M9 noise performance

[Rick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As an aside, a great PP technique for high ISO under tungsten is to desaturate yellow and then go back up to the White Balance and increase Color Temp and reduce the magenta from the picture with the Tint slider. In effect, you don't need to amplify the blue as much, thus decreasing noise. And, by decreasing magenta tint it gets rid of the purple/magenta blotchiness in skin tones. Also, if you really want to fine tune skin tone, try shifting the Red Hue towards Orange a little bit.

 

Also, you'll notice that the M9 color starts to get real close to the out of camera look of the Canon high ISO. I don't suppose that Canon knows this and does this in-camera?

Edited September 13, 2011 by RickLeica

[wlaidlaw]

I have been using a Nikon D700 recently (I am selling one for a friend who does not have an eBay or Paypal account). I think I may prefer the noise of the M9 DNG's as developed and noise reduced by C1 V6 Pro to the blocky plastic but considerably less noisy appearance of the D700 high ISO shots, also developed by C1. I have not read the 200 page D700 manual, so it may well be I still have in camera noise reduction switched on.

 

When you print the noisy M9 shots to say A3+ and step back two or three metres, the noise is barely visible. I suspect the lack of definition on the Nikon shots would be, although I have to admit I have not tried it. My HP Photosmart Pro B9180 is misbehaving YET again and now refusing to feed paper. Annoying as I had just bought 2 new print heads for it.

 

Wilson

[viramati]

thanks rick. would be great if you could post a screen shot of the slider positions in LR3. thanks

[lct]

Interesting indeed. Desaturate yellow may certainly help, not too much though unless one wants to loose the tungsten atmosphere, but i've never noticed the effect of tweaking magenta in absence of IR problems so far. I use neither M9 nor LR3 though so i wonder what i'm doing here... Just curious folks.

[Jamie Roberts]

Reducing magenta in LR is generally a good thing, as I'm finding out

[lct]

Should i remove my IR-cut filters to experiment the same?

(just twinkle, i will understand)

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I still use them often on the M9.

[Jamie Roberts]

I still use them often on the M9.

 

Um, why? I don't see any excessive IR....

[jaapv]

I see some when the light contains excessive IR, for instance in the Tropics. The M9 filters 80% of IR not 100% according to Stefan Daniel. I find colors more consistent with IR filters on in bright noon sun and tungsten etc.

Edited September 14, 2011 by jaapv

[mjh]

The M9 filters 80% of IR not 100% according to Stefan Daniel.

That’s a bit odd since the IR absorption filter of the M8 already filters 90 to 95 percent of IR, according to Kodak’s specification.

 

Having said that, using a UV/IR cut filter on the lens can be advantageous if the lighting has a strong IR component, not only with the M9 but also with some DSLRs – Pentax comes to mind. The only camera brand that is virtually guaranteed never to need a UV/IR cut filter would be Canon.

[jaapv]

Well the figures I read were different, but no matter, it is well established that the M 9 filtering is not complete, very few digital cameras are. I just think that clearly 5% of Ir makes a huge impact on the M 8 if the 95% is correct which I'll happily accept.

[Jeff S]

This may be of some interest (even though I thought I read the opposite elsewhere, i.e., that an M8 with filter did a better job removing magenta than an M9 without one). Note the comment about using a filter on the M9.

 

Jeff

[Ronan]

Not sure why you're non-plussed; I said the D3 files are just fine to ISO 3200 and workable (but mainly black and white) to 6400, no?

 

Good to know the D3s is even better in this regard. I'm looking forward to seeing what the "D4" will do.

 

I must have mis-understood, sorry

 

D3s has insane high-ISO performance (it's scary).

 

I can't wait for the D4/D400/D800... Thats going to be another High-ISO performer

 

Althought, i sold all my Nikon gear... I couldn't justify sitting on all that gear and not using it (the moment i got the X100 after stopping working in a studio, all my Nikon geared started to gather dust ). I'm hopping my M6 comes back SOON and it's trouble-free so i can start to love Leica again. As it stands, i'm close to giving up and selling everything... but that would be hard... already let go Nikon gear... Leica too? Idk... :|

[k-hawinkler]

All I can say is I love using older Leitz/Leica lens heads and Telyts on my Nikons.

Hopefully D4, D400, D800, or whatever they will be called, show up soon.

I am positive they would complement an M10 nicely.

 

Cheers, K-H.

[Swanny66]

I just got back from 2 weeks on holiday and used the M9 for some night shots while there (on a tripod). Shooting in DNG, I used ISO 1000 for some and down to 200 on others and when I opened in CS5 I couldn't tell the difference really. At least significant enough to be concerned about it. Granted, I was not looking for detail in the dark areas. But noise was almost not noticeable on the 1000 shots.

[hoppyman]

I routinely use 640 ISO to 1000 ISO as appropriate. I very seldom used higher than 400 ISO film so personally I'm very content with the M9's peformance.

 

In my experience light quality more than absolute level is a significant factor. Exposure and developing decisions are best fitted to your subject just as with any other photography.

Underexposure and then subsequent lightening of shadows in poor quality lighting makes noise most visible in my view.

 

640 ISO, several 2 second exposures stitched together for night panorama

Surfers night Pano photo - Geoff Hopkinson photos at pbase.com

 

Centre of frame crop 640 ISO (flower with detail and areas of smooth tone)

Wild Iris photo - Geoff Hopkinson photos at pbase.com

 

 

100% crop insect close up 800 ISO

Hedge Grasshopper in my garden photo - Geoff Hopkinson photos at pbase.com

 

Casual portraits 1000 ISO

Make Up Artist at work photo - Geoff Hopkinson photos at pbase.com

Saboo photo - Geoff Hopkinson photos at pbase.com

Edited September 15, 2011 by hoppyman
text clarity

[gravastar]

Um, why? I don't see any excessive IR....

Take a living room interior where there is a lit gas or solid fuel fire in the picture and you'll wish you had used an IR cut filter on the M9. Hot coals are out of focus/overexposed with a purple halo.

 

Bob.

[Shade]

The m9 doesn't win awards on the high ISO capabilities. If you are shooting under moonlight a lot, I would suggest that you stick to your d3s and you will be much happier. Judging by what you posted, no matter what high ISO is acceptable for me, it won't be for you.

[Jamie Roberts]

Take a living room interior where there is a lit gas or solid fuel fire in the picture and you'll wish you had used an IR cut filter on the M9. Hot coals are out of focus/overexposed with a purple halo.

 

Bob.

 

Hmmm. I will check that. You sure it's not just a white balance issue with exposure and the flame itself?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Double Negative]

If you're complaining about noise... Either your technique needs work or your lenses aren't fast enough.

 

Seriously though... Okay, so the M9 high-ISO isn't quite comparable to the insane speeds of the latest DSLRs. But I consider it a reasonable trade-off when shooting the M9 and RFs in general. If I need high-ISO, AF, macro, etc. then I use a different tool... Which has trade-offs of its own.