tomlianza Posted January 6, 2011 Share #1 Posted January 6, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) After spending time with the M9 I finally realized just how little processing is done inside the camera. Relative to the Nikon D3, the low light performance is horrible. Working with Lightroom 3 I started to get results that were acceptable. If I were a professional, the time spent in post processing would be a show stopper. The real question is, do you want to spend time "processing" or "shooting"? Travel with the m9 is a joy, particularly by plane, so even if the extra effort is required, it may be worth it. The image quality in daylight is just wonderful, so for a travel camera it's great. I use the first generation tri-elmar when traveling and it is a great combination. I made some 24"X36" prints and they were certainly better than any of the medium format work I had done earlier. The M9 requires more than an investment in money, it can be a time vampire. The workflow is more complex, but for some, it may be worth it. It is similar to working with the film M s. Tom M9, m8, m7, m6, 12mm cv,21cv, 28 cv, 35 lux, 50 cron, tri-elmar, 90 te, 90 cron 75 lux Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 Hi tomlianza, Take a look here M9: now I understand it..... I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
chris_tribble Posted January 6, 2011 Share #2 Posted January 6, 2011 Hmmm . I work with both Canon 5D2 and Leica M9. I find Canon WB in mixed light takes more time to fix than Leica + that so long as the images are correctly exposed, there's no difference between processing 5D2 and M9 images taken in low light. Just a working stiff's perspective - but I don't think I'm alone... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elgenper Posted January 6, 2011 Share #3 Posted January 6, 2011 .... I don't think I'm alone... Certainly not, Chris! No digital camera I´ve ever used requires as little PP as the M9. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 6, 2011 Share #4 Posted January 6, 2011 + 1 But the OP is right in one sense, one has to train oneself out of the "automatic" mindset. However, once the PP workflow is set up properly it is very quick. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shade Posted January 6, 2011 Share #5 Posted January 6, 2011 The only more post processing I need is when I shoot very low light with my m9.. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwbell Posted January 6, 2011 Share #6 Posted January 6, 2011 As in the other thread (ISO2500 M9 & 5DMKII) I haven't found the low light performance of the M9 to be "horrible" as you state, rather equal to or better than the 5DII but limited practically by the ISO ceiling. I'm not a pro but i find that post work is the same for me. With the canon files I try to get some "feel" into them, with the Leica files I'm trying to control reds and tweak the (to me) richness down a touch. In low light post the Leica files I'm reducing noise whilst leaving detail, with the canon file I'm usually trying to sharpen to find detail without introducing artifacts. In plenty of light to average light I find the Leica files much more detailed which is what I think makes them feel more "robust" in post. They don't have a greater dynamic range (so I hear) but in post often feel as though they do. I find the time consumed using the M9 is more on the artistic, in the field, taking side of the equation than on the post side. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted January 6, 2011 Share #7 Posted January 6, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Certainly not, Chris! No digital camera I´ve ever used requires as little PP as the M9. I'd have to say it depends. True, the M9 needs less sharpening due to the absence of AA filter. Moire, high-ISO noise, red-edge...whenever they rear their heads, do require a fair amount of PP. And AWB is still not as reliable as it was on the final firmware of the M8. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 6, 2011 Share #8 Posted January 6, 2011 (edited) But WB is just one click in raw conversion.... I cannot say the percentage of files I want to correct on the M9 is higher than other brands - rather lower. But color is a matter of taste, so it may be different for others. Edited January 6, 2011 by jaapv Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted January 6, 2011 Share #9 Posted January 6, 2011 I'd have to say it depends. True, the M9 needs less sharpening due to the absence of AA filter. Moire, high-ISO noise, red-edge...whenever they rear their heads, do require a fair amount of PP. And AWB is still not as reliable as it was on the final firmware of the M8. But if you're trying to do low-light colour photography with any digital camera and you're relying on auto-white balance you're just asking for trouble, IMO.... 7 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted January 6, 2011 Share #10 Posted January 6, 2011 (edited) "Relative to the Nikon D3, the [M9] low light performance is horrible." Why are people constantly comparing an 18-Mpixel camera to a 12-Mpixel camera? It is a given that a camera with fewer pixels on a given (24 x 36) sensor will have bigger pixels that gather light more effectively, and will therefore be less noisy (but also produce images with more limited enlargability). The only directly-comparable cameras to an M9 are the Sony 900/850, the Nikon D3X, and the Canon 5D2/1Ds3. I can't speak to the D3X, but the Canons are about as noisy as the M9 if one sharpens the image enough to overcome the AA filter, and the Sonys are noisier. Edited January 6, 2011 by adan 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muizen Posted January 6, 2011 Share #11 Posted January 6, 2011 I were a professional, the time spent in post processing would be a show stopper. The real question is, do you want to spend time "processing" or "shooting"? The workflow is more complex, but for some, it may be worth it. It is similar to working with the film M s. Tom M9, m8, m7, m6, 12mm cv,21cv, 28 cv, 35 lux, 50 cron, tri-elmar, 90 te, 90 cron 75 lux I am a new user of the M9 too. I came from a Sony 700 and 900. My short experience with the M9 learns that the time spend in post processing in LR3 is much much shorter than before with the DSRL's I had. Most M9 photos are close to perfect and mostly require just some cropping. So I disagree with the conclusion that the M9 requires more time in pp. The heavy "computers with lenses attached" which I had before, did a lot in camera processing, the M9 delivers nice high image quality photo's that do not need a lot of pp! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ndjambrose Posted January 6, 2011 Share #12 Posted January 6, 2011 ...Relative to the Nikon D3, the low light performance is horrible. Working with Lightroom 3 I started to get results that were acceptable. If I were a professional, the time spent in post processing would be a show stopper.... Interesting that you feel that way. For me it's the exact opposite. I find the M9 gives me out of camera files that need less work than those shot with my D700 (which has the same sensor as the D3 you're comparing). I've found it has accelerated my workflow, not slowed it down. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted January 6, 2011 Share #13 Posted January 6, 2011 I seem to spend about the same amount of time on post-processing no matter which camera I am using. I can't speak to the D3X, but the Canons are about as noisy as the M9 if one sharpens the image enough to overcome the AA filter, and the Sonys are noisier. With respect to noise, the M9 is adequate at ISO 1600, 2000 and 2500, but the 5D2 gives me a good ISO 3200, 4000 and 5000, so it is not "about as noisy as the M9" in my experience. I use the same default sharpening settings for the M9 and the 5D2 in Lightroom (10/1.0/25/0). Both cameras produce super sharp files and I don't see the need to overcome the AA filter in the 5D2. It sounds like we have different needs or expectations for sharpness; I just don't need the 5D2 to be sharper than it is. In higher ISO photography, the greater challenges to sharpness are usually subject motion, camera shake or extremely shallow depth of field. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted January 6, 2011 Share #14 Posted January 6, 2011 i find little or no pp is necessary regarding the m9, and when i do pp a lot it is more about trying to be creative beyond what the camera recorded than trying to "fix" the picture. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swanny66 Posted January 6, 2011 Share #15 Posted January 6, 2011 If you are basing a decision on the M9 solely on high ISO performance you will most likely be disappointed. But I have never had to shoot high ISO, so I don't fully understand the obsession some have unless shooting indoor sports, weddings, etc. are the bulk of what you shoot. Then a lower pixel camera would work better. But I find the files out of the M9 camera very good.....as long as I do my part before I push the release Not a lot of PP for me. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted January 7, 2011 Share #16 Posted January 7, 2011 With respect to noise, the M9 is adequate at ISO 1600, 2000 and 2500, but the 5D2 gives me a good ISO 3200, 4000 and 5000, so it is not "about as noisy as the M9" in my experience. People, pleeeease give me a break with all that low-light bullshit. There is one (!!!) stop difference between ISO 2500 and ISO 5000. I can easily handhold a 50mm at 1/15s when needed. With a summilux at ISO 1000 that lets me shoot almost anywhere. In color film days people would have flipped out had they had the low-light performance of an M9 at ISO 1000. Where are you people shooting photographs? Just leave the cameras at home and enjoy the performance when you go to a strip club and take a tripod to the graveyard at new moon for vampire portraits and you will be just fine with a Leica. 7 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotomiguel Posted January 7, 2011 Share #17 Posted January 7, 2011 After spending time with the M9 I finally realized just how little processing is done inside the camera. Relative to the Nikon D3, the low light performance is horrible. Working with Lightroom 3 I started to get results that were acceptable. If I were a professional, the time spent in post processing would be a show stopper. The real question is, do you want to spend time "processing" or "shooting"? Travel with the m9 is a joy, particularly by plane, so even if the extra effort is required, it may be worth it. The image quality in daylight is just wonderful, so for a travel camera it's great. I use the first generation tri-elmar when traveling and it is a great combination. I made some 24"X36" prints and they were certainly better than any of the medium format work I had done earlier. The M9 requires more than an investment in money, it can be a time vampire. The workflow is more complex, but for some, it may be worth it. It is similar to working with the film M s. Tom M9, m8, m7, m6, 12mm cv,21cv, 28 cv, 35 lux, 50 cron, tri-elmar, 90 te, 90 cron 75 lux With a little practice you'll do the postprocessing in very quick... if the shot is good. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwbell Posted January 7, 2011 Share #18 Posted January 7, 2011 People, pleeeease give me a break with all that low-light bullshit. There is one (!!!) stop difference between ISO 2500 and ISO 5000. I can easily handhold a 50mm at 1/15s when needed. With a summilux at ISO 1000 that lets me shoot almost anywhere. In color film days people would have flipped out had they had the low-light performance of an M9 at ISO 1000. Where are you people shooting photographs? Just leave the cameras at home and enjoy the performance when you go to a strip club and take a tripod to the graveyard at new moon for vampire portraits and you will be just fine with a Leica. Please see my other thread for a rational (mostly) discussion on why I move away from the M9 at lower light levels. I don't think it's bullshit, I think it's physics. I would welcome your opinion on my case in that thread. "ISO2500 M9 & 5DmkII" Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted January 7, 2011 Share #19 Posted January 7, 2011 (edited) People, pleeeease give me a break with all that low-light bullshit. There is one (!!!) stop difference between ISO 2500 and ISO 5000. I can easily handhold a 50mm at 1/15s when needed. With a summilux at ISO 1000 that lets me shoot almost anywhere. In color film days people would have flipped out had they had the low-light performance of an M9 at ISO 1000. Where are you people shooting photographs? Just leave the cameras at home and enjoy the performance when you go to a strip club and take a tripod to the graveyard at new moon for vampire portraits and you will be just fine with a Leica. Your photographic needs are not the same as everyone else's. Your "bullshit" is someone else's bread & butter. Have you ever photographed moving subjects in candle light? At 1/15s too many shots will be blurry. A wedding ceremony or marriage proposal can take place in a dimly lit evening setting. At certain times, flash may be prohibited, or disfavored for stylistic reasons. A tripod may be impractical. A lens longer than 50mm may be needed. Yes, the M9 is better than color film. And yes it's an improvement over the M8. But why ridicule people who know that they would benefit from even better high ISO performance? The quest to do more with less light has been a part of photography ever since it was invented. Why ask for ISO 50 when you can do everything perfectly well at ISO 25, right? When the M10 comes along and offers better high ISO performance, the achievement will be hailed as a technical breakthrough and as a self-evident benefit. Until then, do we have to pretend that the M9 is as good for low light as every other camera on the market, or ridicule anyone who claims to benefit from a 1-stop noise improvement? By the way, see what Mark Tucker does with ISO 3200 and 6400. Edited January 7, 2011 by zlatkob 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdtrick Posted January 7, 2011 Share #20 Posted January 7, 2011 (edited) High ISO, Low ISO, Color Film, Handheld, Noisy, Grainy... I just wanna see the strip club pics... Edited January 7, 2011 by 3rdtrick add text 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.