M9 AND the Sony Nex ..make any sense?

[glenerrolrd]

First I am a confirmed M9 user and typically work with 2 bodies doing street and travel shooting. Besides costs ..the M9 has only three weaknesses that bother me and at least on paper ......the Sony Nex 5/7 seem to address these.

1. As good as the M9 sensor is for most of my work ..it is really lacking at ISO above 1000 and even with fast lenses ..not enough . The tests of the Sony show excellent results at 1600 and good results at 3200 .

2. Focus peaking as Jono s post shows opens the Nex up for longer lenses . I would love to use my 135/3.4APO as a 180 FOV . Focusing a 135APO on an M requires painstakingly patient technique . Doing it at dusk approaches futility.

3. Fill flash ... we all get pushed into service for on demand family pictures or have situations where just a little fill flash would make life easier . You can do this with an M ..but its not smooth and easy .

Why not carry a Nex body as a back up that extends the capabilities of your M kit ? I am interested in any insights from the Nex users .

 

[Shashin]

I would go to DPreview and compare the Nex 7 to the M9. The Nex 7 image really starts falling apart at ISO 1600--the M9 is much better and even the lowly E-P1 does better. (I was looking a the RAW comparison.) You can also check the Nex 5 (which I have not).

 

[Vivek]

I gave up on the thoughts of using digital RF. Leica RF is for film, for me.
Comparison of a hybrid system (digital RF or a DSLR) vs a real liveview all digital cam makes no sense to me at all.

No NEX users, unless the have the NEX-7, can comment on the NEX vs M9.

The NEX-7 appears better than any other in the NEX series. I am unsure how the handling will be compared to the Ricoh GRX though.

 

[jonoslack]

I would go to DPreview and compare the Nex 7 to the M9. The Nex 7 image really starts falling apart at ISO 1600--the M9 is much better and even the lowly E-P1 does better. (I was looking a the RAW comparison.) You can also check the Nex 5 (which I have not).

HI Shashin
I'm not sure when you looked at these, but there are two points I would say:
1. the NEX7 images were focused in quite a different place
2. their habit of comparing 100% crops always makes small mp sensors look better.

I don't have a NEX7 yet, but I do accept MR's noise comparison with the NEX 5n - and comparing that with the E-P1 (nice camera which I have owned) is simply laughable - best part of 3 stops advantage at the same resolution. I would guess that at the same resolution the NEX7 has 2 stops advantage in high ISO over the E-P1 . . whatever the studio shots at dpreview might suggest to you!

Worth looking at MR's comparison at Luminous Landscape, which (IMHO) of course is much more relevant in the real world.

all the best

 

[jonoslack]

Hi Roger

Why not carry a Nex body as a back up that extends the capabilities of your M kit ? I am interested in any insights from the Nex users .

That's what I'm doing - currently using my M9s (two bodies like you) with the NEX 5n and a viewfinder for those 'other' requirements (if you use the helicoid hawks adapter you can even use your M lenses for close up photography).

all the best
Jono

 

[glenerrolrd]

Hi Roger


That's what I'm doing - currently using my M9s (two bodies like you) with the NEX 5n and a viewfinder for those 'other' requirements (if you use the helicoid hawks adapter you can even use your M lenses for close up photography).

all the best
Jono

Jono

One of my concerns is how well the images work together (when some are on the M9 and others on the NEX). I tend to shoot with a goal of creating a small collection of photographs . So on my recent trip to Venice I wanted 15 images out of about 1600 that worked together as an example.

If doing side by side comparisons ..the NEX images look significantly different ..that ruins their use in a collection for me.

 

[jonoslack]

Jono

One of my concerns is how well the images work together (when some are on the M9 and others on the NEX). I tend to shoot with a goal of creating a small collection of photographs . So on my recent trip to Venice I wanted 15 images out of about 1600 that worked together as an example.

If doing side by side comparisons ..the NEX images look significantly different ..that ruins their use in a collection for me.

I'm not sure that I can help that much here. Personally, I don't think that they're incompatible - at least, not in the way that I would find Nikon or Canon images incompatible. . . . . Black and white shouldn't be an issue . . . I spend very little thinking about colour with either camera - and almost none 'correcting' it - it just seems right (which is more than I can say for many cameras I've used).

You could do worse than looking at MR's Luminous landscape running review of the NEX7.

all the best

 

[Shashin]

HI Shashin
I'm not sure when you looked at these, but there are two points I would say:
1. the NEX7 images were focused in quite a different place
2. their habit of comparing 100% crops always makes small mp sensors look better.

I don't have a NEX7 yet, but I do accept MR's noise comparison with the NEX 5n - and comparing that with the E-P1 (nice camera which I have owned) is simply laughable - best part of 3 stops advantage at the same resolution. I would guess that at the same resolution the NEX7 has 2 stops advantage in high ISO over the E-P1 . . whatever the studio shots at dpreview might suggest to you!

Worth looking at MR's comparison at Luminous Landscape, which (IMHO) of course is much more relevant in the real world.

all the best

You can check DPreview. I used the Paul Smith watch in the bottom right corner of the image. With the Nex 7. the logo turns to mush at 1600ISO when it is quite good at lower ISOs. (The E-P1 image is easier to read the logo at 1600ISO. Image scale has little to do with it nor the focus.) Noise is a known issue with small pixels pitches and that should not be surprising.

I did look at the review at LuLa and I did not find Michael's methodology especially relevant to real world conditions--I usually frame a based on a subject and so to compare two different frames and crop one and resize the other to match is rather convoluted. All Michael has shown is both the M9 and Nex 7 take nice pictures at the base ISO, but I probably could have predicted that. That really does not compare them at high ISO which the OP is interested in.

I have no skin in this game. I think both the M9 and Nex 7 are fine cameras. But if the OP is wanting to pick up a Nex 7 for its performance at ISO 1600, I think he may want to have more information. The Nex 7 images are not great at 1600 ISO, at least the DPreview is showing that compared with an M9, which is not surprising given their size.

Before you stop laughing, the Nex 7 only has about 40% more resolution than an E-P1 under perfect conditions. The E-P1 pixels are larger and will gather more light. It is not a stretch to think the E-P1 may be good under low light compared with the Nex 7. It is also not a stretch to say the larger pixel pitch of the M9 is going to do better than the Nex 7 (and you are only getting about a 15% increase in resolution with the Nex 7 which noise can really eliminate that small benefit).

 

[Shashin]

Jono

One of my concerns is how well the images work together (when some are on the M9 and others on the NEX). I tend to shoot with a goal of creating a small collection of photographs . So on my recent trip to Venice I wanted 15 images out of about 1600 that worked together as an example.

If doing side by side comparisons ..the NEX images look significantly different ..that ruins their use in a collection for me.

That is a tough question and I understand why you would want to do that. Sony, like Minolta before them, tend to make really warm images. If I have images from the same scene/subject, it can be difficult to make them look like they did not come from two different manufacturers cameras--it is subtle, but it is there. When the scene is different, then I have a better chance of blending them into the group of photographs. But if you are using the Nex 7 for just low light and not the M9s, then you should not have a big issue.

 

[jonoslack]

Y
I did look at the review at LuLa and I did not find Michael's methodology especially relevant to real world conditions--I usually frame a based on a subject and so to compare two different frames and crop one and resize the other to match is rather convoluted. All Michael has shown is both the M9 and Nex 7 take nice pictures at the base ISO, but I probably could have predicted that. That really does not compare them at high ISO which the OP is interested in.

Actually, I wasn't talking about the M9/NEX7 comparison (which I agree was largely irrelevant), but the noise comparisons between the NEX5n and the NEX 7 - I think that everybody would agree that the NEX5n sensor is really the ballpark for APSc sensor high ISO right now (an improved version of the sensor in the K5 and the D700).

MR noise comparison between NEX7 and NEX5n

I have no skin in this game. I think both the M9 and Nex 7 are fine cameras. But if the OP is wanting to pick up a Nex 7 for its performance at ISO 1600, I think he may want to have more information. The Nex 7 images are not great at 1600 ISO, at least the DPreview is showing that compared with an M9, which is not surprising given their size.

Before you stop laughing, the Nex 7 only has about 40% more resolution than an E-P1 under perfect conditions. The E-P1 pixels are larger and will gather more light. It is not a stretch to think the E-P1 may be good under low light compared with the Nex 7. It is also not a stretch to say the larger pixel pitch of the M9 is going to do better than the Nex 7 (and you are only getting about a 15% increase in resolution with the Nex 7 which noise can really eliminate that small benefit).

I'm sorry - I think you're simply wrong. focusing on the dpreview samples is really quite important.

have you seen these comparisons:

. . . also from dpreview.
Now tell me that the NEX7 is a poor performer at high ISO. You really need to pick your spot carefully for these comparisons, and for each camera the best focus point is different

I used to share your views about larger pixels and noise - based largely on looking at images at 100% (which, of course, is a much larger portion of the frame for a larger MP camera).
I was really shocked when I did two large sized wedding books close together - one from a Nikon D700 (most would agree, the peak of high ISO performance) taken in really not too bad light - and another wedding shot with a Sony A900 (most would agree, rather poor at high ISO) taken in much worse light - mostly at higher ISO.

The Sony book was much better - less noise in the images. Of course, it's not rocket science, it's because 100% pixel peeping has nothing to do with printed output.

More MP means a bigger sample - generally speaking bigger samples are better than small samples.

Look at the DxO scores for high ISO for the NEX7 sensor . . . .

Really, I think you're rolling out the old conventional wisdom about 'big pixels being better'. The world is changing - the D700 successor is going to have 36mp.

Like you - I have no skin in the issue - my main system is an M9.

But you have stated rather categorically that the NEX7 is bad at high ISO, and I think that this is simply not correct.

all the best

 

[Shashin]

Jono, let me show you what I am seeing. I am really not try to get into a gear fight and I don't care about winners, but I am not sure the Nex 7 is doing better than the M9. I use the watch often because it is not high key where noise does not show much. And it has detail that is easy to resolve. And I amjust looking at the structure of the noise as the ISO changes--Nex 7 in the top left, M9 in the bottom right. (i don't care about the other camera which were default.)

 

[glenerrolrd]

My requirements are pretty well defined and take other equally decent alternatives out of consideration. Focus peaking allows me to use the 135apo and have a world class lens with a 180FOV . Or using a 90/2 I would have a 135/2 APO . Since almost all the tests and early users report ..this stuff is great . For my use the wide angles on the M9 can t be touched ..so I am not concerned at all with the wide angle issues . Thus the comparisons to new cameras that can use M glass is of limited value . I would not be using anything wider than a 50 summilux and more likely I would opt for the 75 /90/135 where RF viewing is “not so great” . This I obviously have to test to see if I can get the potential improvement.

Appreciate the feedback on noise tests ..I will do more research . The general reported performance has been about 1 - 1 1/2 EV better than the M9 . (and thats my std reference ). I will also look again at DxO labs . I have found there reports on sensors to be dead on accurate ..particularly if you dig in and read the sub categories and look at the graphs . They even have images that reflect how a specific value looks in an photograph. The devil is in the details and the summary information hurts their acceptance .. I want to see the impact on DR and color at 1600 not just the noise .

Color matching is the most obvious but as Jono indicated you can see differences even in black and white . Take a look at salgado s africa book ...bet you can pick out the images taken with the Pentax 67 from the Leica 35mm. In his next book he went from his std tri x and worked with Canon to match his film work with their DSLR ..half the book was done in tri x . There is a look and feel to the Leica M images that you can see in print (not always but often ) . its frustrating years later to being pulling together you work from say paris and find that none of those Nikon DSLR look so hot merged with the new M12 images . I know that skilled post processing can get them closer and maybe the requirement is so personal that its not a concern to others .

Just found my iPad version of this months Popular Photography and in it is a image taken on Times Square ...I ve spent a lot of nights on Times Square shooting my M s ...its the last place open with good light .LOL Take a look at the photograph presented ..its very impressive .

The Nex products just seem to offer some great potential as an “addition” to the M9 s and this dialogue is helpful . Thanks

 

[jonoslack]

Jono, let me show you what I am seeing. I am really not try to get into a gear fight and I don't care about winners, but I am not sure the Nex 7 is doing better than the M9. I use the watch often because it is not high key where noise does not show much. And it has detail that is easy to resolve. And I amjust looking at the structure of the noise as the ISO changes--Nex 7 in the top left, M9 in the bottom right. (i don't care about the other camera which were default.)

Hi There (I'm no trying to have a gear fight either - just that I don't like to see something trashed unfairly) - what I'm saying is that the point of focus changes in these images between different cameras, and the NEX 7 clearly isn't in focus in the 100 ISO image . . . added to which your doing a 100% crop comparison - not a comparison of the same proportion of the image.

The samples I posted showed quite the opposite (and from the same images). What I AM trying to say is that:
1. the Dpreview comparator is a dodgy way of comparing high ISO characteristics of different cameras - for quite a number of reasons.
2. that comparing a 24mp camera at 100% to a 12mp camera at 100% is only of relevance to pixel peepers!
3. that looking at the Paul Smith sample the NEX 7 is quite clearly out of focus at 100 ISO - no question.

If you try to tell me that the NEX7 images are worse at high ISO than the M9 and the pen EP1 I simply know from experience that this is not correct.

I have hundreds and hundreds of images in my library from all three sensors (tens of thousands for the M9 and thousands for the A77) (admittedly the NEX7 sensor is represented by the A77). If the dpreview samples of fixed scene show that the ep1 or the M9 are better, then they are misleading. However - taken overall (i.e. look at those other samples) I don't think they do suggest this - if you pick one spot in the image (the paul smith watch) -

Without the SLT, the NEX7 images should be at least 1/3 stop better than the A77, and the A77 is . . . in practical use . . . so much better than either camera that to suggest otherwise is just . . . erm . . not right!

let me also say - I don't have an axe to grind here - I just don't think it's right that misleading information should be thrown around - to be fair to dpreview I don't think they ever suggested that their results suggested that the NEX7 was poor at high ISO (except with jpgs) either.

 

[jonoslack]

The Nex products just seem to offer some great potential as an “addition” to the M9 s and this dialogue is helpful . Thanks

H Roger
That's what I think - a useful addition - especially for longer focal lengths (and for times when the focus peaking provides useful information for the whole frame - a party/gallery opening etc. etc).

 

[Godfrey]

First I am a confirmed M9 user and typically work with 2 bodies doing street and travel shooting. Besides costs ..the M9 has only three weaknesses that bother me and at least on paper ......the Sony Nex 5/7 seem to address these. ...

Why not carry a Nex body as a back up that extends the capabilities of your M kit ? I am interested in any insights from the Nex users .

I use the Ricoh GXR with A12 Camera Mount in a similar system notion. It works brilliantly: with it, I have a compact camera which can transform from an ultra zoom point and shoot to a super-high quality APS-C wide or normal macro camera to an APS-C TTL camera for Leica M-bayonet lenses. The sensor optimization for RF lenses is terrific and it proves an excellent all around performer. It also works beautifully with my Nikkor and Pentax SLR telephoto lenses. I've got no problem with GXR-M captures at up to ISO 2500, depending on the subject matter, and it has excellent controls and customization capabilities.

Along the way, I picked up another Leica film body (M4-2) and share the lenses across both cameras. I find again that I like working with the RF camera so much that I've added an Epson R-D1 and next year will add a Leica M9 body to my kit.

It all works. They're all different cameras, and each has its unique strength and weakness. Whether you choose a NEX (and the 5n seems to be the one to have for RF lens compatibility, at least from what I've seen in photos so far) or a Ricoh GXR, or a Micro-FourThirds mirrorless system to use as the compact complement ... or wait until Leica's own mirrorless system is announced to see if that poses any additional advantage ... having both a TTL and an RF camera really does extend the reach and use of your lens kit.

 

[Shashin]

Hi There (I'm no trying to have a gear fight either - just that I don't like to see something trashed unfairly) - what I'm saying is that the point of focus changes in these images between different cameras, and the NEX 7 clearly isn't in focus in the 100 ISO image . . . added to which your doing a 100% crop comparison - not a comparison of the same proportion of the image.

Sorry, in what why am I trashing the Nex 7? I said it was a fine camera. I am putting in this in context of the OPs interest in using this in low light to replace the M9.

Now, the point of focus is close enough to clearly see the effects of noise on the image for both the Nex 7 and M9. Neither is scaling the image necessary as you can see how it is affecting the elements of the object. Personally, I have enough experience to judge that on the final image.

Now if you think the Nex 7 is getting better results at ISO 1600 vs. the M9, OK. We don't agree. From what I have seen, I do not think the Nex 7 is going to be a low light replacement of the M9--you picked a high-key area of the image with naturally will have more signal, so noise will not have great as an impact. I assume the OP is using this in crumby light and so that area is not really great from which to judge. I think the M9 is going to give him a better result.

The point of my post was to indicate that maybe the OP is a little too optimistic of this new camera that has yet to be released and may want to look into this a little more. Unlike you, I did not find the test at DPreview very compelling. There is definitely a trend where folks get very enthusiastic about new cameras to only sell them a few months later because they did not live up to expectations. My experience with new technology is they offer modest increases in performance. If the OP just wanted an APS camera to shoot with, I would say the Nex 7 would be great--it is a fine machine. To get better high ISO performance than the M9, I would not be so sure...

 

[glenerrolrd]

The DxO labs tests show that the Nex 7 and the M9 are essentially the same when considering high iso performance. The Nex 7 has slightly better DR but noise is essentially the same. Look at the graphs . Seems reasonable and tempers my expectations ..the NEX looks like it has less than a 1 EV advantage no matter how you test it. I realize this is over simplification but to be “material” it needs to be better by more than an EV. Too bad .

 

[cam]

Jono

One of my concerns is how well the images work together (when some are on the M9 and others on the NEX). I tend to shoot with a goal of creating a small collection of photographs . So on my recent trip to Venice I wanted 15 images out of about 1600 that worked together as an example.

If doing side by side comparisons ..the NEX images look significantly different ..that ruins their use in a collection for me.

Roger,

i know you don't want to hear this, but i honestly think the best thing for you to do is compare for yourself (and don't limit yourself to the NEX system).

you will be using and shooting the camera differently than Jono or whoever, so your experience will likely be different than his... the same goes for post processing, which can dramatically affect whether images can play nice with each other.

i know some people swear by the NEX cameras, others by the GXR. both work, imo, because the weakest link will always be the lenses and if you're using your M (or R) lenses or something up to that quality, then pfffffft!

i probably wouldn't have said this a few weeks ago, but i had a chance to shoot the Fuji X100 and the M8 (M9 was in the shop) with a 35 Lux side by side in a bar during a gig... different focal lengths and different lenses, but i was pleasantly surprised with how nice the images worked with each other.

i think the quality that is coming out nowadays with high ISO is astounding! also, if you shoot for different coverage with the M9 and whatever other camera system you choose, i think you can make it work for you in very short order.

give it a whirl!

 

[fotografz]

I'd say the NEX is a fun addition ... then it gets old because it simply isn't up to the M9. Every NEX5 shot I took, I wished I had done with the M9 ... so I sold it.

Granted, I haven't used the NEX 7, but from the images I've seen so far it looks to be more of the same. The M9 has a look, and even if using M lenses on a NEX, it isn't the same ... something about the blacks or the punch or something I just can't put my finger on it, but see it clearly in every shot.

However, for the price in order to effectively use a 135/3.4APO (if you already own it) ... why not? Darned thing is so small, just slip into a side pocket and take it along for those long shots : -) Plus, with the crop factor of the NEX you get even longer effective FOV.

As far as higher ISO, I think by analyzing the M9 stuff, you can alter your shooting techniques as well as further refining software procedure, and perhaps more effectively deal with any issues you have ... and that might produce better results than buying another camera that marginally improves on the issue at the expense of other image characteristics.

-Marc

 

[glenerrolrd]

CAM

Agree completely on the x100 a superb product all around. But its usefulness when added to an existing M9 kit is limited to slightly better high ISO performance . About 1-1 1/2 Ev. I have one and I rarely use it because it duplicates the strengths of the M9 . And you are right the images are rendered similar to the Leica m (Not a coincidence would be my guess). Handling is a totally different matter and I could not work with a x100 and a M9 at the same time ...the whole process of viewing focusing etc is too different. But there are situations where the X100 is a great tool and cafe/bar shooting comes to mind.

MARC

I suspect that you hit the nail on the head ..you can get the shot and it might even be great but it will look enough different that you aren t happy with putting the image into a batch of M9 images. I know you can get a lot closer than what comes out of the camera and I even used a M9 on the D3 profile a few years back that worked pretty well (as an example of whats possible.) I find that tuning my presets for cameras other than the Leica M results in dramatically different settings . And its possible to get closer

All this is tons of work with often mixed results ..so I normally try to determine where the benefits should be before I take on a new camera system . Almost as good as an M9 doesn t buy me much because I will be using 2 M9 s .

I am not naturally drawn to the Sony NEX bodies as they strike me more as a consumer gadget than a fine camera . But ... I have received reports form no less than 4 photographers that are devoted RF users all raving about the overall quality of the files and the focus peaking .

My requirements start with the m9s as my core kit and look for additional capabilities ..like focus peaking for longer glass, possibly slightly better high ISO performance ,easy fill flash for example. This is different than a typical NEX buyer . Worth a look and some discussion. .

How great would it be if Leica s EVIL body provided those capabilities ?