markowich Posted December 29, 2009 Share #1 Posted December 29, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) here is an S2 shot, 70mm lens, iso 160, f5.7. developed in C1, sharpening and noise reduction turned off. please take a look (100%) at the windows and the roof. there is a lot of color noise around, which-IMHO- should not be there at base iso. makes me worried. peter 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/108101-s2-low-iso/?do=findComment&comment=1167730'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 29, 2009 Posted December 29, 2009 Hi markowich, Take a look here S2 low iso. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
markowich Posted December 29, 2009 Author Share #2 Posted December 29, 2009 here is an S2 shot, 70mm lens, iso 160, f5.7. developed in C1, sharpening and noise reduction turned off. please take a look (100%) at the windows and the roof. there is a lot of color noise around, which-IMHO- should not be there at base iso. makes me worried.peter sorry, file too big for 100% (should have known). here are crops. peter 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/108101-s2-low-iso/?do=findComment&comment=1167738'>More sharing options...
markowich Posted December 29, 2009 Author Share #3 Posted December 29, 2009 the jpg conversion already killed some of the noise.... i can email a full jpg to whoever is interested. p Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest farbtupfer Posted December 30, 2009 Share #4 Posted December 30, 2009 Thats really frustrating such noise at ISO 160... but what is it exactly? The RAW converter, the sensor or the lens? Or a combination of all of them? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted December 30, 2009 Share #5 Posted December 30, 2009 Thats really frustrating such noise at ISO 160... but what is it exactly? The RAW converter, the sensor or the lens? Or a combination of all of them? Lenses have no more effect on digital image noise than they do on film grain - i.e., none. _________________________________ Peter - how did you meter that shot? If you just took an overall or Auto reading, that expanse of pale yellow wall likely caused underexposure, which is the same thing as shooting at a higher ISO than 160. Other factors to consider: 6-micron S2 pixels capture 28% less light per pixel than M8/M9 6.8-micron pixels, so all other things being equal, the noise will be 28% higher than in an M8/M9 image at the same ISO and 100% pixels view (but not neccesarily more, and perhaps less in a final print of the same size). By my calculations, at screen size (100% view - monitor pixel pitch of around 100 ppi) one is looking at the equivalent of at least a 75-inch x 50-inch print, or over 4 feet by 6 feet. If your monitor is pitched at 72 ppi, then the apparent image size is even larger - a print over 100 inches by 67 inches. Bottom line: if the S2 is noisier than an equivalent image area (number of 6-micron pixels) cropped from a Dalsa or Kodak sensor in another maker's digital back, then one can ask why. Personally, I don't "worry" about photo equipment. It either does what I need it to - or it doesn't, and it goes back. No worries. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markowich Posted December 30, 2009 Author Share #6 Posted December 30, 2009 Lenses have no more effect on digital image noise than they do on film grain - i.e., none._________________________________ Peter - how did you meter that shot? If you just took an overall or Auto reading, that expanse of pale yellow wall likely caused underexposure, which is the same thing as shooting at a higher ISO than 160. Other factors to consider: 6-micron S2 pixels capture 28% less light per pixel than M8/M9 6.8-micron pixels, so all other things being equal, the noise will be 28% higher than in an M8/M9 image at the same ISO and 100% pixels view (but not neccesarily more, and perhaps less in a final print of the same size). By my calculations, at screen size (100% view - monitor pixel pitch of around 100 ppi) one is looking at the equivalent of at least a 75-inch x 50-inch print, or over 4 feet by 6 feet. If your monitor is pitched at 72 ppi, then the apparent image size is even larger - a print over 100 inches by 67 inches. Bottom line: if the S2 is noisier than an equivalent image area (number of 6-micron pixels) cropped from a Dalsa or Kodak sensor in another maker's digital back, then one can ask why. Personally, I don't "worry" about photo equipment. It either does what I need it to - or it doesn't, and it goes back. No worries. andy, i have the house on the image infront of me all the time and the image looks pretty well exposed. i do concur on your comparism with the M8/M9 sensor. at base iso the S2 is certainly noisier than the H3 II 50, at higher isos things look very similar to me. anyway, it went back to maker. no bother. peter peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted December 30, 2009 Share #7 Posted December 30, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Understood. Oddly, just after I posted here, I read the new "One year with the Sony A900" essay on Luminous-Landscape, where the reviewer (wildlife photographer) says he never cares about noise on screen, only on how it shows up in the print. But, that being noted, I am just not persuaded by sub-7-micron pixels from anyone, using either CMOS or CCD. I've shot with the Canon 5D, Sony A900, Panny GH-1 and several other recent high-count, small-pixel cameras, and just no longer believe that technology is overcoming physics when it comes to trying to cram more pixels onto a given area of silicon without increasing noise. Even my M9, which is still great for its "manualness" and full-frame wide-angle imaging (thus no worries). I'd have preferred a sensor with Kodak's 9-micron pixels (about 11 Mpixels on 24 x 36). I think Nikon has had it right in offering both high-res and low-light ("X" and "H") versions of every top-end camera since the D1. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted December 30, 2009 Share #8 Posted December 30, 2009 Andy you need to be looking at the P40+ or P65+ 6 micron files . They are rocking the house. Not sure about anything in the 35mm class but in MF the 6 micron is pretty darn good even the S2 but the noise levels right now on the S2 are not where they should be and this still needs a little TLC on Leica' end and the raw converters as well. Bottom line the answers are just not clear yet but it will come. Now I will say the P40+ 6 micron is better than my 6.8 P30+ when it comes to noise levels they are cleaner at the full res. files otherwise i would have not upgraded to it. The S2 just needs to be optimized Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markowich Posted December 30, 2009 Author Share #9 Posted December 30, 2009 Understood. Oddly, just after I posted here, I read the new "One year with the Sony A900" essay on Luminous-Landscape, where the reviewer (wildlife photographer) says he never cares about noise on screen, only on how it shows up in the print. But, that being noted, I am just not persuaded by sub-7-micron pixels from anyone, using either CMOS or CCD. I've shot with the Canon 5D, Sony A900, Panny GH-1 and several other recent high-count, small-pixel cameras, and just no longer believe that technology is overcoming physics when it comes to trying to cram more pixels onto a given area of silicon without increasing noise. Even my M9, which is still great for its "manualness" and full-frame wide-angle imaging (thus no worries). I'd have preferred a sensor with Kodak's 9-micron pixels (about 11 Mpixels on 24 x 36). I think Nikon has had it right in offering both high-res and low-light ("X" and "H") versions of every top-end camera since the D1. andy, i know that i am too hung up about on-screen images. should probably print more. actually, printing is a big equalizer.... peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tashley Posted December 30, 2009 Share #10 Posted December 30, 2009 Andy you need to be looking at the P40+ or P65+ 6 micron files . They are rocking the house. Not sure about anything in the 35mm class but in MF the 6 micron is pretty darn good even the S2 but the noise levels right now on the S2 are not where they should be and this still needs a little TLC on Leica' end and the raw converters as well. Bottom line the answers are just not clear yet but it will come. Now I will say the P40+ 6 micron is better than my 6.8 P30+ when it comes to noise levels they are cleaner at the full res. files otherwise i would have not upgraded to it. The S2 just needs to be optimized I hope and believe you're right Guy... but one of the things I wonder about is how cooling is done on the S2 sensor. Noise levels are affected by the heat generated by all that data being shunted around and we know how the back manufacturers have all found their own ways of dealing with this. What is Leica doing? Hmmm.... though I have to say that so far I am not having the noise issues that Peter was having. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted December 30, 2009 Share #11 Posted December 30, 2009 Interesting question ,not sure how they are cooling the S2 . Phase , Hassy, Leaf and Sinar all have different ways of doing that actually. Some are very similar but I know Leaf for a time used fans , not sure they still do. Phase used a basic shut off wake up system on previous backs , mine does not do that now or let's say no need for wake up cable anymore on P40 and P65+ backs. Leica most likely is using heat sinks to dissipate the heat. I know when we did the S2 it was fairly cool out and actually San Xavier 29 degrees out that morning. I know I don't have noise in the P40+ at base ISO that I do know. Now on the review we did not shoot the S2 in mucky weather either except for a few pre dawn images. But mostly shot the files in bright sunny days. I find more value when testing in the blazing sun for various reasons but in the muck i can't comment on. Having said that I see nothing bad in the pre-dawn shots on the S2. Now it was 29 degrees too and I was freezing my arsh off. LOL Camera wins, Guy suffered. LOL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markowich Posted December 30, 2009 Author Share #12 Posted December 30, 2009 I hope and believe you're right Guy... but one of the things I wonder about is how cooling is done on the S2 sensor. Noise levels are affected by the heat generated by all that data being shunted around and we know how the back manufacturers have all found their own ways of dealing with this. What is Leica doing? Hmmm.... though I have to say that so far I am not having the noise issues that Peter was having. tim, we do know about leica and quality control of electronic parts, don't we? ---))) they have definitely built up a record in that respect. i am very glad that my M9 behaves reasonably well so far...except freezing up in cold weather. so far.... peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
c6gowin Posted December 30, 2009 Share #13 Posted December 30, 2009 I hate to hear the S2 didn't work for you Peter. Perhaps you are the first to buy and return the S2? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markowich Posted December 30, 2009 Author Share #14 Posted December 30, 2009 I hate to hear the S2 didn't work for you Peter. Perhaps you are the first to buy and return the S2? mark, it already went back to the maker. after all it was buying on impulse. returning it was a well thought out decision though. on a more reasonable note, my main reason for getting into the S system was that i do love the colors that come out of the M9, while i always have to fiddle around with D3x files to get it right (mind you, eventually i get wonderful results out of the D3x but it takes work). so i hoped that the S2 would give me something like higher res M9 quality files in a portable package. but then again it has to stand up to IQ comparisms with other MF systems, which it doesn't so far and IMHO never will. but time will tell. i should have listened to guy&jack in the first place... anyway, i am pretty dismayed at leica QC. aside from the noise issues the 70mm lens which i had was very weak in the upper left corner. all in all the two S lenses are ok, but certainly nothing to rave about (as others like guy&jack and tashley have already stated). peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tashley Posted December 30, 2009 Share #15 Posted December 30, 2009 tim, we do know about leica and quality control of electronic parts, don't we? ---)))they have definitely built up a record in that respect. i am very glad that my M9 behaves reasonably well so far...except freezing up in cold weather. so far.... peter Well in my experience it's not just the electronic parts! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
c6gowin Posted December 30, 2009 Share #16 Posted December 30, 2009 I understand completely Peter, Hey, at least you gave it a try. That is more than some will do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcusperkins Posted December 31, 2009 Share #17 Posted December 31, 2009 Lenses have no more effect on digital image noise than they do on film grain - i.e., none. Makes sense, but I'm not entirely certain it is true: When I'm shooting with long lenses (200 F2 and 600 F4) on a Canon 1Ds2, I definitely see a little more shadow noise with the 600 than with the 200 at the same ISO settings. Maybe it's something to do with the fluorite glass in the 600? Who knows! Leica also uses some pretty exotic glass in their lenses, so there is a possibility (even if it is a slim one) that the lens might be adding something to the mix. Maybe Peter's lenses were slightly out of adjustment - he did say he was not that impressed. There are so many factors involved in digital photography, it really is rocket science. No wonder Leica (and many other small but brave companies) have struggled. Even giants like Kodak have really struggled with the whole package, and never seemed to have produced a successful camera alone. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfarkas Posted December 31, 2009 Share #18 Posted December 31, 2009 I hope and believe you're right Guy... but one of the things I wonder about is how cooling is done on the S2 sensor. Noise levels are affected by the heat generated by all that data being shunted around and we know how the back manufacturers have all found their own ways of dealing with this. What is Leica doing? Hmmm.... though I have to say that so far I am not having the noise issues that Peter was having. My understanding is that the S2's sensor is mounted onto an aluminum plate, which is in turn bonded to the magnesium-allow chassis, which acts as giant heat sync. I can't imagine that much of the energy is being converted into heat as the S2's battery performance is really quite impressive. In other words, the battery energy is being used very efficiently and not being lost to heat generation. In Germany, I shot for two days in 92 deg F heat (~34 deg C). The pre-production model with pre-v1.0 firmware that I used seemed to have less noise than what Peter is posting here with the final production model. My shots at low ISO looked incredibly clean. Perhaps this is just a byproduct of firmware tweaks gone amiss. David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandymc Posted December 31, 2009 Share #19 Posted December 31, 2009 here is an S2 shot, 70mm lens, iso 160, f5.7. developed in C1, sharpening and noise reduction turned off. please take a look (100%) at the windows and the roof. there is a lot of color noise around, which-IMHO- should not be there at base iso. makes me worried.peter Try with LR 2.6. C1 is not optimized for the S2 yet. Sandy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markowich Posted December 31, 2009 Author Share #20 Posted December 31, 2009 Try with LR 2.6. C1 is not optimized for the S2 yet. Sandy did that. and with LR3. the same more or less. p Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.