M9 noise worse than 5D mark II? Not at all.

[skinnfell]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It is often repeated that the M9 is years behind the crop in high ISO performance, with the 5D mark II often cited as the leader in this field (along with the nikon D3x).

 

Well I own and use both cameras and decided to make a little informal comparison.

The results really surprised me.

 

I shot pictures of my bookshelf, at indoor lighting.

Canon lens was the 35mm 1.4L

Leica lens was the 35mm 2.0 asph

 

BOTH lenses were shot at F/2, and to preserve bandwith I am only showing a 100% crop from the center image. Also there are no bight highlights in the picture, but some shadow areas. All of these should go easy on the canon setup.

I never shoot the canon at below F/2 just because its unbelievably crappy below that aperture. And before you think i´m sh!tt!ng on the 35L, I have shot roughly 5000 useable shots with that lens over the past two years for my work, several of whom have won awards. Its my favorite canon lens. Period.

 

 

This is how they both performed at 1250 ISO.

 

CANON 5D Mark II:

<img src="http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa197/skinnfell/noise-0055.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket">

<br>

LEICA M9:

<img src="http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa197/skinnfell/noise-1000181.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket">

<br>

<br>

Here we can clearly see that the Canon has less noise than the M9.

But wait, isnt the leica ALOT sharper?

Both pictures are shot at 1/30 sec.

 

In my work as a photojournalist I NEVER have time to lug around a tripod, even ultra-lightweight carbon fiber tripods are out of the question. This is the kind of work that both cameras are designed to do.

 

 

In order to achieve similar sharpness as the Leica, I had to shoot the canon at 1/125 sec which meant an ISO of 5000:

<br>

<img src="http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa197/skinnfell/noise-0060.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket">

<br>

 

Conclusion?

Canon 5D mark II has about a two-stop advantage over the M9 when it comes to high ISO performance.

Leica M9 has about a two-stop advantage in real-world situations over the 5DII when it comes to lower shutter speeds.

 

Another thing not often mentioned is that canon has a hard time focusing in low light situations like this, especially If i am not shooting flat objects with a lot of writing on them. With the leica, if I can see it, I can focus on it.

 

Then again, Canon with that lens is about 1550 grams. Leica is about 850 grams with that lens.

(and then then again, the canon setup is $3850 where the Leica setup is $10,000 so ...)

 

Anyways, my point was, that all things considered, in real world situations, I would not get any more or any less noise with the canon and with the leica.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[skinnfell]

Does anybody know why my picture links don´t work?

[matlep]

Does anybody know why my picture links doesn´t work?

 

Don´t link them, upload them to the forum instead.

[AlanJW]

Try putting < before and > after the url for your links. Those brackets almost universally signal "this is a link"

[gravastar]

Here are your images as clickable links to Photobucket:

 

CANON 5D Mk II and LEICA M9.

 

"In order to achieve similar sharpness as the Leica, I had to shoot the canon at 1/125 sec which meant an ISO of 5000": IMAGE.

 

Here's how the last link was made. I've had to put a space after the first [ and before the last ] to prevent the board software from converting the text to an active link. To generate a real link don't put in the two spaces:

 

[ url=http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa197/skinnfell/noise-0060.jpg] IMAGE [/url ] where IMAGE is some descriptive text.

 

If you upload images to a text discussion thread people with iPhones etc. will curse you.

 

 

Bob.

[matlep]

Still. When doing these kind of comparisons, I do think its better to insert the images directly in the post, it makes it a lot easier to compare. There is such a function in the forum software, why not use it?

[Alnitak]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm sorry, but I don't get the point here. The Canon shot obviously suffers from camera shake, which you realize as you then shot it at 1/125s. That said, many people, myself included, can just as easily shoot the Canons and Leicas at the same handheld shutter speeds. In that case, the M9 is lagging behind the Canon and Nikons by about two stops when it comes to noise. It's not a show-stopper, but it imagine how good the M9 image would be if it had less noise--even better than it is now.

 

Bottom line: For you, the camera shake negates the ISO performance of the 5D II, but for many people and many types of shooting, that's not the case--and better ISO performance from the M9 would make it even better for ANY use.

 

BTW, I use and love my M9 and have used the 5D II (it's gone now).

 

Jeff

[giordano]

Use the "Insert Link" button to insert links, or the "Insert Image" button to upload and attach images. Also, check the forum rules for the max size of images:

The maximum image size is 960 x 640 pixels and with a file size not exceeding 240 Kb.

 

What happens if you sharpen the first Canon image?

[skinnfell]

I guess I give up trying to post these images right now.

 

I am only talking real-world differences in MY experience here.

The only reason to go up in ISO is to achieve sufficient shutter speed. With my 5DII I just cannot -consistently- take sharp pictures below 1/125. Im not saying its impossible, but it sure aint easy. I suppose that If I took ten shots in a row at 1/30 I could get a passable shot.

Whereas with the leica I can take one shot at 1/30 and be pretty sure its usable, likely bitingly sharp.

 

Also, 90% of all my shots are done at ISO 400 and below, so the ultra-low light stuff is more of a "nice to have". Yet, still, when you need it, you need it.

 

IMO the only real drawback with the M9 (apart from its price) is the buffer size. Leica needs to offer a buffer upgrade or do something with it in firmware, because 7 shots in a period of a few minutes is just not acceptable.

[dovla]

I guess I give up trying to post these images right now.

 

I am only talking real-world differences in MY experience here.

The only reason to go up in ISO is to achieve sufficient shutter speed. With my 5DII I just cannot -consistently- take sharp pictures below 1/125. Im not saying its impossible.

 

You can take a sharp picture at 1/125?? Well i can definitely tell you that you do not have steady hands or you are praising the M9 way too much

 

Clearly the image from 5D suffers from camera share. I get perfectly usable images from my wifes Canon 350d and canons cheap 50mm 1.8 with way lower shutter speeds.

 

Cheers

Vlad

[lct]

Just put after it.

Your first pic is blurred. I would do it again as this shot does not prove anything serious sorry.

 

QUOTE:

This is how they both performed at 1250 ISO.

 

CANON 5D Mark II:

 

 

LEICA M9:

 

 

In order to achieve similar sharpness as the Leica, I had to shoot the canon at 1/125 sec which meant an ISO of 5000:

 

UNQUOTE

[Bert N]

BOTH lenses were shot at F/2...

Both pictures are shot at 1/30 sec.

 

According to the EXIF header information, the Canon shot was taken at f/2 and 1/20" shutter speed, while the Leica shot was taken at f/2.4 and 1/30" shutter speed. The vibration from the mirror slap may have contributed to the image blur, and it is a known limitation of the Canon 5D.

[zlatkob]

Generally speaking, I find that small differences in sharpness and high ISO noise, which are obvious on screen at 100%, are at the same time pretty trivial for common print sizes like 8x10". The content of a photo is always many times more important. If I know I'll need a big print, I can make the needed adjustments with almost any camera (aperture, ISO, tripod, etc.).

 

One advantage for the Canon is that it can focus in much darker environments than the human eye. It can focus even in total darkness. A Canon flash or an ST-E2 transmitter are all that's needed for accurate autofocus in darkness. With their infrared assist, we can focus almost instantly even on moving subjects, even at f/2.0 and wider, and even if not actually firing the flash. It is like having super-human robotic eyes. But even without an autofocus assist light, the autofocus still works (albeit slowly) at ridiculously low light levels. It just requires using the center point only, and focusing on a part of the subject with a bit of contrast — much like using the rangefinder patch.

[charles-k]

I have both the M9 and the 5DII. Both great cameras, but I have found similar to skinfell, that with the 5DII, I use 1.5 x FL to make sure there is no camera shake, or lessen the percentage of them. This is not too different to what Lloyd had suggested in his report. With the M9 in soft mode, I have the ability to quite often, get to 1/2 x FL shutter speed and still maintain a high percentage of sharp shots.

 

I really enjoy both cameras, and there is a place for both, even though I am thoroughly enjoying the M9 and not picking up the "heavy" 5DII as often now.

[ShafS]

I've had the privilege to use the best of digital cameras that Nikon & Canon have to offer & have moved on to M9 for good... I've come to realise, it being a personal opinion (not meant to offend anyone) that Canon/Nikon systems lag behind in terms of real-life quality of digital images that M9 has to offer, its a benchmark in classic Leica style... I don't seem to require anything but my M9 in almost +90% situations & wouldn't have it any other way... As is said at times, "a camera is an extension of a photographer, his second skin ;)"

Cheers

[adan]

Look, I like my M9 just fine - but realistically, what you are comparing is low-light performance, not really ISO performance or noise specifically. Which you allude to in your text, but not your headline.

 

Yes, the lack of mirror slap helps compensate for the M9's weaker high ISO performance compared to some cameras. So would shooting a Leica 21 f/1.4 vs. a Canon 20mm f/2.8 or 16-35 f/2.8, or a Nocti f/.95 vs a Canon f/1.2 - or conversely a Canon 85 f/1.2 vs. a Leica 90 f/2.

 

But they don't make the M9's ISO output "better", any more than elevator shoes actually change a person's stature.

 

As it happens, last night I took the M9 to one of my favorite photo venues - and a great acid test for low-light performance. Rural dirt track auto racing.

 

By two different calculations, the illumination for the shot below was around 0.02 c/m2 - see the kid's pupils. ISO 2500 (but underexposed about 1.5 stops - effectively ~6400), f/2, 1/30 sec. 90 'cron.

 

The results (noise/grain/tonality) are just about what I got in film days not even metering, but just using Tri-X and the shutter speed/aperture I had to use to stop camera/subject blur, and then developing in Acufine or straight Dektol for 20 minutes and printing on grade 5 paper.

 

I got the picture I wanted, but now I have the itch again for a 75 f/1.4. Every inch on the elevator shoes helps.

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!

[lct]

....The vibration from the mirror slap may have contributed to the image blur, and it is a known limitation of the Canon 5D.

Never seen this so far. 5D1, Summicron-R 50 at f/2.4, 100 iso, 1/20s handheld, jpg direct out of the camera.

 

 

[bocaburger]

In terms of high-ISO noise, my M9 is just barely on a par with my Canon 5D Mark 1. Which is fine with me, BTW.

 

What is more of an issue to me, the M9 still renders synthetic blacks with a brown tinge (unless I put an IR filter on the lens), whereas the "old" 5D renders them perfectly black. I don't mean to imply that the M9 is anything near the hideous purple cast of my M8 without filters, but it still has a ways to go to be IR-neutral.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

I agree that the OP shows an odd color shift. And yes, there is a slight difference in IR sensitivity - about 80% to 90 % iirc. Nothing that a halfway decent postprocessing technique cannot handle.

However, I appreciate the approach of the thread-starter. No pixel-peepin, but what works best - or equally well- in real life picture taking situations in his hands.

[thighslapper]

This is an interesting subject and one that I did worry about in getting an M9 instead if using my D700 and a selection of elephantine lenses... and forsaking VR ..... how could I survive without the ability to take almost grainless pics at 1600 asa.....???

 

In fact there are plenty of mitigating factors, and at the end of the day the M9 still probably comes out ahead in REAL EVERYDAY USE...... because....

 

1. Noise reduction software imparts softness no matter how well its done. If you start with an ultrasharp 18mb Leica DNG file and denoise it you end up with a file on par with lesser cameras.... The ultimate result is about the same....

 

2. I can consistently take handheld sharp unshaken pics at 1/3 to 1/4 of the used lens focal length with an M9 due to its size, shutter and small lenses. For my 'indoors' profile I have the auto limits set to 1/8 sec and 400 asa max. Works fine.

 

3. For anything else it's a very easy camera to rest on a ledge/wall/table etc as you are not plagued by huge heavy lenses....and if I need to I can use my manfrotto mini table tripod which cost £25, takes no space and weighs 200g ..... instead of my hideously expensive gitzo/markins ballhead combo which barely holds a d700/zoom telephoto stable... if I can be bothered to take it.

 

4. Even with pics at 800 asa where some graininess creeps in on a 27" imac at full screen it is impossible to see it.... ok at 100% you can but then you would need a 1.15m wide screen to view the whole image... and only an idiot would be looking at it from close enough to see the noise...... same goes for enlargements ... view a 36x24" blow up from the CORRECT viewing distance and the noise not discernible.

 

As a result I don't NEED high ASA performance... it would be nice.... but I personally have ceased worrying about it. I spent the weekend in Gdansk and took some 5 shot HDR bracketed pics at dusk which were either handheld or wall supported and all have turned out perfect... even with shutter speeds down to 0.7sec.

 

What more do I need from a camera ????