p.8 #1 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
Yeah it can be annoying if you like to do that a lot.
I just found (on my SLR) that I'd go to take a portrait with a 28, want tighter framing, move in closer, and end up with someone with a watermelon head on the side of the frame, when it was not my intention. I'd have been better off taking a different picture or switching to a 50. When those are the kind of pics you want, I haul out the SLR, or use a 15mm (plenty of perspective distortion there).
Returning to the focus accuracy thing, even at f/2 at 28mm, at .7m, you get 7 cm of DOF. Yeah I know, that's not a perfect calculation but it gives you an idea. At .4m, where you might be tempted to go to with an SLR (or closer), it goes down to 2 cm, significantly less. So for all intents an purposes, at f/2 and 28mm, an RF is going to be able to focus with plenty enough accuracy, I'm guessing even at 18 MP.
p.8 #2 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
Haha braniac. True true.
Here's a good example of what I meant. I was sitting next to my friend at dinner and most likely had to lean back a bit to get him at .7m. Were I able to get the shot at .5m or even closer I probably would have been tempted, and done it without thinking. However, I like the little prod by the camera to go back a hair - I think it results in very natural looking pictures at 28mm, if that's what you want.
Oct 20, 2009 at 02:18 PM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.8 #3 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
Returning to the focus accuracy thing, even at f/2 at 28mm, at .7m, you get 7 cm of DOF. Yeah I know, that's not a perfect calculation but it gives you an idea. At .4m, where you might be tempted to go to with an SLR (or closer), it goes down to 2 cm, significantly less.
I think that is an overstatement of the d.o.f.. I would reckon on 5mm at f2 and .3m on my Distagon 35 f1.4 for critical eye highlights, maybe less. That kind of accuracy with a swaying subject can't be got with outer point AF. I watch very carefully and use my own movement to follow focus.
Oct 20, 2009 at 02:18 PM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.8 #4 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
kidtexas wrote:
Haha braniac. True true.
Here's a good example of what I meant. I was sitting next to my friend at dinner and most likely had to lean back a bit to get him at .7m. Were I able to get the shot at .5m or even closer I probably would have been tempted, and done it without thinking. However, I like the little prod by the camera to go back a hair - I think it results in very natural looking pictures at 28mm, if that's what you want.
He's got the beard, but I think he deserves more of a hobgoblin look.
Oct 20, 2009 at 02:21 PM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.8 #5 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
jhapeman wrote:
Minimum focus distance with the Voigtlander 28mm f/2 Ultron works for the ladies. At least my wife allowed me to post this on the Internet, so it can't be too bad:
I do like getting closer than this, but with the M8, I just have to switch to a longer FL.
Beautiful shot, and beautiful bride. You're lucky to be married to a lady who manages to look as though she enjoys having her picture taken. My wife sees the camera and immediately you can see the hate in her eyes. "Get that thing away from me!" Maybe if I had an M9 it would be different...
p.8 #6 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
brainiac wrote:
Beautiful shot, and beautiful bride. You're lucky to be married to a lady who manages to look as though she enjoys having her picture taken. My wife sees the camera and immediately you can see the hate in her eyes. "Get that thing away from me..."
Thanks, but generally my wife is like yours...she hates the camera. Notice the wine--it increases my odds of getting her to let me take a picture.
p.8 #7 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
brainiac wrote:
I think that is an overstatement of the d.o.f.. I would reckon on 5mm at f2 and .3m on my Distagon 35 f1.4 for critical eye highlights, maybe less. That kind of accuracy with a swaying subject can't be got with outer point AF. I watch very carefully and use my own movement to follow focus.
I attached the caveat because I was just using dofmaster online. However, for 35mm at .3m and f/2, it gives you... a total of 1 cm, but that's as low as it reports, so it's fair to say it's a bit lower I'd say your spot on. My typical shooting situations at MFD give me 14 times the DOF as the one you just described
EDIT - Just checked another site - 35mm, f/2 at .3m is 7 mm DOF. 28mm, f/2 at .7m is 7 cm DOF. Ten times as much.
Oct 20, 2009 at 02:31 PM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.8 #8 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
kidtexas wrote:
EDIT - Just checked another site - 35mm, f/2 at .3m is 7 mm DOF. 28mm, f/2 at .7m is 7 cm DOF. Ten times as much.
Wow - that's quite unintuitive. (Another reason to use an S type sceen.)
p.8 #10 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
brainiac wrote:
That kind of accuracy with a swaying subject can't be got with outer point AF.
On one of Nikon's pro bodies the outer-points work better than my center point ever did on any of my Canons...
Oct 20, 2009 at 05:54 PM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.8 #11 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
TWoK wrote:
On one of Nikon's pro bodies the outer-points work better than my center point ever did on any of my Canons...
OK - let me rephrase that: that kind of accuracy with a swaying subject can't be got with outer point AF on Canon...
p.8 #12 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
brainiac wrote:
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....Show more →
I could be wrong, but my impression is that the anti-AA philosophy comes more from Kodak, Leica's sensor supplier for the M8/9, though Leica surely is complicit in promoting this as a feature.
I base this on the long history of Kodak DCS digital SLRs that all lacked AA filters, even though moire was clearly problematic.
p.8 #13 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
Wow! While this is a fascinating thread, although I find the "my system is better than your system" and the technical minutia arguments a bit childish. I am a Nikon D3/D3x user (and R8 owner in my pre-digital life) and I am seriously considering the M9 to augment my arsenal. I use the D3X with PC-E lenses for my work, but I don't like size and weight for travel and street shooting. I imagine I have to keep my D3 as a backup to the X, but I personally have no need for more than 2 FPS or high ISO. Everything I have read about the M9 says the image quality and ergonomics are great, so, considering my personal requirements, if I decide to spend the 7K, the same as my D3X, in pursuit of lighter weight, a less obtrusive presence and some great glass, does that make me a hapless boob? - I don't think so.
p.8 #14 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
aboudd wrote:
does that make me a hapless boob? - I don't think so.
Νah, it just makes you very particular with your gear preferences, just like everybody else here
Nothing wrong with arguing a little bit and defending our arguments, I think it helps people decide. And because we cant afford to buy everything and try it for a while to see if it suits, we need a little help from other people's experience and experiences. Reviews and specs dont say everything we want to know.
p.8 #15 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
I don't think anyone is making Leica or RF users into "hapless boobs"...
Here is my take: every time a new system or camera is announced there is excitement and folks rushing in line with "gotta have this" enthusiasm. In the case of the M9 this is might be a great camera/system for some and a wrong choice for others. Where that blurry line is what we are for the most part yacking about.
On web forums the actual discussions and placing oneself as the devils advocate is the name of the game. Its no different to comparing a Canon EF lens to an alt lens alternative, or even debating a Canon vs Nikon camera body. Without these topics what would we have to talk about?
The other aspect is what happens when the new camera/system/lens is no longer the "big new thing." When you are talking about giving up thousands of dollars on gear that can become "last years snow" in short order this is valid discussion fodder as well.
For example look at the 5DII. All the new video cinematographers loved this hot, must have camera until the sudden moment when Canon introduced the cheaper 7D with variable film rates. For many new 5D owners it was like Canon pooped in their swimming pool.
I sense that some feel folks were on an anti RF/Leica crusade here or that potential buyers of the M9 need to be defensive about their purchasing plans. But come on, this has been a great give and take. I have learned some great insight into what people value in their camera kit. I bet others who have little experience with the digital Lecia RF system will have learned some details as well. Anyway you slice it spending $7000 on a camera plus lenses is a big step. The more you know and the more you learn the better informed you are when moving forward or away from this decision.
p.8 #16 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
brainiac wrote:
The DMR was outperformed by the M8, and the M8 was outperformed by the 5D.
This opinion is clearly not based on actually using these cameras. Those who've owned both the DMR and the 5D have demonstrated a very clear preference for the DMR's RAW files over the 5D's, even when using Leica lenses on the 5D, and the same for the M8's over the 5D: image detail, color quality, and the ability to pull details out of the shadows are the qualities most often mentioned.
p.8 #17 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
aboudd wrote:
Wow! While this is a fascinating thread, although I find the "my system is better than your system" and the technical minutia arguments a bit childish. I am a Nikon D3/D3x user (and R8 owner in my pre-digital life) and I am seriously considering the M9 to augment my arsenal. I use the D3X with PC-E lenses for my work, but I don't like size and weight for travel and street shooting. I imagine I have to keep my D3 as a backup to the X, but I personally have no need for more than 2 FPS or high ISO. Everything I have read about the M9 says the image quality and ergonomics are great, so, considering my personal requirements, if I decide to spend the 7K, the same as my D3X, in pursuit of lighter weight, a less obtrusive presence and some great glass, does that make me a hapless boob? - I don't think so. ...Show more →
I'm looking into the M9 for the same reasons. An M9 w/50 1.4 weighs the same as the Nikon 24-70 that is glued to the D3. The thread has been interesting, even if I over reacted a few times. I look at cost as a personal decision that is considered in every purchase. The system pros and cons are helpful. I feel prepared to make sound buying decisions on lenses and accessories, if I decide to buy the M9.
Oct 20, 2009 at 08:47 PM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.8 #18 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
telyt wrote:
This opinion is clearly not based on actually using these cameras. Those who've owned both the DMR and the 5D have demonstrated a very clear preference for the DMR's RAW files over the 5D's, even when using Leica lenses on the 5D, and the same for the M8's over the 5D: image detail, color quality, and the ability to pull details out of the shadows are the qualities most often mentioned.
Yet whenever they tried to demonstrate that superiority on these forums, it always turned out that what they were so excited about was sharp pixels, not detail: nobody was comparing at equal magnification. The DMR images were also dogged by moire which was all over edges and fine detail, and latitude-killing shadow noise which increased rapidly with iso, and a 1960's colour scheme that produced green skies, olive grass, and purplish skin tones. The M8 is definitely a better performer than the DMR, and when Jack Flesher finally did a test at equal magnification we saw how the 5D was a better imager in every respect than the M8. The M9 is much better than the M8 and the DMR though.
p.8 #19 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
And these are the kinds of discussions I truly hate. It's even worse now that all three cameras in the 'discussion' are no longer made. It's not like comparing a 5D to a camera phone. The DMR, M8, and 5D were all very capable of producing wonderful pictures. They are more similar in their image quality than they are different. It's like arguing the fine nuances of Mandy Moore and Jessica Simpson - in 15 years, we'll look back and see just how similar those circa-2005 cameras actually are in quality compared to whatever the hell we'll be using in 2020.
Though I do with Kodak would use an AA filter, or introduce anti-aliasing through some other non-filter mechanism.
Oct 21, 2009 at 10:21 AM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.8 #20 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
kidtexas wrote:
Though I do with Kodak would use an AA filter, or introduce anti-aliasing through some other non-filter mechanism.
I thought the M8 and M9 had built-in software moire reduction. Leica made an announcement about it in the M8. IMO it was killing all the fine detail in the M8 files, but with the M9 reaching 18 Mpixels it should be less of an issue.
I'd say your spot on. My typical shooting situations at MFD give me 14 times the DOF as the one you just described 