Heinz, yes, that about sums up my feelings pretty well.
Thanks Ryan. The M6 feels better to use than the M9 due to the smaller size and lower weight. Mechanically it also feels a bit better. The shutter is much less noisy and there\'s no awful motor shutter recocking sound. So the M9 feels a bit crude in comparison. What is better with the M9 is the viewfinder. The M6 rangefinder window flares very easily making it difficult to focus. The shutter speed wheel is better on the M9 as it is larger and turns the \'right\' way. Those two things have been fixed in the TTL version of the M6, so you might want to get that one if you can.
The really big advantage of the M9 is of course that it\'s digital. And I\'m not really a film guy. It\'s fun to experiment with but that\'s abut it for me. I\'d really like the M10 to have the M6 form factor and overall feel.
Anyway, I\'ve got something else today. I have been thinking about my ZM 25, not knowing what to do with it. I should either sell it or buy an external viewfinder for it. As it is I\'m not using it as I can\'t frame my images. As I\'ve got the 28 Cron now - that doesn\'t require an external veiwfinder - so I wanted to see how it compared to the ZM25. The MTF charts were of some help, but not much. They indicated that the ZM 25 was a bit sharper and with less field curvature, but it\'s one thing to see the theoretical numbers and another to see the actual impact on images.
So I decided to do a comparison between the two. All the shots were taken from a tripod. The same aperture/shutter speed/ISO and focus point were used. The RAW files were developed in lightroom with identical settings. The white balance was equalized between the shots.
The 28 produces far more vignetting than the 24 so even with identical settings the 28 shots look underexposed in comparison. I decided however to go with identical camera settings, rather than trying to match the visual impression of the images.
=======================
TEST A:
The scenes:
We start with center/mid point 100% crops. The focus was on the bicycle.
Corner crops (upper right):
==================
Test B (Infinity focus)
Center:
Mid frame:
=====================
Test C: Bokeh
========================
Test D: Colors
I did this one once the sky was clear. When you\'ve got an overcast sky everything looks just flat and you don\'t really get a good chance to evaluate the colors.
The scene:
Open the images in separate tabs in your browser and flip between them:
Cron
====
+ Fast (f/2)
+ Doesn\'t require an external viewfinder
+ More saturated
- Softer
- More vignetting
Biogon
======
+ Outresolves the Cron at every aperutre
+ Less vignetting
-Requires an external viewfinder
-Slower (f/2.8)
-Less saturated
I was surprised by the results and it looks like I\'m in a similar situation as with the Leica and Zeiss 35\'s - both have their strong and weak points. This is more difficult though as unlike the 35\'s in this case I can\'t pick based on aperture. I might want the Cron colors for a landscape shot but I\'m also likely to want the resolution of the Biogon. The vignetting of the Cron can be a blessing or a curse depending on the scene and so on. The drawing style of the lenses is quite different as well.
I think regardless of anything that I better get that viewfinder for the ZM 25. In terms of raw optical performance it\'s really one impressive lens. It\'s too good not to be used or to be sold.
Heinz, yes, that about sums up my feelings pretty well.
Thanks Ryan. The M6 feels better to use than the M9 due to the smaller size and lower weight. Mechanically it also feels a bit better. The shutter is much less noisy and there\'s no awful motor shutter recocking sound. So the M9 feels a bit crude in comparison. What is better with the M9 is the viewfinder. The M6 rangefinder window flares very easily making it difficult to focus. The shutter speed wheel is better on the M9 as it is larger and turns the \'right\' way. Those two things have been fixed in the TTL version of the M6, so you might want to get that one if you can.
The really big advantage of the M9 is of course that it\'s digital. And I\'m not really a film guy. It\'s fun to experiment with but that\'s abut it for me. I\'d really like the M10 to have the M6 form factor and overall feel.
Anyway, I\'ve got something else today. I have been thinking about my ZM 25, not knowing what to do with it. I should either sell it or buy an external viewfinder for it. As it is I\'m not using it as I can\'t frame my images. As I\'ve got the 28 Cron now - that doesn\'t require an external veiwfinder - so I wanted to see how it compared to the ZM25. The MTF charts were of some help, but not much. They indicated that the ZM 25 was a bit sharper and with less field curvature, but it\'s one thing to see the theoretical numbers and another to see the actual impact on images.
So I decided to do a comparison between the two. All the shots were taken from a tripod. The same aperture/shutter speed/ISO and focus point were used. The RAW files were developed in lightroom with identical settings. The white balance was equalized between the shots.
The 28 produces far more vignetting than the 24 so even with identical settings the 28 shots look underexposed in comparison. I decided however to go with identical camera settings, rather than trying to match the visual impression of the images.
=======================
TEST A:
The scenes:
We start with center/mid point 100% crops. The focus was on the bicycle.
Corner crops (upper right):
==================
Test B (Infinity focus)
Center:
Mid frame:
=====================
Test C: Bokeh
========================
Test D: Colors
I did this one once the sky was clear. When you\'ve got an overcast sky everything looks just flat and you don\'t really get a good chance to evaluate the colors.
The scene:
Open the images in separate tabs in your browser and flip between them:
Cron
====
+ Fast (f/2)
+ Doesn\'t require an external viewfinder
+ More saturated
+ A bit better bokeh
- More vignetting
- Softer
- More distortion
Biogon
======
+ Outresolves the Cron at every aperutre
+ Less geometrical distortion
+ Less vignetting
-Requires an external viewfinder
-Slow (f/2.8)
-Slightly worse bokeh
-Less saturated
I was surprised by the results and it looks like I\'m in a similar situation as with the Leica and Zeiss 35\'s - both have their strong and weak points. This is more difficult though as unlike the 35\'s in this case I can\'t pick based on aperture. I might want the Cron colors for a landscape shot but I\'m also likely to want the resolution of the Biogon. The vignetting of the Cron can be a blessing or a curse depending on the scene and so on. The drawing style of the lenses is quite different as well.
I think regardless of anything that I better get that viewfinder for the ZM 25. In terms of raw optical performance it\'s really one impressive lens. It\'s too good not to be used or to be sold.
