M 240 High ISO Comparison

[Zenny]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Leica M High ISO Comparison | THEME

 

THX to Dr.Rohde

[billo101]

The noise is very pronounced already at 3200 ISO, too.

MM has better performance in my opinion, as well as Nikon / Canon full frame.

In any case thanks to the examples.

[Advertisement]

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

[wlaidlaw]

A nightscape would have been a far better test of noise than these shots. Nightscapes are where the chrominance noise of the M8/9 is a real nuisance. On this test with the intense orange and green colours, it is difficult to distinguish between chrominance and luminance noise. Luminance is I think, easier to live with than chrominance. It looks however to be a distinct improvement over the M9, with at least up to 3200 ISO usable, against the M9's real life limit of 1250 ISO in colour or 1600 monochrome, unless you want the very grainy look.

 

Wilson

[chris_tribble]

Ulrich (if I may - otherwise I'll have to revert to Dr Tribble in my signature )

 

Thanks for posting these. Useful. A couple of thoughts.

 

1/ I don't know what settings you're using in your DNG processor (is it LR4?), but thought it might be interesting to use the defaults that I've been using with my output from the M240. These are shown in the screen dump below. If you're not applying a tone curve (I default to Medium Contrast) this may account for some of the flatness that people have commented on.

 

2/ I find these encouraging when I look in darker areas. It seems that the later firmware and calibration are improving matters here and there's less banding than I've noticed in some of the images I've taken. Clearly we need to see more results taken in low light, but it does seem that Leica are getting things better in this area.

 

3/ Compared to the Canon 5D2 I find the structure of noise with the M240 more acceptable - and EITHER of these are absolutely fine for the kind of professional work I do and for the clients I work with.

 

I thought it might be useful to share some of these results - and look forward to seeing further low light examples with the latest firmware and final calibration of the sensor.

 

Best regards

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!

[trond]

Dear Dr. Tribble,

 

Which firmware version did you use in your shots?

 

I noticed that Dr. Rohde is using one version behind Jono.

 

It seems to me that pattern noise improves a great deal in the latest version of Jono´s images.

 

In the ISO comparison of Dr. Rohde, I see a fair amount of pattern noise in the dark windows to the left of the flowers.

 

This kind of pattern noise is also apparent in the dark areas of Jono´s "bread shot", but disappear with later FW versions with the same camera.

 

I agree it would be really interesting to see really low light shots from the M240, so we could study this further.

 

It seems Leica is making great progress in this matter with the latest FW version, and I am looking forward to how this will perform in the production release of the FW.

 

Best regards

 

Trond

[Thomas Chen]

Gentlemen,

 

Color rendering of the flower is beatiful, however, with this lense it is the best opportunity to see the "Leica Glow" effect that Jono mentioned in the forum two days ago.

 

Is it possible to use a Summilux 35mm f/1.4 ASPH with aperture set at 2.8 for the same scene, to create a pin-sharp image something like Chris' St. Paul Catherdral ?

 

Regards,

 

 

Thomas Chen

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Chris,

 

To my eyes, that looks as if the M-240 is giving us at the very least, two stops of additional usable ISO space. The noise also looks smoother than the M9 (less of the very objectionable clumps of chrominance noise). Given the improvement during the life of the M8 and M9 (more M8 than 9), all is looking good. For my style of photography, taking lots of images of European festivals, mainly with ambient lighting, this will be a big advance. Being able to use the 80-200, also means I can leave my Nikon D300 at home.

 

Wilson

[chris_tribble]

Which firmware version did you use in your shots?

I noticed that Dr. Rohde is using one version behind Jono.

Hmmm - and there was me thinking that Dr Rohde would have priviliged access to the latest version. Goes to show what wishful thinking will do!

 

The reality is that my firmware was 0.1.10.0 Ulrich's is 0.1.9.0. His is earlier than mine! Clearly what we are seeing is how the sensor / processor deal with noise in decent lighting when compared with the horrible lighting I was working with. It also shows how much I WANT the M240 to perform well, and how this can cloud perception...

 

Heigh ho - we'll have to wait a bit longer!

[trond]

Dear Chris,

 

I also noticed that Dr. Rohde´s DNG files are slightly adjusted, and that they are tagged with LR process 2010.

 

Or, is it just LR that defaults to process 2010 on a camera without a LR profile?

 

However, I changed this to process 2012, and this gives a small but marked improvement in noise and tonality.

 

Best regards

 

Trond

[mjh]

Hmmm - and there was me thinking that Dr Rohde would have priviliged access to the latest version. Goes to show what wishful thinking will do!

 

The reality is that my firmware was 0.1.10.0 Ulrich's is 0.1.9.0. His is earlier than mine! Clearly what we are seeing is how the sensor / processor deal with noise in decent lighting when compared with the horrible lighting I was working with. It also shows how much I WANT the M240 to perform well, and how this can cloud perception...

The latest version I have seen is 0.1.11.0 and since there were some changes in the noise suppression department, the ISO 6400 shot would have looked different (read: better) with the latest firmware.

[trond]

Please, if someone at Leica listens (I am sure they do).

 

Can you get someone to post high ISO images shot with the latest FW version?

 

BR

 

Trond

[Paul J]

Looks both promising and interesting in character.

[Peter H]

Chris, your observation about tone curves gets to the heart of the issue I think.

 

Its looking as though there is visibly more useable information in an M file than an M9 file, unsurprisingly, and that Leica want to present the RAW file in as neutral a way as possible. This suggests that M files will require slightly more processing than M9 files to create the sort of look I imagine most photographers will want, but that they have the potential to yield even more satisfying results in a wider range of circumstances.

 

I'm very encouraged by what I'm seeing.

[IWC Doppel]

Chris,

 

To my eyes, that looks as if the M-240 is giving us at the very least, two stops of additional usable ISO space. The noise also looks smoother than the M9 (less of the very objectionable clumps of chrominance noise). Given the improvement during the life of the M8 and M9 (more M8 than 9), all is looking good. For my style of photography, taking lots of images of European festivals, mainly with ambient lighting, this will be a big advance. Being able to use the 80-200, also means I can leave my Nikon D300 at home.

 

Wilson

 

I look forward to some side by side comparisons, but to me it looks nearer to 2 stops or slightly under, rather than over ?

[rosuna]

The latest version I have seen is 0.1.11.0 and since there were some changes in the noise suppression department, the ISO 6400 shot would have looked different (read: better) with the latest firmware.

 

But that affects JPG files not DNG files, right?

[wlaidlaw]

I look forward to some side by side comparisons, but to me it looks nearer to 2 stops or slightly under, rather than over ?

 

If you look at Dr. Rohde's files, I would agree but if you look at some of Chris' night shots of London, taken with the later firmware, I would have said over two stops. The 6400 shots are more usable than nighttime 1600 ISO colour ones are from an M9. Look at the modest amount of chrominance noise in the dark areas. I only ever use 1600 ISO on the M9, if I am intending to convert the DNG to monochrome in C1, where I can control the appearance of the noise to some extent.

 

Wilson

[zlatkob]

I also noticed that Dr. Rohde´s DNG files are slightly adjusted, and that they are tagged with LR process 2010.

 

Or, is it just LR that defaults to process 2010 on a camera without a LR profile?

 

However, I changed this to process 2012, and this gives a small but marked improvement in noise and tonality.

 

Process 2012 is a significant improvement over Process 2010 (and Process 2010 was dramatic improvement over Process 2003). Everyone with a digital camera and Lightroom or Photoshop should switch to Process 2012. Adobe has done a fantastic job of making all digital cameras look better.

[mjh]

But that affects JPG files not DNG files, right?

I suppose so, yes.

[mtomalty]

. It also shows how much I WANT the M240 to perform well, and how this can cloud perception...

!

 

Fortunately,perception notwithstanding, the M is a considerable improvement over the M9

with respect to hi iso noise characteristics.

While a little further firmware tweaking should tighten things up a little more, M files have,

already,done away with the nasty chunky color noise that plagued the M9 for some of the

ways I used (and then stopped using) the camera

 

Mark

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Luke_Miller]

But that affects JPG files not DNG files, right?

 

 

I hope so, but I'm not sure it's guaranteed. I subscribe to Sean Reid's site and in his camera reviews Sean frequently sees evidence of in-camera noise reduction in raw files. In his review of the M9 he was of the opinion that Leica was doing some NR in the higher ISO M9 DNGs. If true a change in firmware might affect noise in DNGs as well as jpegs.