p.9 #2 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
brainiac wrote:
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.
It only applies to jpegs if they did have it. On the DMR, it was selectable on or off and also only applied to jpegs.
I have taken some of my files that had some moire in them and when processed through the Capture One 4 or later, it disappears.
p.9 #5 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
Moire and aliasing can only be prevented before sampling (capture). You can guess and hack at it in post, but proper digitizing needs anti-aliasing before sampling. AA doesn't need to come from a blurring (AA) filter. It could come from a jiggling optical element, or hand shake, or once MP gets super high, from the Airy disk itself.
You do gain some sharpness from not having an AA filter, all else being equal. But you pick up a host of other problems that can be a real nuisance to deal with.
p.9 #6 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
kidtexas wrote:
Moire and aliasing can only be prevented before sampling (capture). You can guess and hack at it in post, but proper digitizing needs anti-aliasing before sampling. AA doesn't need to come from a blurring (AA) filter. It could come from a jiggling optical element, or hand shake, or once MP gets super high, from the Airy disk itself.
You do gain some sharpness from not having an AA filter, all else being equal. But you pick up a host of other problems that can be a real nuisance to deal with.
This gets back to the OP. The M9's software moire fix is not perfect. I personally would prefer to deal with post sharpening a light AA filtered image during raw conversion rather than having to go through every image only to discover that, every here and there, I actually have to spend time fixing local moire issues. Depending on what one is shooting, it may be a non issue or the biggest time consuming headache in the world!
p.9 #7 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
"All results seen so far suggest it's a stop better, and 1.34x more detailed."
This seems to be the case.
When you add that to the fact that the IR filter is no longer needed, all lenses can be used at the full field of view, coding can be manually registered, and it is a full frame camera of diminutive size, with image quality competitive with the best of them, then you have a digital camera that rangefinder lovers can get very excited about.
For those who want tele-zooms, macro and shift lenses, shoot at multi-frames per second and want to be ready for any form of photography that may strike their fancy of the day, then it is obviously a ridiculously limited peculiarity, a throwback to the repulsive simplicity of an earlier deprived age, and a blighted instrument to be rejected with disdain.
p.9 #8 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
wolfloid wrote:
For those who want tele-zooms, macro and shift lenses, shoot at multi-frames per second and want to be ready for any form of photography that may strike their fancy of the day, then it is obviously a ridiculously limited peculiarity, a throwback to the repulsive simplicity of an earlier deprived age, and a blighted instrument to be rejected with disdain.
...and the same will likely be said about the SLR within a few years! We are all shooting vintage equipment.
p.9 #9 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
kidtexas wrote:
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....Show more →
The problem with the vast majority of the comparisons I've seen, regardless of the brand, model or age, is the tester has taken the shortcut of using the same raw converter on all the tested equipment under the guise of reducing variables. As I am involved in engineering software development I know all too well that this is a bogus rationalization. All the 'single converter' does is excuse the tester from finding an optimum for each tested camera.
p.9 #10 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
I'm not saying the comparisons were perfect. I'm just saying the M8 has more in common with the 5D in terms of chips/image qualityxx than either do, say, with the original D30.
As far as my comment about anti-aliasing, I just feel that that is proper signal processing theory. I'm sure some software guesses better about moire - I hear C1 does a good job, but it's still guessing.
p.9 #11 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
kidtexas wrote:
I'm not saying the comparisons were perfect. I'm just saying the M8 has more in common with the 5D in terms of chips/image qualityxx than either do, say, with the original D30.
I don't see that at all. The 5D cmos sensor is a direct descendant of the D30 and has much more in common than with the Kodak CCD chip in the digital M's. Image resolution is perhaps similar but things probably stop there. The sensors in the the 5D and M8 could not be further away from one another technologically. Other image/rendering qualities are probably more similar within the Canon line as well.
p.9 #12 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
OMG. haha. 10 mp vs 12 mp. If you really want to compare a 3 mp chip to a 10 mp one, then feel free to. I'm talking results. The results are pretty similar. One might be a bit sharper, one might be a crop, one might have better high ISO. Who cares? The differences really aren't that big in a print or on a screen unless you get at it with a magnifying glass.
But that's just me. You guys can feel free to argue little details like that. No one can tell in a print.
Erwin's use of imatest to test DR and noise is flawed as it compares jpegs.
Proper testing from RAW was done by Hans on LCF. He is more knowledgeable of the imaging capabilities of the M9/M8 than Erwin Puts.
As for the D3x, either the Leica's with lens are the weight of a zoom lens for that camera. If you're tossing up between the D3x or the M9 for the same shooting applications you have bigger issues than imaging noise.
p.9 #14 · Leica M9 review in this weeks AP mag (UK)
kidtexas wrote:
OMG. haha. 10 mp vs 12 mp. If you really want to compare a 3 mp chip to a 10 mp one, then feel free to. I'm talking results. The results are pretty similar. One might be a bit sharper, one might be a crop, one might have better high ISO. Who cares? The differences really aren't that big in a print or on a screen unless you get at it with a magnifying glass.
But that's just me. You guys can feel free to argue little details like that. No one can tell in a print.
You specifically said in terms of chips and in that regard your D30 and 5D definitely have more in common with one another than either does with an M8.
I would agree about results as far as resolution and to a certain degree, prints go. The drawing/rendering between the M8 and 5D can be very different though with regard to color and tonality and that can often be seen in prints and on screen. I think each has its on look and I would bet most around here would agree.
We are all shooting vintage equipment.