M9 high iso

[Alnitak]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just to give you all some idea of what I am shooting click on the Gallery Night here MobileMe Gallery

The night video under movies was when I borrowed a 5D to shoot stills, I was told press this button if you want to shoot some video. After the job was finished I gave it a go, I did not adjust anything, the camera tried to make it look like daylight, those fields which look green at the time were just black holes no colour or detail visible. If shooting for real I would of knocked a couple of stops off. It goes to show what these cameras can see. Hand held at over 100mph.

Needles to say the pictures look soft and grainy on the web, but make very nice 30x40 inch prints.

 

Kevin.

 

Nice stuff, Kevin. I'm actually in London right now for work, and I enjoyed the Canary Wharf shots. I don't think that you find the Leica M9 to be better for this work. It's a great thing that you know Jono and can actually check out the M9 in hand. Jono can also give you his opinion on this matter.

 

As for the WATE, that is a great lens. It does have some distortion, but what wide angle zoom doesn't? The trade off is very sharp corners.

 

Given what you are asking, I think that you should spend the $30 to join Sean Reid's site. He has spectacular lens and camera reviews, and you can see some real-world comparisons that will help you think this through. I'm a strong proponent of the M9 (and was for the M8 as well), but its important to remember the phrase "Horses for courses."

 

Jeff

[Jamie Roberts]

Jamie,

 

I'm not arguing with you

;{snipped}

 

You could have fooled me

 

I agree with you that a Noctilux is going to give a look that you can't get elsewhere, but that's not what the OP was asking. I would also put forth that much of what makes the Noctilux so great isn't necessarily visible in night time shots like the OP was showing us.

Oddly, that's exactly what he was asking--specifically about a Noctilux

 

In fact, it would be a bad choice for his helicopter shots as it has pretty severe coma in the corners wide open because its designed with a curved plane of focus. Its part of what gives it the great look, but those point sources of light would look pretty lousy. A much better lens for that work would be the 50 Summilux or the 35 Summilux.

 

Let's stick to answering the OP's questions as that's the point of this thread.

 

Jeff

Well, his helicopter shots were not in his original post or his original questions, so we've gone beyond them, really. And the Nocti .95 is not as subject to coma as the 1.0 is, so it all depends on which Nocti we're talking about, doesn't it?

 

But having shot all three systems (Canon, Nikon and M digital) I will say this, as my final word:

 

1) you should be setting your WB manually for the kind of thing the OP shoots. AWB will be wrong-ish every time. If you're going to set it in post, issues with AWB are totally moot.

 

2) at "highish" ISOs (the OP's term) the M9 is not as bad as people think, especially against the higher resolution cameras. The OP's posted work actually has a heckuva a lot more light in it than the shot I posted; he should be shooting at ISO 800 to 1250 and the M9 won't give him a problem at those ISOs at all. I just tried to post some worst case shots

 

3) a full set of M9 gear for those shots will be lighter by a long way than the Canon

 

So in those ways the M9 is as good or better (and certainly the 50 lenses you mentioned, for the work he's showing, are better IMO than Canon's. I'm sure the 50 Nocti ASPH is more than capable at f4 too, but then we're talking about price ).

 

For what the OP does, the real thing I'd worry about, in truth, is the quick in-camera framing he probably needs, and an M isn't the best tool for that. It's also might not take enough frames quickly, IMO.

 

Those are more impediments to that kind of aerial work than the low-light performance of the M9. YMMV

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[wparsonsgisnet]

.... As for AWB, ... the M9 has problems, and it's worse than the M8 in that respect... Jeff

 

I shoot raw and the M8 and M9 give the same w/b in my experience. I started a thread comparing the two cameras, and the shots from both at the same time and place are basically indistinguishable.

 

I don't disparage the shooting of jpeg's, but w/b is not their strength.

[Alnitak]

;{snipped}

 

You could have fooled me

 

Oddly, that's exactly what he was asking--specifically about a Noctilux

 

Well, his helicopter shots were not in his original post or his original questions, so we've gone beyond them, really. And the Nocti .95 is not as subject to coma as the 1.0 is, so it all depends on which Nocti we're talking about, doesn't it?

 

But having shot all three systems (Canon, Nikon and M digital) I will say this, as my final word:

 

1) you should be setting your WB manually for the kind of thing the OP shoots. AWB will be wrong-ish every time. If you're going to set it in post, issues with AWB are totally moot.

 

2) at "highish" ISOs (the OP's term) the M9 is not as bad as people think, especially against the higher resolution cameras. The OP's posted work actually has a heckuva a lot more light in it than the shot I posted; he should be shooting at ISO 800 to 1250 and the M9 won't give him a problem at those ISOs at all. I just tried to post some worst case shots

 

3) a full set of M9 gear for those shots will be lighter by a long way than the Canon

 

So in those ways the M9 is as good or better (and certainly the 50 lenses you mentioned, for the work he's showing, are better IMO than Canon's. I'm sure the 50 Nocti ASPH is more than capable at f4 too, but then we're talking about price ).

 

For what the OP does, the real thing I'd worry about, in truth, is the quick in-camera framing he probably needs, and an M isn't the best tool for that. It's also might not take enough frames quickly, IMO.

 

Those are more impediments to that kind of aerial work than the low-light performance of the M9. YMMV

 

My point was that you were the one that started the argument; hence you had an argument with me. But hey, I don't turn down a good one when I have the chance, so I'm in now.

 

Again, to the original question, he didn't ask about weight and he didn't ask about "look" he specifically asked about low-light shooting without requiring a lot of Photoshop work. Your points are all interesting but not relevant to his questions. Well, except for your last point about framing, and you are right, its yet another reason an M is not ideal for what he is looking at.

 

As for the AWB issue, that directly relates to his question about minimal Photoshop fiddling. Having shot similar subjects as the OP with a number of Canon bodies, I can tell you that the Canon AWB will actually handle that situation quite well. So, this is directly relevant to his question. I challenge you to guess a good manual WB for that kind of mixed lighting and get it even close.

 

But now I'm done with this.

 

Jeff

[Alnitak]

I shoot raw and the M8 and M9 give the same w/b in my experience. I started a thread comparing the two cameras, and the shots from both at the same time and place are basically indistinguishable.

 

I don't disparage the shooting of jpeg's, but w/b is not their strength.

 

Interesting, but its not a universal experience.

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/gsearch.php?domains=www.l-camera-forum.com&q=M9+and+AWB&sitesearch=www.l-camera-forum.com&sa=Google+Search&client=pub-8364186209947043&forid=1&channel=2480999862&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&flav=0000&sig=DQo5br9nCyuRmRD-&cof=GALT%3A%23940F04%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23CCCCCC%3BVLC%3A940F04%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3ACCCCCC%3BLBGC%3A333333%3BALC%3A940F04%3BLC%3A940F04%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A940F04%3BGIMP%3A940F04%3BFORID%3A11&hl=en

 

I never shoot jpeg, but there are times the WB can be so far off, especially in tungsten and mixed tungsten, that I can't even correct the raw file. This gets worse at higher ISOs, where color blotching can be introduced when trying to correct the WB. I can't shoot the M9 above ISO 1600 in tungsten and get good skin tones. Granted, this is a challenge for most digital cameras because of the relatively lower quantum efficiency of sensors to blue, but it falls apart faster on the M9 and M8 than it did on any of my Canon bodies. That said, I don't do a lot of shooting in those conditions, so it doesn't bother me too much.

 

Jeff

[menos I M6]

When high ISO Leica M discussions go on, there always is alot talk about noise.

 

But as has been mentioned, it is not just about noise!

The first thing, I found out, when using the M8.2 the first time was how little one can get from underexposed shots.

 

The Leica shows streaking very early in underexposed areas, which become very obvious as early, as pushing half a stop in shadows.

Other digital cameras (and the Nikon FX sensors are still king in this respect) show much, much more robust files there.

 

I didn't pay much attention to the streaking issue in shadows in my first shots and was wondering, what was wrong with my printer, giving me the streaks, checking cartridges, printer driver and whatnot.

 

Btw - the issue is clearly seen in Jamie's shot on page one. It might be not obvious enough, so it could be hidden in print. It grabbed my eye though without peeping quickly.

 

I try to do two things with Leica files: overexpose as much, as 2/3 stops and develop with more contrast, to hide the shadows.

As has been stated - the digital Leica is no D3. I really hope, it might be at some time - the glass is so much better, that it really deserves, to be a low light camera system.

[dseelig]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The other question I can carry a 24,35, 50 and 75 all luxes in a small bag. Can you do that with a canon no. Try carrying a 24 35 50 and 85 all L lenses. I like a 5d mk11 but low light autofocus it is not good at that.

David

[jonoslack]

Jono has offered me a M9 to fondle over a pint, well not actually over a pint that would be just silly, but one or two would be close by.

 

Kevin.

 

One needs to be careful using words like fondle

Actually, I also have the WATE, (16-18-21), so you can have a double fondle!

[menos I M6]

Kevin could fondle the body and every focal length separately to quadruple the pint for you then, or not?

[jonoslack]

I never shoot jpeg, but there are times the WB can be so far off, especially in tungsten and mixed tungsten, that I can't even correct the raw file. This gets worse at higher ISOs, where color blotching can be introduced when trying to correct the WB. I can't shoot the M9 above ISO 1600 in tungsten and get good skin tones. Granted, this is a challenge for most digital cameras because of the relatively lower quantum efficiency of sensors to blue, but it falls apart faster on the M9 and M8 than it did on any of my Canon bodies. That said, I don't do a lot of shooting in those conditions, so it doesn't bother me too much.

 

Jeff

 

HI Jeff

I quite agree - Nowadays in daylight I always use the daylight WB, in mixed and tungsten light I have a preset (which I call 'kitchen' and is one of my four settings presets). This was done in some nasty mixed lighting, and produces a 'safe' place to work from. I then have a preset within Aperture which will get the skin tone pretty much okay up to 2500 ISO.

 

It's rather like using just two film stocks (one for daylight and one for tungsten). But with the added bonus that you can change it into anything else later.

 

As for Kevin - seems to me that dumping Canon for Leica for what he does would be crazy . . . but he isn't suggesting that for a minute, he's suggesting adding the Leica, which sounds fine to me. Unfortunately I don't have a Nocti or a 24 'lux for him to try out (I wish).

[jonoslack]

Kevin could fondle the body and every focal length separately to quadruple the pint for you then, or not?

 

Hi Dirk

I don't even want to think about that remark! (except for the quadruple pint bit).

[KevinA]

HI Jeff

I quite agree - Nowadays in daylight I always use the daylight WB, in mixed and tungsten light I have a preset (which I call 'kitchen' and is one of my four settings presets). This was done in some nasty mixed lighting, and produces a 'safe' place to work from. I then have a preset within Aperture which will get the skin tone pretty much okay up to 2500 ISO.

 

It's rather like using just two film stocks (one for daylight and one for tungsten). But with the added bonus that you can change it into anything else later.

 

As for Kevin - seems to me that dumping Canon for Leica for what he does would be crazy . . . but he isn't suggesting that for a minute, he's suggesting adding the Leica, which sounds fine to me. Unfortunately I don't have a Nocti or a 24 'lux for him to try out (I wish).

 

I would not dump Canon for Leica, just add Leica, but I need a good reason to do that.

 

Kevin.

[KevinA]

One needs to be careful using words like fondle

Actually, I also have the WATE, (16-18-21), so you can have a double fondle!

 

I like the word fondle, actually I enjoy a good fondle, I'm approaching the age I can't remember why I like a fondle, but I'm sure I still do.

 

Kevin.

[Jamie Roberts]

I would not dump Canon for Leica, just add Leica, but I need a good reason to do that.

 

Kevin.

 

For the work you showed, I don't think a rangefinder is the best choice, but not for any of the reasons that have to do with ISO, lens choices or exposure performance. I actually think in your case a modern dSLR will help you frame better, stabilize more effectively (IS / VR can't hurt) and expose more quickly. Too bad there isn't an R10

 

@ Menos: the M9 is not the M8 by any stretch--believe me. There is no banding in shadows on the shot I posted, nor on many others I've shot up to ISO 2000 and beyond.

 

Please check the 100% crops and adjust your blackpoint for something appropriate to print.

 

As I mentioned, there is some slight colour banding visible as reflections from the overexposed lamp; that's easily taken care of with something like Define. But even at ISO 2500 this is not the brick wall that the M8 is at ISO 1250.

 

Once more, so everyone hears this: I'm not saying the M9 is a D3. If you need ISO 6400 (and all its attendant problems, and there are problems) then this is not your camera.

[KevinA]

;{snipped}

 

You could have fooled me

 

Oddly, that's exactly what he was asking--specifically about a Noctilux

 

Well, his helicopter shots were not in his original post or his original questions, so we've gone beyond them, really. And the Nocti .95 is not as subject to coma as the 1.0 is, so it all depends on which Nocti we're talking about, doesn't it?

 

But having shot all three systems (Canon, Nikon and M digital) I will say this, as my final word:

 

1) you should be setting your WB manually for the kind of thing the OP shoots. AWB will be wrong-ish every time. If you're going to set it in post, issues with AWB are totally moot.

 

2) at "highish" ISOs (the OP's term) the M9 is not as bad as people think, especially against the higher resolution cameras. The OP's posted work actually has a heckuva a lot more light in it than the shot I posted; he should be shooting at ISO 800 to 1250 and the M9 won't give him a problem at those ISOs at all. I just tried to post some worst case shots

 

3) a full set of M9 gear for those shots will be lighter by a long way than the Canon

 

So in those ways the M9 is as good or better (and certainly the 50 lenses you mentioned, for the work he's showing, are better IMO than Canon's. I'm sure the 50 Nocti ASPH is more than capable at f4 too, but then we're talking about price ).

 

For what the OP does, the real thing I'd worry about, in truth, is the quick in-camera framing he probably needs, and an M isn't the best tool for that. It's also might not take enough frames quickly, IMO.

 

Those are more impediments to that kind of aerial work than the low-light performance of the M9. YMMV

 

Not as much light as you might think, it's about half an hour after Sunset, it tends go like this, just before Sunset is good if the sky is nice, the 10 - 15 mins after the Sun has gone is flat and dull looking, as the ambient to building light ration changes in favour of the building lights being dominant over the ambient, that's when it gets interesting. A helicopter is not a stable platform and my gyro will only do so much. I can often end up shooting at 1/60th at f1.4 and 3200 iso. As for WB, I shoot everything raw and these days I keep white balance set to daylight, I find it easier treating a batch in post shot day or night if the WB is all the same to begin with.

You don't get to shoot quickly at night from a helicopter, often it's wait a second or so for helicopter and gyro to settle. One job was a 360 degree spot turn with overlaps to stitch as a pan, I needed to make sure the horizon was dead level and on the same mark for all the shots in the turn. My biggest worry for that was would the camera focus the same for all shots, so manual focus and exposure was the choice.

You can't dry run this work as it's costly in air time and conditions are never the same anyway. I did lots of ground testing with a 5DmkII, smkIII and a top end Nikon in the dark.

Nikon in some ways was better with the noise but as they are very short of decent fast lenses I stuck with what I know best. The noisiest shots are close-ups of Canary Wharf which was as dark as it gets, even after a lot of post, on screen I thought they looked blotchy so I had some 30x40's made, I need not of worried, yes if you looked hard in the worse places noise made an appearance but nothing to get worked up about.

My reason for wondering about Leica was possibly less vignetting, less camera vibration, less weight to store the vibration energy, more gyro effect from my gyro, all could add up to using a stop or more lower iso to start with plus a choice of fast lenses.

 

Kevin.

[xtoph]

... in mixed and tungsten light I have a preset (which I call 'kitchen' and is one of my four settings presets). This was done in some nasty mixed lighting, and produces a 'safe' place to work from. I then have a preset within Aperture which will get the skin tone pretty much okay up to 2500 ISO.

 

It's rather like using just two film stocks (one for daylight and one for tungsten). But with the added bonus that you can change it into anything else later....

 

i am a bit surprised to see alnitak's comment and yours--if i understand correctly, you're both suggesting that, when shooting raw files, the camera white balance setting affects what results you can get later? i have never found this to be the case with any camera (including the m9) shooting raw. (the caveat is that if white balance is too far off in the wrong way, and you're using auto exposure, you can end up with a less than optimal exposure once you set the correct wb, and that can lead to either more noise than necessary, or clipped color channels. but it doesn't sound like that's what is being discussed.)

 

so i find that the only reason to care about awb performance is if you are basing your exposures on the camera histogram (or if you're shooting jpg). otherwise, in camera wb has nothing to do with the final results from the adjusted raw file.

 

the m9 seems to hold up very well in terms of low light color against my canons, until a certain threshold of poor lighting is crossed (maybe iso2500, f/2, 1/15th or so), after which point it can fall apart very rapidly--but this isn't related to white balance, just overall color capture.

[Alnitak]

 

SNIP

 

My reason for wondering about Leica was possibly less vignetting, less camera vibration, less weight to store the vibration energy, more gyro effect from my gyro, all could add up to using a stop or more lower iso to start with plus a choice of fast lenses.

 

Kevin.

 

Well, as I pointed out, there are more faster choices in the Canon world, the vignetting is not really different in any way (and may be worse on the M9 due to the design of the camera), and as for weight, the M9 and lenses are small, but very dense. However, you would save some weight. The 5DII + 24/1.4L II is 1460g, whereas the M9 + 24 Summilux is 1085g.

 

To me, its the small size and relatively light weight that are the biggest advantages of the M system. I came to Leica through my search for the perfect travel camera--one that gave me the image quality of my 5DII, but in a small package. On that count, the M9 delivers like its nobody's business, and while the price is steep, the lens quality is also superb, which is important to me as I prefer to shoot wide open. So, while it may not be the ideal choice for your helicopter work, it might fit a different niche for you.

 

Jeff

[Alnitak]

I like the word fondle, actually I enjoy a good fondle, I'm approaching the age I can't remember why I like a fondle, but I'm sure I still do.

 

Kevin.

 

Actually, fondling my Leica gear brings back all the thrills fondling used to entail.

 

I have a sudden urge to cuddle up with my 75mm Summilux.....

 

Jeff

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped}

Nikon in some ways was better with the noise but as they are very short of decent fast lenses I stuck with what I know best. The noisiest shots are close-ups of Canary Wharf which was as dark as it gets, even after a lot of post, on screen I thought they looked blotchy so I had some 30x40's made, I need not of worried, yes if you looked hard in the worse places noise made an appearance but nothing to get worked up about.

My reason for wondering about Leica was possibly less vignetting, less camera vibration, less weight to store the vibration energy, more gyro effect from my gyro, all could add up to using a stop or more lower iso to start with plus a choice of fast lenses.

 

Kevin.

 

It's a tough call because certainly the 50 Lux ASPH will not vignette as much as almost any other 50 at 1.4, and it will be sharper to boot.

 

But if I can make a suggestion, you should consider maybe a D3s and adapt some Leica R glass to it with the Leitax adapters. You can't really go wrong with a 50 1.4 R Lux, and since you're manually focusing, that would be a stellar choice. It's my favourite 50mm lens of all time, and I'm sure it would be spectacular on a D3s

 

For wides, there's the 35 cron (I don't know if the Lux can be adapted) and, I believe, the 19mm Elmarit, which, while an f2.8 lens, would still give you fabulous shots while taking advantage of the D3s's high ISOs.

 

And Nikon has just released what looks like a very, very nice 24 1.4... So I think you'd be covered all round, to tell you the truth.

 

There's more Leica goodness on the telephoto end too; the 90 cron would be really good as well!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[wparsonsgisnet]

Based on the raves about some of the R-glass, like the 50 and 80, Leica would do well to create a new R-camera.