Does the M9 have good and bad ISOs?

[andrew00]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hey,

 

I got my M9, hurrah, I'm still getting to grips with it but was wondering if the M9 has good and bad ISO values?

 

Back when I had a 5dmk2, certain ISOs were a little noisier than similar ISOs b/c they were slightly pulled I think and that introduced noise and I was wondering if there was anything similar I should know about the M9, so that I generally pick the 'cleaner' ISOs.

 

I can't remember specifically the 5dmk2 but it was something like 100/200/400/800 ISO were clean and 160, 320, 640 were noisier (or the opposite, I forget!), hence why I was wondering this re: the Leica.

[jaapv]

No, the noise is simply progressive.

[pragmatist]

Well done on the M9 Andrew, It's a cracking camera.

I use pull 80 whenever i can and never really shoot much above 400 but having said that there are some cracking images with the iso up to 1000. A lot depends on your photo editing skills to get the best out of the file. Generally it does not handle high iso all that well and if you can keep it as low as possible then all well and good.

[jip]

Try not to use the 80 ISO setting, just use the 160. 80 is just a pulled version of 160 and only reduces image quality....

 

I go up to as high as 2500 if needed, but only for B&W, for colour my highest setting usually is 800.

 

What you said about certain iso settings causing more noise that the once right besides it, I don't know. But I always use the following:

 

160/320/400/640/800 I usually skip the ones in between... above 800 I just use the minimum that is usable.

[mfgrolf]

Well done on the M9 Andrew, It's a cracking camera.

I use pull 80 whenever i can and never really shoot much above 400 but having said that there are some cracking images with the iso up to 1000. A lot depends on your photo editing skills to get the best out of the file. Generally it does not handle high iso all that well and if you can keep it as low as possible then all well and good.

 

You should not use "pull 80" too much as you are giving away dynamic range that way.

Stick to 160 and either put some ND-Filter or use different apertures if ISO-160 exceeds the 1/4000s.

[mtomalty]

Andrew,

 

As far as I understand, multiples of the native sensitivity of a sensor are the least noisy which

would suggest that 160,320,640...... would be optimal for the M9

I'm sure someone with the accurate technical info will chime in to clarify this point.

 

There was a poster,who appeared to have the scientific background,over at Luminous Landscape

who illustrated that,for 5D Mkll, the cleanest settings were multiples of 160iso and not multiples

of 100 iso as the camera defaults to.

He provided info that showed,for example, that 640 was cleaner than 400.

The amounts,if I recall, were measurable but subtle and in all likelihood would be

undetectable for most practical uses of the camera.

Same would probably hold true for the M9

 

Enjoy your M9,

Mark

[algrove]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Andrew00

 

There have been many opinions about this subject, including very convincing tests some of which counter each other.

 

Not long ago there was a fairly detailed analysis on Monochrom ISO's, but also touched on M9 files too. Search for it in LUF.

 

If you have not read Overgaard's M9 review (he jokes that is possibly the longest camera review ever), where he covers how he shoots his M9 and is different setting for outside, sun, shade, artificial light, etc, it is time well spent. Keep in mind this guy makes a living at photography so what he says adds special significance to his commentary in my mind.

 

I still use his WB method of setting my M( white balance when entering a new type of lighting.

 

Personally, if things really get dark while shooting with my M9 and I am not using my MM, I try not to exceed ISO1250 and many of those images are quite acceptable to me, but I am not one to look at 200% blowups for the sake of looking at 200% blowups. The only time I go to 100 or 200% blowups is during my cloning and healing process to see if there are any sensor spots that need to be removed.

[CaptZoom]

Andrew

 

Coming from the 5Dmk2 to a M9, you've got some surprises coming; some good and some astonishingly bad (not bad per say...more like wtf!?!).

 

I too switched from the 5Dmk2 several years ago. The interface of the Canon (most other digital cameras) doesn't work for, hence the move to the M9. I did not have any image quality concerns or complaints with the 5D. That is until I started using the M9, which is the first pleasant surprise: properly exposed photos are so frakking amazing:). Related to IQ, is utter lack of performance at ISO's other than the base (160). You'll be setting yourself up for disappointment if you start expecting anything close to the 5D's high ISO performance in the M9. There's noise after the base ISO, and for most professional applications has to be dealt with at 640 and above. For critical applications, 800 is pushing the limits. I think I have the auto ISO set to max out at 800, but the overwhelming majority of the time I'm at 160 or 320. That being said, I have used 1200 for color, 1600 for bw, and tried 2500 a few times. Up to 1600, the noise isn't offensive (especially in bw) the way high ISO noise is in the 5D's files. It's hard to quantify, but the noise is more grain like than most digital noise.

In any case, get at least one fast lens for night time/low light use. If new Leica glass is outside of your budget, the Voigtlander 50 f1.5 may be the best bang for the buck in Leicaverse. And I hear real good things about the new Voigtlander 35 f1.2 (though have no experience using it).

Lastly (and most significantly) don't worry too much about the technical aspects. Start shooting and enjoying your new kit. You'll soon figure out what works best for you:)

[CaptZoom]

I am not one to look at 200% blowups for the sake of looking at 200% blowups.

^Worth iterating.

 

The only time I go to 100 or 200% blowups is during my cloning and healing process to see if there are any sensor spots that need to be removed.

And presumably for input sharpening:)

[jaapv]

You'll find noise performanceis better than that. 1250 is ok, 1600 usable. Pixel peeping is not printing. A lot comes down to proper exposure, that means, do not try to protect highlights unnecessarily. There is a post on noise reduction in raw conversion in the FAQ thread at the top of this forum

[01af]

First of all—the M9's noise level will increase with every single ISO step. But the noise increments won't be exactly proportional to the ISO increments; some steps will increase noise more than others. So the noise-versus-ISO curve goes always up but with varying slopes.

 

"Good" ISO settings, in this context, are those at the foots of the steeper parts of the curve. I once saw a representation of this curve ... unfortunately, I cannot retrieve it anymore, and I recall it only vaguely. If I remember correctly, the "good" settings were ISO 160/23° (best, naturally) – ISO 320/26° – ISO 800/30° – ISO 1600/33° – ISO 2000/34° – ISO 2500/35°. Beyond ISO 1600/33°, each single step makes a difference.

 

And why is ISO 2500/35° included in this list when it's noisiest setting of them all? Because it's the best setting when you need ISO 2500/35°, as simple as that. Do not use lower settings than required just because you're afraid of some noise! For the highest-possible image quality, always use the lowest setting that is high enough for the job at hand—but not lower (and not higher, of course). Underexposure as well as camera shake will always be more detrimental to image quality than high-ISO noise.

 

And oh, do not use the Pull 80 setting.

[Paulus]

You'll find noise performanceis better than that. 1250 is ok, 1600 usable. Pixel peeping is not printing. A lot comes down to proper exposure, that means, do not try to protect highlights unnecessarily. There is a post on noise reduction in raw conversion in the FAQ thread at the top of this forum

 

 

With proper exposure. It's no problem to shoot at 2500. There will be ( a lot ) noise, but the result can be very pleasing. Just try everything and don't give up! Mostly I switch from 1600 to 2500 with the 2500 as b&w.

Some exemples without noise reduction.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[wda]

Andrew, welcome to the forum!

 

A lot depends on the subjects you shoot and the available lighting. Most of my pictures are taken at ISO160 for optimum quality. Higher ISOs progressively dilute the quality. For low-light specialists the upper reaches becomes the norm and they deal with noise and live with the results. After all a slightly noisy picture of a priceless moment is infinitely more valuable to you than no picture at all.

 

So, when a situation forces me to use higher ISOs, if the picture opportunities are important or valuable to me, I am happy to live with the results. But I repeat, most of my work is done at ISO160, using maximum lens aperture settings if necessary.

[Bill Allsopp]

I will happily use 1600 if I have to but stick with 160 whenever I can.

[mtomalty]

Andrew,

 

Another consideration regarding M9 high iso noise that some have noticed in the past

is the Dr Jeykl / Mr. Hyde nature of the noise that will be evident in the same image if the content

involves blocks of brighter and darker areas.

The light areas will be surprisingly good and will stand up to most high end dslr's such as

the 5DMk2 ans Mk3 but shadow areas can be, to quote CaptZoom, astonishingly bad.

 

Night street scenes, when shooting in color, are a good example and can be very discouraging

if you're coming from Canon expectations in the 1250 to 2500 range.

Well-lighted areas are excellent but moving to shadows and functionally unlit areas are where the problems

kick in, in my experience.

 

Mark

[rscheffler]

There has been some internet discussion about whether it's even worthwhile to set the camera at anything other than ISO 160, even if you need to shoot at ISO 1250, for example, because it appears the camera always works internally at ISO 160 and pushes image values post capture to match the desired ISO. I.e., the sensor itself doesn't increase image amplification at higher ISOs, rather, the camera's software does it. Some claim that a good, modern RAW converter can do as well, or even better.

 

DxO's dynamic range results for the M9 indicate that the dynamic range loss as ISO is increased is linear. For each stop ISO increase, there is a one-stop loss in dynamic range (their results appear to be based on an ISO interval of 160, 320, 640, etc.). Therefore, there doesn't appear to be any benefit to increasing ISO in-camera. If you compare this to other cameras, some have a more gradual loss of dynamic range as the ISO value increases, indicating there is some benefit to changing ISO on the camera.

 

A good test to confirm this is to do a series of DNGs at the various ISOs, then also push the ISO 160 file in post the same amounts and compare the results.

 

Having casually experimented with this technique, my feelings are as follows:

 

Disadvantages:

- difficult to judge image qualities on-screen, such as focus and composition if the underexposure is considerable

- may run into some issues where the lens corrections, which are applied at greater strength at ISO 160, result in more noise than expected around the image periphery, if the file is pushed a lot in post. This is more an issue with wider angle lenses.

- best results are probably with lens coding is turned off and edge issues fixed in post using Cornerfix, the Adobe flat field plug-in, or C1's LCC feature, however you also lose EXIF values about lens used

 

Benefits:

- noise when pushed 3, 4, 5 stops appears to be no worse than in-camera ISO changes, and might even be slightly better

- less problem with blown highlights - images can be selectively manipulated to better retain highlight information

- shoot at the shutter speed/aperture you want, within reason, and fix later

 

It has been long known that the M9 is overexposure averse, meaning, highlight recovery is difficult because highlights clip beyond recover quite quickly. The above is essentially the same thing as shooting to preserve highlights, but to a greater extreme.

 

Ultimately, the best result will always be a correctly exposed ISO 160 image, and this should be your primary goal. But, if you find yourself in situations where ISO 160 is not enough, preliminary evidence indicates there is no real image quality benefit to increasing ISO value vs. underexposing at ISO 160 and pushing in post.

[pragmatist]

You should not use "pull 80" too much as you are giving away dynamic range that way.

Stick to 160 and either put some ND-Filter or use different apertures if ISO-160 exceeds the 1/4000s.

 

I stand corrected. Did not know that! Will stick with 160 from now on as my base iso.

[IWC Doppel]

Looking at the published noise curves for the M9 I cherry pick 160,500,1000,1600

I use very minor LR4 noise reduction with 1000 and 1600, but still experimenting here

[algrove]

^Worth iterating.

 

And presumably for input sharpening:)

 

No I do this routinely in my PS workflow, not input sharpening. Check out the digital section and you will also see that other s do the same.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[douglasf13]

There was a long thread about this in the past with examples, but I can confirm with Ron that, because of the M9's linear DR (unlike Canon CMOS DR,) pushing in the raw converter is no worse, and seemingly slightly better, than raising the ISO in camera, although it likely depends on the raw converter being used.

 

I shoot everything with my M9 at ISO 160, and just push to taste in LR4, if need be. Ron accurately pointed out the advantages/disadvantages above, although I've been recently doing more tests with the edge correction thing using lens coding, and it really isn't that great with either method (pushing ISO vs. pushing in the converter,) so I'm not sure it's much of a disadvantage. Since I primarily just shoot a 50mm, I don't use lens coding, because the vignetting correction isn't great in lowlight, although I do use the Adobe flat field plugin to fix a bit of color shift.

 

In practice, the "ISO-less" method is kind of like using auto ISO without the risk of blowing highlights. In other terms, it's like shooting a single speed of film, but being able to push each frame, rather than each roll.

 

Ultimately, in terms of noise, the more light you get to the sensor without blowing highlights, the better, and it's up to you whether you want to push the signal with the camera's ISOs or your raw converter's exposure slider.