Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/11/08

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Comparison M9, R9
From: hopsternew at gmail.com (Geoff Hopkinson)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 06:06:56 +1000
References: <1978852239.2059731289238665315.JavaMail.root@dsmdc-mail-mbs12> <624311622.2059801289238697175.JavaMail.root@dsmdc-mail-mbs12>

Gene, for your interest, the firmware for the M8 and M9 was constructed by
Jenoptik to Leica Camera's specifications. The improvements (in noise
reduction for example) were in part a result of a cooperation with
researchers at the University of Cologne (Universit?t zu K?ln).

Cheers
Geoff
http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman


On 9 November 2010 03:51, <grduprey at mchsi.com> wrote:

> Mark,
>
> I'm not saying the imaging qualities of the M9 sensor are inferior, as I'm
> sure they are far better.  However, what I am saying is that whoever Leica
> is using for their firmware on the M8/9 does not have the experience or
> expertise in the color management/dynamic range area as Imacon's people.
>  Probably why Hasselblad bought them and then cancelled the contract with
> Leica, among other reasons.  After all, for 2 10.3MB sensors, one has image
> files of 10 MB, and the other has files of 19MB, there has to be allot more
> going on in the firmware for such a large difference.  Yes, I know the M9 
> is
> 18MB, so the comparison is for the M8 and DMR here.
>
> Cheers,
> Gene
>
>


In reply to: Message from grduprey at mchsi.com (grduprey at mchsi.com) ([Leica] Comparison M9, R9)