brill64 Posted May 25, 2012 Share #41 Posted May 25, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) the cv35 1.2 is 3x the length & weight of your 35cron f2. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 25, 2012 Posted May 25, 2012 Hi brill64, Take a look here Why choose M9 over M8?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Marignac Posted May 25, 2012 Author Share #42 Posted May 25, 2012 Your thinking only holds if you compare sensors of different size with the same number of pixels, but in that case the smaller sensor will have correspondingly smaller pixels (and thus more noise) But that is not the case for the M8 and M9 sensor. I see, so how come M8 is more noise sensitive than M9? Electronics? Algorithms in processing the image? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nugat Posted May 25, 2012 Share #43 Posted May 25, 2012 I see, so how come M8 is more noise sensitive than M9? Electronics? Algorithms in processing the image? M9 sensor is double the area of M8 sensor. It corresponds to one stop difference in noise/sensitivity for the print of the same size. Whether there are any other factors in differences, (or are there really any differences other than one stop?) I don't know. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 25, 2012 Share #44 Posted May 25, 2012 Yes. The size difference in the sense of the absolute number of pixels reduces apparent noise and indeed different algorithms contribute as well.. Some noise reduction @ 2500 and a shifted blackpoint. A cropped-to-M8 size M9 image should be exactly as noisy as the corresponding M8 image assuming identical in-camera processing , but is in reality about 1/2 stop better because of firmware. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted May 25, 2012 Share #45 Posted May 25, 2012 Some noise reduction @ 2500 and a shifted blackpoint. A cropped-to-M8 size M9 image should be exactly as noisy as the corresponding M8 image assuming identical in-camera processing , but is in reality about 1/2 stop better because of firmware. The noise-processing doesn't begin at 2500 - that's a myth that you've repeated since the beginning. It's there at all ISOs, but becomes more noticeable when noise increases (at higher ISOs, naturally). We've discussed this before. PS: I have to add, concerning the running discussion in this thread, I love the comical relief provided by people's misunderstanding of pixels and resolution, and so on. Never ceases to amuse me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 25, 2012 Share #46 Posted May 25, 2012 Just quoting Leica at introduction. It does not matter one way or another. Just insert the word " mainly" where applicable, OK? Then I won't be badgering you for using a fine-grain developer... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted May 25, 2012 Share #47 Posted May 25, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Just quoting Leica at introduction Well naturally everything that Leica says is 100% true. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianv Posted May 25, 2012 Share #48 Posted May 25, 2012 Kodak, and now their spin-off, has been improving sensors with each generation. The KAF-18500 is the next-generation from the KAF-10500. Improvements with respect to noise is no doubt a salient feature of the newer CCD. If it was "Just Firmware" or "Just Software", these algorithms could be applied to the M8 image for the same improvements. LR3 does a good job with respect to noise reduction. My M9 images at ISO 2500 come out a bit noisier as my late production M8 at 640, but much better than 1250. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted May 25, 2012 Share #49 Posted May 25, 2012 Kodak, and now their spin-off, has been improving sensors with each generation. The KAF-18500 is the next-generation from the KAF-10500. Improvements with respect to noise is no doubt a salient feature of the newer CCD. Well you obviously have the inside information that the rest of us (including LFI) have missed the last few years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted May 25, 2012 Share #50 Posted May 25, 2012 PS: I have to add, concerning the running discussion in this thread, I love the comical relief provided by people's misunderstanding of pixels and resolution, and so on. Never ceases to amuse me. Puts says it a lot better than I could under the section titled M8 versus M9, addressing both pixel and resolution aspects of the two cameras. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianv Posted May 25, 2012 Share #51 Posted May 25, 2012 Well you obviously have the inside information that the rest of us (including LFI) have missed the last few years. I've read their sensor Data sheets since the 1980s, have watched a steady progress on improved spectral response, noise floor, and quantum efficiency. It's amazing how things have progressed in the last 30 years. I worked on some Digital imaging systems in the early 1980s, we made out own detectors and cameras. With the M8 and M9- comparing a few images under the same lighting conditions makes it apparent tht the M9's ISO 2500 is is cleaner than the M8 at ISO 2500. Kodak published the KAF-10500 long sheet, but did not put the KAF-18500 long sheet up on their site. "Decades ago", I was on a non-disclosure agreement with Kodak to develop Infrared detectors under a technology exchange. Working at a research lab has some advantages. I would suspect that LFI is under an NDA with them as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted May 28, 2012 Share #52 Posted May 28, 2012 I've read their sensor Data sheets since the 1980s, have watched a steady progress on improved spectral response, noise floor, and quantum efficiency. It's amazing how things have progressed in the last 30 years. I worked on some Digital imaging systems in the early 1980s, we made out own detectors and cameras. With the M8 and M9- comparing a few images under the same lighting conditions makes it apparent tht the M9's ISO 2500 is is cleaner than the M8 at ISO 2500. Kodak published the KAF-10500 long sheet, but did not put the KAF-18500 long sheet up on their site. "Decades ago", I was on a non-disclosure agreement with Kodak to develop Infrared detectors under a technology exchange. Working at a research lab has some advantages. I would suspect that LFI is under an NDA with them as well. The M9 uses a number of different methods to reduce noise: the Bayer filter colors are altered for a 'better' noise response*, the firmware employs a noise-reduction algorithm, the BP is altered, and so on. LFI discussed the sensor after the M9 was released - any NDA would no longer have applied. The article was detailed and unusually interesting (for LFI). Sorry to say I can't remember the issue number. *at the cost of a more pleasing color in the final image - IMO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
doolittle Posted May 28, 2012 Share #53 Posted May 28, 2012 . And what on earth are “ file pixels”? ? I suspect they are the digital successors to the Cottingley Fairies Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianv Posted May 28, 2012 Share #54 Posted May 28, 2012 What you would like to make a direct comparison of the sensors used in the M8 and M9 would be the "Device Performance Specification", the long sheet. Kodak published this spec for the KAF-10500, glad I downloaded it.Last revision was July 2007. Specification for Saturation Signal, Quantum Efficiency for Red, green, Blue pixels, darkSignal, read noise, and charge transfer efficiency are given. A have not found a similar specification for the M9 sensor. If anyone has it, would be interested to read it. Most signal reduction algorithms (not all) applied in firmware can be done in post-processing. I see much more than a 1/2 stop advantage between the M9 and M8 regarding noise reduction. As an example of improved sensor performance, the September 2010 spec sheet for the KAF-31600, which also uses 6.8um pixels, has 1/2 the dark-current and improved quantum efficiency compared to the older KAF-10500. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianv Posted May 28, 2012 Share #55 Posted May 28, 2012 I guess to sum all of this up, Try out an M8. Try out an M9. If the M8 serves your purpose, stick with it and save $5000. I tried out the M8, liked it. Bought an M9, liked it even more. Kept and use both, because I like them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brill64 Posted May 30, 2012 Share #56 Posted May 30, 2012 maybe the question should read, 'why choose the m8 over m9?' then there's,'m2 over m3', 'm6 over m4' & so on.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
haroldp Posted May 31, 2012 Share #57 Posted May 31, 2012 maybe the question should read, 'why choose the m8 over m9?' then there's,'m2 over m3', 'm6 over m4' & so on.. good question. From an imaging / image quality point of view theres is no possible reason to choose m8 over m9 as the m9 sensor contains an m8 sensor of later generation. One might prefer the top image conter of the m8 or the finish options but they do not affect the image. I have and use both, but my m8s now always have long(ish) lenses mounted (usually 90 elmarit-m ) where I know I will be cropping anyway, and the m8 is actually there as a backup for the m9 so I might as well use it. My standard Leica travel kit is the above m8, and an m9 with 28-35-50 tri-elmar, and some other lenses in the bag. If I am going with one body, it would never be the m8 over m9. The primary reason to choose an m8 over an m9 is cost. If they were the same price the question would not even come up. Regards .... H Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted May 31, 2012 Share #58 Posted May 31, 2012 From an imaging / image quality point of view theres is no possible reason to choose m8 over m9 as the m9 sensor contains an m8 sensor of later generation. Well, what's on top of that sensor might make a difference to some. IR filtration with an M8 and an external filter is sometimes better than the M9 and its internal filtration. That potentially affects colors and file 'sharpness' (for lack of a better word) out of the camera, prior to any PP adjustment. I prefer the M8.2 for b/w work. And for color work, I don't have to deal with red edge issues, etc, which sometimes affect the M9 files. To say that "theres (sic) no possible reason" means for you, not necessarily based on others' IQ criteria. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
doolittle Posted May 31, 2012 Share #59 Posted May 31, 2012 If you want to take Infrared photographs the M8 has the advantage. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianv Posted May 31, 2012 Share #60 Posted May 31, 2012 I'm tempted to have te IR absorbing filter on the M8 replaced with clear glass. I had that done with an Olympus EP2. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.