barjohn Posted October 25, 2009 Share #41 Posted October 25, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) A couple of points on the newer sensor developments. The Canon 1DS MK IV has the same size sensor as the M8 yet can achieve 102,400 ISO. The D3s Nikon has the same sensor size as the M9. To see what these cameras are capable of here is one link Studio Impressions Blog It blew me away on the ones shot at ISO 6400 and 12800 (see the D3s still-video combination a little way down the page) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 25, 2009 Posted October 25, 2009 Hi barjohn, Take a look here S2 delayed till December. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
carstenw Posted October 25, 2009 Share #42 Posted October 25, 2009 A couple of points on the newer sensor developments. The Canon 1DS MK IV has the same size sensor as the M8 yet can achieve 102,400 ISO. The D3s Nikon has the same sensor size as the M9. To see what these cameras are capable of here is one link Studio Impressions Blog It blew me away on the ones shot at ISO 6400 and 12800 (see the D3s still-video combination a little way down the page) Do you mean 1D Mark IV? I don't think the 1Ds Mark IV has been announced yet. Yes, these cameras give much lower noise, but there is little to admire in the results, IMO. Soft, colours are unattractive, and you don't have access to the Leica lenses, which are fantastic in comparison to Canon or Nikon. They also have much less resolution. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
georg Posted October 25, 2009 Share #43 Posted October 25, 2009 The highest real sensitivity of these cameras is ISO6400 - everything beyond is just "pushed" - highly sophisticated internal processing/filtering makes those files possible. ISO3200-6400 is maybe usable for smaller prints, that's indeed over one stop improvement over the M9 but to me not worth it's price (also low-ISO-performance) - other photographers might see that different, but both technologies (CCD and CMOS) have their purpose. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barjohn Posted October 25, 2009 Share #44 Posted October 25, 2009 Apparently, Leica can't do sophisticated internal processing/filtering on a $7,000 camera like Nikon can on a $5,000 camera. Is that what you are saying? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted October 25, 2009 Share #45 Posted October 25, 2009 Uh, more like they've seen what processed CMOS high-ISO images look like up close (think of an asian carpet shaved by a bad barber - little tufts of detail sticking out of an overall grid texture) and don't want to go anywhere near that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
georg Posted October 25, 2009 Share #46 Posted October 25, 2009 C/N come from the press-photography and amateur-market. Both markets need powerful internal processing to create usable images out of the camera. This is where they're investing significant amounts of R&D (including highly specialized ASICs). Leica uses "classic MFDB-technology" which is designed for professional purposes with highest IQ in mind even if it makes manual, time-demanding work in post necessary to give the photographer the max. amount of control. Somehow they thought they had to apply a JPG-engine, which has a lousy quality with M8/DMR and seems completely senseless to me in the S2-market (even if it's propably better than before). But some of this internal processing (including noise reduction) is also done to RAW-files, CMOS-based cameras even have to use it to handle so called pattern noise caused by the slightly different amplification-level on each pixel and gladly, complex internal processing (even within the sensor) can be handled with CMOS easily. Although it's not completely clear how much additional processing is actually done. CCD-based cameras usually don't use complex internal processing and if it's done, it has to be made outside the sensor (CCDs are just "stupid" light->electric current converter arrays). As said, it's unclear how much is actually done to the RAW-files (even with the M9) but they cannot be compared 1:1 just by turning "NR off". But both, CMOS and CCD have a native sensitivity and a max. "amplification level" ("max. real ISO"), everything else is just "pushing" the image in post (even if it's done in the camera) with high losses in IQ - that's the case with everything beyond 6400ASA with 1dMkIV/D3s and beyond 1600ASA with the D3X. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted October 26, 2009 Share #47 Posted October 26, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) C/N come from the press-photography and amateur-market. And Leica don't? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Reid Posted October 26, 2009 Share #48 Posted October 26, 2009 Apparently, Leica can't do sophisticated internal processing/filtering on a $7,000 camera like Nikon can on a $5,000 camera. Is that what you are saying? Leica may offer a firmware upgrade with higher ISO. This is one thing Stefan Daniel said on the day of the M9 announcement. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barjohn Posted October 26, 2009 Share #49 Posted October 26, 2009 Uh, more like they've seen what processed CMOS high-ISO images look like up close (think of an asian carpet shaved by a bad barber - little tufts of detail sticking out of an overall grid texture) and don't want to go anywhere near that. You need to look at the M9 post http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/103732-m9-higher-iso-practise.html to see that kind of bad processing at ISO 800. You can barely see that the puppets are wearing cloth clothing at 100% as the detail is smeared to hide the noise and this is from RAW not JPG. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
georg Posted October 26, 2009 Share #50 Posted October 26, 2009 I don't think any firmware-upgrade with higher-ISO-modes would make sense for the M9 - ISO2500 is really the absolute limit, just like ISO6400 (under ideal conditions) is the upper limit for high-end-DSLRs. The "fake-hi-ISO"-settings can be achieved by exposure-adjustment in post with the RAW-converter anyway. @barjohn These are handheld shots and simply unsharp due to shaking. "And Leica don't?" No super-zooms, no video-mode, no red eye-reduction, no low-priced plastic versions - the "MFDB-technology" used by Leica was never intended for amateurs who just want to "point&shoot" and they're also to slow to be used in press-work. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted October 26, 2009 Share #51 Posted October 26, 2009 You need to look at the M9 post http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/103732-m9-higher-iso-practise.html to see that kind of bad processing at ISO 800. You can barely see that the puppets are wearing cloth clothing at 100% as the detail is smeared to hide the noise and this is from RAW not JPG. Yes, they do look poor. I think there's both noise reduction and camera shake at play here but the results are not impressive from an image quality point of view. Look at the girl's hair in the latter shots - barely any detail at all. In truth, M9 shots at ISO 800+ don't need to look this poor (I have the camera so I speak from experience) but it's silly to pretend that there is anything special about them either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markowich Posted October 26, 2009 Share #52 Posted October 26, 2009 Yes, they do look poor. I think there's both noise reduction and camera shake at play here but the results are not impressive from an image quality point of view. Look at the girl's hair in the latter shots - barely any detail at all. In truth, M9 shots at ISO 800+ don't need to look this poor (I have the camera so I speak from experience) but it's silly to pretend that there is anything special about them either. totally agreed. this is why stefan daniel indicated that the M10 might feature a CMOS sensor. it will be interesting to see whether leica fanboys then will revert their 'CMOS images look so processed, no detail....etc...etc...' and 'M9 CCD noise looks sooo wonderfully film-like' stereotypes. peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
georg Posted October 26, 2009 Share #53 Posted October 26, 2009 Has anybody really claimed that? CMOS-sensors are inevitable due to future EVF-based systems. Since sensors are just converting light into electric signals and the pattern noise of CMOS can be removed almost perfectly, a CMOS-based camera with similar color filters, no AA-filter and no additional internal processing will create the same "look" as CCD-based cameras. But of course such a system won't achieve ISO25600, either... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markowich Posted October 26, 2009 Share #54 Posted October 26, 2009 Has anybody really claimed that?CMOS-sensors are inevitable due to future EVF-based systems. Since sensors are just converting light into electric signals and the pattern noise of CMOS can be removed almost perfectly, a CMOS-based camera with similar color filters, no AA-filter and no additional internal processing will create the same "look" as CCD-based cameras. But of course such a system won't achieve ISO25600, either... georg, please read postings in the M8/9 forum. CMOS is bad, CCD great. just wanted to make the point that CMOS is the future, like it or not. p Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeicaS2 Posted October 26, 2009 Share #55 Posted October 26, 2009 I see this discussion of why the S2 delay, has morphed into a thread of why we can't get high iso on an M9? It doesn't take a graduate engineer in operations research to review videos of assembly of Leicas and conclude some modern operations could improve even a hand assembled process. I suspect that Leica may well have had enough demand for the S2 to realize that they should do a revised operation. So demand for the S2 may have been the sole reason. Additionally demand of the M9 probably required shifting personnel from S2 assembly over to M9 assembly. Since Leica did not say demand for which camera has caused the delay, probably demand for both has caused the delay. And who knows about the X1. All the above is from an operations perspective. Now let's look at a third component of demand. Say I've got a S2 on order, but don't want the 70mm. I want the 120 and 35 of the first four lenses made. If so, then I probably wouldn't be too excited about getting a body in October and waiting until January for my lenses. If Leica looked at the demand for lenses, they may have concluded that selling a system in January would make people happier. And, of course, if I were waiting for an M9, I probably would be happy to hear that an S2 production start up is being delayed so Leica can get all resources onto catching up with M9 demand, so I can get an M9 for which I already have the lenses. Therefore, Leica can say demand for something caused the delay, but I bet the demand for the M9, the demand for the S2 and the demand for the lenses all factored into the decision. PS, according to photographers I heard about at the NYC shoot, the Leica glass wide open was sharper in the corners than a P65 at 5.6 as there was at least one photographer who brought his P65 for comparison. That's what I was expecting, but it's nice to hear about it. Unfortunately that photographer is back working in his studio rather than posting the RAW files here for comparison. I look forward to seeing that posted eventually. PPS, can we have a separate thread on ISO performance, or why the S3 and M10 will be CMOS with live view and high ISO, (as they might)?. Georg, I don't blame you for waiting for the M10 if you must have the high ISO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted October 26, 2009 Share #56 Posted October 26, 2009 totally agreed. this is why stefan daniel indicated that the M10 might feature a CMOS sensor. it will be interesting to see whether leica fanboys then will revert their 'CMOS images look so processed, no detail....etc...etc...' and 'M9 CCD noise looks sooo wonderfully film-like' stereotypes.peter I've also heard from the Leica lady at the S2 day in Toronto claiming that they'll probably adopt a CMOS sensor for the S2 successor, those who believe that CCD is the holy grail of everything could get ready to cry now ... I can provide some handkerchiefs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted October 27, 2009 Share #57 Posted October 27, 2009 I've also heard from the Leica lady at the S2 day in Toronto claiming that they'll probably adopt a CMOS sensor for the S2 successor, those who believe that CCD is the holy grail of everything could get ready to cry now ... I can provide some handkerchiefs. I am not going to cry in advance, but I am skeptical of this move. In cameras I have seen *so far*, the CCD sensors have had nicer colours and a depth that I miss in CMOS-based cameras. I hope that this is not sensor-type-related, but just a side-effect of other choices, but I would want to see it to believe it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted October 27, 2009 Share #58 Posted October 27, 2009 I hope that this is not sensor-type-related, but just a side-effect of other choices, but I would want to see it to believe it. Maybe the X-1 will provide some clues here? CMOS, Leica processing and (reportedly) no AA filter. Might be an interesting taste of the future, if the move to CMOS turns out to be true. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted October 27, 2009 Share #59 Posted October 27, 2009 Well, the inventors of the CCD won the Nobel Prize - and the inventors of the CMOS didn't.... I'll wait and see - maybe CMOS (or more accurately, manufacturers using CMOS) will be able to also capture the tonality and color of CCDs at low ISOs, in addition to kicking b**t at high ISOs. If the S(x) does switch to CMOS, it won't be a Kodak chip: Kodak Ends CMOS Production: Kodak SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted October 27, 2009 Share #60 Posted October 27, 2009 totally agreed. this is why stefan daniel indicated that the M10 might feature a CMOS sensor. it will be interesting to see whether leica fanboys then will revert their 'CMOS images look so processed, no detail....etc...etc...' and 'M9 CCD noise looks sooo wonderfully film-like' stereotypes.peter Lets see. Sony first, and then Toshiba, are manufacturing back-illuminated CMOS sensors: Toshiba develops back-illuminated sensor: Digital Photography Review CMOS are converging to what CCDs mean (high fill factor), and CCDs will be converging to what CMOS mean (more noise control built into the chip). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.