M9 comparison

[Bill Pierce]

Here’s an article that will have a lot of RF folks going nuts. But it’s a further update on the position of the rangefinder in the current world.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/sony_nex_7_rolling_review.shtml#m9

[krötenblender]

I have no words for how much I don't care...

And the aspect most important for me, was not compared: Is it a rangefinder?

[sojournerphoto]

His methodology's all to cock.

He cropped the M9 frame to match the Nex 7 frame. I think the Nex 7 has a sensor that is 2/3 the size of the M9 ('crop factor 1.5'). This means that he cropped the Leica down to 18Mp * 2/3^2 = 8Mp. Then he downsized the N7 frame to 18Mp. Even ignoring the downsizing algorithm and sharpening, 18Mp is very very different to 8Mp.

All the test tells you is that an N7 uncropped can resolve more detail with the same lens than a heavily cropped M9 frame. None of this is useful.

I don't know if the N7 with equivalent lenses can out resolve an M9. I'm not really concerned - they're probalby so close it doesn't matter. I do think it sad that MR is posting such a flawed experiement as a test and hasn't had the technical sense to deal with the (flawed) criticism he posts in the postscript.

None of this is written as a 'Leica Fan Boy' as he seems wont to insultingly brand those who question his approach.

I suggest the site is best ignored as its primary purpose appears to be to get people to spend money.;

Mike

[digitalintrigue]

What methodology would you suggest for this comparison?

[sojournerphoto]

What methodology would you suggest for this comparison?


I wouldn't really. They're not comparable. But,

if you really wanted to know which resolved the best you'd need to take the lenses you'd actually use, with identical fields of view and shoot the same scene then compare. I'd suggest comparing in three or four ways:

1. Both images optimally sharpened to taste at 100% on screen

2. Both images upressed to the same size and optimally sharpened on screen. This could be to N7 resolution or greater, as long as you don't downsize the bigger file. I might go for a two simes upsizing of the bigger file. This helps you see what's actually there, but introduces reizing variables.

3. I'd make some properly big prints with the pictures (say 30 by 20 or a bit bigger). For me this is the best way to see what the difference is in use as I make paper prints. I did this when testing a 1Ds3 against a Mamiya 7 with Ektar.

4. Finally I'd make some small prints - 10 by 8, 9 by 6 - and see that it didnt matter and that I might as well use what I like.

One additional advantage of this approach, apart from the fact that it avoids disadvantaging one camera by only using a part of it's sensor(!) is that it allows you to see how things will work with the lens you will use. There's not a lot of point for a 50mm 'full frame' shooter to walk around with a Nex7 and a 50 Superduperlux.

Best

Mike


Edited to add that the difference in resolutoin between any half decent lenses is going to be less than the difference between a full Nex7 frame and a heavily cropped (8Mp) M9 frame. It's not a magic Leica, just a machine:)

[kbg32]

Michael said it - "The M9 is 18 Megapixels, while the NEX-7 is 24 Megapixels. This makes doing comparisons quite difficult. "

And "WTF".

Some people will care. I don't.

[digitalintrigue]

Since I will never shoot a 50/1.4 ASPH on a NEX 7 the comparison is of little use to me (I won't use one on an M9, either.) But your methodology #2 appears 'sound' to me.

[Phil_F_NM]

If the NEX-7 had a true optical viewfinder, an optical rangefinder that properly interfaced with my Leica lenses, was built of brass or some other resilient material with heft, had the excellent ergonomic feel of a Leica M and a host of other M-like qualities, then I'd buy it.
Oh yeah, I already did. It's the M9.

Phil Forrest

[Roger Hicks]

What methodology would you suggest for this comparison?

Buy an apple. Buy an orange. Compare them with each other, and with both an M9 and a NEX 7.

Cheers,

R.

[digitalintrigue]

Heh, that's kinda what my question was pointing out. ;) Although if a comparison must be done between these apples and those oranges, perhaps there is a better way than the one on LL.

[Bill Pierce]

What methodology would you suggest...

My methodology would be pretty simple. I’d just take a lot of similar pictures with both cameras and make fairly big prints. That takes a lot of time and certainly isn’t going to meet muster with scientific methodology. But, oddly enough, it isn’t that different from some of Leica’s testing methods. They have incredible optical benches, e.t.c., for testing. But, at least a few years back, they used to also post prints on the cafeteria wall for everybody to check out.

I have not done any of this with a Nex 7, but it does seem an interesting camera whose small size and quiet, quick operation would interest folks with Leica and Leicaflex lenses but not M9 money.

The comparisons that I have run with the better cameras that I use have not been too flattering to Leica. Image quality directly related to the sensor is fine, but certainly not the best of the lot. Nor is this aspect of image quality the only factor in evaluating a camera.

Perhaps it’s the nature of the sensor surface rather than film, perhaps it’s looser standards, perhaps it’s my imagination or something particular to my equipment, but the rangefinder focusing accuracy of lenses out of the box has also been a problem and does not seem as good as it was for the M3’s through 6’s that were my film workhorses. In the film days I had all my M body rangefinders null-nulled by Norm Goldberg (Don’s father) and the cams on my lenses reground if necessary to match them. This may be even more necessary with the digital bodies.

And then there is the question of high ISO performance. I never used film Leicas for landscape work, that got done on bigger format cameras. The little Leicas were to go anywhere with very little and come back with pictures. When Kodak came out with P3200 and I no longer had to backstop myself with a few rolls of weird recording films, I was a very happy camper. These days, using a big DSLR just because it out performs a smaller camera at high ISO’s does not make me a happy camper.

I think you evaluate camera performance on a number of personal criteria, but I think the buzz on the Nex 7 from a number of photographers who used the early releases make it of interest to anyone wanting high technical quality from a small, unobtrusive camera. The fact that it can accept Leica and Leicaflex lenses make it particularly interesting to this forum. Dpreview, http://www.dpreview.com/news/2011/12/14/sonynex7review gave it one of the best reviews it has ever given a camera. To automatically dismiss it in favor of a digital Leica doesn’t make much sense if you are interested in pictures. It does make sense if you are only interested in owning Leicas.

[elmer3.5]

Hi, not surprise to have more resolving power with more pixels, but my question is why the market has stucked with apsc sensors or when are the brands going to quit on dslr´s no one needs mirrors anymore...
I hate sensor crop can´t widthstand the fact of having 28mm infinite dof and 42mm fov with an apsc sensor and a 28mm lens, can´t rival a ff camera even the canon 5d (1st one)
Can´t see myself trying to focus decently (fast) a RF lens on a nex 5, 7 or any like that...

BR

[jsrockit]

To automatically dismiss it in favor of a digital Leica doesn’t make much sense if you are interested in pictures. It does make sense if you are only interested in owning Leicas.

Or if you are sensitive to ergonomics, full frame, simplified menus, and / or optical VFs.

[Roger Hicks]

Or if you are sensitive to ergonomics, full frame, simplified menus, and / or optical VFs.

Well, quite.

Cheers,

R.

[dave lackey]

What methodology would you suggest...

My methodology would be pretty simple. I’d just take a lot of similar pictures with both cameras and make fairly big prints. That takes a lot of time and certainly isn’t going to meet muster with scientific methodology. But, oddly enough, it isn’t that different from some of Leica’s testing methods. They have incredible optical benches, e.t.c., for testing. But, at least a few years back, they used to also post prints on the cafeteria wall for everybody to check out.

I have not done any of this with a Nex 7, but it does seem an interesting camera whose small size and quiet, quick operation would interest folks with Leica and Leicaflex lenses but not M9 money.

The comparisons that I have run with the better cameras that I use have not been too flattering to Leica. Image quality directly related to the sensor is fine, but certainly not the best of the lot. Nor is this aspect of image quality the only factor in evaluating a camera.

Perhaps it’s the nature of the sensor surface rather than film, perhaps it’s looser standards, perhaps it’s my imagination or something particular to my equipment, but the rangefinder focusing accuracy of lenses out of the box has also been a problem and does not seem as good as it was for the M3’s through 6’s that were my film workhorses. In the film days I had all my M body rangefinders null-nulled by Norm Goldberg (Don’s father) and the cams on my lenses reground if necessary to match them. This may be even more necessary with the digital bodies.

And then there is the question of high ISO performance. I never used film Leicas for landscape work, that got done on bigger format cameras. The little Leicas were to go anywhere with very little and come back with pictures. When Kodak came out with P3200 and I no longer had to backstop myself with a few rolls of weird recording films, I was a very happy camper. These days, using a big DSLR just because it out performs a smaller camera at high ISO’s does not make me a happy camper.

I think you evaluate camera performance on a number of personal criteria, but I think the buzz on the Nex 7 from a number of photographers who used the early releases make it of interest to anyone wanting high technical quality from a small, unobtrusive camera. The fact that it can accept Leica and Leicaflex lenses make it particularly interesting to this forum. Dpreview, http://www.dpreview.com/news/2011/12/14/sonynex7review gave it one of the best reviews it has ever given a camera. To automatically dismiss it in favor of a digital Leica doesn’t make much sense if you are interested in pictures. It does make sense if you are only interested in owning Leicas.

And this is where I disagree.:angel: I buy cameras and lenses because of what I want which means aesthetics, ergonomics, "feel", preference, whatever. To buy a camera that looks like a Sony blob, Nikon blob, Canon blob, etc. does not make sense to ME. I personally have found my "sweet spot", the M-mount Leica camera in either film or digital. No reason to change IMO.

To universally declare that one (meaning ME or anyone else with similar taste) would only buy a Leica because he wants ONLY a Leica is stereotype garbage. It becomes an absolute and I dismiss any discussion where someone defends absolutes.

Personally, I looked at the NEX 5 and now the 7 and find it distastefully designed and does nothing more than what I use now or what I plan on buying in the future. Simple. Everyone has their own tastes and that is the way it should be, so please, the real measure if you want one is what one does with whatever camera/lenses he or she uses.:angel: I reckon I could spend the next 50 years with one camera and die a happy soul.

[damien.murphy]

Pretty chunky beast for a compact camera, although resolution, dynamic range and high iso are nice, all facets of the sensor and Sony's expertise in the area of sensor production. Now if only they could get someone like the chap who designed the Olympus Pen, so it wasn't so goddamn ugly..

[Bill Pierce]

Dave Lackey has said, “the real measure if you want one is what one does with whatever camera/lenses he or she uses.” I think Dave is dead right in that cameras are tools for taking pictures. Where we disagree (and remember, both of us are talking about what works best for us) is that Dave can stick with one camera body and many times I can’t.

Let’s look at the specific situation of someone covering a news event that requires high speed, fixed focal length lenses. You are going to need several bodies so that you can use several of these lenses with different focal lengths simultaneously. Obviously an M9 would be a good choice in situations that didn’t demand very high ISO’s. But several M9 bodies is a bit expensive. And I can buy 5 Nex 7 bodies for the price of a single M9 body. Two or three Nexi (plural of Nex?) with M mount lenses I already own would not only be easier on my wallet but easier on my back than my current rig of three DSLR’s.

Another situation - discreet street shooting... A single M9 would be excellent if people didn’t keep walking up to you and saying, “Is that a digital Leica? What do you think of it?” And then wanting to talk to you for the next 10 minutes. On the street, I’ve used a number of small, “amateur” cameras. Wear a loud enough shirt and have several street maps and brochures that you often refer to and you can get away with tourist-like murder. For those who essentially said the Nex was small and ugly - this is a huge advantage for candid street photography!! The high image quality is just a bonus.

[sojournerphoto]

Another situation - discreet street shooting... A single M9 would be excellent if people didn’t keep walking up to you and saying, “Is that a digital Leica?


Sorry to go OT, but I had two people ask me if mine was an MP last weekend. Only the second time anyone's even noticed it, so I tink that some of the fuss is a bit overstated.

I can still see the value of the nexi etc, and slr's too. ll's good to those who just want to use them. Funny, I used to want the best cars, but now I enjoy driving pretty much anything. It's the same making phoos, though slow responses still irritate a bit - I find the M9 wake up time when it's hanging off my shoulder catches me out compared to either film bodies or dslr.

Mike

[sig]

It's the same making phoos, though slow responses still irritate a bit


true dat :D:D:D:D:D:D

[uhoh7]

The dirision and outright hatred the nex cameras have inspired from certain quarters is remarkable.

Many reasons to not be interested in the n7, but it's a hellva camera, and no camera EVER has packed that rez into such a small footprint.

The crop alone is reason enough to prefer the M9, and the RF sets the cameras apart.

Maybe it's the idea that the unwashed are now shooting with RF glass ?

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7021/6518293537_41d9eaba14_z.jpg

leica 28/2 on 5n

[Godfrey]

Bill,

Thanks for the M9-NEX 7 comparison. It is intriguing, and does not stir any disgust or horror for me ... cameras are tools, whether Sony or Leica or Canikolytaxonic. What works to make great photos, both technically and for me, personally, is all that matters.

You used a normal, 50mm focal length lens for a 35mm format camera to compare the NEX 7 vs M9 and your results stand as far as sensor performance with that lens goes.

However, this is a portrait telephoto lens for the NEX 7 and does not show what the difference in performance might be if you chose lenses with equivalent field of view on the two formats. A normal lens for the NEX 7 is a 35mm focal length. And a traditional RF camera's 35mm lens field of view on the M9 is achieved by a 24mm focal length on the NEX 7.

My question is: Could you replicate your test by using similar field of view lenses ... normal and wide angle equivalents for the format ... on the two cameras? Yes, I know you would be testing apples against oranges in once sense as the lenses are different. But as a practical comparison, this will tell me a lot about what to expect with the NEX 7 using lenses more appropriate to the FoV choices that most RF camera users tend to be comfortable with.

Thanks in advance!

[axiom]

Conclusion:
NEX7 has a sensor that has higher resolving power than that of M9.

Is that something hard to admit?

[gdi]

Maybe it's the idea that the unwashed are now shooting with RF glass ?




Naw, it has more to do with the fact that the owners/lusters of the P&S de jour are compelled to draw the comparison with the most expensive camera they can find.

The "great unwashed" can't afford Leica glass, and they don't like the idea that Leica can't fulfill demand for their lenses and M9s.

[Peter Klein]

A 24 mpix sensor resolves a little more detail than an 18 mpix sensor. Wow, whoda thunk it? Why should this be controversial? It sounds like a profound grasp of the obvious.

What's more interesting to me is that a 24 pix sensor with an anti-alias filter resolves just a little more detail than an 18 mpix sensor without one.

[Pablito]

Here’s an article that will have a lot of RF folks going nuts. But it’s a further update on the position of the rangefinder in the current world.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/sony_nex_7_rolling_review.shtml#m9

RF cameras are basically obsolete. This is a dance we perform called Nostalgia. Focus peaking will do away with optical RF mechanisms. How could it not? And now the M9, beyond the reach of all but the wealthiest working photographers....

(p.s. I own 3 Leica film cameras...)

[DamenS]

Luminous Landscape also proved the Canon G10 is virtually as good as a high megapixel digital "medium format" back. They then proved that a digital medium format back absolutely killed 8x10" film. Ergo a Canon G10 is at least as good, if not better than 8x10 film. I therefore don't see the need to pay extra for a Sony Nex 7 (which I guess - by a process of deduction - beats 20x24'" film).

[willie_901]

It is completely unsurprising the NEX 7 surpasses the M9 in terms of basic sensor performance. People don't buy a M9 because it has a state-of-the-art sensor. They buy a M9 for the reasons mentioned above. The M8 proved people value the M aesthetic despite its sensor (IR sensitivity and mediocre signal-to-noise/dynamic range). I totally get this because I value my X-100's sensor performance and ease of use despite the mediocre AF system.

MR's job is to drive people to his web site where he sells courses and tutorials and advertises a variety of products from others. He is simply is running a business. This comparison may be somewhat meaningless, but it is also harmless.

I see the NEX 7 an an alternate to the M9/M8. It is small and one can use M-mount lenses. It has a competent finder and operates well with manual lenses. It has all the issues any other APS-C camera has when one wants to use lenses originally designed for 135 format media. It will work fine with some manual lens designs and will require post-processing intervention to address artifacts when used with others. The NEX-7 does give people a viable option to enjoy a digital camera with some of the advanages of a rangefinder at a reasonable price. Not to long ago we only had the M8 and the RD-1.

What I do find interesting is: the NEX has an AA filter. I hope the LL comparison puts an end to the myth that even a competently engineered AA filter means resolution is excessively degraded.

[tstermitz]

What I do find interesting is: the NEX has an AA filter. I hope the LL comparison puts an end to the myth that even a competently engineered AA filter means resolution is excessively degraded.

The Nex 7 AA Filter is optimized for a much smaller pixel size

[Lss]

RF cameras are basically obsolete. -- Focus peaking will do away with optical RF mechanisms. How could it not?
I am not that impressed with the focus peaking on the NEX-5N. It keeps on telling my action shots are in focus while they very clearly are not. I need to use it more with faster lenses to really conclude on the performance of this feature. And getting an EVF should not hurt.

For static subjects, the focus peaking (well, the magnified view really) is a great tool and will easily match rangefinder performance.

[willie_901]

The Nex 7 AA Filter is optimized for a much smaller pixel size

Which makes it a competently engineered filter.

[Gabriel M.A.]

His methodology's all to cock.


What I find pseudo-amusing is that the "who cares!" gang, paradoxically, don't care about the methodology but care about the assertions made w/methodology full of holes.

Had the comparison been made with say, oh...a Nikon D3, there'd be lots of heckling.

I just found it interesting. I've never seen an M9 crop of a 50mm Summilux so lacking in crispness at f/2.8. I have borrowed a few (if even for hardly a day), and the shots I took handheld with my pre-asph at f/2.8 were not this bad.

Granted, I do see a slight resolution difference at a pixel-peeping level between the M8 and the M9...but what's on that page tells me something's awry. Of course, that should brand anyone as an "apologist". ::sigh::

The so-called post-debate is useless. Minds are made.

[sol33]

The experiment on Luminous Landscape only reflects real word results, if you have the habit of cropping all your M9 images to less than half their original size. It's like comparing 135 and 120 film by cropping the 120 negative to 135 size first. It may be an interesting experiment but it hardly reflects real world usage. I don't doubt the NEX-7 has a better sensor than the M9, I just don't find this experiment very useful.

Leaving comparisons aside, the NEX-7 looks really great. I didn't like the smaller NEX cameras because they were too small and didn't even have a hot shoe. This one looks much better. The crop factor is more attractive than Four Thirds. This may very well be the first choice to get high quality images with Leica-M lenses.

[Bill Pierce]

...This may very well be the first choice to get high quality images with Leica-M lenses.

Don't forget the Ricoh unit for M lenses. No anti-aliasing, corner correction, e.t.c..

[RObert Budding]

"Here is what I have decided to do, since I am more interested in real world results that are relevant to my photography rather than pure pixel peeping. I cropped the M9 images to the same field of view as the NEX. A typical such cropping is shown above. I then resized the NEX files from 24 MP down to 18 MP so that they matched in both field of view and resolution."

This is a poorly conceived test (what I've come to expect from Luminous Landscape). Much better to select different focal lengths so that the same angle of view is produced by the cameras. Then there would be no reason to crop the Leica image.

[dcsang]

Meh... I don't pay much attention to his words or site....especially when you spell "fanboi" incorrectly *smirk* :D

Cheers,
Dave

[Bill Pierce]

A number of folks here were critical of the Luminous Landscape’s comparison of the Sony Nex-7 and the Leica M9 image quality because he used the same lens on both cameras, thus producing images with 2 different fields of view. In the second installment of this comparison (which is part of huge evaluation of the Nex-7), he uses two different lenses (a Leica 50 and Leica 35) to produce similar fields of view with the two different cameras.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/nex_7_vs_m9_part_deux.shtml

On this Rangefinder Forum site, in this thread, there were a few rather nasty remarks directed at Michael Reichmann and the Luminous Landscape site. This man and his associates have provided an immense amount of useful information to the photographic community for a considerable period of time. On the Rangefinder Forum I expect a little over-the-top enthusiasm for the M9, the only digital rangefinder currently in production. But I have been proud to be associated with a site that doesn’t do the opposite and regularly go into “mad dog” mode on anything outside of its primary interest. Let’s not start to slip in that direction.

[ktran]

A 1.5x crop is not 2/3 the size of "full frame." Try 1/3.

[celluloidprop]

Both tests seem reasonable to me, maybe the only reasonable tests out there - ignore megapixels and all else, how do the files look enlarged? Accepting a cropped view or switching lenses (as LL has done) are the only two real options.

[jsrockit]

A 1.5x crop is not 2/3 the size of "full frame." Try 1/3.

Why does this matter though?

[Nikon Bob]

I think MR's rebuttal should put an end to any nasty comments. If you don't have a horse in the race and are looking for a reasonable alternative cost wise to an M9 this should be good news.

Bob

[Hatch]

I’ve used a number of small, “amateur” cameras. Wear a loud enough shirt and have several street maps and brochures that you often refer to and you can get away with tourist-like murder. For those who essentially said the Nex was small and ugly - this is a huge advantage for candid street photography!! The high image quality is just a bonus.

Dang it man, don't give away the trade secrets :D

I can't disagree with the Dave Lackey quote either.

One uses what one has.
That's part of the fun in getting a great shot.

[ktran]

Why does this matter though?

Sorry, it's in response to the third post on the first page ;)

It does matter, because it explains why MR also had to downrez the NEX-7 files. The 18 MP M9 sensor cropped to APS-C is about 6 MP.

As an aside, people also have this idea that APS-C is "slightly smaller than full-frame, but much larger than 4/3," when in reality, they are 1/3 and 1/4 the size of FF, respectively. People tend not to do too well with the inverse ratios needed to get to the 1.5, 1.6, etc. crop factors to begin with.

[RObert Budding]

The second test is much better conceived. So, yes, the NEX-7 does produce excellent images when the light is good.

[Godfrey]

A number of folks here were critical of the Luminous Landscape’s comparison of the Sony Nex-7 and the Leica M9 image quality because he used the same lens on both cameras, thus producing images with 2 different fields of view. In the second installment of this comparison (which is part of huge evaluation of the Nex-7), he uses two different lenses (a Leica 50 and Leica 35) to produce similar fields of view with the two different cameras.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/nex_7_vs_m9_part_deux.shtml

...

Hello again, Bill!

I like that he went back and did the alternative test! This is more useful information, to me, as it tells me that I can get image quality with the appropriate M-bayonet normal lens on both cameras that is comparable to on par. If the user experience of the NEX 7 is good (note: I didn't say the same ... ;-), that says that it is a fine camera and a huge savings over the M9.

This test does not help with my other NEX 7 concern: imaging performance with wide-angle M-bayonet lenses. For the NEX 7 to be useful to me, I would be using 21 - 25 mm lenses quite a lot in addition to a 35-40-50 mm focal length as they provide my desired FoV choices. I'd love to see the same test once more, this time the NEX 7 fitted with a 24mm lens and the M9 fitted with a 35mm lens.

But hell, I may just get a NEX 7 and test it out before I purchase an M9. If it works well enough and I enjoy using it, I could stop right there.

[Teuthida]

What methodology would you suggest...

My methodology would be pretty simple. I’d just take a lot of similar pictures with both cameras and make fairly big prints.

This is one more example of why you are the best resource on RFF. Your common sense is incredibly refreshing.

[Tom Rymour]

Has anybody had a word to say about Senor Reichmann's evocative people-in-public-places shots taken in San Miguel de Allende? That's what we should be discussing -- instead of how many angels can dance on the end of a pixel! Do you imagine that HCB wasted much time in anguished technical discourses about Kodak versus Agfa, or Tessar versus Sonnar. No sirree - the boy was out on the street, windin' film!