M9 - Full Frame - 18 Mpix - IR filter

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0909/09090909leicam9.asp

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
news


http://www.dpreview.com/news/0909/09090909leicam9.asp



Looks nice, for those who can afford it.

On 2009-09-09 17:24:27 -0700, Rich said:

On Sep 9, 8:10*pm, Rich wrote:
On Sep 9, 7:06*pm, Alan Browne
wrote:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0909/09090909leicam9.asp

No moire filter. *All correction done in software. *That is
significant.

Ooops! Some moire seen in this sample image (see grey cinched flag on
right hand side).
http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/le...1070505_aw.jpg

Actually it is quite obvious, and disconcerting. (BTW it is an umbrella
not a flag)
--
Regards,

Savageduck

Rich wrote:
On Sep 9, 7:06 pm, Alan Browne
wrote:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0909/09090909leicam9.asp

No moire filter. All correction done in software. That is
significant.

I wonder how well it's going to work?
http://i28.tinypic.com/21dmuk9.jpg
That's from a jpeg - not particularly or notably "sharp" at 100% pixel
level.

"Savageduck" wrote:
On 2009-09-09 17:24:27 -0700, Rich said:
On Sep 9, 8:10 pm, Rich wrote:
On Sep 9, 7:06 pm, Alan Browne
wrote:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0909/09090909leicam9.asp

No moire filter. All correction done in software. That is
significant.

Ooops! Some moire seen in this sample image (see grey cinched flag on
right hand side).
http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/le...1070505_aw.jpg

Actually it is quite obvious, and disconcerting. (BTW it is an umbrella
not a flag)

And the corners are mush and vignetted* (especially noticeable in the upper
and lower left corners). You'd be better off with a Stigma 12-24 on a 5D2.

*: Even if the tilted microlenses on the sensor work, the near-symmetric
wide angle lenses used on rangefinder cameras have about a stop more
vignetting than retrofocus lenses. Landscape types who care about their
images use center filters on such lenses.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Savageduck" wrote:
On 2009-09-09 17:24:27 -0700, Rich said:
On Sep 9, 8:10 pm, Rich wrote:
On Sep 9, 7:06 pm, Alan Browne
wrote:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0909/09090909leicam9.asp
No moire filter. All correction done in software. That is
significant.
Ooops! Some moire seen in this sample image (see grey cinched flag on
right hand side).
http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/le...1070505_aw.jpg
Actually it is quite obvious, and disconcerting. (BTW it is an umbrella
not a flag)

And the corners are mush and vignetted* (especially noticeable in the upper
and lower left corners). You'd be better off with a Stigma 12-24 on a 5D2.

Can you ascertain the aperture used in that shot. EXIF indicates f1.4,
but DOF nor shutter speed or ISO in that light seems to tally with that.
Is it worse than 12-24 Sigma, presuming that's stopped down to F8 or so?
FWIW, the impression I get is that corner performance perhaps looks
better than either of two 17-40Ls or 16-35 II (at widest) I used on 5D1
and II, even stopped down to f8 and smaller. I don't think that lens is
bad. Very hard to tell though by comparing different shots, so YMMV.

On the bad side, if that moire on the flag is a minor issue, check the
aliasing on the window frame on the upper left hand side. That's the
sort of defect that really stands out like dog's balls when printed
large, it's hard to correct in PP, and unless you scan every bit of the
frame on screen at 100% view, is likely to be completely missed until it
has already wasted paper and ink.

"Me" wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Savageduck" wrote:
On 2009-09-09 17:24:27 -0700, Rich said:
On Sep 9, 8:10 pm, Rich wrote:
On Sep 9, 7:06 pm, Alan Browne
wrote:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0909/09090909leicam9.asp
No moire filter. All correction done in software. That is
significant.
Ooops! Some moire seen in this sample image (see grey cinched flag on
right hand side).
http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/le...1070505_aw.jpg
Actually it is quite obvious, and disconcerting. (BTW it is an umbrella
not a flag)

And the corners are mush and vignetted* (especially noticeable in the
upper and lower left corners). You'd be better off with a Stigma 12-24 on
a 5D2.

Can you ascertain the aperture used in that shot. EXIF indicates f1.4,
but DOF nor shutter speed or ISO in that light seems to tally with that.

I'd assume not. Generic Leica lenses wouldn't have electronic contacts, so
the body doesn't even know the focal length (although it could if there's a
mechanical linkage to the viewfinder framelines, but even that may require
the user setting them (on my Mamiya 7, the framelines are automagically
selected for the 50, 65, 80, and 150 lenses, but I don't know how Leica
works).

Is it worse than 12-24 Sigma, presuming that's stopped down to F8 or so?

Actually, the Sigma's not very good. (It's a long story: outside, my copy is
only usable at 15mm, although it's superb for tight interiors at any focal
length). In that image, the corners aren't all that close, so a lens with
good corners stopped down for DoF should be able to resolve them. It takes
work on the part of the user to get corners sharp with wide angles.

FWIW, the impression I get is that corner performance perhaps looks better
than either of two 17-40Ls or 16-35 II (at widest) I used on 5D1 and II,
even stopped down to f8 and smaller. I don't think that lens is bad. Very
hard to tell though by comparing different shots, so YMMV.

Yes, the 17-40's a dog, although mine is somewhat better at the long end. I
hope Canon replaces it with something as good as the 24TSE II, which is
seriously amazing. I'm looking at the Cosina-Zeiss 18/3.5. It gets some
uninspired reviews, but I wonder if with care it could be persuaded to be
useful. Of course, the instant I get it, Canon will release a 17-40 II and
Cosina will release it with an EF mount.

I bet a 5D2 + TSE 17 would be a lot cheaper, a lot better in the corners,
and a lot more fun than the M9 with whatever lens that was. (Although a lot
heavier, sigh).

On the bad side, if that moire on the flag is a minor issue, check the
aliasing on the window frame on the upper left hand side. That's the sort
of defect that really stands out like dog's balls when printed large, it's
hard to correct in PP, and unless you scan every bit of the frame on
screen at 100% view, is likely to be completely missed until it has
already wasted paper and ink.

That was a problem on the 5D, to a certain extent as well. The 5D2 is a lot
better, it seems to get a good balance between retained detail (images
sharpen up nicely) and lack of artifacts.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 13:51:47 +1200, Me wrote:

David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Savageduck" wrote:
On 2009-09-09 17:24:27 -0700, Rich said:
On Sep 9, 8:10 pm, Rich wrote:
On Sep 9, 7:06 pm, Alan Browne
wrote:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0909/09090909leicam9.asp
No moire filter. All correction done in software. That is
significant.
Ooops! Some moire seen in this sample image (see grey cinched flag on
right hand side).
http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/le...1070505_aw.jpg
Actually it is quite obvious, and disconcerting. (BTW it is an umbrella
not a flag)

And the corners are mush and vignetted* (especially noticeable in the upper
and lower left corners). You'd be better off with a Stigma 12-24 on a 5D2.

Can you ascertain the aperture used in that shot. EXIF indicates f1.4,

What are you using to read EXIF?

I'm using Firefox 3.5.2 and whatever it has selected as an EXIF viewer
isn't showing any aperture data.

but DOF nor shutter speed or ISO in that light seems to tally with that.
Is it worse than 12-24 Sigma, presuming that's stopped down to F8 or so?
FWIW, the impression I get is that corner performance perhaps looks
better than either of two 17-40Ls or 16-35 II (at widest) I used on 5D1
and II, even stopped down to f8 and smaller. I don't think that lens is
bad. Very hard to tell though by comparing different shots, so YMMV.

On the bad side, if that moire on the flag is a minor issue, check the
aliasing on the window frame on the upper left hand side. That's the
sort of defect that really stands out like dog's balls when printed
large, it's hard to correct in PP, and unless you scan every bit of the
frame on screen at 100% view, is likely to be completely missed until it
has already wasted paper and ink.



Eric Stevens

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 13:51:47 +1200, Me wrote:

David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Savageduck" wrote:
On 2009-09-09 17:24:27 -0700, Rich said:
On Sep 9, 8:10 pm, Rich wrote:
On Sep 9, 7:06 pm, Alan Browne
wrote:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0909/09090909leicam9.asp
No moire filter. All correction done in software. That is
significant.
Ooops! Some moire seen in this sample image (see grey cinched flag on
right hand side).
http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/le...1070505_aw.jpg
Actually it is quite obvious, and disconcerting. (BTW it is an umbrella
not a flag)
And the corners are mush and vignetted* (especially noticeable in the upper
and lower left corners). You'd be better off with a Stigma 12-24 on a 5D2.

Can you ascertain the aperture used in that shot. EXIF indicates f1.4,

What are you using to read EXIF?

I'm using Firefox 3.5.2 and whatever it has selected as an EXIF viewer
isn't showing any aperture data.

I see 16mm f/4 1/1000 in irfanview.


but DOF nor shutter speed or ISO in that light seems to tally with that.
Is it worse than 12-24 Sigma, presuming that's stopped down to F8 or so?
FWIW, the impression I get is that corner performance perhaps looks
better than either of two 17-40Ls or 16-35 II (at widest) I used on 5D1
and II, even stopped down to f8 and smaller. I don't think that lens is
bad. Very hard to tell though by comparing different shots, so YMMV.

On the bad side, if that moire on the flag is a minor issue, check the
aliasing on the window frame on the upper left hand side. That's the
sort of defect that really stands out like dog's balls when printed
large, it's hard to correct in PP, and unless you scan every bit of the
frame on screen at 100% view, is likely to be completely missed until it
has already wasted paper and ink.



Eric Stevens


--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 22:02:09 -0700, Paul Furman
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 13:51:47 +1200, Me wrote:

David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Savageduck" wrote:
On 2009-09-09 17:24:27 -0700, Rich said:
On Sep 9, 8:10 pm, Rich wrote:
On Sep 9, 7:06 pm, Alan Browne
wrote:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0909/09090909leicam9.asp
No moire filter. All correction done in software. That is
significant.
Ooops! Some moire seen in this sample image (see grey cinched flag on
right hand side).
http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/le...1070505_aw.jpg
Actually it is quite obvious, and disconcerting. (BTW it is an umbrella
not a flag)
And the corners are mush and vignetted* (especially noticeable in the upper
and lower left corners). You'd be better off with a Stigma 12-24 on a 5D2.

Can you ascertain the aperture used in that shot. EXIF indicates f1.4,

What are you using to read EXIF?

I'm using Firefox 3.5.2 and whatever it has selected as an EXIF viewer
isn't showing any aperture data.

I see 16mm f/4 1/1000 in irfanview.

That's interesting. I see 16mm, f/???, and 1/1000. Actually no
f/ entry.


but DOF nor shutter speed or ISO in that light seems to tally with that.
Is it worse than 12-24 Sigma, presuming that's stopped down to F8 or so?
FWIW, the impression I get is that corner performance perhaps looks
better than either of two 17-40Ls or 16-35 II (at widest) I used on 5D1
and II, even stopped down to f8 and smaller. I don't think that lens is
bad. Very hard to tell though by comparing different shots, so YMMV.

On the bad side, if that moire on the flag is a minor issue, check the
aliasing on the window frame on the upper left hand side. That's the
sort of defect that really stands out like dog's balls when printed
large, it's hard to correct in PP, and unless you scan every bit of the
frame on screen at 100% view, is likely to be completely missed until it
has already wasted paper and ink.



Eric Stevens



Eric Stevens