Quick M9 vs 6x6 comparison

Stuart Richardson · Apr 19, 2011

I was out the other day comparing some 150mm lenses for my 6x6 cameras, and I figured I would set the M9 on the tripod and see how it did. When adjusting the contrast and curves to match and applying basic sharpening to all three, I find them to be very comparable. I love the look of film, so this is not about X is better than Y, but I found it to be wonderful how close they came. The framing is not exactly the same since I shot the 6x6 and then went back and did the M9...the M9 is a little closer, which I guess benefits it.
So, without further ado, here are the shots. Again, this was really informal and meant more for my curiosity rather than for any decisive judgements. I shoot film and digital side by side and appreciate the advantages of both.

Hasselblad 150mm f/2.8 FE at f/4:

Schneider 150mm Tele-Xenar f/4 at f/4:

Leica M9 with 75mm f/2 Summicron at f/2

And here are some crops -- I did the medium format at 50% to give a similar file size, but will include the 100% later.

Hassie:

Rollei:

Leica:

Hassie at 100%:

Rollei at 100%

They were all shot on a tripod with mirror lockup and self-timer (except the rollei...I just used mirror lockup. The film was Fuji Acros developed in DD-X. Scanner was a Hasselblad X5, sharpening for all in lightroom with lots of masking and low radius. I also tested the Mamiya 150/4.5, but the focus was a bit off in this close test. It is as sharp as the Tele-Xenar though, and it was the sharpest lens in the longer distance test. Keep in mind that none of these lenses are at their best apertures for this test...the Tele-Xenar and Summicron were wide open, and the 150/2.8 was one stop down (though it is a very fast lens for medium format and will do best at f/5.6-f/11.
Anyway, maybe you guys find this interesting!

David K · Apr 19, 2011

Stuart, thanks for posting this. I find this kind of stuff interesting as I don't shot film any more and can't help but wonder what I'm giving up. Looks to me as if the M9 has held it's own in this august company.

mathomas · Apr 19, 2011

I've done a similar comparison between my Fuji GW690III and my M8. Pretty close there, too, but the Fuji just edged out the M8 (stands to reason, I guess).

I'd love an M9, but I think I could get by with the Hassy given a good-condition standard kit can be had for around $1200. 'Course it's a lot bulkier than the M9. I'll just keep shooting my Fuji MF cams.

Thanks for the comparo...

Double Negative · Apr 19, 2011

Impressive! Thanks for doing this. I know I've been curious myself.

The M9 shot is clearly smoother (no film grain) but it does lack a certain amount of... "Texture." One thing I've always said about MF is that there's so much more "texture" (detail) over 35mm and digital.

One thing that's curious - the 2/75 Summicron was shot wide open (as was the Rollei), whereas the Hasselblad was stopped down a little... Don't know if that would help the situation with the Leica resolving those details.

Might be interesting to toss a CFV back on the Hassy and see how it does digitally.

kipkeston · Apr 19, 2011

Interesting. I think the blad ultimately wins but they're certainly very close on detail. The M9 is kind of ratty/unrefined in texture by comparison.

jonoslack · Apr 19, 2011

Thank you for that - interesting to know where we've got to.

Of course, these kind of comparisons are only useful up to a certain extent, but at the very least we can say:

The M9 is quite good!

it doesn't make me want to rush out and leap into medium format digital, that's for sure.

all the best

Stuart Richardson · Apr 19, 2011

Double Negative -- I shot them all at f/11 as well, and the situation did not really change. One thing is sure though, the amount of bokeh at f/11 on the Leica is far far less than on the Hasselblad...the difference in format is more apparent.

Kip -- this has been my general experience. The M9 will hold its own up to quite large print sizes, but when you are over 50x60cm or so, the digitalness of it (specifically aliasing of fine details like grass or hair and moire) becomes a bit too visible. At this point the film looks significantly better at very large sizes, even though the sharpness impression is quite similar between them.

But again, I think what is more telling is that a 35mm digital camera with good lenses can get extremely close to the clarity and resolution of a 6x6 camera using a very fine grained black and white film. Ultimately, I like that I can shoot both without hesitation, and as Jono said, the M9 is quite good! I feel it is the first digital camera I can say that about without hesitation. And that includes a 22mp medium format back, the M8, DMR and the D3! Resolution is not everything...it is also about the color and the character of the camera, and the M9 just hits the ball out of the park for me. Doesn't mean I am even close to stopping my use of film though...

Jan Brittenson · Apr 20, 2011

I think one important question is how much of the wall texture is real and how much of it is film grain. If I add a little grain and a smidgeon of structure (in Silver Efex Pro) to the M9 crop it looks very similar. (I may have overdone it in this example. Better would be more structure and less grain.)

doug · Apr 20, 2011

Stuart Richardson said:
... I think what is more telling is that a 35mm digital camera with good lenses can get extremely close to the clarity and resolution of a 6x6 camera using a very fine grained black and white film...

Since the 2/3 of the M9's image data is ignored in a B&W photo and adding color to film reduces its resolution I suspect that a comparison of color 6x6 film and the M9 will make us appreciate the M9 and its lenses even more (and I'm still

there will be no R10).

Double Negative · Apr 20, 2011

Stuart Richardson said:
Double Negative -- I shot them all at f/11 as well, and the situation did not really change. One thing is sure though, the amount of bokeh at f/11 on the Leica is far far less than on the Hasselblad...the difference in format is more apparent.

Interesting. I guess this is where the difference in format becomes more apparent as you suggest - most definitely the DoF/bokeh.

Jan Brittenson said:
I think one important question is how much of the wall texture is real and how much of it is film grain. If I add a little grain and a smidgeon of structure (in Silver Efex Pro) to the M9 crop it looks very similar. (I may have overdone it in this example. Better would be more structure and less grain.)

The added grain to the digital shot does seem to impart more "texture" to the image. I guess a certain amount is just "noise" (grain), but I'm still convinced that MF offers more "real" texture as well. I'm thinking it's more apparent when comparing digital-to-digital or film-to-film.

I'll have to try a test of the M9 and Hassy CFV. One's 18MP, the other 16MP, both with Zeiss glass. Similar sensors and "look" too. Might be interesting...

Stuart Richardson · Apr 20, 2011

Jan -- the grain does help, certainly, but I think if you look at the 100% crops of the film shot, it is clear that there is more detail there. But again, the importance of that detail is up for debate.
Doug -- what do you mean when you say 2/3rds of the image data is ignored in a B&W photo? It is still using the same number of image sensors, it is just not trying to decide which color each one should be...It is different than a 18mp monochromatic sensor, which I would agree would be much higher resolution, but the M9 in color and black have the same resolution. Perhaps not the same "data" in that it is not attaching a color to each pixel, but that does not really affect its image quality (other than to make it black and white...). Maybe I am misunderstanding you...

For the curious, this is the M9 at f/11 versus the Rollei at f/11. I do not have time to do the hasselblad as well right now.
M9

Rollei

M9 100%

Rollei 50%

100%

Double Negative · Apr 20, 2011

It's a tough call. The M9 and Rollei appear similar, but something about the texture of the Rollei... While the M9 seems to have more contrast, the Rollei's details are more crisp and defined... Not so much the lettering and knobs - look at the detail in the rusted sheet metal panel.

But I'll tell ya what... If you have to look THIS hard to tell the difference between MF and the M9 - I'd say the M9 puts on a DAMN good show!

Stuart Richardson · Apr 20, 2011

Yes, I am pretty much with your second statement. But I would say don't pay too much attention to contrast. I edited these separately and did not try too hard to match them perfectly. I could easily make the Rollei match the contrast of the M9, or vice versa.

Double Negative · Apr 20, 2011

True, true...

Rolo · May 12, 2011

Thanks Stuart. Interesting and well presented.

I did some tests 12 months ago with the M9 and CFV in my ever continuing quest to discover whether I could abandon everything but my M9 :deadhorse:. I found that the image 'content' was crucial.

From the same tripod position, the M9 c/w 75mm Summilux, with less than half the 'content' could just out-resolve the CFV-16 with 80mm CFE, but when the M9 was moved backwards to include the whole scene 'content' taken in by the CFV, i.e. matching the short edge of the M9 frame to the square of the CFV, the M9 lost the game big time.

With a 6x6 film frame, the content requires an M9 with a 35mm lens from the same position, as shown in the attachment: first, £8,000 M9 cropped width only to make square format; second £80 Yashica Mat. (This comes from a debate with a friend about whether the M9 could emulate a TLR). For accuracy a 28mm lens might be a better match for content, but then the 28mm would be different from the 80mm MF lens.

Doing the opposite and using the 3x2 135 frame format as the benchmark would no doubt produce different results, but that hardly interests me.

gero · May 12, 2011

It is not only the content that changes, but the relationship between the different parts. The larger focal lengths compact more what is close and what is far (a building in the back would be smaller compared to one in the front-with a small focal leangth-) so you would see what is far larger and thus more defined.

To me, this is the most importan thing about different format sizes(eventhough the angle of view is the same, they are very different).

Stuart Richardson · May 12, 2011

Actually gero, I don't think this is actually the case. A super wide on large format will render objects in the distance just as small as a super wide on 35mm. This is a matter of perspective, not of focal length. For example, if you took an extreme crop from a 15mm lens (on 35mm) and cropped it to the same angle of view of a 200mm lens (on 35mm), they would have the same perspective, though the 200mm lens would have shallower depth of field. Depth of field is a property of the physical focal length of lenses, but perspective (the relative appearance of objects in the field) is not.

gero · May 12, 2011

Stewart, if you had two trees in front of you and a house far away, the trees would fit in the picture with a 90 deg lens with both a small and large frame camera; but the house would be drawn bigger with respect to the trees.

That is what I am thinking.

Stuart Richardson · May 13, 2011

Yes, and it is in that respect that I think you are wrong for the reasons I described! A lens with a 90 degree field of view on 35mm will render the same as a 90 degree field of view lens on say 6x9 or 5x7...the house and trees will look the same. The only difference will be the depth of field at a given aperture.

But, of course, I could be wrong.

To further explain what I mean: If you have a tiny digital point and shot with a normal lens, that lens will be something like 7mm or 10mm. But if you take a picture of someone with that, the objects in the background will have the same relative size if you shot with a normal lens on a large format camera (which would be around 150mm). More of the background would be out of focus, because focal length impacts depth of field, but it does not impact perspective. Otherwise if you shot with that 7mm lens on a digital point and shoot, everything would look impossibly tiny, which it does not. Just like when you shoot with a 150mm lens on a large format camera, not everything looks compressed and like it is all in one plane.

sizifo · May 13, 2011

Gero, I think you are wrong on this one. A 50mm on 35mm will give you exactly the same view as a 50mm equivalent on large format. What will change is that at the same aperture you'll get a lot less depth of field on the large format camera - that's all.

Think of it as taking a 35mm camera and physically blowing it up to a larger size. All the ratios stay unchanged. The depth of field however does change, as this has to do with the ratio between the film/sensor size and the size of the actual objects in the photo, roughly speaking.

To put things yet another way: the relationship between object sizes in a photo depends only on where you place the camera. I.e., it is also independent of the focal length.

Quick M9 vs 6x6 comparison

Active member

Workshop Member

Active member

Not Available

kipkeston

Guest

Active member

Active member

Senior Subscriber Member

Well-known member

Not Available

Active member

Not Available

Active member

Not Available

Member

New member

Active member

New member

Active member

New member