p.4 #1 · Rockwell M9 samples - impressions from prints
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Not at all as I claimed exactly what you state to be the case. That is, we are looking at some form of digital artifact caused by processing. The extreme processing has caused these zone 5 or 6 mid-tones to appear as they do.
Ahh ok. I don't know what zone they are in since I wasn't there Nor do I know what zone they should end up in for the optimum balance of the final image. Maybe they should be near maximum white
I've seen funny processing errors resulting in white specks when there were NO highlights present, which is what I thought of when read your line.
p.4 #2 · Rockwell M9 samples - impressions from prints
kidtexas wrote:
Ahh ok. I don't know what zone they are in since I wasn't there Nor do I know what zone they should end up in for the optimum balance of the final image. Maybe they should be near maximum white
I've seen funny processing errors resulting in white specks when there were NO highlights present, which is what I thought of when read your line.
Of course, it does not matter if you were there are not. We can still easily see how the scene was captured digitally by the camera based on the unedited image histogram and the info palette (one of the benefits of digital capture!). Here we can see that the brightest, unedited area (in the area in question were specks show up in thrices crop) was actually captured below zone 5 and, through extreme processing, pushed to pure white. This is further evidence that the image processing resulted in the artifacts. This is good news for M9 owners as it shows the issue was user generated and not camera generated. http://www.gibranstudio.com/grab.jpg http://www.gibranstudio.com/grab2.jpg
p.4 #3 · Rockwell M9 samples - impressions from prints
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Of course, it does not matter if you were there are not. We can still easily see how the scene was captured digitally by the camera based on the unedited image histogram and the info palette (one of the benefits of digital capture!). Here we can see that the brightest, unedited area (in the area in question were specks show up in thrices crop) was actually captured below zone 5 and, through extreme processing, pushed to pure white.
It's all subjective though as to what proper processing should be. I liked your version in the close up, but Thrice's looks more appealing in the web sized full frame version. Trying to get passed the fact that his is more saturated and has more sharpening applied, which surely affects perception, his is also about 10% brighter, which I prefer in this image.
p.4 #4 · Rockwell M9 samples - impressions from prints
Just read that page, boy does he talk a load of nonsense, especially about the evil AA filters of 'foreign' chips compared to the goodness of an 'American' sensor. Ignorant zenophobia is just funny and yes it's laughing 'at' and not 'with'...
p.4 #5 · Rockwell M9 samples - impressions from prints
I have been reading him for quite a while, and always thought he was a complete fool. More recently, though, I have become pretty convinced that this is not for real: he is playing it up, probably for the hype factor. It must drive traffic to his website, and he apparently earns a load of money from it. I think he is just play-acting.
p.4 #8 · Rockwell M9 samples - impressions from prints
patrickphoto wrote:
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!
Did you compare the outer zones of that image with the 35/2's? Because as much as I like the Canon 35/2, it was pretty terrible off center. The Summicron is light years ahead of it. For that reason, I can use the Summicron wide open all the time, but the Canon had to be stopped down quite a bit to get close to the Summicron performance.
As for the highest ISO's the M9 clearly can't match the 5DII, but they're not terribly far off either. I suppose it's a matter of taste, but I try to shoot below ISO 1600 even with the 5DII, and at those levels, the difference between the two cameras is very minor.
p.4 #9 · Rockwell M9 samples - impressions from prints
thrice wrote:
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.
I believe that you are good enough photographer to imagine many situations where rangefinder is not "all-i-need" solution. I am pretty sure you can figure some by your self. If not, come here. I will show you.
p.4 #10 · Rockwell M9 samples - impressions from prints
I find it really remarkable how much emotion discussions of Leica's digital rangefinders seem to incite here. Particularly the ridiculous comments about price, considering that many here are shooting equally pricey 1Ds III's and D3x's. I don't let it get me worked up either way, but it is interesting to observe, and just a bit perplexing.
p.4 #12 · Rockwell M9 samples - impressions from prints
Yes, but the 35L is still not even close to the 35/1.4 Summilux. And that doesn't cover the fact that the size is huge issue. Example:
That's my M8.2 as a proxy for the M9 w/ the 35/1.4 'Lux, and the 5DII with the 35/1.4L. Leaving aside the fact that the 'Lux is sharper in the corners at f/1.4 than the L at f/4, the size alone is a huge issue.
For me, it came down to this: I needed (wanted) the best image quality in the smallest size possible. Given that I shoot 99% of my images at ISO 1600 or lower (and I do a lot of low-light shooting), I felt the Leica gave me the best value. Most of the time I can shoot at 1-2 stops faster aperture because the lenses are that much better, which negates the noise issue.
At the end of the day, I think most people buy the Leica's for the lens qualities and not the camera qualities anyway. It would be awesome to have an M-something with the performance of the Canon or Nikon/Sony sensors, but it appears that technological limitations prevent that at the moment.
There are always tradeoffs with any camera/platform.
p.4 #14 · Rockwell M9 samples - impressions from prints
as a member of the germanic world, i have to admit, the M9 calls to me on an elemental level, and the micro contrast of (most) leica lenses is something i don't feel i get (exactly) with my L primes. still, with a 1.5FPS shooting speed and MF, my style of photography would yield me a very low keeper rate with this rig.
p.4 #18 · Rockwell M9 samples - impressions from prints
abam wrote:
as a member of the germanic world, i have to admit, the M9 calls to me on an elemental level, and the micro contrast of (most) leica lenses is something i don't feel i get (exactly) with my L primes. still, with a 1.5FPS shooting speed and MF, my style of photography would yield me a very low keeper rate with this rig.
it was not meant to be, mon chéri.
Indeed, there is an element of germanic simplicity and functionality to the Leica, which is appealing to many. However, ultimately it has to fit your shooting style.
I personally found I never used the high fps of my SLRs, and spent all of my time trying to get the best shots of stationary subjects. So for me, it was a love I could live with.
Nor do I know what zone they should end up in for the optimum balance of the final image. Maybe they should be near maximum white 
