thrice Posted March 25, 2010 Share #41 Posted March 25, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Yes when you compare two cameras with the same photocells, but the D3s has a lot bigger photocells and that permits much much lower noise, but at the expense of resolution as well. No, the reason the D3s has lower noise is extremely low read noise and a modest CFA. If you have the time, rent a D3x, take the same ISO shots with it and your D3s, then print them and tell me if you can tell the noise differences. Or if you don't want to print big, resize the D3x image to 12mp and compare on your monitor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 Hi thrice, Take a look here Puts' take on M9 DxO ranking. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Richard.no Posted March 25, 2010 Share #42 Posted March 25, 2010 Well, if you rank lenses by "sharpness"I cannot say your post is surprising.. My respons was not only to the one that likes shooting wide open (I do too, btw), but to those that say Leica has superior corner sharpness on wide angle lenses. Pardon for luring that sharp little post out of you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 25, 2010 Share #43 Posted March 25, 2010 Nothing personal, it is just that I am getting quite allergic to the unquantifiable value "sharpness" as in "this lens is better because it is sharper" like it is used in the forums. Sorry you got in the way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted March 25, 2010 Share #44 Posted March 25, 2010 Yes when you compare two cameras with the same photocells, but the D3s has a lot bigger photocells and that permits much much lower noise, but at the expense of resolution as well. Don't forget that when you take any camera and increase the ISO, you'll lose some resolution and dynamic range. So I wouldn't be surprised if the 12 megapixel D3s at ISO 12,800 can produce images with more resolution than a 24 megapixel D3X at ISO 12,800. Therefore some of the resolution capabilities of the best lenses is also "wasted' as you increase ISO - regardless of whether the lens is made by Leica, Nikon, Canon or anyone else. (Without even getting into the effects of camera shake that often play a role in low light shooting.) For illustration I posted a link to a typical example below that shows how much detail and dynamic range is lost on a 5DII file in going from ISO 100 to 25,600. The camera's internal noise reduction was turned off. (I tested for many intermediate steps also.) So by the time you get to ISO 25,600 on the Canon, you could probably get away with using a pretty lousy lens and not see much difference. A friend of mine just shot some aerials at night over Las Vegas using a D3s at ISO 12,800 and the results were stunning. The D3s has opened new possibilities for him. (A very highly regarded aerial photographer.) http://goldsteinphoto.com/Posts/noise.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted March 25, 2010 Share #45 Posted March 25, 2010 It would seem there is a great boost for the M9's ISO performance coming along anyway if the Mk2 Beta version of Lightroom 3 is to be believed Adobe discusses latest Lightroom 3 Beta: Digital Photography Review two amazing examples of noise cleanup from the new ACR! Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted March 25, 2010 Share #46 Posted March 25, 2010 It would seem there is a great boost for the M9's ISO performance coming along anyway if the Mk2 Beta version of Lightroom 3 is to be believed Adobe discusses latest Lightroom 3 Beta: Digital Photography Review two amazing examples of noise cleanup from the new ACR! Steve I am not sure if that noise cleanup is as good as what is currently available with DXO Optics 6.1. (See the link I posted two posts up.) I really can't see the value of any noise cleanup comparisons unless they also include the same images shot at a low ISO so that you can see how much overall quality is lost by going to the high ISO in the first place. (Regardless of whether you can eliminate the noise without losing any additional detail, color or dynamic range.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted March 25, 2010 Share #47 Posted March 25, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Does anyone here use Noise Ninja? K-H. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted March 25, 2010 Share #48 Posted March 25, 2010 Does anyone here use Noise Ninja? K-H. Yes, why do you ask? Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 25, 2010 Share #49 Posted March 25, 2010 I used to. On the M9, with C1-5 pro I have never needed it yet. If there is noise that bothers me (rare) I tend to (surface) blur selectively in CS4. I find noise reduction programs do too much harm to the parts of the image one wants to keep as they were. I suppose one could apply NN selectively as well, though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted March 25, 2010 Share #50 Posted March 25, 2010 Does anyone here use Noise Ninja? K-H. The companies that make raw converters are now claiming that they can do better noise cleanup at the raw level. One would have to do some tests comparing to Noise Ninja to see the difference. From my tests with ACR, C1, DXO, and DPP, DXO is currently ahead. Software is constantly getting improved so these are moving targets and I only have so much time to compare these things. As I said above, any examples that are not merely to show direct comparisons between raw processors has to start with a low ISO "control" image to have any validity to me. Otherwise you don't know how much quality you are giving up by going to the high ISOs. Gain up to 2 stops with DxO Optics Pro Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted March 25, 2010 Share #51 Posted March 25, 2010 I used to. On the M9, with C1-5 pro I have never needed it yet. If there is noise that bothers me (rare) I tend to (surface) blur selectively in CS4. I find noise reduction programs do too much harm to the parts of the image one wants to keep as they were. I suppose one could apply NN selectively as well, though. LOL!! With digital and C1, for printing, I'm mainly *adding* noise in PS. Not so much with the Leica files, as with the Nikon, I admit Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Baker Posted March 25, 2010 Share #52 Posted March 25, 2010 "The Leica M9 occupies the 23rd slot in the overall ranking [...] some owners even consider selling the M9 because of this ranking.[...]" How stupid can one get? Quite right, I couldn't give a "flying toss" what DxO says, to me if the camera produces the results "I" am looking for then I'm happy. IMO if you use the M9 as intended then it's a bloody fine camera capable of very good results, FWIW DxO don't rate my Hasselblad H3DII 39 all that highly either ( at least they didn't last time I looked ) .... do I care ... NO , yes sure ISO 400 & 800 is not great but I use it as it has been designed to be "mainly" used, base ISO often with mirror up , then it "blows the s**t" out of anything 24x36mm including the M9. Too many people get hung up on DxO ratings and the like, like all cameras ( and people for that matter ) the M9 is not perfect but it is very good as I am sure most who own one will testify. Simon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted March 25, 2010 Share #53 Posted March 25, 2010 Yes, why do you ask? Steve Steve, Thanks. I have never used it but some Canon and Nikon user friends of mine recommended it based on their usage with their cameras. Also, I am pretty new to the Leica community and have not seen it discussed before on this forum. K-H. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted March 25, 2010 Share #54 Posted March 25, 2010 Jaap, Alan G, Thanks for your feedback, K-H. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohnri Posted March 25, 2010 Share #55 Posted March 25, 2010 On the contrary that you can't use them wide open unless you get your rangefinder adjusted. This was my problem when using the M8 and a 50 lux asph. Further, I'd say Leica lenses are nothing over the newest lenses from Nikon, for example. Leica dropped the AA filter and gives them a head start, but when I use lenses like a 24 PC-E from Nikkor, I think you'd be pressed to give me a sharper photo from a Leica. Leica do however have a huge advantage in size, but that's it! Not all of the 51 focus points on my D3x are accurate with my 85 f/1.4. I just have to remember which ones I can use. Or I could send my D3x in for adjustment but the last time I had a problem with it they kept it for a month so it's not worth it to me. I also have the latest Nikon 24 T/S lens and my Leica 21 mm f/1.4 on my M9 has a number of advantages, including size. If you really think the new Nikon lenses are equal to the Leica glass then try the latest Nikon 50 f/1.4 compared to the Leica 50 lux. Even the Sigma is sharper wide open than the Nikon, if that is what you care about. Of course, I don't judge a lens by sharpness alone, one of my favorite lenses is my 50mm Noct f/1, which I generally shoot wide open and is anything but tack sharp. At the REALLY wide end, my Nikon 14-24 is outstanding and even a stop faster then my WATE, but still 2 stops slower then my wide lux. I've never compared corner sharpness between the WATE and the Nikon 14-24. I expect both are probably very good. I sell photos from both lenses and have yet to ever have a single comment about corner sharpness. Out of curiosity though, I think I'll compare the 14-24, 24 T/S, WATE, 21 lux and Leica 24 f/2.8 on the M9 vs. the D3x. I also imagine the new Nikon 24 f/1.4 will be excellent. I don't mean to imply that sharpness is not important, I just feel it is overrated. Also, I agree that a lot of Nikon's lenses are outstanding and not everything with the Leica name on it is automatically imbued with magic sauce. Best, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfgang Esslinger Posted March 26, 2010 Share #56 Posted March 26, 2010 When shooting film one could be sure to get the best possible results with a Leica - even if most of the time one did not need it. Tests in magazines confirmed the consistent top quality of the lenses over and again. That was surely one reason why people accepted Leica's price premium and not-up-to-date features and handling. Now, with electronics and software being at least as important as lenses, this has changed. As have quality expectations. So if the market moves on and maybe expects current 100 ISO level quality at 1600 ISO in the near future, Leica has to move as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted March 26, 2010 Share #57 Posted March 26, 2010 My respons was not only to the one that likes shooting wide open (I do too, btw), but to those that say Leica has superior corner sharpness on wide angle lenses. Pardon for luring that sharp little post out of you. With the possible exception of the Nikkor 85 1.4 and their new zooms (which don't really count, since while they're excellent zooms and certainly sharp they're relatively slow and soul-less) Nikon currently has nothing like Leica in there lens line, particularly around 50mm, which is where is counts for me. I don't know where you get your points of comparison from Size isn't the only advantage of Leica M glass. I shoot Nikon, and I can't even put a 35 1.4 prime on my full-frame body! Their 50s are not so hot either, nothing like a current cron or lux or Summarit, even! As for the new 24 1.4, it points Nikon in the right direction and looks nice; off-axis distortion was pretty high, though, when I played with it at WPPI. Sorry, but I think I'd take the Elmarit ASPH over that any day. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.