tashley Posted September 9, 2009 Share #1 Posted September 9, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) All with 28 Cron at F4 100% crops from centre frame, JPEG 84% quality export from LR. First at ISO160 then 640, 1250 2500 LR defaults from RAW ps I don't smoke! 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! Tim Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Tim ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/95968-m9-iso-comparison/?do=findComment&comment=1025008'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 9, 2009 Posted September 9, 2009 Hi tashley, Take a look here M9 ISO comparison. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
scott kirkpatrick Posted September 9, 2009 Share #2 Posted September 9, 2009 ISO 80 (pulled)? scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juseno Posted September 9, 2009 Share #3 Posted September 9, 2009 would be interesting to look at steps between 1250 and 2500( where things really fall apart.) Maybe 2000 would be much cleaner than 2500? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leica007 Posted September 9, 2009 Share #4 Posted September 9, 2009 both 1250 and 2500 have substantial noise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
patrick parker Posted September 9, 2009 Share #5 Posted September 9, 2009 Thank you for those. It's very nice of you to share. Do you have a high ISO shot from a darkly lit place. Does it make those lines like M8 does? The more pronounced ones when a little underexposed? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted September 9, 2009 Share #6 Posted September 9, 2009 both 1250 and 2500 have substantial noise. This is a big improvement. Keep in mind that these are 100% crops. When reduced to the size of M8 files, the noise will be even less apparent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lxlim Posted September 9, 2009 Share #7 Posted September 9, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thanks, Tim. The 2500 looks very usable. I would be happy to use it. Got to see how it performs in tungsten, first. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrc Posted September 9, 2009 Share #8 Posted September 9, 2009 Pretty amazed at the 1250. That should clean up very well. Even the 2500 will be pretty usable, IMHO. The Digital Photography Review claims a full-stop improvement; it feels like it might be a bit more than that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tashley Posted September 9, 2009 Author Share #9 Posted September 9, 2009 Guys, I rushed those because on my way to a party so didn't do all the intermediates. But will take loads tonight under tungsten and report back! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lxlim Posted September 9, 2009 Share #10 Posted September 9, 2009 Guys, I rushed those because on my way to a party so didn't do all the intermediates. But will take loads tonight under tungsten and report back! Not a complaint, friend. Thanks. Enjoy the party! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
patrick parker Posted September 9, 2009 Share #11 Posted September 9, 2009 Thank you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
faffo99 Posted September 9, 2009 Share #12 Posted September 9, 2009 noooooooisy!! i wont' buy this one either for the same high noise problem the m8 had...........what a pity!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
padraigm Posted September 9, 2009 Share #13 Posted September 9, 2009 Yup I agree, it is an improvement but not enough at this point. I don't think I will be buying. Perhaps the new firmware will improve it. But the jump so far is not enough. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackal Posted September 9, 2009 Share #14 Posted September 9, 2009 640 looks good and lets face it, it was rubbish on the M8 in fact i dont think i once ever used it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted September 9, 2009 Share #15 Posted September 9, 2009 noooooooisy!!i wont' buy this one either for the same high noise problem the m8 had...........what a pity!! ??? no it's not. I have a D3. It has noise too in the shadows at ISO 2500. But the results are a lot blurrier... it has neither the resolution nor the DR that these are showing at higher ISOs (that's in part how Nikon achieves such clean files. It's a matter of tradeoffs... blurrier files that you need to sharpen or noisier files you need to manage. A full stop or more improvement in noise here--while not giving up resolution--is a real achievement. If you think ISO 2500 is too noisy, then just buy a NR program. I think you'll find for printing purposes these 18mb files have the detail you need. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted September 9, 2009 Share #16 Posted September 9, 2009 640 looks good and lets face it, it was rubbish on the M8 in fact i dont think i once ever used it LOL!! I use it all the time, and to me it's totally fine, and completely comparable to a d3 at ISO 1000 (in terms of light gathering too). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
faffo99 Posted September 9, 2009 Share #17 Posted September 9, 2009 ??? no it's not. I have a D3. It has noise too in the shadows at ISO 2500. But the results are a lot blurrier... it has neither the resolution nor the DR that these are showing at higher ISOs (that's in part how Nikon achieves such clean files. It's a matter of tradeoffs... blurrier files that you need to sharpen or noisier files you need to manage. A full stop or more improvement in noise here--while not giving up resolution--is a real achievement. If you think ISO 2500 is too noisy, then just buy a NR program. I think you'll find for printing purposes these 18mb files have the detail you need. c'mon! at 1250 looks like a cell phone!! at the price of two 5dmk2 i was really thinking to buy it... if they really changed something... looking at the DMG's nothing has changed to me... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted September 9, 2009 Share #18 Posted September 9, 2009 Guys, I rushed those because on my way to a party so didn't do all the intermediates. But will take loads tonight under tungsten and report back! There is already a new firmware on the Leica Site. Perhaps you download it after you took some high ISO pictures under critical conditions, so you can compare if it makes any difference. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
patrick parker Posted September 9, 2009 Share #19 Posted September 9, 2009 c'mon! at 1250 looks like a cell phone!!at the price of two 5dmk2 i was really thinking to buy it... if they really changed something... looking at the DMG's nothing has changed to me... You do realize it's 100% cropped right. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John66 Posted September 9, 2009 Share #20 Posted September 9, 2009 Hi Tashley, Slightly off topic, but how easy is it to change the ISO? What steps are required? I'm presuming you just press the ISO button, and the screen turns on, then turn the main dial. Take the finger of the ISO button, and the screen goes out? Thanks John. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.