m9 D3x comparism

[markowich]

i just posted this over at the leica forum, but maybe folks here are interested too. so here it is:

i did some low iso comparisms between D3x and M9 today, both at their respective base isos.. nikon 85 f1.4 and leica summicrom 90mm. NX 2 for NEFs and lightroom (GRRRRRRR!!!!!) for DNGs. out of the box the leica DNGs looked better, or rather more acute. this advantage faded when some moderate sharpening was applied to the nikon files and in the end i came to the impression that the D3x files have a clear resolution advantage (24mpx compared to 18mpx). it was an evenly illuminated scene, so i have no DR comparism to offer.
anyway, i shall keep the m9 but tomorrow i shall cancel my S2 preorder. in all honesty, i am disappointed by the conservative leica approach (yes, i did know it when i bought the M9). but the direct comparism to the D3x (and most likely also to the 5Dmark2) is kind of frustrating. it is like comparing a TGV trip to a vienna streetcar. and yes, sometimes streetcar trips are fun....but you arrive faster on the TGV.
peter

 

[thomas]

i just posted this over at the leica forum, but maybe folks here are interested too.

care to share the images?

 

[dseelig]

These are such different cameras to me to make a comparison between a rangefinder and an dslr is pointless. It is about a different way of seeing of how you are percieved by a person you are photographing. The weight on your shoulder. how the world looks at f1.4, nikon makes no wides currently that go that fast, I could go on but you get the point. It is a vastly different tool. One more thing in different light thee ccd wil be better or sometimes worse then the cmos. I am a pro I own a few cameras . But for me personally nothing comes close to a good rangefinder. David
www.davidseelig.com

 

[markowich]

care to share the images?

i am not going to post meaningless jpgs, you will find them on reichman's and reid's sites tomorrow anyway. if you want NEFS and DNGs please email me.
p

 

[markowich]

These are such different cameras to me to make a comparison between a rangefinder and an dslr is pointless. It is about a different way of seeing of how you are percieved by a person you are photographing. The weight on your shoulder. how the world looks at f1.4, nikon makes no wides currently that go that fast, I could go on but you get the point. It is a vastly different tool. One more thing in different light thee ccd wil be better or sometimes worse then the cmos. I am a pro I own a few cameras . But for me personally nothing comes close to a good rangefinder. David
www.davidseelig.com

the final print does not carry the label 'DSLR' or 'rangefinder' or nikon or leica or hasselblad or phase. it is what it is. it is there where the final judgement happens.
peter

 

[Christopher]

Well people will never believe it until they see it that a 21MP CMOS with AA or 24 CMOS with AA after some light sharpening will out resolve the m9. Still people will claim no AA Filter is SOOO much better, but that is a different topic. I will buy an M9 not because it has no AA filter, but because it is fun to work with.

 

[Oxide Blu]

I will buy an M9 ... because it is fun to work with.

:thumbup:

 

[charlesphoto]

Not really sure where this one size should fit all attitude has come from but it seems pretty prevalent these days. Who cares if the D3X out resolves the M9. Then don't buy an M9! Personally I don't want to carry around a camera the size of a brick and lenses the size of softballs and small melons (and yes, I own a D3 - not X - and do use it and love it).

Anyway, the M9 files look good and my dealer and local rep are working on getting me one next week before a trip. Bottom line is that it is full frame. I'm not too chuffed what the mp is or the noise factor etc (though appears to be much lower than M8).

The images that are paying for this camera were taken during the 80's/90's on Tri-X and 3200 through Nikon lenses. So, yes, it is about the final print, but there's a lot of different ways a final print can look. If anything I'm concerned about the M9 being "too clean."

 

[NonFiction]

These are such different cameras to me to make a comparison between a rangefinder and an dslr is pointless. [...] David
www.davidseelig.com

This is true, unless one is making buying decisions based on the quality of the images a given camera can produce and is willing to put aside the question of style. In that case this kind of comparison is decidedly pointful.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

These comparisons will always come forth and they are very valid to a point yes i agree Apples to Oranges but I also see that X amount of dollars buys me this compared to that and than the usage of one of them is higher. So yes cross comparisons of different brands and types is a normal and at some point in these comparisons you have to make a Apple or Orange choice on what works for you as well.

I know these comparisons to some degree upset people but in a sense they are of value and they should be made even though it is a apple to orange difference . Hope that made some sense been a long day and I am out of espresso

 

[fotografz]

These comparisons will always come forth and they are very valid to a point yes i agree Apples to Oranges but I also see that X amount of dollars buys me this compared to that and than the usage of one of them is higher. So yes cross comparisons of different brands and types is a normal and at some point in these comparisons you have to make a Apple or Orange choice on what works for you as well.

I know these comparisons to some degree upset people but in a sense they are of value and they should be made even though it is a apple to orange difference . Hope that made some sense been a long day and I am out of espresso

It's of value to me for one Guy. If the M9 is anything even close to a D3X, I'll be one happy snapper ... and my poor shoulder will be even happier.

Seriously, I know for a fact that I hunt differently with a M than I do with a DSLR. I like the choice.

BTW, I seriously doubt the difference between 18.5 meg and 24.5 meg is significant.

I keep harping on this, but I'll say it again :deadhorse: ... it takes more than a few hours (or even days) to dig into any new camera, especially one with a completely new sensor. Heck, I'm still "investigating" the D3X, and getting a lot more out of it than the first few weeks I was shooting it.



I'll be using these two cameras side-by-side in real world conditions, and super variable lighting. The M8 already holds it's own against the big dogs when shooting in ISO 640 lighting and printing to 11"X14" ... so I have high hopes for the M9 ... so does my busted back and arthritic bones.

-Marc

 

[Paratom]

Thanks for posting your comparison impressions, which I find interesting.
We also have to keep in mind lenses. How much IQ comes from the lens and how much from the sensor?
The 85 Nikon is a very good prime as is the Leica 90cron (did you use the asph?)
Now how would it look like if we had a Nikon 50mm and the Leica 50asph on the cameras and use them wide open?
How would it look like with 21,24 or 28 primes?

Your conclusion sounds like the d3x and the M9 sensors should be pretty close, with maybe a slight resolution advantage for the d3x. If this is the case I guess I will be pretty happy with the M9.

I am also convinced that the difference between stronger and weaker AA-filter is not visible for each subject, but only sometimes specially in fine textures where generating artificial sharpness (SW-sharpnening) doesnt allways work that well.

Besides detail there is the question of tonality and color reproduction.
Many people (including me) claim they can see some difference between MF and DSLR-sensors. So I would assume that it should be valid for the S2 as well. I would be very interested to see more comparisons and to hear your findings.

 

[markowich]

Thanks for posting your comparison impressions, which I find interesting.
We also have to keep in mind lenses. How much IQ comes from the lens and how much from the sensor?
The 85 Nikon is a very good prime as is the Leica 90cron (did you use the asph?)
Now how would it look like if we had a Nikon 50mm and the Leica 50asph on the cameras and use them wide open?
How would it look like with 21,24 or 28 primes?

Your conclusion sounds like the d3x and the M9 sensors should be pretty close, with maybe a slight resolution advantage for the d3x. If this is the case I guess I will be pretty happy with the M9.

I am also convinced that the difference between stronger and weaker AA-filter is not visible for each subject, but only sometimes specially in fine textures where generating artificial sharpness (SW-sharpnening) doesnt allways work that well.

Besides detail there is the question of tonality and color reproduction.
Many people (including me) claim they can see some difference between MF and DSLR-sensors. So I would assume that it should be valid for the S2 as well. I would be very interested to see more comparisons and to hear your findings.

i basically agree with all you say. in fact, i bought the M9 because i expect some sort of MFDB tonality from it in a small and portable package. my testing is by far not at a point yet where i can confirm or deny this...so far all i know is that -under the described test set up (90mm aspherical btw) - the d3x still outresolves (slightly) the m9, inspite AA filter. also, i know that the d3x has a 1,5 to 2 step advantage. in particular i am not happy with the los of detail in medium-high iso M9 files. and let me reiterate, at base iso the m9 files are very nice, inspite of LR. a funny note: apparently the manual was written a while ago. it still says that a SN for C1 is included...then they retract from it on an add on page. i wish leica would still get along with phase.
some other weird stuff: even with FW 1.002 i only get sRGB. what is this????
am i doing something wrong?
peter

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

You're getting sRGB in RAW? In LR you choose which colour space you want to output into, a RAW file has no colour space, only the jpgs.

 

[markowich]

You're getting sRGB in RAW? In LR you choose which colour space you want to output into, a RAW file has no colour space, only the jpgs.

ben, yes of course. that comment of mine referred to jpg.

 

[Stuart Richardson]

It is an interesting comparison, but I think your conclusions are interesting as well. You stated that the M9 files look better out of the box than the D3x files (which have 6 more megapixels), and that leads you to conclude that Leica is being conservative and therefore you are not interested in their camera which has 37mp? Or did I miss something?

I do think Thomas's point on the lenses is very important though. I shoot both Leica and Nikon (with a D3), as well as medium format digital. In any of these systems, the lenses are the key to the image. It does not matter how many megapixels you have if your lenses are soft in the corners at most apertures, suffer from complex aberrations, color fringing and distortion. While their cameras are outstanding and they make some good lenses, I think Nikon is decades behind Leica in all but a few of their lens designs. At least that is the impression I get comparing my Nikon lenses to my Leica ones. A lot of this may be their decision to spend most of their time and resources on zoom lenses, constantly seeking wider zoom ranges and more extreme angles of view. It could also be that they have spent the past decade focusing their lens design on APS sized cameras, more or less ignoring full frame designs. None of this really matters to me...I just want lenses that are sharp from corner to corner, have minimal aberrations, and good lens speed. It seems to me at these megapixel ranges, the image quality is something like 80% lens, 20% sensor, at least in the area below ISO 800.

 

[JackieS]

i just posted this over at the leica forum, but maybe folks here are interested too. so here it is:

i did some low iso comparisms between D3x and M9 today, both at their respective base isos.. nikon 85 f1.4 and leica summicrom 90mm. NX 2 for NEFs and lightroom (GRRRRRRR!!!!!) for DNGs. out of the box the leica DNGs looked better, or rather more acute. this advantage faded when some moderate sharpening was applied to the nikon files and in the end i came to the impression that the D3x files have a clear resolution advantage (24mpx compared to 18mpx). it was an evenly illuminated scene, so i have no DR comparism to offer.
anyway, i shall keep the m9 but tomorrow i shall cancel my S2 preorder. in all honesty, i am disappointed by the conservative leica approach (yes, i did know it when i bought the M9). but the direct comparism to the D3x (and most likely also to the 5Dmark2) is kind of frustrating. it is like comparing a TGV trip to a vienna streetcar. and yes, sometimes streetcar trips are fun....but you arrive faster on the TGV.
peter

who cares ?


If you can't compelling pictures with either camera, or indeed any decent 10mp+ DSLR then look for another hobby/job !
It's about form, colour, shape, ideas and LIFE .... do you think that Caravaggio, Duchamp or Man Ray sat there wondering about how much resolution they had ?

Beyond internet experts and gear junkies who are obsessed with sensor technology and don't actually have one creative bone in their body, these differences are TOTALLY irrelevant and in terms of where pictures end up (hanging inside frames, inside magazines, on people's LCD screen and inside their photo albums etc..)

NO ONE will notice the difference let alone CARE ! The only caveat there would be if you are creating posters and billboards in which case you'll be using MFDB.

There is only one camera that is tiny, super lightweight, able to marry up with M glass and that connects you up to the photographic creative process so directly and that is the M9.. so ANY comparisons are meaningless. The M9 doesn't have a competitor, only the M8.

 

[Woody Campbell]

i did some low iso comparisms between D3x and M9 today, both at their respective base isos.. . this advantage faded when some moderate sharpening was applied

To make the comparison apples to apples you really need to apply some low radius sharpening to the Leica files - something like .6 or .7 and 80 0r 90 in LR.

 

[s.agar]

Each camera has its own use. I prefer M8 for street photos, and hope that the improved high ISO performance (if any) will make it even better for me.

I also take a lot of documentary photos in ancient churches, mosques, in other words in confined and sacred areas. They will never let me take a photo with D3x while praying session is on. With an M8 it's no problem at all. No one notices me, or they just ignore.


So I still have to comment that, comparing apples and oranges is not appropriate. Each instrument may have a preferred use. (I have also the Canon 5DII/500D for that purpose. Mostly for high ISO, or bird shots etc). Things that can never be done with an M8/9. Each camera may be superior in certain areas. For example, D3x and 5DII surely may give better resolution with a comparible lens. A comparison must include different aspects for that purpose.

I hope Guy has not returned from his Espresso trip yet.

Seyhun

 

[Ron (Netherlands)]

i just posted this over at the leica forum, but maybe folks here are interested too. so here it is:

i did some low iso comparisms between D3x and M9 today, both at their respective base isos.. nikon 85 f1.4 and leica summicrom 90mm. NX 2 for NEFs and lightroom (GRRRRRRR!!!!!) for DNGs. out of the box the leica DNGs looked better, or rather more acute. this advantage faded when some moderate sharpening was applied to the nikon files and in the end i came to the impression that the D3x files have a clear resolution advantage (24mpx compared to 18mpx). it was an evenly illuminated scene, so i have no DR comparism to offer.
anyway, i shall keep the m9 but tomorrow i shall cancel my S2 preorder. in all honesty, i am disappointed by the conservative leica approach (yes, i did know it when i bought the M9). but the direct comparism to the D3x (and most likely also to the 5Dmark2) is kind of frustrating. it is like comparing a TGV trip to a vienna streetcar. and yes, sometimes streetcar trips are fun....but you arrive faster on the TGV.
peter

Strange, one could have know that Leica uses the CCD in stead of the CMOS based sensor; the CCD does not perform as well under low light but overall has is known for its better image quality and higher resolution. Anyone who wants better performance under higher isos should clearly choose for Nikon or Canon because they use the CMOS