and it means
"don't leap down my throat!"
I see a difference between the bulk of M9 and M images; just that simple. I'm not going to speculate why. (well, maybe-more telling of an experiment with processing)
The M9 just seems to present more punch and depth...
Reid reviews did something pretty amazing; by downrezing the M to M9 size it changed color, depth etc, so that the M looked more M9-like, but better as there was more detail and some better shadows. Not sure I want to sign up to downrezing, but I will if the 'objects in view are more separated" look can be achieved
I did some playing with DNG and jpg M images and added a bit of clarity and vibrance, maybe a TAD contrast...and wow, that too made the M more M9ish
Are we actually looking at CMOS/CCD differences (as a physicist I actually thought about how in readout there may be some 'crosstalk' in the CMOS that would kill a little of the edge sharpness and the feeling that an object really was separate from the background.
There's been surprising little speculation here on a very important subject to me; get the M or the ME
I LIKE that punch and 3d and depth, and yet I REALLY want the live view focus peaking etc of the M
But I don't want to lose what I see in almost every M9 image; a kind of depth and separation of object that, so far, the M just cant seem to get (except with processing)
Is the FW in the M9 more contrasty by default? is it color space, or, is there really something fundamental going on that will make CCDs and CMOS different