Erwin Puts: The Leica M9: part 5: M8/9 noise and dynamic range

[delander †]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks Mark I quickly read that but it seems that recently Sony (Nikon) and Canon have turned the tables to some extent.

 

Jeff

[Advertisement]

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

[pklein]

Secondly, why do people go on and on about high ISO performance? Can you imagine, in the days of film, people judging cameras exclusively by how they performed with ASA’s above 1600? With respect, the trend betrays ignorance that performance at low ISO ALSO varies between cameras. And given that the vast majority of photographs are taken in normal light, low ISO performance is more important in most cases.

 

The high ISO fetish most likely exists for several reasons. One of them – just look at the pictures you took as a teenager or a struggling young parent: Lots of shots around the table, in the living room, in bars, in clubs. It sure is nice to get clear pictures for once. In film days, it was impossible unless you carried a lighting kit and then someone else got the girls while you were packing away the strobes.

 

Another, its easier on the Internet to see the globules produced by noise at high ISO than it is to measure the truly beautiful, three dimensional clarity of Leica lenses in prints at moderate ISO. The high ISO fetish would not exist without jpegs on the Internet, so there's no point in frying Puts for not showing you Raw.

 

Thirdly, Leica excels in glass. Not just to let you shoot in low light but allowing you to get superior clarity and rendition in ANY light. At the DINs most of us shoot most of the time, the CCD sensor rends better images. CMOS has huge issues. If you doubt, read about moving picture cameras which put the sensor under much greater stress than still images.

 

Regards,

Mark

 

The high ISO "fetish" existed in the film days, too. Some of us liked (and still like) to take photos that captured the mood of the existing light, without resorting to blasting everything with strobes. The beauty of Leica RFs was that you could usually do that, and get superb slides outdoors as well.

 

I remember those film days. There was a lot you could do with an f/2 or f/1.4 lens, a steady hand, leaning against walls and tables, etc. There still is. The M8 gives us superb results at 320, and very good results at 640, both of which are better than Tri-X at 400 and 800, and infinitely better than color film. Even 1250 is OK in B&W if you understand exposure and don't mind a bit of grain-like noise, and it's not worse that Neopan 1600 at 1600. The M9 pushes those ceilings up about one stop, give or take a little.

 

The high ISO fetish is also due to the fact that most DSLR users' standard lenses are slow zooms. f/2.8 is a fast lens in the DSLR world. Unless he's into fast primes, Mr. or Ms. DSLR *needs* ISO 3200 for what many Leica folks can do with f/1.4 on the digital Ms.

 

Everything is a trade-off. Leica chose CCD because they felt it would better capture the clarity of Leica optics as low and medium ISOs. This meant that they couldn't compete with brands C and N at high ISOs. But most people using C and N are going to be using zooms, so they need more speed than we do. The pro or dedicated amateur will buy a fast prime if they understand about such things and they can use them in their shooting environment.

 

The general public wants zooms. The general public also likes to compare easy-to-digest numbers and crops that will assure them that Camera X is "better" than Camera Y. So the marketeers give them noise measurements and 100% crops. This completely ignores what the image will actually look like. If you want to know, look at images at 50% and 33%, not 100%.

 

If you're a news photog or dark-cafe-crawling amateur that needs to shoot ISO 3200 and 6400 routinely, well, then you probably need a 5D, a D700 or a D3. But for most available light where you can see to focus, the M9 is probably going to be fine, and the M8--with some limitations--is also fine.

 

--Peter

[ho_co]

The man used in camera JPG for testing.

 

Imatest says JPG is fine for this test. Don't complain that Erwin believes the software manufacturer. If you think they don't know how their software works, why don't you address your concerns with them? And then let us know their response.

 

 

Seems a strange choice to me as well, but I've been trained that 'RAW is better.' Of course, I don't know whether that holds in this case and with this test.

[thompsonkirk]

A very sensible factor introduced by Peter:

 

"The high ISO fetish is also due to the fact that most DSLR users' standard lenses are slow zooms. f/2.8 is a fast lens in the DSLR world. Unless he's into fast primes, Mr. or Ms. DSLR *needs* ISO 3200 for what many Leica folks can do with f/1.4 on the digital Ms."

 

Let's keep this in mind, & go back to taking pictures!

 

Kirk

[rosuna]

Why do people keep using CCD? Because it's not black and white.

 

The views of a manufacturer: CCD vs. CMOS

 

CCD: lower system noise and higher dynamic range.

CMOS: lower power consumption, better integration with in camera image processing.

 

Regards,

Mark

 

That is the theory. CCDs are in MF systems because those manufacturers haven't alternatives. CCDs are used in compact cameras because fill factor is key in sensors so small.

[rosuna]

 

(...) there is a fond belief that sensor technology must have advanced, without any evidence. By far the greater advance, as reading DPReview will show, has come from in-camera image processing by software.

 

 

Please, stop with that mantra. It is not true. You cannot replicate the results of the D3x or the D3s camera working on the RAW files of the M9 or the M8 with software on a powerful computer. You cannot.

 

It is not a question of software. It is a question of electronics, on the sensor itself, on the A/D converters, on the motherboard, whatever. Additional software manipulation may be applied before the RAW is written, but that doesn't explain the final results. The advantage of state of the art CMOS sensors is not a mere half stop, or an entire stop... The low noise (from RAW files) in those cameras (or the Canon's) at very high ISO values, keeping good DR, color and detail, is simply incredible.

 

CMOS sensors "only" have evolved (CCDs didn't), but look at the last generation sensor in the newly announced D3s and compare it with the sensor of the 5D. ISO range, bit depth, live view and video capabilities... That's evolution... It is a revolutionary evolution, I would say.

[ulrikft]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A very sensible factor introduced by Peter:

 

"The high ISO fetish is also due to the fact that most DSLR users' standard lenses are slow zooms. f/2.8 is a fast lens in the DSLR world. Unless he's into fast primes, Mr. or Ms. DSLR *needs* ISO 3200 for what many Leica folks can do with f/1.4 on the digital Ms."

 

Let's keep this in mind, & go back to taking pictures!

 

Kirk

 

I use almost exclusively 1.4 or faster primes on my slr...

[rosuna]

The high ISO "fetish" existed in the film days, too.

 

In the film days you can separate the "sensor" and the camera. So it doesn't make sense to select a film camera depending on the ISO performance. It depends on the film used.

 

Digital cameras are a different thing. When you buy a digital camera you are married with a "film" too. The film and the camera are the same. So considering ISO performance is logical when you buy a digital camera.

[pklein]

In the film days you can separate the "sensor" and the camera. So it doesn't make sense to select a film camera depending on the ISO performance. It depends on the film used.

 

Digital cameras are a different thing. When you buy a digital camera you are married with a "film" too. The film and the camera are the same. So considering ISO performance is logical when you buy a digital camera.

 

Rosuna: I'm not arguing that point, you are right. With digital cameras, you have to look at the camera as a gestalt which includes the low-light sensor performance, but also the lenses, handling, size, weight, viewfinder, focusing, etc.

 

I was saying that for some of us, high-ISO is not a fetish, it is major factor for us. Which has also been corrupted into a simple-minded deal breaker by marketeers and pixel peepers. I'm saying that if you want to do available darkness, the question is, how dark is your darkness, and how fast is your action? If you could get by in the film days, you will do even better with the digital Ms. If you couldn't, then you probably need a 5D, D700, D3...

 

Those DSLRs have a better "film" for really high ISOs. They also weigh a ton, and are SLRs, not rangefinders. The M8/9 is a relatively small, light rangefinder with great optics. It has a more general purpose "film" that will do stellar work at low ISO, and creditable work at medium-high ISOs. If, even with f/1.4 lenses, you want clean ISO 3200, 6400, 12,800 that you can use all the time, you probably need to look elsewhere.

 

--Peter

[rosuna]

I was saying that for some of us, high-ISO is not a fetish, it is major factor for us.

 

It is also for Leica. They stress the "low light" photography slogan when they are selling fast (and superexpensive) lenses. Better high ISO means a more powerful camera for low light photography. I have only Summilux lenses, but it isn't enough. Stabilized cameras with very good performance high ISO are much better low light tools, and much cheaper. However, I like the size and handling of the Ms.

[mjh]

CCDs are in MF systems because those manufacturers haven't alternatives.

Actually it’s the other way round: if there was any demand for MF CMOS sensors, someone would build those sensors. But there isn’t.

 

CCDs are used in compact cameras because fill factor is key in sensors so small.

The interline transfer CCDs used in compact digicams have a rather small fill-factor so there’s not much of a fill-factor advantage compared to CMOS sensors. Compared to a full-frame transfer CCD as used in high-end cameras the fill-factor of an interline transfer CCD is cut in half.

[mjh]

Hans is read noise the same as shot noise? I'm confused, how many types of noise are there?

There’s shot noise (the noise inherent in the light hitting a sensor pixel, so to speak), fixed-pattern noise due to the non-uniformity of the sensor pixels, dark current noise, read-out noise, quantization noise … did I forget any kind of noise?

[mjh]

I was thinking on top class units.

It doesn’t make any difference. There are no really “bad” sensors anyway. For example, the Panasonic Live-MOS sensors in all the (Micro) FourThirds cameras from Olympus and Panasonic (and Leica) were much maligned for their noise, just like the Kodak CCDs used before; still if you compare raw images of, say, an Olympus E-30 against those from a reportedly low-noise Nikon D3X, the difference amounts to just one f-stop. With regard to noise, ISO 400 with the E-30 roughly corresponds to ISO 800 with the D3X. That is just what one would expect from pixels roughly half the size, everything else being equal. If the pixel size was the same, so would be the signal-to-noise ratio.

 

I’ve done lab tests of about 90 percent of all the DSLRs introduced since 2002. Some vendors have switched to CMOS sensors for some of their models during those years, but I’ve never come across a case where an improvement of image quality in general or signal-to-noise ratio in particular was attributable unequivocally to the sensor technology being CMOS or CCD. What I have found is that there is one major factor determining the signal-to-noise ratio in raw files, namely pixel size, and one major factor determining the signal-to-noise ratio in JPEG files, namely the noise reduction algorithm employed.

[Angelos Viskadourakis]

i think the whole discussion is comparison between M8 and M9 performance in order to qualify the fact that M8 photographers have to decide to spend 10000 euros for the purchase of an M9 in less than 2,5 years from the M8 purchase.Is it a real devlopment or a sales pyrotechnic ? do we have to do the same in way less than 2.5 years for the M10??? is LEICA M DIGITAL in the same production circle as the prosumer DSLR's????If yes then why is so far from them in pricing policy???? i think that we have to ask LEICA strategist to answer ASAP.Erwin Put and all others here are contributing to that direction ,i hope.Also enviromental heat is said by the engineers contribute to noise,is that the point?the point for me is who is paying for what and what is the manufacturer policy towards the users and the support of their product..

[Tampoi]

A very sensible factor introduced by Peter:

 

"The high ISO fetish is also due to the fact that most DSLR users' standard lenses are slow zooms. f/2.8 is a fast lens in the DSLR world. Unless he's into fast primes, Mr. or Ms. DSLR *needs* ISO 3200 for what many Leica folks can do with f/1.4 on the digital Ms."

 

Let's keep this in mind, & go back to taking pictures!

 

Kirk

 

 

We don't always need 1.4 fast lens because most of the time fast lens 1.4 has very shallow depth of field.. High ISO is not fetish but very useful for hand held, low light, deep DOF. Most prefer a mixture of clear pictures rather than always get blur pictures due to shallow DOF (kind of boring after a while).

[ModernMan]

i think the whole discussion is comparison between M8 and M9 performance in order to qualify the fact that M8 photographers have to decide to spend 10000 euros for the purchase of an M9 in less than 2,5 years from the M8 purchase.Is it a real devlopment or a sales pyrotechnic ? do we have to do the same in way less than 2.5 years for the M10??? is LEICA M DIGITAL in the same production circle as the prosumer DSLR's????If yes then why is so far from them in pricing policy???? i think that we have to ask LEICA strategist to answer ASAP.Erwin Put and all others here are contributing to that direction ,i hope.Also enviromental heat is said by the engineers contribute to noise,is that the point?the point for me is who is paying for what and what is the manufacturer policy towards the users and the support of their product..

 

On this point, Leica is right up there on the bleeding edge with Nikon and Canon. Consider the Nikon D1 and Canon 1DS were around the same price as the M9 when they first came out, and lost value at an accerating rate of time. Today they're worth practically nothing. (Good news is the lenses retain their value better.) The more one trends towards being an "early adopter", the more it costs. This is inherent because the rapid advancements in electronic capabilities (pixel count, processing power, etc) quickly obselete and hence devalue previous technology generations. The "manufacturer policy towards the users" appears simple: to extract as much money as possible from customers without losing market share.

 

It appears that the true cost of ownership of an M8 (or likely M9 or M10) is several (perhaps many) times greater than owning a film M if you take into account purchase price, owenership period and residual value. Interestingly, the late model film Nikons and Canons are suffering badly in terms of secondary market values, whereas a film M seems to cost more than ever.

 

To me, I think my M9 is worth it. But, I'm mindful that its not going to be like buying a new MP in 2003 and selling it at a gain in 2008.

[Guest malland]

... How often do you go above a certain speed (ISO 400).

Seems to me that this type of thinking is from the film days: when shooting film to go faster than ISO 400 one would have either have to push ISO 400 film a few stops or buy one of the ISO 1000-3200 film, which most people didn't do because they didn't want to shoot enough frames at this speed to make it worthwhile, except perhaps for a one-off test. Once digital cameras could change be set at these high speeds for a shot or two, it's not surprising that more people would become interested in high-ISO shooting.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Bangkok Hysteria©: Book Project

[eronald]

I think we would all have liked a faster sensor. That Kodak CCD is really past its prime. The S2 is going to have real issues because of the obsolete Kodak tech.

 

 

Edmund

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pgk]

Some of us liked (and still like) to take photos that captured the mood of the existing light, without resorting to blasting everything with strobes.

 

--Peter

 

Peter, you make a very good point. I recently shot a wedding and, as ever, I refused to resort to flash. I used 5D2 with fixed, fast primes and an M8. At no point did I feel that higher ISOs were required - in fact I would go as far as to say that having faster, clean ISOs may well result in more 'homgenised', 'sharp all over with lots of depth of field' and technically superb but, ultimately bland images. Having had some higher ISO files printed, I do wonder just how many people really do utilise the attributes of current cameras to their FULL potential? Some of course will, but my suspicion is that this is not the majority. Tests like Puts' are interesting enough but do have to be taken in the context of actuality as opposed to being to domain of theorists who, whilst they may well be right, rarely provide examples of real-world image benefits.

[carstenw]

I think we would all have liked a faster sensor. That Kodak CCD is really past its prime. The S2 is going to have real issues because of the obsolete Kodak tech.

 

Stunning image quality is never obsolete. Someone who wants to shoot at ISO 100000 should get the Nikon D3s.