jhapeman wrote:
Look, I'm done with you Luka. You either attack me or the others when you don't like the answers.
I'm afraid that there are no others I've attacked. In fact I and other Leica users have co-existed peacefully in this thread until you started taking a technical discussion on the relative benefits of camera systems as a personal affront to your sensibilities. Look back in the thread and see if there have been any arguments before you decided to start one.
The lenstip link is to raw unsharpened images. Period. Who cares if they do reviews. The images speak for themselves.
No it's not and that's the point. A 24 megapixel image will not have the same size as a 18 megapixel image. The images on the page you linked are all the same size - hence they have been resized, hence the test is pointless. Yes, the images speak for themselves - of the usual incompetence of LensTip, nothing more.
Puts can't be trusted because his results don't match what others have done and also don't pass the common sense test: Leica and Kodak build a new camera with a newly-optimized sensor and somehow they LOSE a stop of DR? Really? When no one else can corroborate that?
What have others done? Where is your data? Can you provide something else than this:
This incidentally only shows that the 5DII has a significantly higher dynamic range across the ISO range. They start off equal but the M9 drops off very fast.
Did you bother to read the Puts article? In case you missed it he is actually on your side claiming that for low ISO the M9 is equal to a DSLR if one keeps it within the bounds.
Rather interesting by the way that you are demanding that I take the LensTip (known incompetents) at face value while refusing to accepting Puts (known Leica expert).
Again, you trash the the Jack Perkins article. How many books have you published on landscape photography?
You were saying something about ad hominem? I'm not trashing the Perkins article per se. I'm trashing you including it because it's just a user opinion from a TV host/Poet/Amateur photographer. It is not proof of anything, just a guy liking his M9. Nothing wrong with that but it has zero bearing on this discussion.
I will ask again, where is your data? Your proof seems to consist of 1) claiming that a set of measurements that a known Leica expert has done is false and 2) providing subjective testimony of M9 users.
You should give up unless you can provide actual data to support your points, rather than ad hominem attacks to divert from facts that controvert you.
What facts? You have not provided any.
You should also actually TRY an M9 before forming such strong opinions about it.
Strong opinions? I've given two reasons why I'm not getting an M9. The first and foremost is that for my type of shooting I need live view. You can't get pixel accuracy on an 18 megapixel camera by optical viewfinder. I do a lot of wide aperture landscapes so nailing focus exactly where I want it is usually very important. Furthermore live view is an important aid in composing the image. I also gave a number of auxiliary reasons for why I found the M9 unsuitable for landscape photography - such as the difficulty to get accurate compositions using frame lines, no DOF preview etc etc (by the way modern MF cameras have DOF preview, just to answer your previous question).
My second claim was that the M9 does not have the dynamic range of a 5DII and much less a D3X. I've provided the data for that, first in the Puts article which you obviously did not read yet decided it was wrong. You provided the second data - the DxO charts which again prove my claim. The M9 has an overall significantly lower dynamic range. They start off as equals at ISO 100 but the M9 drops off quickly.
Those are the two things I've stated. The first one is an opinion based on my style of photography (although I know I'm not alone in that) and the second one is a simple technical fact backed up by data provided by us both.
No, the only reason why this is continuing is because you are making ridiculous claims such as the M9 having "possibly the best image quality of any 36mm FF camera out there today". This after you've just seen data on inferior dynamic range. Are you really that dishonest?
Beyond those two points the only "strong" opinions I have formed of the M9 are positive ones - eloquently demonstrated by the many great photos in this thread. It's just that just because I like a camera I don't necessarily think it is perfect in all respects. I have countless times pointed out the flaws of the 5DII although summed together really like it. And if a future Leica M10 will have a CMOS sensor, I'll buy it in a heartbeat - DR at high ISO be damned. The M9 a very attractive package that I have been close to buying a bunch of times now, but for me unfortunately it falls short on a couple of points, so I'll wait for a future version.
Ok, never mind, let's simplify this and boil it down to two questions:
1) Do you agree that having live view or any other through-the-lens view simplifies landscape photography - especially the wide aperture kind?
2) Do you accept the DxO chart which states that the M9 has a DR equal to the 5DII @ ISO 100 but which falls behind as the ISO increases?
If you answer yes to both then there is really nothing of factual nature to discuss. The rest are just personal opinions and preferences and there is little point of debating that if we can't keep it friendly.
Gentlemen, the only comments I would make about your discussion are these:
1. I bought my 5D2 about a year before I bought my M8. I shot about 30000 images in that year. There were a good many that I liked but those mostly with lenses such as the 85L and Leica and Zeiss MF lenses. There were only a handful that were easily and satisfactorily converted to B&W.
2. Since I got the M8, I've only shot probably less than 500 with the 5D2 and most of those when I had to have autofocus because I couldn't afford a mistake and I wasn't good enough or fast enough with the M8 manual focus.
3. Of the images taken with the M8, most of the usable ones were easily converted to B&W and many I prefer in B&W being a bit of a traditionalist on that score. In addition, many are sharper than similar images with the 5D2 despite the higher resolution of the 5D2.
Now you can draw whatever technical conclusions you like from this and I'm not going to get into a discussion about that. The fact is that I like the IQ better for the images that the M8 is capable of producing. Technical "superiority" does not necessarily the best image make. Test results have their good points but are mostly starting points. They frequently leave out the all important variable of sample variation which, with lenses at least, has been shown to be pretty critical. We are never sure how competent the testers really are or how their biases may affect their results. Bottom line, you can argue about which is better until hell freezes over but the real test is you using the camera and lens and deciding what you like best. As has been conceded on other threads, personal preference is the ultimate variable.
Charles, you got the nice one too. I'd be tempted if I used it very much but they're just too pricey. I've got a couple of Canon flashes but when I really need to use one, I think I'm going to use my ancient Braun that still works quite well. It comes from the days when the camera and flash had to have a translator between them (me) to tell each what the other is doing.
Great portraits Charles! Boy am I predictable. When I saw that first shot I thought "Wow, look at that rendering! It looks so real.".. then I went on to read "ZM 50/2 Planar". My preference for Zeiss rendering style in incurable
Luka, very nice pics from your last post.. I like the autumn leaves.. to my untrained eyes, the rendering is why some of us love our Leica glass. Nice work with your "toy camera"
Jeff, very nice pics with your M9. I've seen your blog and flickr posting, very nice pics and reading. Hope to see more of your picture contribution here as well
zombii wrote:
Bottom line, you can argue about which is better until hell freezes over but the real test is you using the camera and lens and deciding what you like best. As has been conceded on other threads, personal preference is the ultimate variable.
I'm in the same boat on not liking to use flash with the Leica M but have to admit that I have a Metz unit for the M8 for parties and family snapshots when I need greater DOF and fill light. ... these were the instances where I really missed having my D700 and TTL flash.
joe88 wrote:
Luka, very nice pics from your last post.. I like the autumn leaves.. to my untrained eyes, the rendering is why some of us love our Leica glass. Nice work with your "toy camera"
Thanks Joe! I got a (film) MF camera today - a complete impulse buy but I paid a really good price for it. I don't think I'll use it a lot but I thought it would be fun to try both medium format (6x7) and film.
The X1 really looks like a plastic little toy camera when put next to the Pentax 67. This is the "Leica M8/M9/X1 Picture Thread", so I think I'm ok with posting a picture of an X1 rather than a picture taken with an X1
denoir wrote:
Anyway, if you don't trust Erwin Puts in questions of Leica then I don't think you'll trust anyone. He's one of the top Leica experts in the world. It's not a coincidence that he gets to play with all the Leica prototypes and that he has a close cooperation with the company.
Whoa, whoa, wait a minute. Puts is an expert on Leica *lenses*, and I own his book, but he has written many incorrect or confusing things about digital photography. Recently he is more careful, but he appears to understand digital somewhat poorly. I would put far more weight into what Lloyd Chambers writes about digital cameras.
Possible, but I doubt that Lloyd Chambers references would have been welcomed - his huge review of the M9 isn't exactly positive. He complains a lot about how difficult and unreliable it is for landscape photography.
I haven't actually read his M9 review, since I already know that I want an M9, but can't afford it at the moment. I only recently subscribed, and am working my way through his ZF reviews. However, without wanting to get involved in the general discussion here, I would suggest that there are two claims you make that may not be true:
1) you need through-the-lens viewing to see and frame properly for landscape photography, and
2) the Leica rangefinder system cannot focus properly without live view.
I believe both of those to be wrong. 1) is a question of opinion, and I disagree. For 2), the rangefinder is incredibly accurate for wide lenses. It stops being great after 90mm, but not at the short end.
Well gee Luka, it's a shame you picked up such a lousy MF camera as the Pentax 6x7. I ONLY STARTED LUSTING AFTER ONE OF THOSE 30-35 YEARS AGO!! I guess you got it for a song too. I don't know where you plan to post images with it but I definitely want to see them when you do.
Luka, congrats on the new toy. Can't wait to see some pics with your first roll .. plenty of DR for you but it does not have live view though? Have fun!
On framing with the digital M's, even if the framing was a little out, we still have a LCD screen to confirm the exposure and retake a second shot, albiet a rather poor quality LCD. Personally I prefer the RF viewfinder but I completely understand why others prefer Live View or the mirror. Its good that we have so many choices nowadays
The main reasons why I did not spend a kidney on the M9 as it is right now: high iso quality (which has improved over the m8, but not quiiiite enough), responsiveness of the electronics.
Thank you Joe! I really like this flash, as it does work well in combination with the M9 TTL, when you have to have a flash
Congratulations Luka! What a great camera You will have start a new thread
I have read Lloyd reviews, and my take is that he had problems with the RF focusing, calibration with the M9, which is very real, and it probably did not suit his style. I know that for a lot of people it truly does not suit. That's quite understandably, but I personally love the RF focusing for WA lenses. It is a lot less complicated. I find since I take a very light tripod for all landscape work, I use the M9 at an ISO 160, so the DR is equivalent to the D3x for these shots. Great discussion though.
Nice rendering from this lens; definitely a "Zeiss" look as opposed to a Leica look, extending all the way the color temperature of the images (a bit cooler than the Leica). I like it.
Although I despise using flash, it is very handy for portraits.
