M9 noise performance

[Me Leica!]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi, this is new poster here. I have to say first that English is not my main language, so sorry if I make errors. Hope my English is good enough to understand, at least.

 

I have used M8 in past, interesting camera but many faults. So in the end, I sold it. Still had a kind of desire for Leica (especially I am fascinated by M9), and yesterday I noticed that my local camera shop had used M9 in stock. So I ask them if I can give it a test and they say, no problem.

 

This is what surprised me so much : I took a shot of the Leica manual (which, you know, is black) at ISO 640...the chroma noise on it was terrible! It looked like rainbow, nearly. I mean like, if I set a Canon 5D2 or a Nikon D3 (or Fuji Finepix, even) at around 2000-3000, they would show much less noise than M9 at 640.

 

Maybe you think, ah, he did not expose correctly, but the camera meter was indicating good exposure. White balance was auto and I took the picture with DNG. But when I zoom in, the noise was pretty extreme for 640, in my consideration. Does M9 have built in noise reduction? I did not go far into menus, so maybe it is there but still, good Canon or Nikon is way better for high ISO, it seems. Sharp picture is nice, but if it has this much noise t 640, it is not so great. I was afraid to even try picture at 1000 or above.

 

I know that Leica is not known as famous for high ISO, and for many people M8 limit was 640, but I imagine M9 would be better. I like to shoot in low light a lot, so for me obviously the ideal camera is something like D3S (Canon 5D2 is very great at high ISO but focus in dark is not exceptional), but I do like rangefinder method of photography. I enjoyed to use M8 although it had many problems which we all know about.

 

How high ISO do you shoot with M9? To me at least, price asked for M9 is too high when you consider weak performance at high ISO but maybe there are ways to make it better?

 

Bien à vous

 

André

[jaapv]

2500, develop in CS5, pretty good results, comparable to 5Dii @ 3200, maybe 6400

Up to 1600 without hesitation, 2000 with care.

 

Maybe you are thrown by the fact that most cameras apply software noisereduction in the camera, but on the M9 it is (mostly) user-controlled in postprocessing. This makes those other cameras much less postprocessing sensitive than the M9. Once you have finetuned the lowlight workflow on the M9 it is actually quite good at high ISO, but a modern CMos DSLR will be much more practical than a CCD camera imo.

Whatever else, chroma noise should be near-zero with proper settings, luminance noise a bit more.

 

The programs of choice for noise handling are Lightroom 3 and CS5

 

Oh- and whatever you do, don't use the LCD to judge image noise. What the camera shows on the back in this respect, the most friendly description I can think of is cr@p...

 

And prints are completely different from computer displays too.

Edited September 6, 2011 by jaapv

[Advertisement]

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

[johnwolf]

André,

 

You will receive a wide variety of responses here, with some stating 2500 is fine and others who say they don't comfortably shoot over 800. Whatever the answer is, the fact is that acceptable images from the M9 at higher ISOs will require much more attention to exposure and more skilled post-processing. If high ISO is routinely your thing, the M9 does not make a lot of sense, in my view. Especially considering how well the alternatives you mention handle low light.

 

John

[Anasebi]

90% of shots taken at ISO160-320, ISO 800 nightime maximum, however to me I find Chroma subdued enough to use for larger prints until ISO 1000. Newer Lux or Nokton makes low ISO on M9 easy as all are very contrasty and sharp by F2.

 

I have an Sony NEX and old Nikon D3 and did not find the level of Chroma on M9 shocking at all; perhaps as both those cameras are not excellent today and the E-P1 I had before was far worse. Infact I only ever really notice it at ISO 1250+ and thats like nighvision mode for a M9 with lens good at F2.8 or lower.

[Me Leica!]

2500, develop in CS5, pretty good results, comparable to 5Dii @ 3200, maybe 6400

Up to 1600 without hesitation, 2000 with care.

 

Maybe you are thrown by the fact that most cameras apply software noisereduction in the camera, but on the M9 it is (mostly) user-controlled in postprocessing.

Whatever else, chroma noise should be near-zero with proper settings, luminance noise a bit more.

 

The programs of choice for noise handling are Lightroom 3 and CS5

 

This is good if you can do this. I looked at a picture I took with a 5D2 at 3200 with no post-processing at all, still I found that the chroma noise was better than the M9 at 640. Although the 5D2 was JPEG, so I guess camera already did some NR. I find post processing usually is a pain, so I like to do little of it as I have to, maybe just change saturation and crop a little. So maybe I would spend too much time at computer and not enough with M9...maybe I am making mistake of thinking that a camera as expensive as M9 should be making good files straight from camera, someone said that high ISO file with M9 needs a lot of attention.

 

Anyway, I can say at least that I have been able to play with the legendary M9, even if I was not so amazed.

[jaapv]

André, I can tell you that the Canon will have done a lot of noise reduction, quite apart from the on-sensor NR that all CMos sensors have.

Yes - for best results the M9 does need attention to the files - it is an "expert's" camera in that respect as well with as little camera interference between you and the photographic process.

I would urge you to delve into the world of postprocessing, I have a suspiscion you even dislike shooting raw, but the M9 really needs it to display the best it can offer - and that is pretty good.

[Me Leica!]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

André, I can tell you that the Canon will have done a lot of noise reduction, quite apart from the on-sensor NR that all CMos sensors have.

Yes - for best results the M9 does need attention to the files - it is an "expert's" camera in that respect as well with as little camera interference between you and the photographic process.

I would urge you to delve into the world of postprocessing, I have a suspiscion you even dislike shooting raw, but the M9 really needs it to display the best it can offer - and that is pretty good.

 

I used to hate RAW, yes. Now I shoot it a lot because my current camera has good performance at high ISO and usually hits exposure and focus well every time so I do not have to do so much post.

 

I suppose I do not understand your words "expert's camera" as consistent with "have to do loads of post processing"...to me an expert's camera gets most things right straight away and needs not so much post. But some people I suppose really enjoy playing with the files after shooting and maybe M9 is for them.

 

Like we say in French, à chacun son métier...

[jaapv]

No - that is an expert camera - the camera will do the thinking and work for you. The philosophy of Leica is that the photographer is the expert and the camera a tool that interferes as little as possible in the process from subject to print. Thus an expert's camera.

You can carve wood with a chisel and dexterity or with a CAD-CAM system. Both are valid, but there is a difference...

[Me Leica!]

No - that is an expert camera - the camera will do the thinking and work for you. The philosophy of Leica is that the photographer is the expert and the camera a tool that interferes as little as possible in the process from subject to print. Thus an expert's camera.

You can carve wood with a chisel and dexterity or with a CAD-CAM system. Both are valid, but there is a difference...

 

Ah, I understand your explanation, even if I do not think I can agree with it. To me a good tool is surely something which helps you do a job as quickly as possible with no more effort than is needed, no? By your version, a Leica is like a high quality bicycle made of best metals and so on, but with one or maybe three gears which requires the rider to make great effort to get moving whereas a DSLR is like a mountain bike of 21 gears, maybe not of best material but making it easy to travel in most places. Maybe in case of camera it is different, but I do not know many people who would choose three speed bike over 21 speed bike especially if one speed bike was more expensive.

 

Perhaps my analogy is bad. My camera (current one) has many options which negate need for some post process (filters, selectable NR for high iso and long exposure, double exposures, and more). This is a very useful tool in my eyes. A camera which says "OK, here is picture, now you tidy it up" is not so much "expert", more like "lazy".

 

I suppose this is Leica's famous puritan character, and I suppose people still like it because they are even nowadays buying Leica. Still, I prefer to have many options on hand at the time of shooting. People say DSLR is too complex and too many buttons, but if you use one for a while you should know what all buttons do and that they are all there for reason; that reason is to give photographer many options at moment of shooting. It sounds like Leica wants to be the minimalist king and let the photographer do a lot of the work after the shot.

 

Like you say, different method, but I think many will find the Leica method a little insulting for the price demanded.

[red_dot]

Andre,

Apart from what others have said, how did you review the high iso shot? Did you look at it on the camera screen? I am asking because M9's screen is known to be crappy but this is a subject for another discussion. You'll need to look at the photo on a computer screen if you haven't done so already.

My shots taken up to 1600 are decent and quite usable. Indeed so, the 2500 ISO one's have a lot of noise and without some post processing in Aperture, they'll be looking pretty bad, at least the colour shots.

Hope this helps you.

[Me Leica!]

Andre,

Apart from what others have said, how did you review the high iso shot? Did you look at it on the camera screen? I am asking because M9's screen is known to be crappy but this is a subject for another discussion. You'll need to look at the photo on a computer screen if you haven't done so already.

My shots taken up to 1600 are decent and quite usable. Indeed so, the 2500 ISO one's have a lot of noise and without some post processing in Aperture, they'll be looking pretty bad, at least the colour shots.

Hope this helps you.

 

Zoomed in on camera screen (did not have monitor around, I was in store). OK, maybe screen is bad, but the noise looked pretty horrible. I don't know if better screen would make it look much better.

[jaapv]

Well, that is the way the camera is, no autofocus, AE and autoiso an afterthought and nothing else automated, it is totally in line to apply nothing that is not needed to the files out of the camera, and yes, it is up to the user to make the best of it. That best can be better than any automated process can give, but it is an aquired skill. That is the way the Leica user wants it. If you like it differently, that is 100% respectable and you are with the vast majority of photographers nowadays, but you will not find it here, I fear.

Yes - that LCD makes the noise look more than horrible and then some - it bears no relation whatever to what you will see on your print.

Edited September 6, 2011 by jaapv

[viramati]

It sounds like the M9 isn't the camera for you but I will say that you can get good shots up to 1600-2000 iso with the correct settings in LR3. In fact I have a preset configured which another forum member posted that I use to deal with noise at high iso so at the click of a button I have most of it sorted with some fine tuning sometimes needed. you will also need to exposure for the shadows and there is considerably reduced DR. If you are talking about the fuji X100 then the M9 won't compete even with good PP. I have been astounded with the files that this little camera gives at high iso in RAW but then it ain't no leica and you are limited to a 25mm(35mm equivalent) lens

 

PS. there is ABSOLUTELY NO way that you can judge the noise on the M9 from the screen as they are jpeg files and the screen is not high res and the noise will be awful. You need to go in with an SD card take some shots and then take them home an load them into LR3 and do some NR

Edited September 6, 2011 by viramati

[adan]

Yes, the M9 (and the M8 and the DMR, all with CCDs) are noisier than their CMOS competitors, straight from the camera.

 

It is a trade-off between weaknesses - I can't sharpen 5D2 images above ISO 800 without the pattern noise from the CMOS starting to look like I took the picture through a screen door. So I end up with fuzzier Canon images and noisier Leica images.

 

The regular Nikon D3 cameras (or D700) are only 13 Mpixels - again, a trade-off of lower noise (bigger pixels to capture more light), but also noticably lower resolution. Not a reasonable comparison unless one uses a D3x.

 

As mentioned, if you have only seen M9 images on the camera's LCD - you have not really seen M9 images. I will guarantee that a DNG opened with a computer will not look the same, even with no corrections made.

 

Additionally, unless your test shot was under actual daylight, correcting for white balance from other types of light adds its own noise penalty.

 

The Leica/Kodak sensors have very strong blue filters in the Bayer pattern, which makes for very pure, saturated colors under sunlight (my Canon requires a big boost in saturation to match the Leica). But under yellowish indoor lights, the blue channel will be practically unexposed - and dragging it up to match the other colors will increase the chroma noise.

 

Again, a tradeoff. On the whole, I'll accept Leica's noise to get Leica's colors.

[bocaburger]

I took a shot of the Leica manual (which, you know, is black) ..................

Maybe you think, ah, he did not expose correctly, but the camera meter was indicating good exposure.

 

Just a FYI: The M9 does not have a matrix/evaluative meter. It is like the meters of older cameras in that it is calibrated to assume and correctly expose a subject of 18% reflectance. If you accept the meter's interpretation of "correct" on a black subject occupying most of the meter's reading area, the meter, trying to render the subject 18% (mid-tone gray), will have you overexposing by at least a stop. I don't know if that would make what you're complaining about in this case better or worse.

[JATA]

A camera which says "OK, here is picture, now you tidy it up" is not so much "expert", more like "lazy".

 

 

 

You hit the nail on the head there....Your big, heavy, auto every thing dslr is a camera that will make you lazy as a photographer.

 

Lazy photographers do not take good pictures.

 

I have shot (still do) leica film for a long time and was on the fence about the M9 for a long time. Now I shoot weddings using only the M9 and two lenses (28 & 50) and what a joy it is!

 

When the light goes down I mount the 50 lux asph @ f1.4 and wack the iso up to 2500 and have a blast. Hand on heart I much prefer the files I get compared to the Nikon I used to shoot in similar conditions at high iso.

 

Don't forget about the glass...ever!

 

For what it's worth , Leica didn't design the M9 to shoot it's own catalogue, go shoot the thing in the real world and in time be prepared to have you socks blown off.

[red_dot]

Zoomed in on camera screen (did not have monitor around, I was in store). OK, maybe screen is bad, but the noise looked pretty horrible. I don't know if better screen would make it look much better.

 

I've got the same feeling when I saw my first high iso shots. Then I downloaded them onto my Mac and what do you know... the files looked much, much better than I feared. Not sure about CS5 or LR, but in Aperture, if you shoot RAW, you can apply some noise reduction to fine tune the RAW file (not available for JPG though).

Somebody had suggested to get a card, take some high iso RAW shots and look at them at home. If then you're still not pleased, then Leica is definitely not for you. In the end, only YOU can decide what you want and what you need. For us here, M9 serves us very well and we're happy with what we have.

Don't get me wrong. We're not arguing with you, we're just sharing our experiences as daily users.

[jaapv]

Adobe is the leader of the pack in noise handling on raw conversion. My normal workflow runs through Capture One, but as soon as ISO is 1250 or more, I will use ACR 6.0 (the raw machine of Lightroom3 and CS5) It will gain me one to two stops in the noise.

[lct]

André, je ne suis pas un fanatique du M9 non plus, i'm not an M9 fan either but comparing it to dSLRs is like comparing apples to oranges. Main question IMO is do you need a digital rangefinder. If so, your only choice is M9 or second hand M8 or Epson R-D1. None of those cameras are noise free to say the least but it is the price we pay to use a digital RF until the M10 or whatever will be cleaner at high isos.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Jamie Roberts]

FWIW, as everyone has said here, it's really all about tradeoffs, and noise is only one.

 

First, you have to shoot RAW with the M9 for decent high ISO performance. That's ok: I have to shoot RAW with Canon or Nikon for decent skin tones.

 

Next, again on colour, for me I have much less post to do with M9 shots than with Canon or Nikon. I need to fiddle with saturation and colour with almost every single Nikon shot, and Canon's "red balance" weighting is well-known. The only way to fix those shots is to fix every shot.

 

That doesn't bug me much--colour was something you needed to fix with film and print too. Just because the lab did it for so many "expert" photographers doesn't mean it didn't need to be done

 

Anyway, digital brings all this to us, and for my workflow, I get better colour more quickly from the M9 in post.

 

Up to ISO 2000, I have no problems with M9 files if they're exposed properly. ISO 2500 requires a lot of care in exposure and printing but it's also fine with C1 or LR these days. In fact, what you lose is more DR than you would with a D3, say, but noise? Not so much, especially since in my own tests my M9 is as sensitive at 2500 as the D3 is at 3200.

 

After ISO 2500, though, I'm in Nikon territory, it's true. But I don't usually have to go there--fast Leica glass makes up for a lot of deficiencies.

 

So those are my limits; yours or others may vary. But I find I spend less time in post with the M9 than any other camera I've used (except for the S2... but that's a different story entirely ).