edwardkaraa Posted November 23, 2012 Share #1 Posted November 23, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Does anyone know if the intermediate iso settings on the M9 are true (signal amplification), or fake (interpolated from full iso stops) Thank you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 23, 2012 Posted November 23, 2012 Hi edwardkaraa, Take a look here M9 intermediate iso settings. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
theno23 Posted November 23, 2012 Share #2 Posted November 23, 2012 I think you could only tell if you have a chart of ISO setting against exposure / dynamic range. If it's done with amplification then the curve should be fairly smooth. I'd be surprised if it's not though, seems like it would be easier to vary the amplification than boost exposure from the next full ISO down (which is what I guess you mean by interpolation?). - Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AceVentura1986 Posted November 23, 2012 Share #3 Posted November 23, 2012 I was wondering the same. Will be curious to find out. The conventional wisdom was always that the Canon 1Series intermediate settings was just derived from software and no real signal gain. I always shoot my Canons on whole ISOs and have been doing the same with the ME on a similar assumption. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted November 23, 2012 Author Share #4 Posted November 23, 2012 Thank you for the replies. I believe most DSLR interpolate the intermediate iso, at the exception of pro bodies from Canon and Nikon. I hope the M9 does that too. In the meanwhile, I too only use full iso stops. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted November 23, 2012 Share #5 Posted November 23, 2012 There is a noise vs ISO graph that was published showing against the MM. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted November 23, 2012 Author Share #6 Posted November 23, 2012 There is a noise vs ISO graph that was published showing against the MM. Thanks! Any link to that comparison? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted November 23, 2012 Share #7 Posted November 23, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thanks! Any link to that comparison? I'll take a picture of the graph on my iphone when I'm home and post it was in LFI a few months back I cherry picked ISO 500, 1000 and 1600 on the back of this. I tend to go for 160/500/1000/1600 but I could be very wrong ! I also tend to push the shutter speed, sometimes too far. I have plenty of shots at 1/24, 1/15 and 1/8 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
geotrupede Posted November 23, 2012 Share #8 Posted November 23, 2012 Very interesting question! Would be cool to find out. Another question on the top: Which are the values that would not be fudged? The M8 has a base of 160 and then 320, 640 and so on. Same for the M9? At some stage I read that the CCD has a different way of dealing with different ISO settings than CMOS. And the conclusion was that CCD was better, but not sure I did grasp the reason.... Thanks G Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted November 23, 2012 Share #9 Posted November 23, 2012 here you go, sorry for shadows, I'm cooking at the same time, green MM, Blue M9 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! 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/192791-m9-intermediate-iso-settings/?do=findComment&comment=2173406'>More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted November 24, 2012 Author Share #10 Posted November 24, 2012 Thanks a lot for the graph! Very interesting indeed. It is difficult to imagine there is any interpolation going on as the curve is very smooth, except between iso 1250 and 1600. In fact I see no reason to use iso 1250 because 1600 is almost exactly the same, however there is a dramatic increase in noise at 2000 and 2500. Any idea who the author of this graph is? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted November 24, 2012 Share #11 Posted November 24, 2012 Thanks a lot for the graph! Very interesting indeed. It is difficult to imagine there is any interpolation going on as the curve is very smooth, except between iso 1250 and 1600. In fact I see no reason to use iso 1250 because 1600 is almost exactly the same, however there is a dramatic increase in noise at 2000 and 2500. Any idea who the author of this graph is? Yes I agree and choose 160, 500, 1000,1,600 and this seems to work well, in fact I actually like 1,600 with some of my lenses at night, particularly the 35 Summaron f2.8 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 24, 2012 Share #12 Posted November 24, 2012 I wonder what that curve tells us about real images, given that a 10.000 ISOMM shot is far more pleasing noise wise than a 2500 ISO M9 shot in the same light. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted November 24, 2012 Author Share #13 Posted November 24, 2012 Yes I agree and choose 160, 500, 1000,1,600 and this seems to work well, in fact I actually like 1,600 with some of my lenses at night, particularly the 35 Summaron f2.8 From the graph I think the sweet spots are 160, 250, 500, 800, 1600. There is so much difference between 2000 and 2500 that I wonder if the latter is really worth using except in extreme conditions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted November 24, 2012 Author Share #14 Posted November 24, 2012 I wonder what that curve tells us about real images, given that a 10.000 ISOMM shot is far more pleasing noise wise than a 2500 ISO M9 shot in the same light. I'm sure the MM will beat the M9 at any iso in the noise department. Monochrome noise is always more pleasing Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted November 24, 2012 Share #15 Posted November 24, 2012 I agree, 'technically' the MM seems 1.5-2.0 stops better, the graph suggests less but shots I have seen suggest more than this Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
darylgo Posted November 24, 2012 Share #16 Posted November 24, 2012 Thanks for posting the graph. The smooth curve is interrupted at 1250 to 1600, and then continues upward (somewhat) smoothly. This makes me wonder, has anyone done any testing at these iso values and can confirm the graph noise values at 1250 and 1600 are equal. Interpreting the graph I would use: 160, 320 (rather than 400), 500 (rather than 640), 800 (rather than 1000), 1600 (rather than 1250 or 2000), 2500 if necessary. Practically speaking I am able to print 17x22 prints at iso 1250 with a lens that is marginal (16mm Nikon Fisheye) and get acceptable results, not Leica-lens-quality but nonetheless acceptable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted November 25, 2012 Share #17 Posted November 25, 2012 Your probably right to choose 800 over 1,000, I will try the same and move to 160,250,500,800,1,600 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted November 25, 2012 Share #18 Posted November 25, 2012 only ISO 160 is not a fake Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted November 25, 2012 Author Share #19 Posted November 25, 2012 only ISO 160 is not a fake When you increase iso by analog gain, it is not fake. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted November 25, 2012 Share #20 Posted November 25, 2012 Either every ISO setting above or below base ISO is fake, or none is. Whether analogue amplification, digital amplification (i.e. multiplication), some more complex calculation, or even storing the digitised values unchanged (so the necessary correction can be applied in the raw converter) is the optimum way of adapting to raised ISO settings depends on various factors. It’s not like one way was more or less fake than the others. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.