Leica Quality

To all the Leica users. Do you find the quality of the Leica digital cameras (specifically the M8 and M9) show marked image quality

improvement over other mainstream DSLR's and rangefinders, considering the power of the processing tools these days? Can you see

the quality improvement of the images after processing, if so what improved qualities can one expect?

<p>In my experience the quantum leap in digital dark room in terms of programs like photoshop and plug-ins from Nik or OnOne, Topaz, etc. you can create amazing <strong>Prints</strong> (up to 11"x14", I am not talking for web view only) with cameras like even old canon XT (7 mp) and 40D (10 mp); and also after scanning with a cheap canon film scanner of old 35mm. film negatives. </p>

<p>Unless you are a professional and photography is your source of income, expensive dslr and cameras from companies like Leica has basically little value added and in some way, waste of money. For most amatures what you need is a camera like canon 40D with good lenses and good digital darkroom experience. The proof is in viewing. If interested, check my link below:<br>

<a href="

<p>I think you need to go to big enlargments of tripod mounted camera images to see differences. The Nikon D3x (8000$?) likely surpasses the M8 in image quality, and gives the M9 a run for its money, or vice versa. What has been found is that Leica lenses are better than current digital bodies. But it all depends on what you need. For truly fine large enlargments many still use the better MF cameras, either digital or film type. The better MF digitals are better than the best from Leica, Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc. The Canon and Nikon DSLRs probably beat Leica for jpeg quality, given the Japanese edge in image mathematical treatment and control (firmware), but Raw is the way to go for best image quality.</p>

<p>What do you really mean by mainstream Leicas or DSLRs? You are speaking apparently of high quality in the M9 league, so I imagine that you are referring to the highest price DSLRs? The M9 is not mainstream in price, nor is the D3X, whereas the Canon 5D Mark II or Nikon D700 are probably closer to that. Mahmood is probably right for those of us content to show images on low resolution monitors, or in prints of 8 x 10 inches or under 11 x 14 inches. In those cases, what need for a D3X or an M9?</p>

<p>In my opinion the M9 gives marked image quality improvements over the D700 for example. I think it's mostly down to the (lack of) AA filter though - basically never needs sharpening, and I prefer the colours out of Lightroom raw files.</p>

<p>The reason I have held off on an M9 (or similar) is that I am not sure it is a good investment (unlike my film Leicas). In terms of IQ I can make the following observations.<br>

The difference between a great DSLR like the 5DII and an good APS-C body like the 7D is actually not that big until you print very large or use higher ISO. For example at 11x17 the 7D and 5DII images are hard to tell apart at low ISO. Bigger than this and you can start to see the differences but I suapect this is more due to the lenses than the bodys (I basically shoot L series zooms, primes and lenses like the 17 F4 TS and 85 F1.8). I suspect that the high pixel density of the 7D is pushing the lens performance too far and big prints show this limitation. Interestingly even at 11x17 my old (8.2 MP) 1DIIN puts in a very good performance. <br>

In terms of film comparisons a 35mm film body is clearly worse than the 7D (never mind the 5DII). Even when carefully scanned - I use a Nikon 9000 and 5000. Moving to MF my Mamiya 645 (film) is on a par with the 5DII although I tend to slightly prefer the Mamiya images. Going bigger with my Fuji GX680 yields clearly better results than the 5DII but the negatives scan into very big files (500MB + in 16 bit TIFF) and the Fuji lenses for the GX bodies are amazingly good.<br>

Returning to Leica I suspect that you see more differences due to the lens than the body / sensor. Indeed I suspect that the Leica sensor is probably inferior to the latest Canon and Sony designs (I believe Nikon uses Sony sensors). We are in the realms of digital signal processing and Canon uses a lot more processing power than Leica. Indeed it also manufactures very high specification sensors with state of the art micro lenses and noise handling. I suspect that the sensors in the D3X and 5DII are better than the Leica sensor - if they are not the next generation soon will be as these manufacturers are spending much more on research and development than Kodak was. Of course the Leica advantage is in their glass which is better. <br>

I agree that not using an anti-aliasing filter may give Leica an edge but the D700 is an older 12MP sensor. Interestingly Canon appears to have maxed out in MP density as the new 1DX is only! 18MP. They seem to be pursuing a speed and high ISO performance avenue. While I am not a great believer in DXO mark their tests show the 5DII and d3X test higher than the M9 on any of their tested attributes - resolution not being one. Indeed Amateur photographer in the UK shows the d3X and 5DII out-resolve the M9 - even in Raw although the M9 puts in a very good performance.</p>

<p>This question drew my attention also. As an outsider looking in I had always supposed that image quality was not the only or even main reason for Leica being able to sell almost every M9 they can produce. I had imagined it had more to do with continuing the M rangefinder tradition. Continuing the same exposure control and focusing method so familiar to longtime Leica owners. I think that even if Leica had brought out a bang on hi spec digital rangefinder but it didn't handle as close as possible to a film M then it would have been a failure no matter it's image quality. For myself I would love to have a digital SLR that has manual focus and has the same exposure controls in the same place and has the same feel as my OM-1.</p>

<p>Yeah.....the chance that will happen is about the same chance as me flapping my arms and flying to the moon.</p>

<p>It isn't just the camera. Leica lenses are just superb. The build quality on Leica's is always first class. Engineering can sometimes go awry, but the quality is top notch.</p>

<p>I guess this has been mentioned before elsewhere, but another reason for choosing the M9 (or M8) is their very small footprint compared to the considerably larger Canon and Nikon full frame digital systems. Maybe an M10 will someday offer even better performance, but the fact that Leica is a comparatively small company and their sensor provider (Kodak) has sold that part of their business may make it more difficult for Leica to continue its digital camera development in the short term. On the other hand, an M10 may be far in the future, given the record digital camera sales of Leica this year and the demand for the M9.</p>

<p>Now I've always loved rangefinders and have owned many including a IIIf and an M6 but, give me a middle of the road digital camera with auto focus and a good zoom lens and any perceived superiority of Leica over everything else will disappear in a hurry. Those old tech cameras with their fixed focal length lenses and manual focus just can't keep up anymore.</p>

<p>Canon has nothing to worry about as far as market share goes, so they might as well make their newest & best full-frame sensor available to Leica. Different animal in comparison to manual focus rangefinder. No one who is willing to spend $8K on a M-9P is even considering the full-frame DSLR, so Canon would be wise to let Leica use it's best sensor. Otherwise they're missing out on a nice sale.</p>

<p>I haven't borrowed a M-9 yet to play with. I would love the chance, and it will happen sooner rather than later. I love the Leica glass with my results from my M-6TTL's. Color, sharpness, shadow detail, etc. I can drum scan a neg and make murals. So the sensor and it's firmware/processing are key.</p>

IQ is one thing, compactness is another.

 

You've also got build quality, and amazing lenses.

 

But in my view, the main advantage lies in the fact that I am pretty sure I cannot get the pictures (portraits) I get with my

M with anything else than a RF. And there's the huge pleasure to use something so straightforward : distance, aperture

and speed, nothing else.

<p>I'm a freelance photojournalist, and the camera I use for "work" is a Nikon DSLR. But for my personal projects and documentary work, it's my Leica M8.2.</p>

<p>The reasons are two fold. One reason is form factor. My Nikon rigs, besides being pounds heavier with their high end zoom lenses, power grips, and flash units, are also much larger and can be intimidating to who, what, when, and where I am shooting. My Leica M8.2 is so small and unobtrusive as to not be intimidating, and to allow for more intimate shooting. Being mostly manual, it also helps me slow down, which in my documentary work is really important (whereas for my PJ work, getting the shot in the heat of the moment is the most important).</p>

<p>The second reason is Leica glass. I am sure the sensor in the digital M cameras is very good, but I think IQ can also be attributed to the Leica glass I hang on the front. From my days shooting with my M6, the Leica glass has always been a standout. No different with the M8.2.</p>

<p>A good photographer can make a good image with any digital camera. I think how and what you shoot can dictate more of what form factor you gravitate to.</p>

<p>Best,<br>

-Tim</p>

<p>I haven't seen anything qualitatively better in the M8 or M9 at all, in fact from some friends that had use of an M9 on a promotional show for several weekends mostly thought it was, in their words "an overpriced piece of crap". Strong words said I, but when I saw the pics, there was nothing unusual or outstanding about the files that weren't going to take significant work to post-process. Sorry. Like wise, I haven't really seen anything on the web by people using M9's or 8's that had any intrinsic wow factor to them at all. In fact, from what I've seen I've been kinda disappointed. Sorry. I love Leica's and use an M7 all the time and would think that the chance to use your lenses on a rangefinder digitally would be very cool. But for the money the pics are not better than any DSLR on the market, in fact they're not as good as the D700, 5DMk11s D3's etc. Just my opinion on what I've seen so far. I'd be happy to be proved wrong.</p>

<p>I think the answer is "no." The Leica does not show a "marked" improvement. On balance, Leica M lenses are generally better than equivalent primes for full frame DSLRs, but DSLRs have some real Leica quality optics available too (such as the 35 and 135mm Canon L lenses), and of course many of the professional level zooms are simply not available for Ms. However, as others have said, this is not the main reason to buy an M9 - a smaller, lighter, much more discreet, shooting experience is surely the main reason - at least from my point of view (I do not subscribe to the idea that rangefinder focusing is inherently superior to modern AF systems). If you want a lighter shooting experience with superb optics and you have the money, then the M9 should be considered for that reason alone rather than for some quest for image "excellence."</p>

<p>Thanks a lot, thats what i thought, i figured the larger pixel count would allow better quality enlarged, but the software in the end would be king, and the camera would become secondary, Thanks for comments</p>

<p>Richard, I think you should first check out Ken Rockwell's comparison of the M9 with the Sony A900 and the Canon EOS 1 Ds MkIII (apparently similar in IQ to the 5d Mk II), where the M9, albeit of lower pixel count (18 versus 21 or 24?) but w/o the problematic AA filter of the DSLRs, exceeds the quality of those two.</p>

<p>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/m9-paris.shtml</p>

<p>In fact, Rockwell believes that the M9 equals or surpasses the very expensive and massive Nikon D3x, but I personally think that Erwin Puts, noted Leica techno-afficionado, is a bit more on the mark in saying that it is a tad less good in IQ than the D3x, with both the Leica and Nikon flagships being much surpassed by the MF digitals (In a recent "Réponses Photo" (Fr.) article the same observation of the Nikon against a 40MP Pentax showed the latter to also be much higher in resolution). Where the D3x and some other DSLRs excell is in very high ISO (well above 1000 ISO) performance, but many of us prefer the lower and moderate ISO levels for best quality.</p>

<p>Personal testing is of course better than reading forum replies or even magazine or professional internet site tests. If I had to choose between the present competition and was going to make the switch to higher quality I would likely go for the M9, not just for resolution alone or the presence or not of an AA filter. I shoot at low or moderate ISOs, love the compacity and connection with the world that the RF clear VF design permits, the direct and simple control the RF allows the user (rather than having to worry about defeating the DSLRs auto features to get what I want), and am also lucky enough to have some very fine Leica optics (even those have also been advantageously used with adapter on the 5D in a Photo Techniques article of a few years back in order to improve the 5D's performance), so the choice for me is pretty well determined by those factors. Or waiting for further incremental progress to be provided by a possible M10.</p>

<p>I am not sure I would really call an AA filter "problematic" - I think that in practice one is more likely to run into problems with non-AA sensors, after all that is why the AA filter is there to help eliminate moire effects - ones you will inevitably get on occasion with the M9 and medium format sensors. But it does maximize resolution of course.</p>

<p>Question, what is an AA filter - please excuse my ignorance.</p>

<p>AA filter is anti-aliasing filter. It is an "optical low-pass filter", keeping the sensor from seeing any edges closer than half of the pixel spacing. Without an AA filter, one can get "beats" (in audio terms), which get called "moire" in the optical world.<br>

Nyquist's sampling theorem says you must not put any information more than half the bandwidth of the sample frequency into a sampling system or you will get false information encoded.<br>

For instance, the CD Audio system uses a sampling rate of 44.1 KHz to encode just barely 20 KHz of bandwidth. The analog-to-digital filter must include a "brick wall" low-pass filter that lets through nothing over 22.05 KHz.<br>

I think the dislike of AA filters in digital cameras is that they do not have as sharp a "cliff" as is possible in the electronic domain. So there is a loss of sharpness well below the nominal pass-band of the AA filter. But the cost is the moire patterns.<br>

I suspect that leaving the AA filter out of the M8 and M9 is being marketed as a virtue, where is really may be a necessary compromise. The M8 and M9 are both challenged by the very rakish angle of incidence of light on the sensor with wide-angle lenses that are not highly retrofocus. This is why the M8 had a weak IR filter -- that type of filter is based on interference effects, and would have had a very different passband for light with angular approach. It's quite possible that a typical AA filter has the same problem -- which could lead to lower resolution in the corners of the image. </p>

 

<p>Interesting idea for Canon or Sony to supply Leica with sensors. I suspect the real issue will be the requirement to align the edge microlenses and photosites so that they do not vignette as much. For an SLR the lens is mounted further away from the sensor (to allow for the mirror) so the angle of incidence of the light on the sensor is not as extreme as a rangefinder where the rear element can be very close to the sensor. With film this was less of an issue as silver halide was not sensitive to the direction of light hitting it - unfortunately digital sensors are.</p>

<p>In terms of Robin's comment on Canon verses Leica lenses I do actually prefer the look of German lenses to Japanese ones (interestingly my Contax G and Contax SLR lenses are made in Japan but "feel" German). I think the difference is due to the design trade offs around resolution and contrast. Of course this is not a function of the camera and my Contax 50 F1.7 on my Canon 5DII gives the same feel as it would on a Contax body. If I decide to buy a Sony NEX 7 I will post images comparing Contax G, Leica and Canon FD.</p>

<p>Results I get from my D700 and 50mm Summicron R, or 90mm Elmarit R are fantastic. Turning the ISO up to 3200 in questionable light and the M-9 can't compete. I'd like to see a comparison of an M9 with 50mm Summicron and a D700 with 50mm Summicron R (at lower ISOs). I'd like to have an M9 but the higher ISO quality is simply not there from the examples I have seen. I regularly print D700 images at 11 x 17 size for most any image the camera produces, even ones shot at 3200 ISO.</p>

My experience with the M8 was that it made excellent images, with better dynamic range and richer mid tones than my 5D. I shot with one a couple years ago before going back exclusively to film except for family snaps. I used Capture One to process RAW files. Leica lenses really shine with this camera. Only thing a DSLR is better for is high ISO, the M8 being excellent at 320 and hitting the limit for me in acceptability in most cases at ISO 640.

 

Results with any camera vary widely depending on the skill set of the photographer.

<p>As everyone knows a good photograph does not require a good camera. But a good camera will produce a better quality image. However, once quality has been achieved at an acceptable level then the joy of working with beautifully made tools gives added enjoyment. Of course a Canon or a Nikon or a Sony or a Lumix will produce a good photograph but none of them give the same pleasure as using a Leica. There are saloons and sports cars that will outpace a Porsche but there is no comparison with the enjoyment experienced with the finer product.</p>

<p>Thanks to John for his account of AA filters, the why, the trade-offs and the effect of the short back focus of some Leica rangefinder lenses in regard to the sensor position. Apparently, the M9 Kodak sensor also has microlenses which redirect light rays such that they arrive at the sensor at an angle closer to the normal. It also seems possible to reduce or eliminate any Moire effects caused by an absence of an anti-alliasing filter in post exposure via software, but I do not know how successful that is (The Ken Rockwell link refers to some such post treatments).</p>

<p>Are we using our equipment at its highest potential? Are we always using RAW instead of jpeg fine, or placing the camera on a tripod, or using our lens at its one or two optimum apertures, or using low or moderate ISO that tends to give the highest resolution/lowest noise? I admit that I cannot always say yes to using the conditions that yield highest quality with any particular camera. Whether I would be using a good DSLR or the digital rangefinder, I would have to recognize that in practical application I may not always be achieving highest image quality with either.</p>

<p>The differences in cameras then becomes less obvious to me. That is perhaps as important in practical terms as knowing whether Leica, Sony, Fuji, Canon, Nikon or other offer highest quality under ideal conditions.</p>

<p>For the poster who wanted to know where to get a drum scan:</p>

<p>Taylor Photo in Princeton, NJ</p>

<p>How big do you need to go?? Ron at Taylor can handle it!</p>