garygsandhu Posted June 26, 2011 Share #41 Posted June 26, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Again, get serius or leave, thanks Serious, thanks. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 26, 2011 Posted June 26, 2011 Hi garygsandhu, Take a look here Cleaner fw 2.014?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
lct Posted June 26, 2011 Author Share #42 Posted June 26, 2011 Hehe yes give me another placebo like that and i stop saving for the M10. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabriel66 Posted June 26, 2011 Share #43 Posted June 26, 2011 I tried to take before and after the firmware upgrade to 640, 1250 and 2500 ISO. I have noticed better clarity in edges and better materiality. The grain appears more compact, and slightly more defined areas in the shade. Gabriele Gabriele Caproni Photographer Associazione Italiana Fotografia Sociale Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_livsey Posted June 26, 2011 Share #44 Posted June 26, 2011 Why do we have these multiple subjective posts ? If you really want to know do some objective testing. Clarkvision.com: Canon 1D Mark II Sensor Noise, Dynamic Range, and Full Well Analysis Quote "It takes me about 3 days of work to analyze the data and write it up."" Which is why I don't Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted June 26, 2011 Author Share #45 Posted June 26, 2011 Why do we have these multiple subjective posts ?... Because there is a tiny bit of art in photography perhaps? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_livsey Posted June 26, 2011 Share #46 Posted June 26, 2011 Because there is a tiny bit of art in photography perhaps? There is indeed but I see no evidence of it in these posts which are all concerned with wether the new firmware has reduced noise. This is purely technical. My "complaint" is the discussion is technical but all the assessments are subjective. I also would like to know and understand the curiosity but multiple posts of single shots without accurate measurements is getting us no where. I know the answer before you post stop reading the thread :D Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fWord Posted June 26, 2011 Share #47 Posted June 26, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Curiosity got the better of me so I did a couple of quick test shots before and after upgrading the firmware. Obviously I was crazy enough to do this, but hope it'd benefit the discussion here. Both photos were shot indoors (at night, so there were no extraneous light sources) under a single ceiling light bulb. Photos were taken at from a tripod (to achieve identical framing), triggered by a 12 second self-timer, ISO 2500, same white balance (I checked during the process of converting DNG to JPEG files), same lens, aperture (f/8) and shutter speed (0"7 sec) for a +1/3 stop exposure compensation and same point of focus. To my mind at least, there are very few differences between the two. Subjectively things may be worse AFTER the firmware upgrade, but the difference is so small I couldn't tell you which was which in a double-blind test. Call me mad, but I am not the slightest bit disappointed with the high ISO performance of the M8 whichever way we cut it. This comes from having used a Canon 1Ds MKI that only went to ISO 1250 (photos were grainy but sharp) and a Fujifilm S5 Pro that goes to ISO 3200 (photos have less chrominance noise but soft). With a bit of chrominance noise reduction in Lightroom, the results are completely usable IMO. I've never liked silky-smooth noise-free images however, which probably explains my high tolerance to image noise. Image noise ain't gonna make or break the image IMHO, especially as unobstrusive as they are from today's cameras. Bottom-line is, this is a very interesting discussion. I'd be very glad if there were genuine improvements to image quality as a result of this firmware. But even without that, man, I love my 'vaniila', unadulterated M8. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nugat Posted June 26, 2011 Share #48 Posted June 26, 2011 I've been taking tonight some pictures at ISO 1250. I don't see any noise improvement but something has changed.I really don't know. I wonder if some color corrections and/or a sharpen algorithm improvement give me this impression. I also did some tests and can't see a difference in noise. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbretteville Posted June 26, 2011 Share #49 Posted June 26, 2011 There are no changes, there are no differences to find. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bert N Posted June 26, 2011 Share #50 Posted June 26, 2011 Measuring the noise in the samples Andrew posted, the noise in the image captured with 2.014 is actually lower by 5.9% compared to that captured with 2.005. Noise is defined as the standard deviation of the distribution (StdDev in the summary table). 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! 1 Quote 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/155170-cleaner-fw-2014/?do=findComment&comment=1715333'>More sharing options...
SJP Posted June 26, 2011 Share #51 Posted June 26, 2011 See!!!! I told you so. It is obviously better. ......... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted June 26, 2011 Share #52 Posted June 26, 2011 Measuring the noise in the samples Andrew posted, the noise in the image captured with 2.014 is actually lower by 5.9% compared to that captured with 2.005. Noise is defined as the standard deviation of the distribution (StdDev in the summary table). Luminance noise is indeed slightly lower while chrominance noise looks worse. The two squares don’t cover the exact same area, though, so the result may be skewed. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJP Posted June 26, 2011 Share #53 Posted June 26, 2011 Luminance noise is indeed slightly lower while chrominance noise looks worse. The two squares don’t cover the exact same area, though, so the result may be skewed.Oy, you are spoiling the fun;) Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmk60 Posted June 27, 2011 Share #54 Posted June 27, 2011 One sample from each group.... no statistical significance is determined.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bert N Posted June 27, 2011 Share #55 Posted June 27, 2011 (edited) While Michael's comments are valid, mmk60's remarks are completely irrelevant. Sensor noise measurements include temporal noise estimation where about 100 frames are needed to get valid statistics, and spatial noise estimation - which is what was performed here from 7650 pixels - where a single frame is fine. Edited June 27, 2011 by Bert N 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andym911 Posted June 27, 2011 Share #56 Posted June 27, 2011 I don't see any difference at all which is great because the M8 files are just the best IMO ....never shoot above 640 And at 640 the files are really special . Best Andy Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestMichigan Posted June 27, 2011 Share #57 Posted June 27, 2011 Good Line - made me smile. Mine makes an annoying click every time I press the shutter, no matter what the ISO! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestMichigan Posted June 27, 2011 Share #58 Posted June 27, 2011 +1 +1 +1 Bottom-line is, this is a very interesting discussion. I'd be very glad if there were genuine improvements to image quality as a result of this firmware. But even without that, man, I love my 'vaniila', unadulterated M8. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
maccaco Posted June 27, 2011 Share #59 Posted June 27, 2011 I don't see any difference at all which is great because the M8 files are just the best IMO ....never shoot above 640 And at 640 the files are really special . Best Andy Yes! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted June 28, 2011 Share #60 Posted June 28, 2011 Cleaner fw 2.014?Just did a quick test at 640 iso. Noise is still here but grain looks finer and less lumpy. Is it me? I agree and i confirm that the preview is much faster than before. images are much better in DNG : so working in DNG I'm even down to 1250 and 2500 without any problems same remark on M9 i'll post pictures Best Henry Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.