Leica M9 Oregon workshop photos

[jlm]

Jono: mike and I talked about you while we were in oregon, specifically about how you never use a tripod and get exemplary shots. Giddyup!

 

[Woody Campbell]

My contribution to this effort. The workshop was a lot of fun - great to catch up with some terrific people.

I shot my M9 and my M8.2 in IR. Most used focal lengths on the M9 were 35. 50, 90 and WATE. I borrowed Mike's excellent 135 but I've never been able to produce interesting images with this focal length.

I had an epiphany when the M9 arrived: based on specs its sensor is very, very similar to my H3D 39, but exactly half the size. This means that it produces near MF image quality if you stitch three frames, overlapping 50%. Not much use for wildlife and portraits but terrific for landscape.



View attachment 24291

View attachment 24294

View attachment 24286

View attachment 24290

View attachment 24288

View attachment 24292

View attachment 24293

View attachment 24287

View attachment 24289

 

[Woody Campbell]

More below. The IR and the other buildings are stitches from a long-term project on small Western towns.


View attachment 24300

View attachment 24298

View attachment 24297

View attachment 24296

View attachment 24295

View attachment 24299

 

[Lloyd]

Great stuff, Woody.

 

[Woody Campbell]

I agree with most of Mike's excellent observations. Live view is of little interest to me - if the trade off is CCD without live view vs CMOS with I'll gladly live without. Having the ability to produce near MF quality with a camera and three lenses that fit into a small AA bag is sensational - the near MF that you have with you is much better than the true MF that's sitting in the gear locker because it breaks your back.

On handheld I experimented a bit and found that in a landscape application you need two stops faster than the traditional rule of thumb (1/focal length) to produce consistent results. A monopod gets me to the rule of thumb. Most of my images were handheld but I occasionally used a Gitzo G2228 with a Gitzo 1177M ball head and two Novoflex turntables to facilitate stitches. I left my Cube home. This is lighter gear than most others were shooting with, but seemed entirely adequate given the M9's light weight and absence of mirror bounce. It worked well enough that I may shell out for the current version of this tripod, which has non-rotating legs.

 

[Woody Campbell]

A couple more. The scary-looking one is with an LX3 converted to IR. Happy Halloween Guy.

View attachment 24302

View attachment 24301

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Well I lost my grey hair at least. LOL

That is really scary, certainly not a friendly people camera.

Woody you have some really unique shots here that I really like. Love when you go off the beaten path and find interesting images to shoot.

 

[tollie]

Hey Mike,

Wonderful photographs. I'm especially partial to your BW surf images. The sunsets are just sublime.

A quick question... is it my imagination or do the images seem more detailed, crisper perhaps than M8 files. Can you see the results of the additional resolution on a computer screen?

Great trip.

 

[Mike Hatam]

Great work Woody. You have an amazing eye. We shot side-by-side in some of these areas, and yet you saw things that I completely missed.

The MF comparison is interesting. You validated this when you showed the large prints you had done of the same scene (one shot with MF, and one shot with stitched M9 images), and they were essentially indistinguishable.

Very useful for those still situations where you plan to make a really large print.

Mike

 

[Mike Hatam]

Hey Mike,

Wonderful photographs. I'm especially partial to your BW surf images. The sunsets are just sublime.

A quick question... is it my imagination or do the images seem more detailed, crisper perhaps than M8 files. Can you see the results of the additional resolution on a computer screen?

Great trip.

Todd,

The per-pixel resolution of the M8 and M9 are essentially identical. The M9 simply gives you more of those pixels.

Think of the M8 as just a cropped version of the M9. If you mounted both cameras on a tripod in the same spot, and used the same lens on each, then cropped the edges of the M9 images to cover the same scene as the 1.3x M8, the two images would be indistinguishable at low ISOs.

At higher ISOs, the M9 would begin to have a noise advantage, although even that advantage is fairly small on a per-pixel level. Most of the noise advantage of the M9 comes from the fact that there are extra pixels, so noise is diminished when you compare M9 images to M8 images at the same total image size (i.e. an 8x10 print).

Other than the crop factor (narrower field of view), the M8 would produce just as nice images at these web-view sizes. But at large print sizes, the M9's extra pixels really pay off.

Hope that helps,

Mike

 

[cmb_]

Splendid stuff Woody. I am drawn to the Pacific Gateway Medical Clinic image - the colors are wonderful especially that bit of yellow on the bottom edge set against the greens, greys, and blues, and that marvelous almost grandiose name of the practice on such a modest unassuming building. Wonderful!

 

[tollie]

Thanks Mike,

It does help...

The max size I print is 17x22.

At what size would the M9 show a readily apparent advantage?

Oh... again, for a true MF camera... will the resolution difference be observable on a computer screen... or just on a larger print?

Many thanks for you taking these kinds of basic questions...

cheers

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Most likely any size Todd just less enlargement to the M9 going in but at your size in particular 18mpx is almost native which BTW for the M9 is 17.37 x 11.56 at 300 dpi which is about uprezing to 130 percent to get your 22x 17 size which really is not much and still at 300 dpi. At 240 dpi than your almost there native at 21.72 x 14.45

 

[Mike Hatam]

I agree with Guy. You'll notice the difference between the M9 and M8 at that print size (17x22), and probably even at smaller sizes, such as 13x19. At around 11x14, the difference is likely not noticable in print.

On screen resolution is a tricky thing, because when you view at 100%, the higher megapixel image covers more screen real estate, even if the sensor is not bigger. All pixels are displayed at an equal size when shown on screen. More MP means more total screen area.

For example, if you have two full-frame sensors, one at 12MP (Nikon D3), and one at 21MP (Canon 1Ds3), and look at them on screen at 100%, the Canon image will stretch to cover a much larger area of screen real estate.

So in essence, you are "zoomed in" further on the Canon image, compared to the Nikon image. Therefore, the Canon image will appear more noisy, but also more detailed.

You really need to adjust both images to the same "real estate" size (i.e. print size) to do a fair comparison of the actual image quality, when viewing at 100% on screen. To do that you'd want to up-res the lower MP image to the same number of MP as the higher MP image (upres the Nikon shot to 21MP). Then compare side-by-side on screen.

Or better yet, print both images at a decently large size (17x22 would be fine), and look at the difference there.

Comparing web-size images is the worst. At small web-sizes (generally 1000 pixels or less on each side), there's simply nothing to distinguish even a high end MFDB from a 6MP point-and-shoot, provided both are shot in good light with low ISO.

 

[jonoslack]

My contribution to this effort. The workshop was a lot of fun - great to catch up with some terrific people.

View attachment 24291

View attachment 24294

HI Woody
These two are competely fab - lovely shots. :clap::clap:

I've done a fair bit of stitching with the M9 (and the M8 before it). Not having any MF to compare it with I can't compare it :ROTFL: But it certainly does make grand large sized prints.

I find that under normal circumstances I can just about manage the focal length / shutter speed rule on the M9 - even for fairly critical applications, but only if I have time to compose myself first! Coffee doesn't seem to have a bad effect.

As for stitching gear . . . I find that careful hand-eye co-ordination does the job! Then I bung them together in photoshop and tidy up, I guess it isn't very professional, but it does seem to work okay.

 

[Woody Campbell]

Splendid stuff Woody. I am drawn to the Pacific Gateway Medical Clinic image - the colors are wonderful especially that bit of yellow on the bottom edge set against the greens, greys, and blues, and that marvelous almost grandiose name of the practice on such a modest unassuming building. Wonderful!

Thanks. The clinic is in Drain, Oregon. No kidding on the name. The light was sensational - when I'm traveling as a general rule I stop when the light is good and shoot whatever is at hand - when the light is beautiful it almost doesn't matter where you point the camera.

 

[Woody Campbell]

Jono - On hand held I tested myself and asked what shutter speed do I need to consistently get 10 out of 10 frames without camera movement. This is important in stitching because one poor frame ruins the set. Two stops fast gives me 10 for 10 - one stop fast 6 or 7 for 10 and rule of thumb about 50-50. I may just be over-cafinated. The extra stop of ISO on the M8 really helps in this regard.

On a monopod I can do 10 out of 10 at the rule of thumb.

 

[Dale Allyn]

Thanks. The clinic is in Drain, Oregon. No kidding on the name...

[off topic]
Haha. When I was young, my grandfather was honored as the oldest living native of Drain, Oregon. He was living near Portland, OR at the time and traveled to Drain to attend some kind of town celebration there. I've been curious about the origin of the town's name, but not curious enough to look it up.

Edit:

Drain was named after a couple, Charles and Anna Drain, who were the first to settle there in the 1800s.
Drain, Oregon is the only community named "Drain" in North America.
(Wikipedia )

 

[jonoslack]

Jono - On hand held I tested myself and asked what shutter speed do I need to consistently get 10 out of 10 frames without camera movement. This is important in stitching because one poor frame ruins the set. Two stops fast gives me 10 for 10 - one stop fast 6 or 7 for 10 and rule of thumb about 50-50. I may just be over-cafinated. The extra stop of ISO on the M8 really helps in this regard.

On a monopod I can do 10 out of 10 at the rule of thumb.

HI Woody
Of course, one does need 10 out of 10 for a pano . . . . but taking a monopod when skiing or riding isn't too easy (mind you, perhaps a ball head on top of a ski stick is the answer!).

 

[nei1]

View attachment 24299

This is great