M9 - Full Frame - 18 Mpix - IR filter

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


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.

Using "FxIF" in Firefox 3.5.2, it shows f1.4.

Complete EXIF (exiftool) shows only f4 as maximum aperture. (below)
The image looks like about f8-11 to me (a guess).
The aliasing of detail is a killer. 18mp is pointless if you don't print
large, and aliased detail is a complete (and avoidable with aa filter)
pita if you do.

Make : Leica Camera AG
Model : M9 Digital Camera
Orientation : Horizontal (normal)
XResolution : 300
YResolution : 300
ResolutionUnit : inches
Software : 0.912
ModifyDate : 2009:08:17 16:11:00
YCbCrPositioning : Co-sited
ExposureTime : 1/1000
ExposureProgram : Manual
ISO : 200
ExifVersion : 0220
CreateDate : 2009:08:17 16:11:00
DateTimeOriginal : 2009:08:17 16:11:00
ComponentsConfiguration : Err (49), Err (50), Err (51), Err (48)
ShutterSpeedValue : 1/1024
ExposureCompensation : 0
MaxApertureValue : 4.0
MeteringMode : Center-weighted average
LightSource : Unknown
Flash : No Flash
FocalLength : 16.0 mm
FlashpixVersion : 0100
FocalPlaneXResolution : 3700
FocalPlaneYResolution : 3689
FocalPlaneResolutionUnit : inches
ColorSpace : sRGB
ExifImageWidth : 5216
ExifImageHeight : 3472
FileSource : Digital Camera
SceneType : Directly photographed
CustomRendered : Normal
ExposureMode : Manual
WhiteBalance : Auto
DigitalZoomRatio : 0
FocalLengthIn35mmFormat : 16 mm
SceneCaptureType : Standard
Contrast : Normal
Saturation : Normal
Sharpness : Normal
ImageUniqueID : 00000000000000000000000000000123
ImageWidth : 320
ImageHeight : 216
Compression : JPEG (old-style)
XResolution : 72
YResolution : 72
ResolutionUnit : inches
ThumbnailOffset : 5712
ThumbnailLength : 59819
YCbCrPositioning : Co-sited
---- ExifTool ----
Warning : Bad MakerNotes directory

"Me" wrote in message
...
[]
The aliasing of detail is a killer. 18mp is pointless if you don't print
large, and aliased detail is a complete (and avoidable with aa filter)
pita if you do.

I do agree with you - lack of an AA filter seems a very poor design
decision, and suggestions that it can be corrected in software show a lack
of fundamental understanding of digital systems. M8, M9 .... I wonder
how many iterations it will take Leica to get this camera right? I
suppose the purists will like the lack of video and the lack of Live View.

David

On 2009-09-10 00:55:12 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

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


Agreed no f value
This is what I got:

Color Space: sRGB
Contrast: Normal
Custom Rendered: Normal process
Date Time Digitized: 2009:08:17 16:11:00
Date Time Original: 2009:08:17 16:11:00
Digital Zoom Ratio: 0
Exif Version: 2.2
Exposure Bias Value: 0
Exposure Mode: Manual exposure
Exposure Program: Manual
Exposure Time: 1 / 1000
Flash: Flash did not fire
FlashPix Version: 1.0
Focal Length: 16
Focal Length In 35mm Film: 16
Image Unique ID: 00000000000000000000000000000123
ISO Speed Ratings: 200
Light Source: unknown
Max Aperture Value: 4
Metering Mode: CenterWeightedAverage
Pixel X Dimension: 5216
Pixel Y Dimension: 3472
Saturation: Normal
Scene Capture Type: Standard
Sharpness: Normal
Shutter Speed Value: 10
White Balance: Auto white balance
--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 12:49:52 +0100, Bruce wrote:

I do agree with you - lack of an AA filter seems a very poor design
decision

It is actually an *excellent* design decision, because the loss of
sharpness caused by an AA filter is very significant indeed. Coupled
with the 18 MP sensor, the omission of the AA filter means that the M9
is capable of resolving very fine detail.

There is an obvious risk of moire effects, some of which cannot be
corrected in software. However, this is something that will interest
measurbators rather than the shooters who will greatly value the M9's
ability to resolve fine detail.

I'd say it's the other way around. Pixelpeepers will appreciate the extra
detail, while moiré is visible at less extreme enlargements.


--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
[]
It is actually an *excellent* design decision, because the loss of
sharpness caused by an AA filter is very significant indeed. Coupled
with the 18 MP sensor, the omission of the AA filter means that the M9
is capable of resolving very fine detail.

No, it doesn't "resolve" the very fine detail, it aliases very fine detail
into spurious coarse detail.

There is an obvious risk of moire effects, some of which cannot be
corrected in software. However, this is something that will interest
measurbators rather than the shooters who will greatly value the M9's
ability to resolve fine detail.

The sample shots have already shown how bad the problems can be.

BTW: why wasn't this discussion in rec.photo.digital.rangefinder?

Cross-posted & follow-ups set.

David

Eric Stevens wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
Me wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:
Savageduck wrote:
Rich wrote:
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.

Ah, OK *max* aperture of the lens is f/4.
There isn't even a line for current aperture.

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.

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

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 07:38:47 -0700, Paul Furman
wrote:

--- snip ---

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

Ah, OK *max* aperture of the lens is f/4.
There isn't even a line for current aperture.

I've just saved the image to disc and looked at the EXIF data with
NX2. There is an entry for 'Aperture' but no value is entered.



Eric Stevens

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 07:38:47 -0700, Paul Furman
wrote:

--- snip ---

That's interesting. I see 16mm, f/???, and 1/1000. Actually no
f/ entry.
Ah, OK *max* aperture of the lens is f/4.
There isn't even a line for current aperture.

I've just saved the image to disc and looked at the EXIF data with
NX2. There is an entry for 'Aperture' but no value is entered.


Leica Ms have no way of knowing the working aperture (apart from the
maximum aperture using digital coding on the M8 & M9).

On 2009-09-11 02:15:40 -0700, Rol_Lei Nut said:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 07:38:47 -0700, Paul Furman
wrote:

--- snip ---

That's interesting. I see 16mm, f/???, and 1/1000. Actually no f/ entry.
Ah, OK *max* aperture of the lens is f/4.
There isn't even a line for current aperture.

I've just saved the image to disc and looked at the EXIF data with
NX2. There is an entry for 'Aperture' but no value is entered.


Leica Ms have no way of knowing the working aperture (apart from the
maximum aperture using digital coding on the M8 & M9).

....and that explains our ignorance.
Thanks for the info.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

Savageduck wrote:
On 2009-09-11 02:15:40 -0700, Rol_Lei Nut
said:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 07:38:47 -0700, Paul Furman
wrote:

--- snip ---

That's interesting. I see 16mm, f/???, and 1/1000. Actually no f/
entry.
Ah, OK *max* aperture of the lens is f/4.
There isn't even a line for current aperture.

I've just saved the image to disc and looked at the EXIF data with
NX2. There is an entry for 'Aperture' but no value is entered.


Leica Ms have no way of knowing the working aperture (apart from the
maximum aperture using digital coding on the M8 & M9).

...and that explains our ignorance.
Thanks for the info.

Also, unless the (painted/stencilled-on) digital coding changes when you
change the FL (the 16-18-21mm is a variable focal lens), which I
seriously doubt, the camera also has no way of knowing which FL was used.

I *could* be wrong, as M lenses 28mm and above have mechanical tabs
which bring up the correct framelines in the camera.
IIRC, the variable focal 28-35-50 would also communicate the actual FL
used. But I also have never heard of any M lens under 28mm having such
tabs as they are designed to be used with external finders.