p.2 #1 · Rockwell M9 samples - impressions from prints
James, in my experience so far, C1 renders a sharper file, but that has always been the case. I personally find the C1 files to be just a bit too sharp at times; it seems that they are applying some sharpening somewhere in there. I mainly use the Adobe products because they fit my workflow better, and the minor differences are usually only visible when pixel-peeping.
LR 3 still seems a bit slow when rendering previews, but then it is a beta, and speed/performance changes are usually the last ones made.
p.2 #2 · Rockwell M9 samples - impressions from prints
jhapeman wrote:
James, in my experience so far, C1 renders a sharper file, but that has always been the case. I personally find the C1 files to be just a bit too sharp at times; it seems that they are applying some sharpening somewhere in there. I mainly use the Adobe products because they fit my workflow better, and the minor differences are usually only visible when pixel-peeping.
LR 3 still seems a bit slow when rendering previews, but then it is a beta, and speed/performance changes are usually the last ones made.
p.2 #3 · Rockwell M9 samples - impressions from prints
bellyface wrote:
not sure I like the chroma noise. $7K for a camera that has this trait, not good.
Then remove it in post, not difficult. I'd rather not have my 7k camera make these processing decisions for me.
I downloaded the .DNG's, HUGE noticeable difference between Lightroom 2.3 and Capture 1, but I have yet to try the Lightroom 3 beta. Seeing the per-pixel sharpness on these images, I would estimate the sharpness on my 5D mkII at about 1.3-2 pixels. If you don't believe me download the shots and open them in capture 1. Here's a 100% crop (copyright Ken Rockwell 2009):
A JPEG on screen probably can't accurately convey the quality of the image, so I do recommend downloading it for yourself from KR's site.
Obviously the lack of AA filter does give some bayer colour moire artifacts (although other moire rather well controlled) in some situations.
p.2 #5 · Rockwell M9 samples - impressions from prints
thrice wrote:
I downloaded the .DNG's, HUGE noticeable difference between Lightroom 2.3 and Capture 1, but I have yet to try the Lightroom 3 beta. Seeing the per-pixel sharpness on these images, I would estimate the sharpness on my 5D mkII at about 1.3-2 pixels. If you don't believe me download the shots and open them in capture 1.
A JPEG on screen probably can't accurately convey the quality of the image, so I do recommend downloading it for yourself from KR's site.
Obviously the lack of AA filter does give some bayer colour moire artifacts (although other moire rather well controlled) in some situations....Show more →
Thanks for posting that. I'd already downloaded just the jpeg version from Rockwell's site and your DNG conversion is considerably sharper. Impressive.
p.2 #6 · Rockwell M9 samples - impressions from prints
thrice wrote:
Then remove it in post, not difficult. I'd rather not have my 7k camera make these processing decisions for me.
I downloaded the .DNG's, HUGE noticeable difference between Lightroom 2.3 and Capture 1, but I have yet to try the Lightroom 3 beta. Seeing the per-pixel sharpness on these images, I would estimate the sharpness on my 5D mkII at about 1.3-2 pixels. If you don't believe me download the shots and open them in capture 1. Here's a 100% crop (copyright Ken Rockwell 2009):
A JPEG on screen probably can't accurately convey the quality of the image, so I do recommend downloading it for yourself from KR's site.
Obviously the lack of AA filter does give some bayer colour moire artifacts (although other moire rather well controlled) in some situations....Show more →
This crop you have posted shows what I have noticed in a number of M9 images. White specks. It's obvious from a number of examples that it is not just specular highlights. Seems to be some sort of artifact. Almost looks like some type of sharpening artifact but I don't think it is. In this example, we can even see it in the shadows. These specks are not the bayer artifacts you are referring to are they?
p.2 #8 · Rockwell M9 samples - impressions from prints
those are specular reflections, pixel sized and in-focus, they vary in intensity and correlate with the tips of the moss formations. Unless the image looks different on your monitor than mine?
p.2 #9 · Rockwell M9 samples - impressions from prints
Samples I took in LA with a M9 and my 5dII in same light, both 35 f/2 same distance to subject, and although the images are not too bad, the noise is a major deterrent. Not much coma though.
As for C1, yes, c1v5 and lr2.5 or 3 its hands down c1. not due to sharpness but color and tonal renditions in smooth gradations....the list goes on!
p.2 #10 · Rockwell M9 samples - impressions from prints
next in the news, 7k camera makes pictures which in print looks almost as good as 2k camera. It is more expensive, but more limited!
seriously. kudos to leica to finally pull it through what digital leica should have been from start (m8 was catastrophe) but i do not see it any newsworthy that fullframe 18Mp modern sensor makes good enough pictures. wake me up when such camera will be small AND price of A900 AND made well.
It is like releasing medium format digital rangefinder for price of high end medium format full blown cameras. Only leica and apple can sell something like that because their users are not rational (to everybody his own though).
p.2 #11 · Rockwell M9 samples - impressions from prints
Kittyk wrote:
next in the news, 7k camera makes pictures which in print looks almost as good as 2k camera. It is more expensive, but more limited!
seriously. kudos to leica to finally pull it through what digital leica should have been from start (m8 was catastrophe) but i do not see it any newsworthy that fullframe 18Mp modern sensor makes good enough pictures. wake me up when such camera will be small AND price of A900 AND made well.
It is like releasing medium format digital rangefinder for price of high end medium format full blown cameras. Only leica and apple can sell something like that because their users are not rational (to everybody his own though)....Show more →
I think you've missed the whole point, and ought to go back to sleep. Lets have a look at a picture from an other thread, shall we?
p.2 #12 · Rockwell M9 samples - impressions from prints
Ok lets have a look at the picture.
Its like looking at a violin next to a ghettoblaster. The Leica is prettier and makes you feel important.
Why does noone, anywhere, ever admit it?
I would, I've bought cameras for this reason. Some ended up being pretty good for taking pictures too.
p.2 #13 · Rockwell M9 samples - impressions from prints
Spyro P. wrote:
Ok lets have a look at the picture.
Its like looking at a violin next to a ghettoblaster. The Leica is prettier and makes you feel important.
Why does noone, anywhere, ever admit it?
I would, I've bought cameras for this reason. Some ended up being pretty good for taking pictures too.
You better speak for yourself. I bought one because I don't want to be seen. And because I don't want to lug around with a +3 lb "look at me, I'm important" sort of camera with a zillion features that I don't use. And of course, because the Leica is nice to handle and take photos with.
If I wear the M when walking around in town, hardly anyone even notices the camera. Switch to the D700, and suddenly it's like wearing a sign saying "I'm a photographer with expensive gear".
p.2 #14 · Rockwell M9 samples - impressions from prints
I was under the impression that all mugglers are connoiseurs.
If I had the money, and form would not impede on function, only then would I go for a less ugly camera. After all, Leica or Nikon, its still a black (or silver) lump of function that has little chance of becoming a fashion accesoire. (Although you never can tell with fashion of course)
p.2 #15 · Rockwell M9 samples - impressions from prints
Kittyk wrote:
next in the news, 7k camera makes pictures which in print looks almost as good as 2k camera. It is more expensive, but more limited!
Care to share/describe the shots you printed (or saw printed) and why they looked inferior to a 2k camera?
I'm happy to compare my shots taken with the 7k inferior camera to anyones from their dslr. Name the subject or genre and we'll make a real pissing contest of it. We can even pixel peep high ISO shots - I've applied my NR workflow to plenty of high ISO M9 shots and I'm pretty certain I can get more detail and a cleaner image out of it than my 5D-II up to ISO1600. In prints the high ISO advantage for many dslr's decreases further.
The big thing about high ISO for me personally, is I don't have any examples or what I would consider technically "good" pictures at anything higher than ISO 1600 on my 5D/5D-II and I used to be a club/band shooter. 1/180s ISO1600 and f/1.4-f/2.0 is just fine for what I used to shoot, and I shot in even darker environments with the 50/1.1 nokton on my M6 and ISO400 film... although people got a bit blurrier (not still objects) because of the 1/30s-1/50s shutterspeed.
Although, if you think it'll get you better pictures I saw a rumour of the nikon D4 having ISO102400. The only person who's style warrants higher and higher clean (with little regard to colour) ISO shots is Richard. I have shot at ISO6400 for one shoot but that was a real exception and I didn't like the completely flat muted colours that I got, say what you want but you can't put back natural colour tone in post, only saturation.
Spyro, I love handling the camera and don't mind people admiring it among friends but I actually dislike any attention in public, but I assume you were mostly inferring the former.
p.2 #16 · Rockwell M9 samples - impressions from prints
biotar wrote:
After all, Leica or Nikon, its still a black (or silver) lump of function that has little chance of becoming a fashion accesoire. (Although you never can tell with fashion of course)
Leica's are often fashion accessories amongst folk who consider themselves 'refined' or 'elite' (note sarcasm quotation marks). Otherwise Leica couldn't sell the safari, white or hermes editions. There are some collectors who simply have to own every Leica like certain car collectors.
p.2 #17 · Rockwell M9 samples - impressions from prints
thrice wrote:
Leica's are often fashion accessories amongst folk who consider themselves 'refined' or 'elite' (note sarcasm quotation marks). Otherwise Leica couldn't sell the safari, white or hermes editions. There are some collectors who simply have to own every Leica like certain car collectors.
You are right of course, connoiseurs are to be seen that way. And not be deemed in high esteem I might add, since theirs apparently needs compensation.
But also to a pleb like me the leica has great appeal. And it honestly ain't for its appearance or any connotation to big spending power. I like its approach with small but reliable lenses and camera's (although not off late I admit), stealth, no useless 'functions' like face detection or autofocus (I'm that kind yes). Also, and most importantly, I like the photo's taken with it so far. I understand people that don't like the noise performance, but low light isn't my cup of tea anyway and I happen to like the noise characteristics i've seen.
Its only a shame that money comes in this equation for me. Or put it this way, the money doesn't come at all. If I had it, I'd probably buy one.
p.2 #18 · Rockwell M9 samples - impressions from prints
Makten wrote:
You better speak for yourself.
I thought thats what I did
"makes you feel important" is a figure of speech, I wasnt talking about you specifically.
But hey, I wouldnt want to speak on behalf of a forum that has a long running thread called "glamour shots of the lenses themselves".
God forbid somebody might get the wrong idea, that we like gear and such. We dont, we are fully rational and strictly utilitarian
Spare me please.
p.2 #19 · Rockwell M9 samples - impressions from prints
Spyro P. wrote:
I thought thats what I did
"makes you feel important" is a figure of speech, I wasnt talking about you specifically.
But you didn't mean yourself, right? Then I suppose you'd written "makes me feel important".
But hey, I wouldnt want to speak on behalf of a forum that has a long running thread called "glamour shots of the lenses themselves".
God forbid somebody might get the wrong idea, that we like gear and such. We dont, we are fully rational and strictly utilitarian
Spare me please.
I really don't understand why liking ones gear would have anything to do with "feeling important".
p.2 #20 · Rockwell M9 samples - impressions from prints
I did mean myself actually, I said I have bought cameras in the past for this reason. You take "feeling important" too literally, it has nothing to do with showing off. Just getting in the mood, feeling I'm becoming part of a history and a legend. I dont see anything wrong with that.
