boojum
Mentor
The sensor is the thing. At least in my eyes (intentional double meaning). I am very fond of my M9 and really love how it performs with some old lenses from the late 40's (Amotal) and late 50's (KMZ J8). The M240 has nice color but it is not as "sculpted" as the M9, in my eyes. The Pixii is quite good and I will get David Barth to come on-line and get mine up and running again as it does make nice photos.
But back to the M9 vs the M11. There is a lot of hoo-ha about the sensor. Release flak reminds me of Donna Summer's Fame: "I'm gonna live forever, I'm gonna learn how to fly . . . " That it can live in three different pixel counts is interesting. That the camera has new processing software is interesting. And all the rest is interesting but can the image compare to the image of the M9? How do they compare side by side? Has anyone done any tests on this? I'd love to see some tests. Have they been done? Anyone??
But back to the M9 vs the M11. There is a lot of hoo-ha about the sensor. Release flak reminds me of Donna Summer's Fame: "I'm gonna live forever, I'm gonna learn how to fly . . . " That it can live in three different pixel counts is interesting. That the camera has new processing software is interesting. And all the rest is interesting but can the image compare to the image of the M9? How do they compare side by side? Has anyone done any tests on this? I'd love to see some tests. Have they been done? Anyone??
x-ray
Mentor
I posted a thread a while back you might be interested in. I compared images from all of the digital cameras I’ve used in my commercial work over the past 20 years plus images shot on transparency (slide) film ranging from 35mm up to 8x10. There were a couple of images shot on color neg too and all scans were made on a Fuji Lanovia Quattro or Imacon 848.
Each camera used is identified and film is just indicated as film. All images were shot in RAW and processed in either Lightroom 6.14 or Photoshop. Unfortunately I don’t have an M11 to compare but did own an M9 plus quite a few top end Canon, Nikon and Hasselblad cameras. I tossed in a Canon G10 and 1st gen Canon digital rebel too.
Check them out and see how little difference there is. I’m a CCD fan too but the differences are subtle if any.
here’s the link. https://www.rangefinderforum.com/node/177414
Id love more comments.
Each camera used is identified and film is just indicated as film. All images were shot in RAW and processed in either Lightroom 6.14 or Photoshop. Unfortunately I don’t have an M11 to compare but did own an M9 plus quite a few top end Canon, Nikon and Hasselblad cameras. I tossed in a Canon G10 and 1st gen Canon digital rebel too.
Check them out and see how little difference there is. I’m a CCD fan too but the differences are subtle if any.
here’s the link. https://www.rangefinderforum.com/node/177414
Id love more comments.
boojum
Mentor
Your collection of photos demonstrates that you know how to use light. However much I am impressed by the images I am also at a loss as they are apples and oranges. Beautiful apples and oranges, yes, but still apples and oranges. Without the same lens taking the same picture on a different camera (M9 vs M11) I cannot make a valid comparison. I can tell you that it is good you did not study accounting. Photography is what you are good at.
Nitroplait
Well-known
Your argument falls apart: It is an Irene Cara song ;-)
Archiver
Mentor
A few months ago, I tested the M11 with my Distagon 35, and was a little disappointed that the images were more like my Panasonic S5 than the M9. Not that this a bad thing, necessarily, but the images didn't have the kind of pop and clarity that the M9 usually produces with minimal processing.
A month or two later, I shot the M9 and S5 side by side and then adjusted the S5 colours and shadow/highlights/blacks until they looked as close to the M9 as I could get them. The resulting Lightroom preset is a lot better, but still not like the M9. I'm often surprised at how pleasing and attractive I find my M9 images, and use it as much as I can for my personal work. While the S5 has higher resolution and much better dynamic range and high ISO performance, I still can't quite get the images to look as uniquely attractive as the M9's.
A month or two later, I shot the M9 and S5 side by side and then adjusted the S5 colours and shadow/highlights/blacks until they looked as close to the M9 as I could get them. The resulting Lightroom preset is a lot better, but still not like the M9. I'm often surprised at how pleasing and attractive I find my M9 images, and use it as much as I can for my personal work. While the S5 has higher resolution and much better dynamic range and high ISO performance, I still can't quite get the images to look as uniquely attractive as the M9's.
boojum
Mentor
Man, you are so right and I am so busted. I slept through too many Soul Train shows and am paying for it now. How can I ever redeem myself?? ;o)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TJ0uvSj5Qs
boojum
Mentor
Yes, this is the problem that I have, too. I am too pleased with the M9. Mine has the factory replaced sensor and circuit board so it should run for a good long while. But I am tempted to get one as a spare. The M8.2 and M9 are good cameras. I may be tempted into the M9-P. The M9's just do color and image so well. Yes, I am preening a bit but I got so lucky with this pic. (https://flic.kr/p/2n885QM). Just look at the pilings and how 3D they are. The whole image is good. Not me, the camera and the lens. I am very hard pressed to move on to newer Wetzlar products.
As for ISO, I can get by with 160 daytime and 640 nighttime. If I really want to shoot in the dark I can use the Sony A7 III.
x-ray
Mentor
My point is there’s no distinctly different look between different makes, different lenses, different types of sensors and different internal processors over many different generations spanning 20 years of technology. Certainly dynamic range, pixel count, high iso image noise, processor speed and buffer capacity all have improved but when it comes down to how the image looks it’s more on the photographer that it is the camera and lens. Honestly I think cameras reached a point about 12 years ago where the average photographer didn’t gain much by buying newer cameras. The biggest gains came in improvements in file processing software like Capture 1 and Lightroom. If you’re shooting raw, profiling your camera and system and know how to use your software you can pretty much make your image look any way you want.
A point I’ve tried to make before, when you shoot jpg in camera the look of your image is determined by a software designer who developed the processing software for your camera. When you process raw files the look is all on you. If you’re shooting raw in an M9, M10 or M11 you should be able to pretty closely match the look of all three cameras if you know your software.
boojum
Mentor
I kind of like the M9 over other cameras. I do believe that the CCD is a finer sensor but I am a LibArts major and we all know that they don't know squat. I do agree that cameras have been adding bells and whistles but have not much changed the boat if at all. And for this reason the old cameras are still worthwhile. I was angling for a valid comparison between the two cameras and those who have come close agree that the M11 has not yet caught up with the M9.
As I am about as lazy a man as you can find I shoot JPG and SOOC. While as a youngster I liked darkroom work I no longer find image manipulation fun. And I am quite happy to "take it as it comes." I have so often seen images which have just too much manipulation and look unnatural. Photo editing is like editing recorded music: if you can hear the edits in recorded music you have done too much. Likewise in photo editing, if the edits are noticeable it is too much. That's my opinion and worth just what you paid for it.
As a professional you may find some humor in this, I was talking with a professional photographer friend and said that I thought that light was pretty important. His reply was, "Yeah, about 98%." Maybe folks should confiscate my camera before I do more damage. LOL
Cheers
As I am about as lazy a man as you can find I shoot JPG and SOOC. While as a youngster I liked darkroom work I no longer find image manipulation fun. And I am quite happy to "take it as it comes." I have so often seen images which have just too much manipulation and look unnatural. Photo editing is like editing recorded music: if you can hear the edits in recorded music you have done too much. Likewise in photo editing, if the edits are noticeable it is too much. That's my opinion and worth just what you paid for it.
As a professional you may find some humor in this, I was talking with a professional photographer friend and said that I thought that light was pretty important. His reply was, "Yeah, about 98%." Maybe folks should confiscate my camera before I do more damage. LOL
Cheers
I have a feeling if someone gave you a new M11, your tune might change.
boojum
Mentor
The odds of that are beyond calculation. In the real world I am fond of the M9 and maybe an M9-P. The M240 is not as good, in my eyes. Nor is the A7M III. The Pixii is interesting and pretty good. If I ever get Pixii to get it running again I can compare it to my M9. Free is not always good. Cancer is free.
boojum
Mentor
I just checked an image with a saturated but subtle deep red in it. I have the JPG and DNG side by side on my monitor, a nice BenQ. They are the same. I register no lens in the M9 menu so there is no compensation I am aware of. And no compensation visible in the JPG vs the DNG. But as you are the pro and I am the hack I will go back and compare more to see if this is the exception or the rule. RFF is school for me.
x-ray
Mentor
The only time I ever used jpg out of the camera was to run down and dirty contact sheets. I was never satisfied with jpg’s out of the camera.
In my experience, raw files are 99.9% of the time low contrast and need considerable processing to make them snap. I don’t consider my images over processed. Others might feel different but I try to process for more of a film look. I hate over sharpened, too much clarity and the overdone look of some images. Film has subtle transitions between tones and subtle tones and the ability to reproduce pastel colors up to super saturated.
I’m an old film shooter that loves that look and manipulate my images like I’m printing in a wet darkroom. I dodge and burn just like a wet print. If you shoot jpg’s and accept them as the final image you’re bypassing the process that can make a potentially fine image with manipulation and accepting it as just OK.
That’s just my way of doing photography. I put a lot into the process and expect an excellent image in the end. Not everyone feels that way and that’s fine. That doesn’t make anyone a hack, it means not everyone has the need for an excellent image or can even see the difference. There’s a pretty steep learning curve and producing excellent images takes a lot of time.
In my experience, raw files are 99.9% of the time low contrast and need considerable processing to make them snap. I don’t consider my images over processed. Others might feel different but I try to process for more of a film look. I hate over sharpened, too much clarity and the overdone look of some images. Film has subtle transitions between tones and subtle tones and the ability to reproduce pastel colors up to super saturated.
I’m an old film shooter that loves that look and manipulate my images like I’m printing in a wet darkroom. I dodge and burn just like a wet print. If you shoot jpg’s and accept them as the final image you’re bypassing the process that can make a potentially fine image with manipulation and accepting it as just OK.
That’s just my way of doing photography. I put a lot into the process and expect an excellent image in the end. Not everyone feels that way and that’s fine. That doesn’t make anyone a hack, it means not everyone has the need for an excellent image or can even see the difference. There’s a pretty steep learning curve and producing excellent images takes a lot of time.
boojum
Mentor
Please do not assume that I have noted that some folks over-process their images that I am speaking of you. No. Not at all. But I have seen the work of fellow photographers who post to Flickr where the images challenge reality. Natural light is just not that uneven and I find it unsettling. It even fails as surreal. Others may think it is "Wow!" I think it is tacky, a small step from hack advertising copy. But that is me.
x-ray
Mentor
If we all like the same food, car, house and women it would be a pretty boring world. We all see a different reality.
boojum
Mentor
Not the best copy but here are a raw and JPG image:
boojum
Mentor
OK, this one the raw is the better. On the basis of this comparison the DNG is a better starting point, but that is common knowledge. The difference is obvious. To me, the DNG colors looks better. The next question is will a JPG export maintain that quality?
x-ray
Mentor
I’m looking at it on my phone so it’s not an accurate representation but some good post processing could improve it. Honestly I doubt that one in 10,000 images or more could not be improved with good post processing. It’s the same thing as wet printing. I can’t remember when I had a neg that printed straight. Recognizing what needs to be done comes with maturity in ones art and it doesn’t come over night.
Your friend was on track when he said photography is 98% about light. I’m not sure it put it at 98% but it’s a big part. I always tell people that it’s not the camera or lens you use, it’s whats 2” behind it. Gear plays a small part in making excellent images. It’s not what the camera manufacturers want you to believe because they want to keep selling you the their magic bullet. One thing I hope folks get out of the images I posted is each generation of camera, 20 years of advancement in technology, is capable of producing excellent images that you probably couldn’t tell apart unless they were identified. Looking on screen could you tell which images were shot with the M9 from the ones shot with the D1, 1Ds, Hasselblad or even film?
Your friend was on track when he said photography is 98% about light. I’m not sure it put it at 98% but it’s a big part. I always tell people that it’s not the camera or lens you use, it’s whats 2” behind it. Gear plays a small part in making excellent images. It’s not what the camera manufacturers want you to believe because they want to keep selling you the their magic bullet. One thing I hope folks get out of the images I posted is each generation of camera, 20 years of advancement in technology, is capable of producing excellent images that you probably couldn’t tell apart unless they were identified. Looking on screen could you tell which images were shot with the M9 from the ones shot with the D1, 1Ds, Hasselblad or even film?
boojum
Mentor
Yes, I have a number of cameras but that has not changed the image quality other than technically. Artistically they remain about the same. It is getting out and taking photos, lots of them. All but the dullest of us can learn from what they capture. I try to use hits on Flickr as a learning tool. But some folks like real crap and some folks like something which I cannot understand why. Good bright colors work as well for people as they do for fish. ;o) And if it is red, photograph it.
x-ray
Mentor
I’m with you 100%.