curious why they didn't just use a Sony sensor. Iso6400 was good a few years ago, seems odd to not take full advantage of modern technology. Perhaps they're still struggling to get away from the shackles of Kodak ;-)
Wait for samples, Richard. A good 6400 is better than an unusable 12800.
edwardkaraa wrote:
The M9 was the first digital FF RF camera. It cannot be considered as mirrorless because it cannot use live feed from the sensor even though technically it has no mirror.
I'd argue that the M9 was indeed the first mirrorless FF camera – since it has no mirror. I really dislike 'mirrorless' since it's such a vague term. I prefer EVIL, or something else more specific. By that definition the M is the second FF EVIL camera (after the RX1).
kj_vogelius wrote:
I'd argue that the M9 was indeed the first mirrorless FF camera – since it has no mirror. I really dislike 'mirrorless' since it's such a vague term. I prefer EVIL, or something else more specific. By that definition the M is the second FF EVIL camera (after the RX1).
The IL in EVIL stands for interchangeable lens. RX1 is not an EVIL camera at all.
kj_vogelius wrote:
I'd argue that the M9 was indeed the first mirrorless FF camera – since it has no mirror. I really dislike 'mirrorless' since it's such a vague term. I prefer EVIL, or something else more specific. By that definition the M is the second FF EVIL camera (after the RX1).
Why not keep it as it is, the M9 is the first FF digital rangefinder (including mirror), the M is the first FF digital rangefinder with also has LV and the option of an EVF. But still just has a mirror.
edwardkaraa wrote:
I have read on another forum that Ricoh GXR-M emulates M9 color with great success. I don't know how true is that, but interesting nonetheless because the GXR has a Sony CMOS sensor. Anyway, I always believed color has to do with the CFA design and density as well as the raw converter/in-camera processing.
Off course. I personally can't be bothered if its a CCD or CMOS and if it comes from sony, canon or leica themself. As long as I like the colors. With the M8 it was, with the M9 also.
With the M we have to see how it will go. If leica states they need their own sensor to get the colors right I believe them and will see how it will work out. If leica had said they needed an sony sensor because its easy to tweak into their shape I would have fine with me to.
Damn, haven't thought of that I'll miss that lens more than any other.. But sure, I'd like it to find a good new home - so I'll PM you when the time comes. It will probably take until April or so before the M is out though...
Bijltje wrote:
Why not keep it as it is, the M9 is the first FF digital rangefinder (including mirror), the M is the first FF digital rangefinder with also has LV and the option of an EVF. But still just has a mirror.
you know, the usual Leica issues.
I'll miss that lens more than any other.. But sure, I'd like it to find a good new home - so I'll PM you when the time comes. It will probably take until April or so before the M is out though...