p.1 #1 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
My AP mag came in the post this morning with the full M9 review and although there were a few things the tester didn`t much care for (strong moire was one) he gave the camera an excellent.
Now one thing he mentioned was that it was the best IQ from any FF digital he had seen. Now being a magazine tester I doubt he would ever have used alternative lenses and going on my past results using Canon glass and then Contax and Leica on my Canon FF`s to coin a phrase " He aint seen nothing yet"
If you just take away the AA filter (like the M9) and stick a Zeiss lens on your FF DSLR you`d would be able to cut your throat on the images because they would be so sharp and detailed.
p.1 #2 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
dave chilvers wrote:
My AP mag came in the post this morning with the full M9 review and although there were a few things the tester didn`t much care for (strong moire was one) he gave the camera an excellent.
Now one thing he mentioned was that it was the best IQ from any FF digital he had seen. Now being a magazine tester I doubt he would ever have used alternative lenses and going on my past results using Canon glass and then Contax and Leica on my Canon FF`s to coin a phrase " He aint seen nothing yet"
If you just take away the AA filter (like the M9) and stick a Zeiss lens on your FF DSLR you`d would be able to cut your throat on the images because they would be so sharp and detailed....Show more →
p.1 #3 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
"Best" is so subjective as to be a worthless description. Best at what? "Best IQ" subsumes a whole bunch of factors that I bet the M9 will not be "best" at. But I guess if you're going to pay 7 grand for a camera, you'd want to believe it's the best.
p.1 #5 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
Plus, the DMR is not full frame either...
Like MR put it, Leica M lenses make up for the slight difference in the MP compared to current crop of "top" of DSLRs, Canon 1Ds MarkIII/5D MarkII, Nikon D3x and Sony A900. It is lagging in the high ISO noise though.... .
p.1 #6 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
dave chilvers wrote:
If you just take away the AA filter (like the M9) and stick a Zeiss lens on your FF DSLR you`d would be able to cut your throat on the images because they would be so sharp and detailed.
It would be interesting to see some good alt glass on a modified 5D Mark II. If you are feeling adventurous, have these people perform their AA filter removal:
p.1 #7 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
StevenPA wrote:
"Best" is so subjective as to be a worthless description. Best at what? "Best IQ" subsumes a whole bunch of factors that I bet the M9 will not be "best" at. But I guess if you're going to pay 7 grand for a camera, you'd want to believe it's the best.
Or, if you don't want to spend 7K, I guess you would want to believe that it isn't the best. You had me at subjective and lost me with your subjective pronouncement.
Cost is not a factor. Canon and Nikon produce cameras that are just as expensive.
p.1 #8 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
jhapeman wrote:
It would be interesting to see some good alt glass on a modified 5D Mark II. If you are feeling adventurous, have these people perform their AA filter removal:
p.1 #9 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
jhapeman wrote:
It would be interesting to see some good alt glass on a modified 5D Mark II. If you are feeling adventurous, have these people perform their AA filter removal:
p.1 #10 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
Lotusm50 wrote:
The DMR is so 4 years ago...
It can't touch the current crop of FF DSLR's -- with or without the AA filter.
The DMR shows that there's much more to image quality than resolution. No 12- or 14-bit CMOS AA-filtered camera with a similar pixel count, even with the best Zeiss or Leica glass, could touch the DMR's image quality.
p.1 #11 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
telyt wrote:
The DMR shows that there's much more to image quality than resolution. No 12- or 14-bit CMOS AA-filtered camera with a similar pixel count, even with the best Zeiss or Leica glass, could touch the DMR's image quality.
So a lot of (leica) people say, but so far I have yet to actually see that.
p.1 #12 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
telyt wrote:
The DMR shows that there's much more to image quality than resolution. No 12- or 14-bit CMOS AA-filtered camera with a similar pixel count, even with the best Zeiss or Leica glass, could touch the DMR's image quality.
I'd agree if you're talking resolution only, rather than aside from resolution. the lack of an AA filter gives the DMR a distinct advantage over a 12MP AA-filtered camera, and most of the current 15MP cameras are excessively AA filter'd (the Canon's have strong filters, the Pentax's have somewhat weak ones, the Sony's in-between but closer to the Pentax's). I'd cop to colour as well since the one real exception (the Sony A350, wonderful colour from an otherwise unimpressive camera) is a CCD sensor. The DMR's advantages are primarily in the resolution advantage granted by not using an AA filter and on the strong CFA which benefits colour response and separation, and Sony offers the latter on the A350 and A900/A850 sensors (not that you'd want the otherwise poor A350).
However Dynamic Range and noise performance also matter, and there the DMR is simply not competitive with the current best 10-12MP CMOS.
So the real answer is 'it depends what you want'. Base ISO studio/landscape in the 10-12MP range? DMR clearly unless you need a lot of DR.
Vs the high MP FF bodies? Well the A900/A850 does everything the DMR does better than it does, and for a lot less money. More resolution, similar colour performance, more DR, better high ISO performance.
p.1 #13 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
ulrikft wrote:
So a lot of (leica) people say, but so far I have yet to actually see that.
The only head-to-head tests I've looked at closely were clear wins for the Canon (20D in one case, 5D in the other) but that solely due to metering. In both cases the DMR shots were pretty clearly either overexposed or underexposed. The few properly exposed shots I've seen from the DMR (many from telyt) indicate that his claims are correct with regards to resolution and colour vs other 10-12MP DSLR's.
I'll note that I haven't seen a whole lot of DMR shots around, so I'll blame the exposure issues I saw primarily on the user, not the camera.
p.1 #14 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
I have seen a lot of people claim great skin tones etc with the DMR, but i think a lot of that comes down to PP and workflow. Anyhow, it seems like you have to choose. Low iso color accurancy and DR or high iso performance. Priorities.
p.1 #15 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
ulrikft wrote:
I have seen a lot of people claim great skin tones etc with the DMR, but i think a lot of that comes down to PP and workflow. Anyhow, it seems like you have to choose. Low iso color accurancy and DR or high iso performance. Priorities.
The DMR, like the Sony A900 and MFDB's has a strong CFA. One of the biggest problems with getting accurate Caucasian skin tones from a DSLR is poor colour separation due to a weak CFA, especially in the red/green overlap. So yes, the better skin tones is believable for the DMR, at least for caucasians.
Oct 17, 2009 at 01:43 PM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.1 #16 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
The DMR was outperformed by the M8, and the M8 was outperformed by the 5D, in image detail. The reason people still cling to the romantic notion that AA filters spoil images is that they haven't tested properly. They zoom to 100%, see sharper pixels, and think it's the second coming.
The 5D clearly outresolves the M8 in all fair tests I have seen, which shows that the absence of AA filter doesn't even make up for 2.5 Mpixels in that case. The advantages of not having an AA filter are all about intra-pixel sharpness and have little to do with actual resolution. As such they are largely overcome by a simple USM filter.
The disadvantages of removing the AA filter are very plain to see: moire all over the image wherever there are sharply resolved edges. Moire hurts detail just as much as an AA filter, and that's why SoNiKanon build AA filters into all their products. The notion that Leica knows how to engineer this stuff better is a joke. They are playing catch up in the digital field, and have not been able to invest anything like as much into research as SoNiKanon have. Just as with the DMR/1Ds and M8/5D, don't accept the hype about the M9's far higher levels of detail. Put a Zeiss 21 on a 5D2 or a 14-24 on a D3x and you will see results about as good or better than can be achieved on the M9. Beware of adolescent fancies about red dot products.
This is of course my opinion, based on previous experience and the data that I have seen.
p.1 #17 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
mawz wrote:
The DMR, like the Sony A900 and MFDB's has a strong CFA. One of the biggest problems with getting accurate Caucasian skin tones from a DSLR is poor colour separation due to a weak CFA, especially in the red/green overlap. So yes, the better skin tones is believable for the DMR, at least for caucasians.
...and yet in all of the endless discussion of the DMR on this forum, we never once saw skin tones from the DMR that approached natural, believable colour compared to what $500 Nikon and Canon bodies offer. Despite all this theory and the great expense of the DMR, skin tones sucked, with simultaneous purple, grey and greenish casts.
Oct 17, 2009 at 02:06 PM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.1 #18 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
ulrikft wrote:
I have seen a lot of people claim great skin tones etc with the DMR, but i think a lot of that comes down to PP and workflow.
I've seen people claim it, but I've never seen anyone actually demonstrate it. Same goes for the M8. Over and over again we have seen weird skin tones from those cameras on these forums. People have raved about the skin tones and uploaded pictures of ghosts, cadavers and sufferers of bubonic plague. The M9 looks better than both of its predecessors in this regard.
p.1 #19 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
Interesting three posts there Richard...
I guess time will tell if the early adopter's expectations will be met or not.
From my view I just cannot see the wisdom of dumping an entire DSLR system to put a downpayment/order on a $7K camera that almost no one has any experience with. I think this has always been part of the "Red Dot" allure: that you are getting something special. Is it the photos or the cool craftsmanship of the actual camera in one's hands? It depends on the user I guess. Basing one's kit on the Leica system just seemed sort of impractical and needlessly expensive to me.
But I understand the enjoyment of photography comes from many aspects. The Leica has based its appeal on its unique appeal. Not sure how to describe it.
But in this era of short shelf life camera bodies this camera is asking a lot. I have discussed this with a Leica owning buddy of mine. He assures me that he plans on shooting with the M9 "for years", but its the nature of the technology that in sixteen months there will be something better and more seductive. It might come in the form of new Leica, or it might be Canon or Nikon. The big companies have a higher development rate. So, who knows what will happen?
I am looking forward to seeing some photos (from actual forum members) from the M9 though...
p.1 #20 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
I really don't think people will dump their DSLR system for an RF. I see it as an augmentation to their kit. There are many M8.2 users who are happy with their cameras and will not upgrade. The same way many Canon and Nikon shooters don't dump their current camera every time a new camera comes out.
These cameras are not made for the masses, anymore than high end Canon or Nikon cameras.
BTW, I don't think Canon shooters need to worry about the Leica. Their system is doing very well.
.
