pnoble Posted October 13, 2009 Share #1 Posted October 13, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) M9, part 5 Rather surprising results, don't you think?! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 Hi pnoble, Take a look here Erwin Puts: The Leica M9: part 5: M8/9 noise and dynamic range. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
okram Posted October 13, 2009 Share #2 Posted October 13, 2009 The results are wrong- this review has no useful purpose for the one who means to actually use the camera. M Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted October 13, 2009 Share #3 Posted October 13, 2009 I expected the noise results, but the dynamic range results are a bit disappointing. It deteriorates fast with ISO increase... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhabedi Posted October 13, 2009 Share #4 Posted October 13, 2009 I agree that reviews like this (and Puts is not the only one) are pretty pointless. If we're talking about IQ (other factors are important as well, of course), then what I'm interested in is how the prints look up to a certain size. This test is for pixel peepers or nerds who only leave their computer to photograph Siemens stars... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptomsu Posted October 13, 2009 Share #5 Posted October 13, 2009 The results are wrong- this review has no useful purpose for the one who means to actually use the camera. M Sorry, but the results are obviously the results and you cannot deny them. It is a completely different story what these results mean for YOU! And this is the main reason why I normally do not give too much on such reviews. But I do not say they are wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
okram Posted October 13, 2009 Share #6 Posted October 13, 2009 In JPG! m Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted October 13, 2009 Share #7 Posted October 13, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) No, I think isn't so surprising : Nikon has a longtime (in "digital" terms) experience in sensors, and lot of technology of its own into them: I wouldn't expect the Leica/Kodak agreement to give something better. They stand up at "normal" ISO values, and this, as Put pointed, is a good achievement. What is a bit surprising is that there has been a sort of general consensus about "M9=1 stop DR more than M8", while Put's test does not point to such a straight conclusion. And... of course, as nahbedi says, is IQ on prints the final goal of all of us... but Put decided to make a series of specific tests on certain parameters: you can appreciate or not this approach, but I see no reason to discard the results he gets... anyone is free to evaluate how much a specific beahavior can or cannot impact his OWN style of photographing... If I could have the talent of HCB or Adams or so... well I would be not so concerned about these tests... , but that's another question. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Wright Posted October 13, 2009 Share #8 Posted October 13, 2009 The results are the results - ok so the M8 & M9 are the same sensor apart from size so is the difference explained by experimental error or is there an obvious explanation I'm missing? cheers Tony Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markgay Posted October 13, 2009 Share #9 Posted October 13, 2009 Well said, Luigi. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrid Posted October 13, 2009 Share #10 Posted October 13, 2009 The results are wrong- this review has no useful purpose for the one who means to actually use the camera.M Can you explain how and why you think they are wrong? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted October 13, 2009 Share #11 Posted October 13, 2009 What is a bit surprising is that there has been a sort of general consensus about "M9=1 stop DR more than M8", while Put's test does not point to such a straight conclusion. I think in the beginning even the paint finish on the M9 was supposed to have one-stop more shine than the M8. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted October 13, 2009 Share #12 Posted October 13, 2009 Reading with more attention the graphs... I wonder how much the known issue of the "lost black values" int 14 bit M9 DSP has a direct impact on them... I hope some of the skilled techies in the forum has something to say about; I instinctively keep my idea that Leica has still something to do on M9 firmware... imho the 14 bit processing has not yet been exploited completely. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted October 13, 2009 Share #13 Posted October 13, 2009 I think in the beginning even the paint finish on the M9 was supposed to have one-stop more shine than the M8. it was deeply discussed, indeed... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgray Posted October 13, 2009 Share #14 Posted October 13, 2009 What is a bit surprising is that there has been a sort of general consensus about "M9=1 stop DR more than M8", while Put's test does not point to such a straight conclusion. I think this is a conclusion that is reached by printing/viewing an M9 file at the same size as an M8 file. Twice as much area on the chip, twice as much light gathered, twice as much signal in the final print. (per pixel) noise is roughly the same due to the similarities in the chip designs. Thus, about a one stop improvement. Looks like Put's test is more on the pixel level if I understood his methodologies correctly. Or take an M9 image and downsize it to 10 mp, then compare to the M8. Should be better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted October 13, 2009 Share #15 Posted October 13, 2009 I see no reason to say that Mr. Puts' results and his conclusions are wrong. And I don't know wether different parameters of different cameras he compares change the results he is looking for. Though what I don't understand is just why he does not use the same - or more equal - parameters. The Exifs of his graphs show that the Nikon was used at f1:2.8 and 1/200 sec while the Leicas were used at f 1:1.0 and 1/1000 sec. While the file sizes for the Nikon and the M8 were both about 3900:2600, those for the M9 were about 5200:3400. Why? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ModernMan Posted October 13, 2009 Share #16 Posted October 13, 2009 The results seem consistent with my unscientific experience. The M9 IQ looks great (meaning similar in quality, but a different look) compared to my DSLR (in my case a 5DII) at up to somewhere around ISO 640-1200. The M9 suffers more IQ degradtion than the DSLR as ISO increases from there, and by ISO 2500 the DSLR is significantly better. I'm fine with that. The Leica sensor will no doubt be improved in future camera models, and probably the DSLR's will sustain their relative advantage. However, the advancements will be marginal compared with the quantum leap of finally having a full frame digital M to shoot with. I must add that Leica M9 sensor performance is not typically the limiting factor in the IQ of my results. And I daresay it handily beats Tri-X cooked to ISO 1000 in Accufine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenerrolrd Posted October 13, 2009 Share #17 Posted October 13, 2009 Each time I read Erwin s reports I come away with a head ache....and this is not because I don t appreciate his expertise and effort. At the same time I learn something new about my M s so I look for insights. My experience with the M8 and the M9 is that DR is very competitive with the Nikon sensors at the lower ISO levels . The fall off in performance is pretty significant as ISO increases. This doesn t mean that you can t get great results..it does mean that you better nail the exposure because you have less room for error. I am however surprised that his tests showed the M8/M9 to be essentially the same in DR. This does make sense in that the sensor itself is the same (just different sizes). So how do I reconcile my own tests of the M9 .....the files at 1000 look like my M8 files at 640 ....I would certainly credit the M9 as having an effective advantage of +1EV in high ISO performance .... But then they were not a real test of DR ..I was looking at the effects of noise..where the larger sensor (requiring lower magnification to achieve the same image size) .....looks cleaner. I guess if you disagree ..you might spend time on reducing noise at higher ISO lev els...and call the results acceptable ......but this will not bring back the DR. Or as Erwin suggests you can look at real quality at ISO 400 and work with faster lens ,better techniques etc . Seems like a reasonable point of view based on my experience. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbelyaev Posted October 13, 2009 Share #18 Posted October 13, 2009 These results match my personal observations. The dynamic range of M8 is similar to DR of Astia film, which is about 5-6 stops. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhabedi Posted October 13, 2009 Share #19 Posted October 13, 2009 So, if Mr. Puts thinks the M9 loses against the D3x, what will he think once he has tested it against the D3s? ISO 102,400, oh my... British Journal of Photography - The devil is in the detail Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
smb Posted October 13, 2009 Share #20 Posted October 13, 2009 Overall aren't the quality of the images on both cameras extemely high. Doesn't one need to look at other criteria for the final judgment as to purchase. Nikon v. Leica is like choosing a sports car when it comes to speed. How often do you go above a certain speed (ISO 400). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.