M9 full specs and pictures are out. Let's discuss.

[gwelland]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't think that there's much point worrying about the quality of the shots in the brochure. Let's face it Leica are hardly likely to put images there that show any significant noise or other artifacts anyway. Even if there were to be any high ISO shots you can be sure that with the reduction of scale of the original down to the pics in the brochure would essentially mask any noise anyway.

 

We'll see high ISO images soon enough I'm sure ...

[nugat]

1600 ISO is almost the practical limit for sensitivity gain where benefits still outweigh artefacts . Anything higher is achieved via cunning noise clean up methods on-camera. That means from 3200ISO it's better to stay in raw, turn off all noise circuits and do the job in post. If there is no 3200ISO it is better to underexpose at 1600ISO. That way one preserves more dynamic range too. Applies to Canikons too.

 

Noise, Dynamic Range and Bit Depth in Digital SLRs -- page 3

 

"Note that the expansion on the bottom end of the range yields less and less as ISO is increased more and more -- going from ISO 100 to ISO 200 yields a big improvement at the lower end of exposure (at the cost of some latitude at the upper end); on the other hand, going from ISO 800 to 1600 doesn't make much difference at all in shadow S/N, and in addition one loses an entire stop of raw headroom. Above ISO 1600 there is no expansion of the shadow range whatsoever, just more and more lost from the top end. The ISO 3200 curve of the 1D3 isn't even plotted above, because it lies almost exactly on top of the ISO 1600 curve, apart from ending one stop earlier ot the top end. This is why it makes no sense to use absurdly high ISO's like 6400 if one uses raw capture -- it just throws away highlight headroom without getting anything back at the shadow end; it's better to underexpose by a stop or two at ISO 1600 if the shutter speed is needed, than to use higher ISO.

 

It ceases to make sense to raise the ISO beyond 1600 on the 1D3 in raw capture, because there is no improvement in read noise measured in electrons; one loses highlight headroom with no compensating gain at the shadow end. (The bit depth is far more than is needed given the noise level in ADU.) It is better to underexpose at ISO 1600, since one obtains the same shadow detail with more highlight headroom, provided the raw converter can accurately apply the needed exposure compensation. For the same reason, there is little reason with Canon DSLR's to use the "intermediate" ISO's 500, 640, 1000, 1250 (and only minimal benefit to ISO 125, 160, 250, and 320), since their read noises are nearly the same as the next lowest "main" ISO of 100, 200, 400, or 800. Again, underexposure at that next lowest "main" ISO has almost identical shadow detail in the raw data, but delivers more highlight headroom. Nikon uses a different means of obtaining intermediate ISO's, such that the read noise drops more uniformly with increasing 1/3 stop ISO settings.

 

Bottom line: High exposure zones and/or high ISO, where photon noise and pre-amplification read noise dominate the noise, are rather insensitive to what ISO is chosen once a choice of exposure is selected and care is taken not to clip highlights. Underexposing by a stop, and doubling the raw values in post-processing (that is, applying exposure compensation), yields the same image quality as 'proper' exposure under these conditions. On the other hand, in lower exposure zones at low ISO, where post-amplification read noise becomes important, the read noise goes down by a bit less than a factor of two (in electrons) when the ISO doubles. In this situation, underexposing by a stop and doubling the raw values in post-processing, yields more noise than proper exposure, particularly in shadows.

 

By the way, underexposing at lower ISO is precisely what Canon cameras do in the raw data when Highlight Tone Priority (HTP) is enabled; and what Nikon cameras do when Active D-Lighting (ADL) is enabled. Instead of using the ISO gain set by the user, the camera uses a lower ISO (but exposes with the indicated aperture and shutter speed), effectively underexposing the image; this provides more highlight headroom. In post-processing, the image data can be brought back up while preserving the highlights with a modified tone curve in higher exposure zones. The place where image quality suffers is in shadows at lower ISO, precisely as the above quantitative model predicts."

[Advertisement]

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

[nugat]

Still wondering how they want to achieve sensible 16 bit recording.

As the below paper shows, even in Nikon D3 12 bit is all that's needed and sensible.

Noise, Dynamic Range and Bit Depth in Digital SLRs -- page 3

[thrid]

Still wondering how they want to achieve sensible 16 bit recording.

As the below paper shows, even in Nikon D3 12 bit is all that's needed and sensible.

Noise, Dynamic Range and Bit Depth in Digital SLRs -- page 3

 

Regardless of what that paper says, you do see an improvement with the 14bit files over 12bit in heavy post processing. I notice a difference between the 12bit and 14bit RAW files from my D700.

 

It's not so much that you are going to see smoother gradation on the screen. That's almost a pointless argument since most screens can't display that sort of bit depth anyway. But the gradations will remain smooth for longer, if you start to manipulate the image. The more information you have to draw from in the file, the better off your final results will be. Notice how a lot of audio mastering is done in at least 20bit, but a CD is output at 16bit, MP3 at a lot less.

 

You're not going to see a real difference if you shoot JPEGS, but for RAW processing, the more data you have the better off you are.

Edited September 6, 2009 by thrid

[bebert]

Cuba - a country whose leadership has spent the last 40 years resisting change.

 

Is that why Leica thought it was a good place for the brochure shoot?

 

No idea, but Cuba is a great country for street photographers. If I had known that when I was in Cuba this summer, I might have met a photographer with a M9 in the streets of Habana!!! I saw some M8s but defintively no M9!

 

Some on my pics from Cuba: Zenfolio | Photographie Jean-Marc Humbert | Cuba Eté 2009

 

M8 is splendid, M9 appears to be superlative. I can not image what would be the prints with 18 Mpixels 16bit raws taken from a CCD sensor when I see what I already get from the M8! I just hope that the IR filter that may have added to the sensor would not kill the "crispy" feeling we have with the M8...

[andybarton]

The M9s wouldn't have been badged as such, so any one of those photographers might have been the "mystery tester"

[stunsworth]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The M9s wouldn't have been badged as such, so any one of those photographers might have been the "mystery tester"

 

Someone I know well is currently in Perpignan for Visa Pour L'Image and has said that he was talking to someone using an M9 yesterday. An unmarked camera and the user said that he's been using it for 3 months and "it was the camera to end all cameras". Hyperbole perhaps, but it indicates something rather special to me.

[nugat]

Regardless of what that paper says, you do see an improvement with the 14bit files over 12bit in heavy post processing. I notice a difference between the 12bit and 14bit RAW files from my D700.

 

It's not so much that you are going to see smoother gradation on the screen. That's almost a pointless argument since most screens can't display that sort of bit depth anyway. But the gradations will remain smooth for longer, if you start to manipulate the image. The more information you have to draw from in the file, the better off your final results will be. Notice how a lot of audio mastering is done in at least 20bit, but a CD is output at 16bit, MP3 at a lot less.

 

You're not going to see a real difference if you shoot JPEGS, but for RAW processing, the more data you have the better off you are.

 

The article does say that D3 (hence D700) almost warrants the 13 bit , so you may see the difference. The question is how M9 gets the 16 bits off the sensor and via A/D converter into the DNG uncompressed file.

[stunsworth]

The question is how M9 gets the 16 bits off the sensor and via A/D converter into the DNG uncompressed file.

 

I think we need to wait to see if it is a true 16 bit sensor, or whether the reference to 16 bits was referring to how Lightroom handles the files.

[Samir Jahjah]

Where can I download or read the brochure everybody is talking about?

[stunsworth]

Where can I download or read the brochure everybody is talking about?

 

Google is your friend.

[okram]

It would be nice to have more than 2fps in 8 bit mode...like 4fps?

But I dont think so.

[Samir Jahjah]

Google is your friend.

 

I know. I got a link, but it does not work.

[okram]

Very low image noise characteristics, ...

[carstenw]

First thoughts, how have they managed FF in the existing body, why not chrome (tho the grey looks nice), top plate is very bare tho, needs the traditional Leica script, and .... where's the flash pc socket!!!!

 

Interestingly, there are no chrome bodies this time. Silver paint, black paint. I prefer chrome, but black paint is also fine.

 

Since the batteries seem to be the same, according to someone, I presume the slightly rotated or shifted it to the middle of the body to make room. I am a little sad that the camera isn't smaller than the M8, to be honest. I had hoped that they could shave a millimeter or two off the thickness and height. Other than that, it looks more or less like an M8, and is almost exactly the same in every way, other than minor detail tweaks, and the FF sensor. I presume IQ is a step up. If the ISO 80 is not real, I will be disappointed, but at least it is there.

[carstenw]

I know. I got a link, but it does not work.

 

Searching for "Leica M9 Brochure" gives lots of links. One is bound to work.

[egibaud]

I think the M9 confirms my thoughts. It is ideal for amateurs who do not need to justify the investment and have incomes other than from photography. It is also ok for photographer whose prices are quite high.

 

Where I am based the prices we practice cannot justify the investment. I use 2 M8 bodies and one of them I bought when I was an amateur so I never really looked at cost then. Now replacing them with 2 M9 for let's says 3 year of intensive use would mean doing 6 wedding coverages to pay for them + batteries, larger SD cards... so probably 7 Weddings. Non sense when I've bought two Canon 5D MKII Cameras for less than the income of 3 wedding coverage. And this is considering I had Leica lenses, If I hadn't the investment would be close to 10 or 12 wedding coverages when the necessary Canon kit would be close to 4.5 wedding coverages.

 

Looking at specs. I do not doubt that the quality is very high, although I wished to have the option to decide wether noisy 3200 ISO or 6400 ISO suites me and not limit to 2500 ISO.

 

Sorry the specs have not convinced me not to let my M8 bodies go and keep moving onto Canon.

 

Many people tell me I will regret it, and honestly I have been shooting with both M8 and 5D MKII and I ended up keeping the Canon in my hands and the M8 in the bag.

I feel the M8/M9 are the perfect cameras for jobs where you have time to frame, shoot, expose, focus etc... my assigments do not respond to theses specs.

 

What I can say for Leica, is that having a M body in my hands is the greatest feeling I had, a Canikon feels more like a toy.

Edited September 6, 2009 by egibaud

[stunsworth]

Searching for "Leica M9 Brochure" gives lots of links. One is bound to work.

 

Indeed, I just found one in a couple of minutes.

[Samir Jahjah]

Indeed, I just found one in a couple of minutes.

 

And you would not post it here ?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[stunsworth]

And you would not post it here ?

 

No, you may have noticed a big banner message across the top of the web page. If you haven't done so already read it. Once read you can close it by clicking on the 'X' on the right hand side of the message.