↑Leica M9 and Leica 24mm Summilux @ f/1.4.
—
If you haven’t already done so, please consider signing my open letter to Leica.
—Peter.
↑Leica M9 and Leica 24mm Summilux @ f/1.4.
—
If you haven’t already done so, please consider signing my open letter to Leica.
—Peter.
A simple image of our family pet, Honey.
A cliché sort of a thing to do, taking a photo of your pet (in photography circles anyway).
Yet this image illustrates perfectly why I hold the Leica M9 in such high regard: the rendering here is exquisite — the tonal gradations are so pleasing that we are left with the sweet illusion of viewing a live scene, as opposed to a static photograph.
It’s pure honey.
↑Leica M9 and Leica 24mm Summilux @ f/1.4.
—
If you haven’t already done so, please consider signing my open letter to Leica.
—Peter.
–
(those wishing to sign, please do so in the comments section)
–
–
The Stephen Bartels Gallery, will be donating all of its profits from print sales in November to aid individuals devastated by the recent massive storm in the Philippines.
And, if anybody purchases one of my prints at SBG, I’ll donate all of my proceeds too.
—Peter.
–
___
UPDATE: We are getting some sales:
Remember: 100% of the profit will be donated to the relief fund.
Thank you,
—Peter.
For several weeks now, I’ve been running a poll, asking:
Since the poll’s inception, the majority of votes have been for “Yes“.
In fact, the “Yes” vote has been consistent at 62%, with the remainder of the votes split equally between “No” and “Don’t Care“.
Well, today there was a sudden spike in traffic to Prosophos.com and now the results look very different, with the “Yes” and “No” votes split almost equally.
Hmmm….
I had intended to write an open letter to Leica, once the votes exceeded a thousand, requesting they pursue advancements in CCD technology for future M cameras.
Now it seems, somebody has intervened….
Nonetheless, I’ll continue to ask the question:
—Peter.
Stephen Bartels, of the Stephen Bartels Gallery, informed me yesterday that three more of my images are on display at the SBG.
—Peter.
A reader, Marc H., has provided the sample images below.
[Please note: This is not a scientifically rigorous comparison. Marc has generously provided these for your benefit. Any disrespectful comments will automatically be deleted.]
Marc writes:
“While I still had both bodies (M9 and M240), I took a walk around Frankfurt and shot random stuff, just to see how they both render and how the color translates. I set both to the same ISO values, f stop, white balance is auto. The pics themselves are nothing special, but interesting to see how they render. Both used 50mm asph lenses. “
Here are Marc’s samples
(please click on the image to view at MAXIMUM size)
Comparison 1:
–
Comparison 2:
–
Thank you Marc, for providing these.
—Peter.
Please don’t write to me and tell me this comparison is not scientifically valid — I’ve named this post Unscientific for a reason.
I will, however, acknowledge that the M240 was at a significant ISO disadvantage vs. the M9.
However, low light shooting is the main reason I bought the M240.
Perhaps those with better post-processing skills could have done better with the M240 file.
Despite my best efforts, I couldn’t.
—Peter.
Yes, the image quality of the Leica M (type 240) is a step down from the Leica M9.
You have to ask yourself, why did I buy it in the first place, given all my rants about CCD vs. CMOS (and how I prefer the former)?
If you haven’t already done so, please consider signing my open letter to Leica.
___
Related posts: