Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/09/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Tina, First at all thanks for post this, for all of us is much more useful your test than the pictures with advertising or promotional purposes. In my first look, I principally apreciate that the pictures with the M9 are more flat, I think in English the LUG says "washed out", MM is more rich and contrasted, also more rich in shadows and higjlights detail, in other words, better Density Range, MM looks more sharp. My self question is once you have work in either I think that these differences will become less noticiables, except in sharpness and using high ISO. Please don't be worried if I ask myself it it pays the the money..., IMHO I think we would see more difference comparing MM/film or M9/ film, I know, these are two different things and the actual trends seems that are going to the digital way, much more comfortable to use, but myself I can't avoid my personnal point of view considering that is not easy afford such camera. Very interesting effort, thank you again Tina Saludos Lluis El 03/09/2012, a las 0:02, Tina Manley escribi?: > PESO: > > I put up some comparisons shot with the MM and M9. All used the same > lenses (mostly 90/2.0) and same exposures - usually 320 ISO. I used > Silver > Efex Pro to convert the M9 ones to B&W using the Neutral choice. No > noise > removal or sharpening. Auto Exposure in LR4 on each one. > > I can definitely tell the difference in the raw files. I'm not sure > what > you can tell from small jpegs but here they are: > > http://www.pbase.com/tinamanley/image/145788353 > > and the next 7. > > C&C greatly appreciated. > > Tina > > -- > Tina Manley, ASMP > www.tinamanley.com > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information