carstenw Posted October 21, 2009 Share #41 Posted October 21, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) It is not the same sensor only larger, it is a new sensor with a similar design, and the same pixel pitch. A large part of the noise advantage is the sensor size, so far, and this will never come to the M8, obviously. It is possible that Leica will backport any algorithmic improvements, if possible, but I don't think anyone here knows if this will happen for sure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 21, 2009 Posted October 21, 2009 Hi carstenw, Take a look here The M9 has indeed one stop advantage over the M8. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
t024484 Posted October 22, 2009 Author Share #42 Posted October 22, 2009 There is one thing i don't understand about the one stop difference. Since it is the same sensor as M8 but larger, would it be true to say Leica is not releasing a new firmware for the M8 to maintain this difference? The difference is for the full 100% in the hardware, and cannot be changed because of that with a Firmware update. It is not the same sensor. The sensitivity for R,G and B has been changed, read noise is lower and whatever more. The only thing that has been kept is the same is the physical pixel size. But we know nothing about fill factor, vignetting and so on. The M8 is by no means an obsolete camera. It is still a wonderfull piece of equipment, and I am sure Leica will keep supporting this product in some way. Hans Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest EarlBurrellPhoto Posted October 22, 2009 Share #43 Posted October 22, 2009 Which of course brings up another point beyond the testable ISO question: full-frame and a 24 f/1.4 will add another 2 stops of low-light noise reduction over a 1.33x crop and an 18 f/3.8, simply by letting one use ISO 640 instead of 2500. Technically true, but frame the very same composition with a 24mm @ f/1.4 on an M9 and an 18mm @ f/3.8 on an M8 and you will have much greater apparent depth of field on the latter. To set the playing field level you would need to stop the 24 down, thus negating any speed advantage. This is nothing new, it was the same compromise with fast lenses back when we shot film. Open it up to to use slower, finer-grained film and you lost DOF. Of course sometimes that's exactly what you want, but not always. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted October 22, 2009 Share #44 Posted October 22, 2009 True, Earl, but it depends on how one shoots. DoF for me is whatever comes out of the lens at the aperture, shutter speed, and ISO I need to capture moments, at least in the kind of light where high ISO performance matters at all. I.E. a very low priority (to be blunt - irrelevant) compared to stopping action using the lowest practicable ISO for the light available. Anxious Bride, M9, ISO 2000, f/1.4, 1/40 sec. 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/100892-the-m9-has-indeed-one-stop-advantage-over-the-m8/?do=findComment&comment=1085507'>More sharing options...
rosuna Posted October 22, 2009 Share #45 Posted October 22, 2009 A question for t024484. I suppose there is some connection between lower final noise, read noise, parallel amplification, lower speed and... parallel processing. The question is whether a more parallel design in the sensor implies, as a necessity, a more parallel design in processing. CMOS sensors from Canon and Nikon seem to have many read amplifiers, many channels for extracting the information, and this flux of information has to be directed towards the processor. If the information comes divided in parallel "packages" you need a very fast processor (which processes in a sequential manner), or multicore/multiprocessor units. Is this true? Lets assume Kodak can develop a CCD with many separate amplifiers and output channels... does it require a more powerful processing unit designed by Leica? (faster or multicore/multiprocessor). Canon has 2 processors for their "pro" cameras (fast cameras, very large images). Nikon doesn't, and they cannot provide full speed at 14 bits. Leica may have new improved sensors from Kodak, and they have implemented a powerful multicore processor (Maestro) and two processors (M9). Does further improved sensors require additional processing power in a parallel way or does it depend on the image size alone? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJP Posted October 22, 2009 Share #46 Posted October 22, 2009 Meanwhile I will peacefully wait for the next couple of years untill I can use my M14 with no available light whatsoever..... Is it just me or are we too focussed on high ISO performance?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 23, 2009 Share #47 Posted October 23, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Meanwhile I will peacefully wait for the next couple of years untill I can use my M14 with no available light whatsoever..... Is it just me or are we too focussed on high ISO performance?? I suppose that depends upon the photographer and what sort of work he or she is doing. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
diogenis Posted October 23, 2009 Share #48 Posted October 23, 2009 Meanwhile I will peacefully wait for the next couple of years untill I can use my M14 with no available light whatsoever..... Is it just me or are we too focussed on high ISO performance?? It is not just you. It really seems that we got some real night owls lol. But anyway Hans did made a terrific job and proved Leica's claims about the M9 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
t024484 Posted October 23, 2009 Author Share #49 Posted October 23, 2009 A question for t024484. I suppose there is some connection between lower final noise, read noise, parallel amplification, lower speed and... parallel processing. The question is whether a more parallel design in the sensor implies, as a necessity, a more parallel design in processing. CMOS sensors from Canon and Nikon seem to have many read amplifiers, many channels for extracting the information, and this flux of information has to be directed towards the processor. If the information comes divided in parallel "packages" you need a very fast processor (which processes in a sequential manner), or multicore/multiprocessor units. Is this true? Lets assume Kodak can develop a CCD with many separate amplifiers and output channels... does it require a more powerful processing unit designed by Leica? (faster or multicore/multiprocessor). Canon has 2 processors for their "pro" cameras (fast cameras, very large images). Nikon doesn't, and they cannot provide full speed at 14 bits. Leica may have new improved sensors from Kodak, and they have implemented a powerful multicore processor (Maestro) and two processors (M9). Does further improved sensors require additional processing power in a parallel way or does it depend on the image size alone? A M9 has to convert and store an Image in 0.5 seconds, and this is not influenced by how many parallel analog components are being used. Either an analog switch collects one after another the results per amplifier, or a digital switch collects the result of the digitized data, or a combination of both. But at the end, the Image processor has to be able to handle the datastream coming from 18 Mio pixels in 0.5 seconds, independent of all upstream activities. So coming to your point: No, a further improved analog signal path does not require additional processing power as long as FPS and number of Pixels remain unchanged. Hans Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest EarlBurrellPhoto Posted October 23, 2009 Share #50 Posted October 23, 2009 True, Earl, but it depends on how one shoots. Exactly my point. There are shots where shallow DOF simply doesn't work, pictorially-speaking, and in those cases having a fast lens is not a solution. Just stopping the subject action doesn't work for everyone. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.