Leica M9 vs. 35mm film comparison by Erwin Puts

<p>Now online:</p>

<p>http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/camera/page164/page164.html</p>

<p>This will undoubtedly generate the usual caterwauling about test methodology and the usual digital vs. film debates. What I find most interesting is the color artifacts in the M9 photos. I wonder if another RAW developer (or the production version of Lightroom 3) would show less of this effect.</p>

<p>Very informative. Thanks.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What I find most interesting is the color artifacts in the M9 photos. I wonder if another RAW developer (or the production version of Lightroom 3) would show less of this effect.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. Phase One and Hasselblad (aka Imacon) are primarily digital back makers. They've each got a decade's experience selling products that don't have proper AA filters, so they've had to get very good at making "aliasing reducing" software work well. It's necessary, or the either won't survive, or will have to add AA filters (which isn't easy on an MF back). Adobe doesn't sell cameras. 99.9% of Adobe's LightRoom customers have cameras with real anti-aliasing filters, so Adobe never had to learn to make aliasing reducing software hacks. So, back when Leica was partnered with Imacon for DMR, with Jenoptik for M8, or with P1 for S2, they had some decent software. Now, about the only chance you have to get good results from an M9 is P1C1.</p>

<p>Or just make sure there's enough blur in the M9 images to eliminate alaising. Hand holding is a step in the right direction. Erwin put the M9 on a tripod. It's not build for that (the tripod socket isn't even real on the M9, it's just painted on. You have to send it back to the factory to have a tripod socket drilled in if you want to try tripod use. S'truth).</p>

<p>i am not sure if this would make thousands of leica film shooters opt for the digital version just as yet.</p>

<p>Well, I know the results to expect if I ever specialize in shooting test targets to be viewed at high magnification under tightly controlled conditions. Otherwise, I'm not sure what this establishes. Apparently Puts plans to shoot a book on test targets and has established that film is superior for that application. ;)</p>

<p>They should just make an M9 with a black and white only sensor. just get rid of the whole bayer filter and color conversion thing.<br>

It should give you superb black and white files and add ISO speed to boot. I bet a lot of people would buy it.</p>

<p>..........or you could pay about $8 000 less for a nice condition film M, put some Tri-X in, and shoot the real thing. Use the $8 000 to get you to a nice shooting location. </p>

<p>Directly upload M9 file from SD card without going thru printing then scanning then uploading, the result from M9 will be much better.</p>

<p>It's quite easy to produce moiré with the M9, even under handheld conditions. I already tried a couple of different RAW converters to no avail. Apart from (possibly) Capture One, which I have not tested yet, only Hasselblad Phocus 2.0 was able to remove the moiré on the roof in the picture below. It did not manage to eliminate the color fringes around the trees though. Unfortunately, it isn't possible to load the M9's DNG files into Phocus directly; I had to resort to a hack for this experiment.</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>Well, I know the results to expect if I ever specialize in shooting test targets to be viewed at high magnification under tightly controlled conditions.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's a real-world problem. I've shot pictures with a "no AA filter" medium format back and had blue and red aliasing streaking through the hair. Under most M9 shooting conditions, vibration adds enough blur to neutralize aliasing. But put the thing on a tripod, or use flash, and you get wuat Putz saw with his charts and Guido showed us with real buildings.</p>

<p>Of course, whether you like the look of film compared to the clinical look of digital is a separate question. I prefer the look of film, and that doesn't matter how many megapixels are the option. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I've shot pictures with a "no AA filter" medium format back and had blue and red aliasing streaking through the hair.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Joseph,<br>

How did you fix these issues?</p>

<p>I needed the shots, so I did a lot of plain old photoshopping with the paintbrush in "hue" mode.</p>

<p>I've found the best way to avoid these issues is by avoiding medium format whenever possible. My background includes graduate level work in digital signal processing and imaging, so the photographic experience agrees with teh technical experience. AA filters are necessary, and to omit them and attempt to compensate with software hacks is simply irresponsible engineering and marketing.</p>

<p>Fascinating stuff. It seems that on paper, "it would be wrong to dismiss film as an obsolete medium." However, go above ISO 400 and digital capture becomes compelling.</p>

<p>Wish I could afford a M9 to supplement my CL, for when I want to shoot color.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=504260">Martin Tai</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"><img title="Moderator" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/mod.gif" alt="" /><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /></a>, Dec 18, 2009; 04:21 a.m.<br>

Directly upload M9 file from SD card without going thru printing then scanning then uploading, the result from M9 will be much better.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Ummm, the point was comparing what appears on print. You missed the point. </p>