t024484 Posted October 15, 2009 Share #121 Posted October 15, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'm sure this was a typo, but shot noise is from photons, not electrons. 100% correct. Thank you. Hans Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 15, 2009 Posted October 15, 2009 Hi t024484, 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!
Angelos Viskadourakis Posted October 15, 2009 Share #122 Posted October 15, 2009 Your figures are completely in line with my figures. 7.3/7.73, 9.0/9.17, 10.1/10.1 all at ISO 160, but quite different from Erwins results.The point is that we are looking at is at higher ISO values, because ISO 160 is accepted by all as a no problem zone. Hans i dont remember but i believe that i shot both cameras at 640 ASA as a cinematographer i like to test a medium by bracketing as far up and down and then evaluate visually,i believe i did the same at 640 asa in M8 and CANON 5D - because i needed the leeway in lens fstops -and then i choose the one that looks it had the better DR,i will try to find the files and report.Normaly i test systems in their optimum settings and in the 5,6 f stop on the lens in order to over/under expose during the test as far as possible.Anything around 10-11 stops with good/acceptable quality is more than good enough for almost all realistically represented subjects.Again i like to remind that the discussion for me is how much more offer us the M9 to deserve the 10000 euros in less than 2,5 years for the M8 PHOTOGRAPHERS.Considering that there is no way to spare the M8.2 for the newcomer,nooooooooway guys,ofcourse is always fun to buy something new and in those rather depressive -economy wise-moment is quite uplifting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgray Posted October 15, 2009 Share #123 Posted October 15, 2009 100% correct. Thank you. Hans No problem. I deal with photon shot noise everyday. My sensor has 1mm^2 pixels, but there are only 32 of them Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angelos Viskadourakis Posted October 15, 2009 Share #124 Posted October 15, 2009 i dont remember but i believe that i shot both cameras at 640 ASA as a cinematographer i like to test a medium by bracketing as far up and down and then evaluate visually,i believe i did the same at 640 asa in M8 and CANON 5D - because i needed the leeway in lens fstops -and then i choose the one that looks it had the better DR,i will try to find the files and report.Normaly i test systems in their optimum settings and in the 5,6 f stop on the lens in order to over/under expose during the test as far as possible.Anything around 10-11 stops with good/acceptable quality is more than good enough for almost all realistically represented subjects.Again i like to remind that the discussion for me is how much more offer us the M9 to deserve the 10000 euros in less than 2,5 years for the M8 PHOTOGRAPHERS.Considering that there is no way to spare the M8.2 for the newcomer,nooooooooway guys,ofcourse is always fun to buy something new and in those rather depressive -economy wise-moment is quite uplifting. and continuing it looks that the M9 major changes are in the ergonomics and software and adjustments in the circuit as was mentioned from some members with top excellent electronic knowledge why they WERE NOT APPLIED IN THE M8(without the larger sensor)-easily and of course at a fee- AS IT WAS PROMISED MANY TIMES IN THE PAST AND THE COMPANY WAS OBLIGED TO DO but instead THE same but larger sensor was added IN THE PACK just to justify it is a new model.Someone in the company has to answer now that all the facts are here well exposed in that thread quite and in depth explained.Thank all the contributors in the thread that made the point so obvious. From my understanding from the excellent thread is that the decrease in NOISE over 640 in M9 comes mostly from software and circuit improvements and less from the sensor -so why is not offered to us to improve our M8,M8.2s with a visit in the factory at the needed cost AS WAS ANNOUNCED/DECLARED AND PROMISED FROM DAY ONE OF M8 JUST 2,5 YEARS AGO?????????????????????That would keep the M8 prices where they should and deserve to stay-WILL ALSO ADD TO THE M9 ACTUAL VALUE - and will be in line with the LEICA ethics-commercial ethics- that kept the company in business Definitely will add profit to the company. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
georg Posted October 15, 2009 Share #125 Posted October 15, 2009 "From my understanding from the excellent thread is that the decrease in NOISE over 640 in M9 comes mostly from software and circuit improvements and less from the sensor -so why is not offered to us..." They would have to design a new sensor board combining the new converters and signal paths of the M9 with the sensor of the M8. If I remember correctly, this board alone (including sensor + adjustment) costs about as much as a M8 is worth today. It's not a technical question, they could even put the full-frame sensor and processing into an old M8 but it would be too expensive to justify. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ModernMan Posted October 15, 2009 Share #126 Posted October 15, 2009 I think you have this wrong. Those that really "lost" money are people who bought the M8.2 shortly before the M9 introduction. It cost more than the original M8 and the second hand prices are rock bottom now. Hmmm, hard to argue with the data in this instance. The point I was trying to make (and didn't articulate well) was that early adopters usually pay a premium, as the price is reduced (or price/performance increased) over time. I have had almost >2.5 years of use with my M8 and did not spend money on upgrading. So my balance sheet is 4200(cost)-1500(resale)=2700 Euro in 32 months, i.e. less than 100 Euros/month. Not too bad for a serious hobby. Not bad at all. "Car guys" routinely lose an order of magnitide more than that over the same time period. And any assocaited lens investments you made will probably endure well over the long term. The M9's value won't endure as well as film M's generally have, but that's fine -- we could have bought government bonds if enduring liquid value was paramount. Life's short -- 100 Euros/month was a good deal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angelos Viskadourakis Posted October 15, 2009 Share #127 Posted October 15, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) dearest George your reply sounds like LEICAS sales excusions,and just the shutter and sapphire glass and lens coding cost almost that and it was paid and that supported the company in a realy grief moment with only one product in the market,there are no excuses,sorry,there is only the NOT KEEPING MY PROMISES AND FORGOT WHAT I WAS SAYING WHEN YOU WERE BUYING attitude.Plus i'm sorry to say what you are mentioning is not as costly as you are mentioning,company representative claim that trying to escape the tight corner,i see no need to repeat that so poor-and kind of insulting- excuse in that thread.If someone cannot do what he promised and is obliged to HE JUST HAVE TO TRY A LITTLE HARDER.They can just say that "we need the fresh sales desparately and we have to use all of our resources in the M9 & S2 & X1 production line and sales and we will fulfill our obligation after we achieve our initial sales target" we will understand and we will support the same way as we did when we bought the M8 with all its idiosyncrasies just to support the company and keep M SYSTEM into the digital world. I will not mention the LEICA R situation in that thread but......................................................................... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
autillo Posted October 16, 2009 Share #128 Posted October 16, 2009 The point is: do you want shooting a digital rangefinder? there's only a way...m9, m8 or epson... we may agree or disagree with megapixels or noise... but if we want use a digital rangefinder we haven't more choices. In my opinion nikon and canon sensors are better than leica at medium-hight iso, but... at low iso leica is a winner, and it has a diferente look, of course shooting rangefinder has advantages and disvantages, there are people who prefer rangefinders... they have poor iso levels?,yes....they have poor batery life?, yes...and others, but in my opinion shooting in the basic and simple style with an M improves your photography and gives you freedom: less weight, less options, less extras... more photography, more concentration in the images. IN a recent wedding I shoot 150 shots witht the m8 and 1000 with the d700, 70 shots from the leica m8 were choosen to print an album, 50 photos were chosen for the d700... that's why I prefer shooting with a rangefinder. saludos from Spain (no M9's here) daniel belenguer Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
georg Posted October 16, 2009 Share #129 Posted October 16, 2009 I thought that it was a shame that they increased the upgrade-prices by 50% to "kill" the need for updates... But it's a given fact that the nice body, mechanics and viewfinder-system is not very expensive in comparison to the digital compartment. Let's imagine the MDFBs of Hasselblad/Fuji/Phase were connected to the body in factory. A new MFDB is released and you want to replace yours while keeping the body, so you send it to the customer service. Then they give you a MFDB with about 2-8times the price of your body , you would have paid about 10-30% less than actually getting a whole new body+back! It's not too different from the M8. The whole sensor board (without the cost for development of a new one) costs about 2000$ (am I correct?) - would you spend so much money on your M8 instead of selling it to a new happy user who cannot afford a new one and get a M9 instead? By the way, why doesn't Canon or Nikon offer any upgrade-solutions? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicaiste Posted October 16, 2009 Share #130 Posted October 16, 2009 From my understanding from the excellent thread is that the decrease in NOISE over 640 in M9 comes mostly from software and circuit improvements and less from the sensor -so why is not offered to us to improve our M8,M8.2s with a visit in the factory at the needed cost AS WAS ANNOUNCED/DECLARED AND PROMISED FROM DAY ONE OF M8 JUST 2,5 YEARS AGO IMO, it is mainly the bigger sensor which improve the quality of the prints at higher ISO. AFAIK, it was not from day one, but 16 months later that Mr.Lee thoughtlessly promised perpetual upgrades. I have to confess that I never trusted him on that and certainly not for major upgrades. For me, the M8 was an obligatory passage, but the real goal was a FF M. Any diversion from it was wasted time and energy. I have both cameras and I was never really tempted to upgrade the M8, but I will keep it as a backup. I was perfectly happy with the firmware upgrades. And I am waiting for a new one, but only for the M9. Lucien Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted October 16, 2009 Share #131 Posted October 16, 2009 dearest George your reply sounds like LEICAS sales excusions,...but......................................................................... Imagine Leica would offer an upgrade from the M8 to the M9-sensor for 4000,-€. They would keep their promise, for there has never been a promise, that any upgrade would be for free or causing losses for Leica. The M8 user who paid 4000,-€ in 2008 would have paid around 8000,- € for using his upgraded M8 after having used it before in the original version and having one camera. If the same user bought a M9 he would have to pay 9500,- € and have 2 cameras. He might sell his M8 for 1500,-€ and have a new M9 after having used the M8 before. Does upgrading the M8 make sense for the user? Which price would you accept for the upgrade? You may criticise Leica for not fulfilling promises they made. What do you expect? Fulfilling promises at Leica's and the user's loss? If you look at the words's Mr. Lee used when he made his senseless promise you may find out one funny thing: he almost used the same words Oskar Barnack had used in 1932, when the Leica II was introduced: Leitz promised that all future improvements could be installed in an existing Leica. Leitz broke that promise, when they introduced the IIIc, for you could not upgrade a Leica II to a IIIc, they broke it again with the Leica M, for there was no way to upgrade a screwmount to M, they broke it with the M8, for you could not upgrade the M1- M7 to a digital M, and they broke it with the M9. You can go on demanding Leica to fulfill all the broken promises Oskar Barnack gave in 1932, or leaving Leica. I am sure you find many producers who upgrade their products from 1932 to the standards of 2009. Technology does not count, economy does not count, it's all about promises. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angelos Viskadourakis Posted October 16, 2009 Share #132 Posted October 16, 2009 You may criticise Leica for not fulfilling promises they made. What do you expect? Fulfilling promises at Leica's and the user's loss? your maths are not quite in parallel with the actual cost and if you look just a little deeper you will see that owner and LEICA will profit in long but also in short term.M9 is far from the complete the FF M camera and you will see it very soon .Keep an eye and i will promptly post the politics of other companies ,you will be very surprised.If you like to argue for the shake of argument is ok but not very productive.Canon offers upgrades with much more loaded new functions with giant steps in all levels and always at lower price-please dont try to find one example in thousands of cases just for arguing.If you really enjoy buying LEICA bodies every second year thats fine with me but you cannot forced me to accept that as normal.LEE was not the first to talk about constant evolution ,it was said from day one knowing the draw backs of M8 ,also LEE was the head at the M8 birth so is not just someone is the CEO that brought M8 and all M SYSTEM INTO DIGITAL.If you dont want your M8 to be improved is ok with me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
georg Posted October 16, 2009 Share #133 Posted October 16, 2009 Just destroy your sensor and send your M8 for repair - the sensor board IS expensive (and cannot be removed from the sensor itself). Canon offers upgrades? I can upgrade a 5D to a 5DMk2 or a 1ds to MkII or MkIII? That's new to me. Mr. Lee was CEO when the M8 was introduced but development started long before. I would love to upgrade my M8 to a M9, but not for this price. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted October 16, 2009 Share #134 Posted October 16, 2009 ....If you really enjoy buying LEICA bodies every second year thats fine with me but you cannot forced me to accept that as normal..... I won't buy a new Leica body every second year and I am far away from forcing anybody. Everybody is free not to buy Leica Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted October 16, 2009 Share #135 Posted October 16, 2009 Seems to me the discussion is veering a little off course here, but to get back to one of the original points in the thread: at least one reviewer (who also happens to be selling the camera) has stated that the M9 has 'one stop' more dynamic range than the M8. Is that statement correct in any way, or not? What is the DR at the sensor's native ISO (which I believe is 160), and is there any definitive way of testing the DR of a sensor? (I ask simply because there seems to be so much disagreement over this). Seems extraordinary that reliable data cannot be obtained about these basic matters. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
t024484 Posted October 16, 2009 Share #136 Posted October 16, 2009 Seems to me the discussion is veering a little off course here, but to get back to one of the original points in the thread: at least one reviewer (who also happens to be selling the camera) has stated that the M9 has 'one stop' more dynamic range than the M8. Is that statement correct in any way, or not? What is the DR at the sensor's native ISO (which I believe is 160), and is there any definitive way of testing the DR of a sensor? (I ask simply because there seems to be so much disagreement over this). Seems extraordinary that reliable data cannot be obtained about these basic matters. No the M9 does not have one stop extra in Dynamic Range. The way Dynamic Range can be measured is actually very simple. Take a picture with the lenscap on at 1/4000 second, and measure the noise of the black picture. At 160 ISO for example the noise is 7.2. You need to have some tools to measure this, but it is not too difficult. Full scale is 16.383. DR now is LOG2 (16383/7,2) = 11.1 stops. At ISO 2500, the noise is 102, so the DR is LOG2 (16383/102) = 7,3 stops Hans Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angelos Viskadourakis Posted October 16, 2009 Share #137 Posted October 16, 2009 Just destroy your sensor and send your M8 for repair - the sensor board IS expensive (and cannot be removed from the sensor itself).Canon offers upgrades? I can upgrade a 5D to a 5DMk2 or a 1ds to MkII or MkIII? That's new to me. Mr. Lee was CEO when the M8 was introduced but development started long before. I would love to upgrade my M8 to a M9, but not for this price. good idea George destroying the sensor maybe i will try it if some kind of impovement in high iso is not offered to M8 owners,that will happen some months later and then i will get the M10-just joking. Regarding CANONS upgrades my apologies for my inaccurate phrasing-always in a harry between shootings-i meant the next models that they present which carry significant improvements/additions-ESPECIALLY IN NOISE AND HIGH ISO PERFORMANCE- at lower price than the model before, 5D MKii introduced to the market almost 40% cheaper compared to 5D.:)As i promised below there are some upgrade programs for example. Mr.LEE then present quite an achievement by very successfully promoting the M8 with a not so complete development-that started long before- in his hands.Plus it looks like the FF M sensor was very much supported from his strategy. 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/100096-erwin-puts-the-leica-m9-part-5-m89-noise-and-dynamic-range/?do=findComment&comment=1077849'>More sharing options...
sbelyaev Posted October 16, 2009 Share #138 Posted October 16, 2009 Probably, it was less expensive to remove Mr Lee, than to provide an upgrade program that he has promised...) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ennjott Posted October 16, 2009 Share #139 Posted October 16, 2009 It really makes no sense to compare DR with JPEGs. The applied tone curve & white balance have a huge impact on DR. A raw file "developed" with neutral uniWB and linear response will usually have a much higher DR than a version for normal viewing. Plus the point of clipping can be moved up at the expense of color accuracy and/or tonality. With the M9, that is - the M8 gave that up through its raw compression. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angelos Viskadourakis Posted October 17, 2009 Share #140 Posted October 17, 2009 Imagine Leica would offer an upgrade from the M8 to the M9-sensor for 4000,-€. They would keep their promise, for there has never been a promise, that any upgrade would be for free or causing losses for Leica. Does upgrading the M8 make sense for the user? Which price would you accept for the upgrade? If you look at the words's Mr. Lee used when he made his senseless promise you may find out one funny thing: he almost used the same words Oskar Barnack had used in 1932, when the Leica II was introduced: Leitz promised that all future improvements could be installed in an existing Leica. Leitz broke that promise, when they introduced the IIIc, for you could not upgrade a Leica II to a IIIc, they broke it again with the Leica M, for there was no way to upgrade a screwmount to M, they broke it with the M8, for you could not upgrade the M1- M7 to a digital M, and they broke it with the M9. . I dont want 24x36 the so called FF(????? FF of what ,of the film format??? i use lenses of various formats in various other formats many years now with great success ) for the M8 what i think should be done is : A//ergonomics correction with the button functions similar to those in M9 B//to assign protect for iso use and make faster the EV changes C//to make uncompressed RAW available-supposly it was but we discover the compression after we bought the body(LEICA was saying 14 bits and then try to rephrase) D//improvement in the noise level -even minor.Alternate solution is to present faster lenses at normal LEICA prices not ballon inflated styleJUST FOR THE M8 PHOTOGRAPHERS. E//lens recognition system similar to M9. All those SHOULD BE IN M8 AT LEAST ONE YEAR EARLIER as a correction of MISTAKES of the manufacturer. REMEBER that M8 photographers are not JUST some guys that bought one model and now there is a new one.THEY ARE THE BASE THAT CREATED THE EXISTANCE OF M SYSTEM IN THE DIGITAL WORLD ,they are not just buyers they are lifesavers and they should be delt with the proper recognition and respect from the manufacturer.M9 buyers yes they are just buyers of another model but M8 OWNERs are not ,they supported and kept alive the company in a 2,5 years very difficult period when there was no other product from LEICA in digital pro/semi pro quality and M9 or M10 or M11 is possible now only because of those photographers that bought M8. PS;24X36 is not mandatory is a relic from the previous century and deffinately does not mean better just because of the dimensions of the 35mm film cameras.;)and i dont ask for that actually i much prefer a slightly cropped frame and i understand the magnitude of a transform of M8 sensor ,would never ask for that. All above can be done at an appropriate cost and company will definitely profit greatly.Personally i see M9 as an intermediate step that i dont need to participate as the benefits are very minor and i like to wait for the actual M SYSTEM STEP when it comes,or i can participate with some serious incentives from LEICA just to support the company as i consider M9 not a major step but more of a sales trik that works and good for all,but at the same time i can create profits to the company paying the cost of the M8 corrections. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.