M9 noise performance

[dwbell]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi Me Leica and welcome to the forum.

 

I posted almost exactly the same observations when I first started shooting with the M9 a year ago.

 

There was a lot of "discussion" during an early post I did comparing the M9 and the 5DII at ISO2500.

 

After a year of shooting my general conclusion is that up to ISO2500 the M9 has more "noise" than the 5DII but the 5DII's internal noise reduction means you loose perceptible detail as a result of a "cleaner" (blurred) looking image. You can get to the "look" of a 5DII file from an M9 file with LR, you can't get to the look of an M9 file from a 5DII file as the fine detail isn't there in the first place.

 

Above 2500 the clear advantage of the 5DII is that it keeps going, the M9 has the 2500 ISO ceiling imposed upon you. So after a certain point I have to shoot with IS and the 5DII just to get a shot, at this stage no comparison is possible (sadly) as the M9 is simply in the bag not shooting.

 

In addition I have found that I can shoot at about a stop to a stop and a half slower with a 5DII and IS lenses than I can with the M9. Mirror slap, weight of body and all the other much voiced disadvantages of the DSLR system don't effect me it seems.

 

I much prefer to shoot with the M9 for 95% of the images I take. Editing is less for my style and look with the M9. The M9 contains much more mid and lower luminance level detail to be brought out in post. At 1:1 the M9 and Leica lenses still amaze me, the canon files I now find lacking in detail and clarity by comparison.

 

You really have to shoot with it for, I don't really know, maybe 6 months to learn how you personally like or dislike the quirks etc.

Edited September 6, 2011 by dwbell

[wlaidlaw]

My personal favourite for noise reduction WAS Noise Ninja. However very disappointingly, they still have not written a 64 bit version for CS5/Mac, although they did ages ago for Windoze. This means every time I want to use it, I have to restart PS CS5 in 32 bit. Mind you I have to do the same to use TWAIN to scan directly into PS, as TWAIN/Canon have not re-written their drivers for 64 bit.

 

The noise reduction on Capture One V6.2.2 is not bad and one can apply it selectively with the brush tool.

 

Wilson

[thighslapper]

Oloneo photoengine ... which is basically a VERY good HDR programme .... has a novel way of noise reduction by combining one of more exposures and subtracting out the dodgy pixels ..... seems to work very well on their examples......

 

might be another solution to the Leica ISO issue.... just a thought...

[Jeff S]

Dealing with moire, sometimes apparent with a digital M due to lack of any anti-aliasing filter, is another tradeoff requiring more work in PP than with dslrs using AA filters.

 

I'll take the better file clarity (resolution) any day, and deal with moire in PP as needed. Once the detail is removed with the Canon/Nikon files, there's no adding it back. Different philosophies.

 

Jeff

[Me Leica!]

All interesting comments, thank you. As I said, I did use M8 for a while. I have to say it, it was probably most frustrating camera I ever use, but also most fun to shoot. I would very much like to try M9, but before I do this I must look at images closer. Price of camera alone is painful, but to add lens as well and then I am thinking, should I sell my house?

 

This is other factor (but not in relation to this one), the price...in same camera store that I went to yesterday there was D3 (to look at it in realistic terms, D3 has superiority over M9 in many ways like speed, high ISO etc, but it is much bigger) and this D3 was on sale for under half the price of M9. If I was super rich I would have both of them, of course. I shoot often sports and action, so of course for this M9 is not ideal.

 

About the issue of camera making me lazy, I do not think so. In fact, as a good DSLR has so many options, it makes you think of "how can I make this shot look like this, or like that" and you can then program camera to create this effect. For instance if I shoot monochrome, I can decide to have green filter, or yellow, or orange, and also how much of each (strong, medium, weak). It is not really different to doing this in post process. One happens before you shoot and one after. So it is not to say that many options make you lazy, but they give you many choices which you must decide. Leica disciplines cameraman with lack of options and DSLR disciplines cameraman with many options.

 

Perhaps if I find M9 is too much for what I want, maybe I will give used M8 another try and keep my main camera for most uses. Best of both the worlds, I think is the expression.

 

Thank you anyway for polite discussion, hope you all enjoy using your M9s for long time!

[likalar]

Thanks, all! This thread has been an eye-opener for me. When I got my M9, 20 months ago, I did some high ISO testing, with an older Photoshop, an older pre-Intel Mac, (which could run only an older version of LR). I learned quickly to avoid higher ISO settings, as noise was very distracting. Now, with the comments here, (thanks to the OP, Jaap and others) and armed with PS5, I just re-tested a bit, and am very pleased! Wow, what a difference! There's a learning curve set before me, but I'm excited to now start re-exploring higher ISO. Thanks, all!

Larry

Edited September 7, 2011 by likalar

[kdriceman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As others are saying, some care on exposure and some effort in pp and even 2500 can be usable... Even not bad. As Jamie says there are tradeoffs and for me, putting a little more effort into pp beats lugging a huge DSLR around the streets. Lightroom's noise reduction is quite remarkable and with practice you can get decent results with minimal time.

 

Also, I don't understand when someone says they won't use ISO above a certain number. Do you just accept motion blur or under exposure? or do you just not take the shot? What if it's a great shot opportunity? To me, a somewhat noisy shot is often better than no shot at all.

[likalar]

......Also, I don't understand when someone says they won't use ISO above a certain number. Do you just accept motion blur or under exposure? or do you just not take the shot? What if it's a great shot opportunity? To me, a somewhat noisy shot is often better than no shot at all.

 

I'm flexible, and do this for fun, so commonly, yes, I'd accept motion blur and underexposure, and often even like the results. I would prefer that than clumpy noise, actually (My early years were spent forcing large grain. I hate those shots now). My personal preferences, but not hard to understand. I respect your preferences, too.

 

Larry

[wlaidlaw]

Also, I don't understand when someone says they won't use ISO above a certain number. Do you just accept motion blur or under exposure? or do you just not take the shot? What if it's a great shot opportunity? To me, a somewhat noisy shot is often better than no shot at all.

 

Luminance noise I can live with, just thinking of it as digital's "grain". However chrominance noise I think is pretty horrible. My wife had the first model C-Lux and the noise was appalling. At 400ISO and above, it looked like a pointilliste painting by a drunken colour blind artist.

 

Wilson

[Ronan]

I'm flexible, and do this for fun, so commonly, yes, I'd accept motion blur and underexposure, and often even like the results. I would prefer that than clumpy noise, actually (My early years were spent forcing large grain. I hate those shots now). My personal preferences, but not hard to understand. I respect your preferences, too.

 

Larry

 

Grab a X100. Up to ISO 3200 images are tack sharp and clean and cheap!

 

Fuji worked some magic into the algorithm on their noise control.

 

Theirs also the Nikon D3s but its too heavy for my prefer kind of shooting.

[kdriceman]

I'm flexible, and do this for fun, so commonly, yes, I'd accept motion blur and underexposure, and often even like the results. I would prefer that than clumpy noise, actually (My early years were spent forcing large grain. I hate those shots now). My personal preferences, but not hard to understand. I respect your preferences, too.

 

Larry

 

Thanks for helping me to understand.

[jaapv]

One common mistake is that most people judge noise on a computer screen. A print looks essentially different. Quite often - nearly always- a print from a file that looks pleasantly clean on your computer will print with an objectionable digital smoothness, whereas a computer file that showed a (decent) amount of luminance noise will look well structured and sharp.

[lct]

Will be hard to live with placticky M10 files then.

[jaapv]

One can always add noise.

[lct]

Hehe yes easier to add than to remove.

[viramati]

add noise I like it can you imagine the threads that could be had on that one!!!

[Me Leica!]

One common mistake is that most people judge noise on a computer screen. A print looks essentially different. Quite often - nearly always- a print from a file that looks pleasantly clean on your computer will print with an objectionable digital smoothness, whereas a computer file that showed a (decent) amount of luminance noise will look well structured and sharp.

 

These days though, is it not so that most people view photographs on a screen? Of course, we can print digital files, but I think they are designed to be seen on a monitor. So it is important if noise shows up on monitor. If it will be different on a print, this is not such relevance for most people.

[kdriceman]

It is difficult to fully appreciate a quality image on a video screen. Of course I have thousands and thousands of digital images. In my world these are unfinished, but a few that I want to fully appreciate get printed and displayed in appropriate lighting.

[lct]

...Of course, we can print digital files, but I think they are designed to be seen on a monitor. So it is important if noise shows up on monitor. If it will be different on a print, this is not such relevance for most people.

You should know that a Leica photograph is supposed to be hanged on a wall, not displayed on a vulgar monitor.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pico]

[...]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.

 

Heavy is impertinent. If you can't carry the camera, then pity you.

 

If you have any camera whatsoever and are THERE to make the important picture certainly obviates the lazy assertion. If your picture by a Leica is crap, none of your assertions are relevant unless you were the only one to make the picture. Editors and the public don't care what camera made the picture. To do so emphasizes the camera brand over record of what was there. That is just plain WRONG.

Edited September 9, 2011 by jaapv
ad hominem removed