Does the M9 have good and bad ISOs?

[CaptZoom]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

No I do this routinely in my PS workflow' date=' not input sharpening. Check out the digital section and you will also see that other s do the same.[/quote']

 

You don't go one to one for input sharpening?

We're in agreement regarding dust removal, and I'm in no way advocating pixel peeping (but I find going one to one for sharpening useful).

[charlesphoto99]

For years now I've shot almost exclusively iso 200/400/800/1600 with my M9 (sometimes 160 and 2500 as well if that little bit extra needed). The reason for this is it makes changing iso quick and easy as I can just run up and down the far left column. I honestly doubt once you factor in all the other variables focus, exposure, RAW converter, jpeg conversion or print dithering) whether there would be that much difference in noise say between 320 and 400 or 160 and 200 or 1250 and 1600. But each person's working methods vary, this is just one that works for me as I change iso a lot on the fly. Also helps me think in full stops from the film days that I'm used to.

[colonel]

160 is spectacular (better then 5Dii base)

320 is excellent (like 5D ii ISO 800)

640 is very good, when combined with Lightroom 4 (like 5Dii ISO 1600)

1250 is good, a bit of grain needs to be left if you don't want to destroy too much detail, depending on processing, light levels and shadow recovery (bad!) (like 5Dii ISO 3200)

2500 is usable in good light and film grainy in low light. I stick to B&W when I use 2500

 

note these are not scientific (duh!) just my estimation

 

I don't use other ISO values as I am superstitious about using pure gain multiples

 

In general, for B&W, you can add a stop to my findings above

[gjames9142]

For me the jury is still out whether 160 or 320 is best. 320 introduces a little bit of noise that reads more like grain and can be very nice in a 36-inch print. I read in one of the many posts on this subject that 200 shows the highest dynamic range. No idea whether this is true, though. If you want to work in low light, forget about colour and get a Monochrom.

[dwbell]

160, 320. 640 etc is awkward on my analogue incident meter. So I stick to 160 - then 200, 400, 800 etc. I don't limit myself to any ISO ceiling, that implies not taking a picture if the light's too low? I've seen way to many stunning, award winning, famous images from history that are grainy and have motion blur to think they're not worth it. I'd rather take the shot and decide in post if it's worth anything or not.

 

I've always been disappointed with the M9's low light performance. I was told here often that it's fine. Yet Leica are improving it with the M and many are trading up? Odd.

[Lindolfi]

@colonel: excellent summary! Exactly my experience.

[efreed2754]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Agree with the Colonel too. Shoot many concerts and set ISO to 320 if possible, sometimes 400. Believe prior thread suggested best to keep 400 and under if possible.

 

Definitely see difference from 160; one reason hoping new M does a better job in this area.

[Dannybuoy]

Not sure I can answer your question regarding if any ISO levels are more prone to exaggerated noise or not but I'll add my 2 pence worth. I regularly shoot at high ISO depending on the situation. For most of my M9 photos they will only ever be viewed at the default image size on Flickr so noise is a moot point anyway. But for commercial work I'd try and keep it lower depending on the target reproduction. Most of my photography is for web so never really a huge deal. I got myself a Canon Pixma Pro 1 printer a few months back and have printed some high quality A3 prints of high ISO photos and the look great. It looks like film grain anyway so it doesn't really bother me. I also printed a 200kb JPG my wife took on her iPhone of my daughter at A3 and that looked pretty dam good. I've lost my fear of high ISO recently. Only the most deacerning of pixel peeper will tell you otherwise. Enjoy your new camera. I'm as much in love with mine 3 years on as I was on day one.

[sblitz]

160 and 320 (getting to like 320 more, and yes I can push in software but I can't shoot at the same speed in real life) --- BUT, 1600 is fine in color IF you set the AWB to a fixed level, 3200K for example or use a white card. Thorsten brought this point up a while ago in some long lost thread. I tried it and was absolutely right -- if the camera doesn't have to configure WB at same time the noise level drops appreciably. So, I shoot 1600 often enough and the picture comes out fine. Do not, however, assume the picture in the back of the camera is what shows up in LR4 or C1, the softward produces a MUCH better photo w/o even pushing the levels on nr.

[douglasf13]

160 and 320 (getting to like 320 more, and yes I can push in software but I can't shoot at the same speed in real life) --- BUT, 1600 is fine in color IF you set the AWB to a fixed level, 3200K for example or use a white card. Thorsten brought this point up a while ago in some long lost thread. I tried it and was absolutely right -- if the camera doesn't have to configure WB at same time the noise level drops appreciably. So, I shoot 1600 often enough and the picture comes out fine. Do not, however, assume the picture in the back of the camera is what shows up in LR4 or C1, the softward produces a MUCH better photo w/o even pushing the levels on nr.

 

I believe that it has since been disproven that, when shooting RAW, setting a manual WB vs. setting Auto WB, and then changing both to the same WB value in LR, makes any difference in noise at all. In jpeg, sure, but not raw.

[andrew00]

Earlier today I got a call from a musician buddy of mine asking me to take some shots of him in a new members club before it opened. So I popped along with the M9-P and found it to be a pretty averagely/dim, aka mood-lit location.

 

As it was all last minute I only had my Litepanels Micropro and a LED torch with me, which I used to try to light him up.

 

Needless to say I ended up having to use ISO 1600 a lot, and consequently the images are fairly noisy. I didn't have time to absorb any of the tips in this thread yet, or the others.

 

Is there a good guide out there for Noise Reduction, esp in L4 for M9 files so I can try to get them looking as good as possible?

[algrove]

You don't go one to one for input sharpening?

We're in agreement regarding dust removal, and I'm in no way advocating pixel peeping (but I find going one to one for sharpening useful).

 

Yes 1:1 minimum and at times even larger when I have stitched MF files that approach 2GB.

[algrove]

160 and 320 (getting to like 320 more, and yes I can push in software but I can't shoot at the same speed in real life) --- BUT, 1600 is fine in color IF you set the AWB to a fixed level, 3200K for example or use a white card. Thorsten brought this point up a while ago in some long lost thread. I tried it and was absolutely right -- if the camera doesn't have to configure WB at same time the noise level drops appreciably. So, I shoot 1600 often enough and the picture comes out fine. Do not, however, assume the picture in the back of the camera is what shows up in LR4 or C1, the softward produces a MUCH better photo w/o even pushing the levels on nr.

 

I have to go back and check, but didn't Thorsten mostly PP his images as jpeg's? I very much like his WB approach and often use it too. Even indoors with low light he holds his ISO to 800 and likes 200 outdoors if I recall.

[douglasf13]

I have to go back and check, but didn't Thorsten mostly PP his images as jpeg's? I very much like his WB approach and often use it too. Even indoors with low light he holds his ISO to 800 and likes 200 outdoors if I recall.

 

It seems that he used to talk about this WB method in terms of jpeg and RAW, but was mistaken about raw, which I'd expect. link: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/114480-manual-white-balance-2.html

[jdlaing]

ALL OSO speeds are good.

Some are just better than others.

[mmradman]

Well done on the M9 Andrew, It's a cracking camera.

 

"Cracking" - with or without pun intended.

 

Happy M9P user; 160-800 Colour, 1000-2500 B&W.

[colonel]

I don't want to mention the obvious but I will

 

I find that all cameras have noticeable pixel level noise above ISO 400. Also, a fact that is often ignored is the dynamic range and colour bits curve. most cameras loose substantial DR and colour range as you move up the curve. so the mystical "pop" we all talk about is really best extracted at base ISO on most cameras.

 

With f1.4 lenses, which I use on all my cameras, its mostly a non-issue. Going above 640 at f1.4 with -1/3 or -2/3 exposure compensation is rarely necessary, except for dimly lit halls where I use 1250. Certainly we need to be honest and admit that the genuinely usable results of the D700, D600, D800, 6D and 5Diii, not to mention the awesome Sony RX1 or the excellent Fuji 16mp x-trans at 3200 are not available to M9/ME users, and would be good for me to achieve f4, rather then in any lower light.

 

ISO 1250 on the M9 is broadly comparable to ISO 5000 on the MM. Shooting with the MM shows the usefulness of having this range which can not be denied. However its not necessary, more a nice to have.

[IWC Doppel]

This might help, posted in a LFI magazine. 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!

[douglasf13]

Thanks, IWC. The difference isn't quite as much as I thought, being primarily in the 1-1.5 EV range.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

That is because of the character of the noise. The MM produces a less obtrusive pattern.