Testing M9-Monochrome vs. M9

[BobYIL]

Not a fully detailed one but still fine to have some ideas about:


http://www.reddotforum.com/content.p...m-vs.-Leica-M9

[noimmunity]

The MM at 1250 is superior, IMHO, to the M9 at 320.

The noise pattern of the MM, however, is to my eyes hardly "film-like", as claimed by Geoffrey in the second reader's response. Film noise is irregular and integrally informed by the contours of the image, which does not seem to be the case with the MM. The MM is obviously a great digital image-making tool.

Thanks for the link.

[BobYIL]

Originally Posted by noimmunity

The MM at 1250 is superior, IMHO, to the M9 at 320.

The noise pattern of the MM, however, is to my eyes hardly "film-like", as claimed by Geoffrey in the second reader's response. Film noise is irregular and integrally informed by the contours of the image, which does not seem to be the case with the MM. The MM is obviously a great digital image-making tool.

Thanks for the link.

Another interesting view regarding "film-like":

http://imprezzion-jl.tumblr.com/post...nochrom-camera

[ramosa]

the differences are greater than i expected. but it would have been nice to see the M9 image at ISO 160. sure, the MM doesn't offer that, but it would give us a feel for the "top" image from both cameras.

[Moriturii]

Now compare the MM to a Fuji X Pro 1, lyl.

[Range-rover]

It does look cleaner at all ISO's, like there's a lot less going on.

Range