Sean Reid s Review of the M9

[Guy Mancuso]

Awesome John look forward to seeing some great images. Also congrats on getting one.

 

[oc garza]

Guy,
Almost all modern digital cameras have a color space that is larger than sRGB and some larger than Adobe RGB.
ALL rendition of color involves some degree of compression and occasionally expansion, or perhaps lets call it remapping, of the color space to some gamut that the display device (monitor, paper, or whatever) is able to reproduce.
So lets not confuse the raw file encoding of the numerical values in raw files to perceived color saturation.
24 bit color (8bit r g b) gives us 16777216 potential colors to work with. Complicating this is that the human visual system has a color gamut (the colors we are capable of perceiving) that is brightness dependent. At very low light, in fact, we have no color vision at all. At high levels we have no color reception either since our eyes saturate very much the same way that a sensor can have a blown highlight.
Simply encoding 14 or 16 bits linearly as the data exits the ad converters does not necessarily guarantee any perceptual difference whatsoever. Now linearly here, to digital engineers, is that the next higher order bit represents twice the value as the bit below it. That means it might have (color gamut/profile remapping aside) twice the brightness.
So in conceptual terms and using an 8 bit file as an illustration, there are only two levels (on and off) at the minimum brightness level. With three colors that gives you only eight colors at minimum levels. The interesting thing is that is fine with us humans, since when things are really really dark, we can't see color anyway.
The argument in favor of some other non-linear encoding method is that at the lower half of brightness levels there are 2097152 colors. that leaves 14680064 colors available in the bright half. Now if the sensor is "stretched" or digitally amplified, and I have my suspicions about which cameras do which, by shifting all of the available sensor data right one bit, the available number of colors in the high end remains the same, but the number of levels available in the low end drops in half. This is what some perceive as a reduction in dynamic range, which is indeed what it is. Even with additional analog amplification, random noise, or worse, non-random noise, enters the low bit positions. The M8 suffered badly from non-random noise since internal camera noise which is synched with internal clocks, could actually be seen as noise patterns imposed in the low "high iso" levels. This is usually mor obvious with ccd based camra with off-chip ad converters and poor electrical noise design. CMOS based integrated converter cameras don't have this problem, but they have more inherent conversion noise due to on-chip noise coupling and variability in terms of the integrated a/d converters. A different sort of problem. Companies with limited R&D resources tend to opt for ccd sensors and low integration levels.
thanks
-bob

Bob,

I am no electrical engineer or digital guru, but thank you for this totally understandable post on a complex topic. What's scary is that I understand it

O.C.
Victoria, Texas

 

[Tim Gray]

Since the M9 is as close as you can get to FF version of a crop camera in terms of sensor technology, we don't have to worry too much about generational differences between the sensors themselves, unlike comparing say a 5DII to a 50D. Even the pixel size is the same, so in many ways, the M9 sensor is just like the M8 sensor, with twice the area. I'm ignoring a couple things here like the IR filtering and the changed color filters, which might give a slight boost in sensitivity.

For a given print size, an M9 image is going to have twice the light being collected as an M8 image. I think this is where most of the improvement comes from. About a stop. I'm guessing that if you take a 1.33 crop of an M9 image taken with the same lens as an M8 image and print at the same size, you'd end up with a very similar image in terms... well just about everything. The M9 might have slightly better noise characteristics due to the tweaked color filters and improved electronics, but it's probably minor.

It's a back of the envelope calculation which ignores a lot of factors, but think of the film days where increasing film area and ignoring most other factors still gave you more grainless image. This is all just a guess though I think the M9 images look very usable to me. I'd be more than happy with the camera.

 

[jonoslack]

Hi Roger
I'm with Riccis on this one. All the side by side testing and report reading (and writing), and technical discussion in the world doesn't match shooting.

For me, I can shoot 2500 ISO with the M9 and get reasonable COLOUR results from it, and as long as the focus is good and the exposure is good they will print relatively large. I couldn't do this with the M8 at 1250 ISO . . . I could (sometimes) at 1000 ISO. I can't easily prove this, but experience tells me that it's so.

 

[kitty]

Is it possible that M8 noise could be improved same to M9 by new firmware? I am still happy with M8 and plan to use it for a while.

 

[glenerrolrd]

Hi Roger
I'm with Riccis on this one. All the side by side testing and report reading (and writing), and technical discussion in the world doesn't match shooting.

For me, I can shoot 2500 ISO with the M9 and get reasonable COLOUR results from it, and as long as the focus is good and the exposure is good they will print relatively large. I couldn't do this with the M8 at 1250 ISO . . . I could (sometimes) at 1000 ISO. I can't easily prove this, but experience tells me that it's so.

Jono

Sorry I can not agree with either of you on this. If testing is done properly(to isolate the differences) you can learn about the capabilities . DR and color saturation are important factors in IQ and they are affected by high ISO in all digital cameras.

You can see it on a graph(if your inclined to be analytical) or in an image print or screen . Most of the discussions about high ISO talk about the point where noise overtakes the IQ ..grainy ,blotchy ,desaturated . But IQ starts to suffer well before it hits the "unacceptable level". In the M8 ..IQ ..if you include DR and color saturation starts to drop immediately and at 640 you have lost over 2EV . This means images taken with deep shadows will have no detail. A backlit image will just not be as good as one taken at 160.

I am ok with your POV that for your typical subjects ....you can shoot comfortably above 1000 . I am sure others will feel the same way . However to understand the capabilities of the equipment .....we need side by side comparisons. We need to know that the M9 performs like an M8 plus one EV. The easy way to see this is compare a series of images that scale by changing ISO.

I think Sean Reid s test do this and he also does a good job of showing how the larger sensor impacts IQ when viewed at comparable sizes.......and my point has been yes I can see it in less noise ...but the DR and the color are the same.

This is a fruitless argument as you state up front that lab style testing doesn t tell you much and that your field test is better. Only problem is that your subjective comments (good as they are ....well they are your opinion which I do respect and value). Its just that we may be after different things....

Like you I have the M9 here now and I will test like anyone should in my typical shooting environment..using both the M8 and the M9 at exactly the same scene. Don t get me wrong I do expect a 1 stop improvement in noise suppression ..but I am not sure about the DR and color.


And in the big scheme of things ....I will just work harder on my technique and processing practices ...I can get 1EV just by getting my act cleaned up.

No problem here just a different POV. :banghead:

 

[Ranger 9]

Well Leica just called me . I WILL have a M9 and several lenses here Thursday for a long week end and actually put it to use on a golf tournament job on Friday. So there you go plus I will do some testing as well. Guy

What, you didn't get the flight on Leica's private Gulfstream to their chateau on the Wannsee Lake for the private test shooting session with the Ukrainian swimsuit models? I heard that was what all the other reviewers got >

(Oops, now Reid is probably gonna sue me, too...)

Oh, well, a golf tournament should be a good test of the M's vaunted shutter quietness. If we see a headline reading, "PGA Pro Bludgeons Photographer To Death for Clicking During Key Putt," we'll know it didn't pass...

 

[jonoslack]

Hi Roger

I am ok with your POV that for your typical subjects ....you can shoot comfortably above 1000 . I am sure others will feel the same way . However to understand the capabilities of the equipment .....we need side by side comparisons. We need to know that the M9 performs like an M8 plus one EV. The easy way to see this is compare a series of images that scale by changing ISO.

Well . . . I've been doing testing for a few months, and then I've been methodical - and of course, with different firmware versions things have changed.

The last few weeks (after the release and the official firmware) I've just 'gone with the flow'.

I don't need to see side by side comparisons to understand the capabilities of the equipment . . . because I don't believe they ever tell you more than how the camera will perform in a set lighting environment, and I'm never shooting in a set lighting environment.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticising that kind of information, and I read it avidly. But when I'm shooting, it all ends up back with instinct and experience, and other peoples' experience with bowls of fruit, or rows of bottles . . however rigorous it may be, simply isn't terribly helpful.

My photography is the one area of my life where I DON'T need to be rigorous and scientific, and for me the Leica embodies that kind of free spirit. But I realise that's my idiosyncracy.

 

[jonoslack]

What, you didn't get the flight on Leica's private Gulfstream to their chateau on the Wannsee Lake for the private test shooting session with the Ukrainian swimsuit models? I heard that was what all the other reviewers got >

.

Actually, the girls were Azeri, not Ukranian, the lake was the Caspian, and there wasn't a swimsuit in sight. We missed Guy though:ROTFL:

 

[fotografz]

Hi Roger


Well . . . I've been doing testing for a few months, and then I've been methodical - and of course, with different firmware versions things have changed.

The last few weeks (after the release and the official firmware) I've just 'gone with the flow'.

I don't need to see side by side comparisons to understand the capabilities of the equipment . . . because I don't believe they ever tell you more than how the camera will perform in a set lighting environment, and I'm never shooting in a set lighting environment.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticising that kind of information, and I read it avidly. But when I'm shooting, it all ends up back with instinct and experience, and other peoples' experience with bowls of fruit, or rows of bottles ... how ever rigorous it may be, simply isn't terribly helpful.

My photography is the one area of my life where I DON'T need to be rigorous and scientific, and for me the Leica embodies that kind of free spirit. But I realise that's my idiosyncracy.

Your POV may not necessarily be an exclusive idiosyncracy.

 

[glenerrolrd]

Hi Roger


Well . . . I've been doing testing for a few months, and then I've been methodical - and of course, with different firmware versions things have changed.

The last few weeks (after the release and the official firmware) I've just 'gone with the flow'.

I don't need to see side by side comparisons to understand the capabilities of the equipment . . . because I don't believe they ever tell you more than how the camera will perform in a set lighting environment, and I'm never shooting in a set lighting environment.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticising that kind of information, and I read it avidly. But when I'm shooting, it all ends up back with instinct and experience, and other peoples' experience with bowls of fruit, or rows of bottles . . however rigorous it may be, simply isn't terribly helpful.

My photography is the one area of my life where I DON'T need to be rigorous and scientific, and for me the Leica embodies that kind of free spirit. But I realise that's my idiosyncracy.

Jono

Not trying to be a smart ***....but you were the beta tester and shot 6000 images in all kinds of situations. You have the perfect test..your own work.
But ....I am in this case the reviewer of your report? I would hope you are satisfied and don t need side by sides. No reviewers test is a substitute for your own work.

But ..I started the thead with an observation about Sean Reid s tests and how to interpret them. I consider Sean s tests the gold standard for testing equipment. He busts his butt to give you the same tests he uses...along with his real world experience. I have already given my POV but hey ..what do I know? That was the point of the thread.

I sure hope you are correct and even conservative in the improvements. Its easy to see a step up in resolution and micro contrast in your images....which are excellent examples of the true Leica photographer.

Lets see what Marc says after he uses an M8 and an M9 on the same wedding...this is a perfect test for my concerns.

 

[fotografz]

Jono

Not trying to be a smart ***....but you were the beta tester and shot 6000 images in all kinds of situations. You have the perfect test..your own work.
But ....I am in this case the reviewer of your report? I would hope you are satisfied and don t need side by sides. No reviewers test is a substitute for your own work.

But ..I started the thead with an observation about Sean Reid s tests and how to interpret them. I consider Sean s tests the gold standard for testing equipment. He busts his butt to give you the same tests he uses...along with his real world experience. I have already given my POV but hey ..what do I know? That was the point of the thread.

I sure hope you are correct and even conservative in the improvements. Its easy to see a step up in resolution and micro contrast in your images....which are excellent examples of the true Leica photographer.

Lets see what Marc says after he uses an M8 and an M9 on the same wedding...this is a perfect test for my concerns.

Roger and Juno .... I think both of you would agree that there is some value in both rigorous clinical tests and real world response in the hands of skilled users. It is just a matter of degree how one personally weighs one verses the other.

Until camera makers start providing 3 month demo loaners to everyone, many people can only rely on clinical data mixed with other people's real world experiences ... which may or may not meet your shooting criteria.

However, we must remember that this is not infallible ... it took about two days for the IR contamination to be discovered after the launch of the M8 .... a camera that was both clinically tested, and beta tested by skilled hands in the real world for months.

Personally, I am a visceral type photographer ... in the end what other people say or show has limited value in my decision making process. I LOVE looking at other people's work, and to a limited degree will look at/read or even participate in "tests" ... but in the end the final decision lands squarely on what the e-contact sheet looks like over-all, and how the prints for my clients look.

I do NOT need to shoot this camera side-by-side with anything including my M8 at a wedding to know it delivers. I've shot so many weddings and related assignments I can immediately tell if a camera is going to cut it, and how well it'll do against what I already have in my gear closet.

The minute I opened yesterday's assignment and looked at the Browser full of over 200 M9 shots I was sold.

For me, for my applications, Leica has produced a real winner.

Not a perfect camera, not an end-all camera, just the best digital rangefinder in the world (depending on how long it stays reliable ). I'll go one step further ... again "for me and my uses" ... short of my 39 meg MFD camera this is now the best " image maker" I have in the bag.

I then did something I very, very rarely do ... I called my friend Irakly and told him to dump everything he could and go for a M9. In his incomparable hands this camera will sing a full opera with endless standing ovations

Now back to my processing as I have a client here @ 10:30AM.

 

[Bob]

I have sort of a hybrid approach.
First and most important I have to pleased with the results.
Second (and I am probably a bit obsessed) I have to figure out technically why I am pleased or not.
Sometimes I am tickled pink with technical near-perfection, sometimes it is the non-perfection that provides character. Sitting in my cabinet are both clinically near-perfect and old technically crappy but luscious lenses.
I do find, that for my own taste, I tend to use the more perfect as a matter of habit, and haul out the lenses with "character" for special purposes.
-bob

 

[mwalker]

Marc, tell Irakly to post his M9 images here. I would be very interested to see his take.

 

[ddk]

However, we must remember that this is not infallible ... it took about two days for the IR contamination to be discovered after the launch of the M8 .... a camera that was both clinically tested, and beta tested by skilled hands in the real world for months.

IF you remember, the reviewers were well aware of the IR issue, just chose not to let us know. Its a question of where do their loyalties lie, with their readers or the companies? They lost their credibility for me.

I do NOT need to shoot this camera side-by-side with anything including my M8 at a wedding to know it delivers. I've shot so many weddings and related assignments I can immediately tell if a camera is going to cut it, and how well it'll do against what I already have in my gear closet.

The minute I opened yesterday's assignment and looked at the Browser full of over 200 M9 shots I was sold.

For me, for my applications, Leica has produced a real winner.

Not a perfect camera, not an end-all camera, just the best digital rangefinder in the world (depending on how long it stays reliable ). I'll go one step further ... again "for me and my uses" ... short of my 39 meg MFD camera this is now the best " image maker" I have in the bag.

I then did something I very, very rarely do ... I called my friend Irakly and told him to dump everything he could and go for a M9. In his incomparable hands this camera will sing a full opera with endless standing ovations

I guess you can judge a camera without spending months with it, !
Looking forward to seeing some of your shots Marc.

 

[fotografz]

Marc, tell Irakly to post his M9 images here. I would be very interested to see his take.

Well, we will have to wait until he gets one to shoot, and it ain't gonna be mine ... :ROTFL:

Although I have loaned him my M8 at a wedding we were shooting, and he made that sucker sing also. He has a M8 now.

 

[Jack]

For me it all comes down to results I trust from a reviewer whose motives I trust...

Seeing what the camera can do in the hands of a capable photographer like Guy, Jono, Marc or you Roger, mean a lot more to me than a formal review because they use their camera the way I will be using mine. Their observations about how the camera handles, control layout, UI, etc, are usually right in line with I experience when I get around to picking the same camera up, and moreover, their experiences working with the files in how to get the most from them as well as final file quality usually echo my own experience and save me a bunch of getting up to speed time. In the end, I just feel more comfortable relying on their results.

My .02,

 

[LJL]

Jack,
I am glad you said the above. After reading through the thread, I was just about to post the same. To me, it is more valuable to read even a disjointed and rambling review (truly no offense to you, Guy) with lots of images under normal real world shooting conditions, than anything else. The "rigorous" tests and more lab-like testing is also good, as it helps quantify and compare things that some folks may find important, but overall, a variety of shots under all sorts of lighting, weather, etc., then processed simply, provide more practical information to me. While I have appreciated reading most of the reviews, nothing tells the story like images from a user one trusts to just put them out there, unvarnished, with minimal tweaking.

LJ

 

[TRSmith]

The whole detailed testing thing seems almost foreign to me. I know, it's not a mature attitude. There's a part of me that feels like I "should" pay attention. And I do try to follow some of them. In fact I'm sure I've benefitted from at least one of them in some way in the past. I mean, the odds are that I MUST have right? Maybe I passed on a lens that was really, really crappy and I discovered that fact through someone else's rigorous testing.

In a strange way it's a bit like sex (isn't everything?), everyone has their own turn-ons and turn-offs. While I do pay attention when someone here or in a venue I trust says a certain piece of equipment is a dog, what really, really turns me on is a stellar shot. A fantastic capture with drool-for color or depth or 3-D-ishness. A shot that gives me a tingle. THEN I want the thing. THEN I really want to be able to do that.

Those kinds of titillating shots appear here on this forum from time to time and nudge me in one direction or another more than any test shot ever taken. I find that as I get a little older my desires have become more diverse. I can get almost equally turned on by shots taken with a D3X, an S2, an M9, or an A900. All the brick wall tests on the other hand are well... sort of "missionary position" by comparison.

Still, a lot of people do tend to get all excited by a rousing round of fruit bowl test shots. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

[beamon]

I judge an ice cream maker's product by their vanilla. But, if you prefer chocolate or even, {gasp} strawberry, that's fine and I'll still respect you in the morning!