Jump to content

M9 ISO comparison


tashley

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 125
  • Created
  • Last Reply
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...

 

Whatever--doesn't look like my cellphone. And is a helluva lot sharper than my d3.

 

Go look at some 35mm 5d2 100% crops at ISO2500 and come back to us ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hope its ok i answer after having hands on today;

 

press iso button, screen lights up with choices, turn the dial while holding the iso button to desired value, release and shoot!

 

quite ok actually.

 

best,

 

Are

 

Actually, there's a big advance in Leicathinking hidden there. They used to believe that you could only safely change settings by going SET/change stuff/SET to confirm. This is one big step faster. It may be that this already happened in the M8.2 exposure shifter, but I haven't used that one.

 

scott

Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

 

C'mon! Who are you kidding?!? A cell phone? There's some noise there, but more than usable and a decided improvement over M8 files at that speed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

??? 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.

 

the D3x has a 1.5-2 stop advantage over the m9. but i had expected that (kodak CCD after all).

peter

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think it looks good. Will be doing some test shots at my dealer later. Man people have gotten spoiled. I come from the age of TMAX 3200 and pushed Ektachrome. We actually liked the grain and it made for some classic images. The thing about the Leica is as long as it's as sharp as it is (read CCD sensor) there will never be D3 style high iso but that's okay as long as the noise there is is sharp and not banded. Totally useable in my book from what I've seen so far.

 

Really, the M isn't for everybody and everything (all rf's for that matter). I'm sure there will be people who complain they can't focus closer than 27" with it. It is what it is. And either you want/need it or you don't. Personally I can't find one fast enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the D3x has a 1.5-2 stop advantage over the m9. but i had expected that (kodak CCD after all).

peter

 

Peter, it's way too early to tell that, IMO... I haven't seen any of the m9 files in C1, for example, and I doubt very much the files have been optimized yet.

 

And I can't say for the D3x or the M9, but I was quite shocked to see just how much more light the M8 gathers at a given ISO than the D3, which evens out a lot (not all) of the high ISO advantage.

 

Anyway, I'm very impressed by what I've seen so far... so we'll have to stay tuned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter, it's way too early to tell that, IMO... I haven't seen any of the m9 files in C1, for example, and I doubt very much the files have been optimized yet.

 

And I can't say for the D3x or the M9, but I was quite shocked to see just how much more light the M8 gathers at a given ISO than the D3, which evens out a lot (not all) of the high ISO advantage.

 

Anyway, I'm very impressed by what I've seen so far... so we'll have to stay tuned.

 

jamie,

other raw converters than STUP... LIGHTROOM will hopefully make a difference. in fact, i tend to agree with you that D3 (D700) sometimes smears out the noise too much, D3x does much better in my view.

p

Link to post
Share on other sites

Erwin Puts says the noise hasn't improved. That's not nice to hear>

 

maybe 1/2 stop. not more...under the present firmware with lightroom. what you expect from CCD after all? i am sure that it will be the same with the S2 unless there is pixel binning (doubt it).

p

Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe 1/2 stop. not more...under the present firmware with lightroom. what you expect from CCD after all? i am sure that it will be the same with the S2 unless there is pixel binning (doubt it).

p

 

So if it had a cmos sensor the quality wouldn't be as good in lower ISO's ?

 

The better images we are getting from M8 aren't mostly because of the lens?

Link to post
Share on other sites

jamie,

other raw converters than STUP... LIGHTROOM will hopefully make a difference. in fact, i tend to agree with you that D3 (D700) sometimes smears out the noise too much, D3x does much better in my view.

p

 

Yes--files I've seen from the D3x do seem much more detailed out of the box than the D3, beyond the resolution difference too.

 

But I do think they have an extra stop there in the M9 right now; the 1250 samples I've seen seem definitely better than the M8 samples...but again, we'll see.

 

I can say they certainly look better than the M8 did at 1250 when it launched 3 years ago, so maybe I'm just expecting a similar improvement over time :)

 

And Leica is no doubt still making things better...Joseph Reid, for example, who was at the NY launch, says here that Leica (and Jenoptik?) is still working on the ISO characteristics and may actually increase the maximum of 2500 if they can... it will be interesting:

 

joseph e. reid ? photographer |

Link to post
Share on other sites

So if it had a cmos sensor the quality wouldn't be as good in lower ISO's ?

 

The better images we are getting from M8 aren't mostly because of the lens?

 

They're because of the combination of glass, the Kodak CCD (which has Kodak color filters, after all) and the lack of anti-alias filter on the sensor.

 

The tradeoff with CCDs has always been noise compared with the Canon and Nikon / Sony CMOS designs.

 

But the medium format backs are all still CCD to the best of my knowledge.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...