delander † Posted December 22, 2009 Share #21 Posted December 22, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I think that currently if you buy a camera with a CCD you should not expect it to have the same ISO performance as the latest DSLR. I've read about the various technical reasons why this is so but I dont really care - it is a fact, not limited to Leica but found on every high price Phase and Hasselblad out there. I bought a Leica M8 and now M9 knowing this. For me the benefits of RF outweigh these issues. Perhaps following the X1 experience Leica will change to CMOS for future M cameras. High ISO performance of M8 and M9 not so different as far as I can see. Crop factor - dont mind it. IR issues on the M8 - solved very nicely with the filters, other issues resolved with FW updates. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 22, 2009 Posted December 22, 2009 Hi delander †, Take a look here Edmond Terakopian's M9 review in BJP. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
ndjambrose Posted December 22, 2009 Share #22 Posted December 22, 2009 ...IR issues on the M8 - solved very nicely with the filters, other issues resolved with FW updates. Jeff - ever taken a high contrast shot with a dominant light source in the frame? I have a large number of M8 images that have been destroyed due to filter flare. That discounts IR filters as a 'very nice' solution in my opinion. A limited work around with troublesome flaws is what I'd call it. I agree with your comment about sensor types and knowing what you're getting. That's exactly my mindset too. For which reason I restrict the M8 to low ISO shooting in good light, and take advantage of the capability of the sensor and lens combination. But in all other cases almost any DSLR is preferable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander † Posted December 22, 2009 Share #23 Posted December 22, 2009 Jeff - ever taken a high contrast shot with a dominant light source in the frame? I have a large number of M8 images that have been destroyed due to filter flare. That discounts IR filters as a 'very nice' solution in my opinion. A limited work around with troublesome flaws is what I'd call it. I agree with your comment about sensor types and knowing what you're getting. That's exactly my mindset too. For which reason I restrict the M8 to low ISO shooting in good light, and take advantage of the capability of the sensor and lens combination. But in all other cases almost any DSLR is preferable. Do you mean stuff like this or more extreme? M8/50cron/F2/ISO 640 with IR filter Jeff 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/106833-edmond-terakopians-m9-review-in-bjp/?do=findComment&comment=1160093'>More sharing options...
ndjambrose Posted December 22, 2009 Share #24 Posted December 22, 2009 Do you mean stuff like this or more extreme? M8/50cron/F2/ISO 640 with IR filterJeff There's no dominant light source in your image. Gentle lights are never going to cause flare. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. Luckily, this image wasn't mission critical as it was only personal work and I could live with it. But I've had the same thing happen on professional work, where I couldn't. That's why I find IR filters a very limited solution. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 22, 2009 Share #25 Posted December 22, 2009 Not to mention the green reflections of specular highlights... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander † Posted December 22, 2009 Share #26 Posted December 22, 2009 Neil, I agree that the filter is not going to help the situation, but I go back to my view that problems with the M8 are overstated - not that they dont exist. But what you show can also happen from reflections on and within the lens itself. As you can see in the attached - from its colour definitely taken without a filter. It would have been interesting to see your shot without the filter. Jeff 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/106833-edmond-terakopians-m9-review-in-bjp/?do=findComment&comment=1160161'>More sharing options...
ndjambrose Posted December 22, 2009 Share #27 Posted December 22, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Jeff - yes, lenses can and do produce flare. Which I guess accounts for the invention of lens hoods. But what you can't see from the image above (and the reason it's a b+w conversion) is that the flare is bright green with red echoes across the frame. It is a characteristic specific to using IR filters. It's one thing to have an image with sunspots or loss of contrast - within certain limits that's nearly always tolerable. It's quite another thing altogether to have such a level of artefacts that the image can't be used. Yet, if using IR filters, this happens every time the light source is at a certain angle to the filter. And at certain angles even lens hoods can't prevent it. Hence I would not be inclined to use the word 'overstated' to refer to Edmond Terakopian's remarks about the M8. He got it exactly right in my opinion. IR filters are workable in some situations - and woefully inadequate in others. "But what you show can also happen from reflections on and within the lens itself" I respectfully disagree. There's no camera lens I know of that will produce that level of response to an oblique light source. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander † Posted December 22, 2009 Share #28 Posted December 22, 2009 Well Edmond Terakopian use words like 'absolute disappointment' and 'real disappointment, he felt that way. I did not so I'm just stating my opinion as he did and trying to say that not everyone agrees with him. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhabedi Posted December 22, 2009 Share #29 Posted December 22, 2009 Banding etc, I might add, will only be visible on grossly underexposed images. Banding can be visible on high-ISO images even if they are exposed perfectly if some areas of the picture (e.g. the background) are significantly darker than the main subject. This is a problem Leica knows about and they're trying to fix it - see here. (Note: That's about the M8, but as I said there I'd be surprised if the M9 didn't have this problem.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 22, 2009 Share #30 Posted December 22, 2009 That is true, because you are talking about underexposed areas. There is simply a threshold under which a sensor will band. As I explained to you in another thread, there is a difference in banding between the M9 and M8. The M9 seems to be a bit more tolerant of low light levels, but the banding has a chequered aspect, as opposed to the stripes of the M8. It looks worse when it happens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhabedi Posted December 22, 2009 Share #31 Posted December 22, 2009 There is simply a threshold under which a sensor will band. That might well be true, but according to Leica (see the link above) there's more than that. We're talking about an M8-specific (or M-specific) problem here which they think/hope they can fix in firmware. That's different from a general property of digital sensors. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 22, 2009 Share #32 Posted December 22, 2009 Look at it like this. At very low input levels an audio amplifier will exhibit hiss. If there is a mains lead near you will hear 50 Hz hum as well. This is a similar effect. Of course they can do something about banding in firmware, but it may not be easy. As it has a defined frequency in theory it can be filtered out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhabedi Posted December 22, 2009 Share #33 Posted December 22, 2009 Look at it like this. At very low input levels an audio amplifier will exhibit hiss. If there is a mains lead near you will hear 50 Hz hum as well. This is a similar effect. Of course they can do something about banding in firmware, but it may not be easy. As it has a defined frequency in theory it can be filtered out. Yes, I understood this - the shutter recock affecting the sensor read-out - to be a problem of insulation or shielding (if one of them is the right word in English, in German I'd say "Abschirmung"). I was thus surprised that they wanted to fix with software what sounds like a hardware problem. Well, let's see what comes out of it. I'd be perfectly happy (at least in black-and-white) with the M8's noise at ISO 1250 and probably even at ISO 2500 if there weren't visible stripes sometimes that simply don't belong there. Let's hope this'll get away or can at least be mitigated. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
haribo Posted December 22, 2009 Share #34 Posted December 22, 2009 I don't disagree about the colour rendering. There's no doubt in my mind that the M9 produces beautiful tones and colour fidelity. Though I do wonder about the value of colour rendering at high ISO if the image is unusable due to banding, chroma noise and loss of definition in shadow areas. I've seen a few images posted in various M9/high ISO threads and, while they've generated interesting discussion and have enthused the various people who've taken the images, they've all been completely unacceptable to me. At certain ISOs I can get better images from a point and shoot. There's nothing especially critical about my eye. I'm sure that most people, if asked for a true evaluation of the image and not influenced by their love of the logo, would reach the same conclusion for images above 1600/2000 ISO. The M9 has tremendous potential but, like any tool, it also comes with natural limits. Indeed, check out the Nikon D3s. Go to diglloyd.com and you'll find many samples, colour and B&W. If you're not a member of this pay site, go to diglloyd.com blog: December 2009 and scroll down a little. Nothing against Leica and the M9 but when it comes to high ISO or low light capabilities, there's no chance in heaven for it to compete anymore. Not even with the new Noctilux. (BTW, one can get almost two D3s' for the price of one Nocti 0.95 ... insane.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.