So, I admit I'm a pixel-peeper. I constantly blow up my photos to 100% to examine my lens' sharpness. With everything I've read about the M9 and the 50mm Summilux ASPH (as one review stated, the sharpest 50mm lens ever made), I was expecting to see absolutely remarkably sharp photos at 100%. Unfortunately, at first, I found out my M9 had some focusing issues, so it made a trip to Leica in NJ and came back fully inspected and repaired. My 50mm Summilux ASPH also made a trip to DAG, who verified that it was focusing properly.
So, after my M9 came back, I was expecting to be blown away when viewing photos at 100% (most taken with aperture wide open). However, I really wasn't. It was sharp, but honestly I feel like I've seen better. My basis for comparison are viewing photos taken by various lenses coupled with my Nikon D700. I have been WOW'ed with how ridiculously sharp some of my photos are with certain lenses taken wide open, viewed at 100% (for example, Zeiss ZF series, Nikon 200 f2 VR, even Sigma 50/1.4). When I viewed Leica photos at perhaps 25% or 50%, I have to admit some look pretty great. However, I guess I was hung up on 100% because sometimes even out of focus photos can look "sharp" when viewed at lower magnifications.
Then, something suddenly dawned on me. The Leica sensor is 18mp, but the D700 sensor is 12mp.
I guess my question is, is the difference in resolution the reason why the Leica photos look "softer" than the D700? Is it an unfair comparison to examine a 12mp photo at 100% with a 18mp photo at 100%?
Another absolutely viable reason may be that I'm still not used to shooting with rangefinders. Especially when shooting wide open, I can see why the photo might be a bit out of focus when I use the rangefinder patch in the middle, then recompose by moving slightly.
Anyway, I would really appreciate hearing everyone's ideas and experiences in this matter. And I know, pixel-peeping isn't always the best thing to do, but just humor me
So, after my M9 came back, I was expecting to be blown away when viewing photos at 100% (most taken with aperture wide open). However, I really wasn't. It was sharp, but honestly I feel like I've seen better. My basis for comparison are viewing photos taken by various lenses coupled with my Nikon D700. I have been WOW'ed with how ridiculously sharp some of my photos are with certain lenses taken wide open, viewed at 100% (for example, Zeiss ZF series, Nikon 200 f2 VR, even Sigma 50/1.4). When I viewed Leica photos at perhaps 25% or 50%, I have to admit some look pretty great. However, I guess I was hung up on 100% because sometimes even out of focus photos can look "sharp" when viewed at lower magnifications.
Then, something suddenly dawned on me. The Leica sensor is 18mp, but the D700 sensor is 12mp.
I guess my question is, is the difference in resolution the reason why the Leica photos look "softer" than the D700? Is it an unfair comparison to examine a 12mp photo at 100% with a 18mp photo at 100%?
Another absolutely viable reason may be that I'm still not used to shooting with rangefinders. Especially when shooting wide open, I can see why the photo might be a bit out of focus when I use the rangefinder patch in the middle, then recompose by moving slightly.
Anyway, I would really appreciate hearing everyone's ideas and experiences in this matter. And I know, pixel-peeping isn't always the best thing to do, but just humor me