patrick parker Posted September 9, 2009 Share #41 Posted September 9, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) 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. Thanks Jamie Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 9, 2009 Posted September 9, 2009 Hi patrick parker, Take a look here M9 ISO comparison. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
eronald Posted September 9, 2009 Share #42 Posted September 9, 2009 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 Maybe I should buy your D3 ? No joke, tell me if you are selling cheap. I have a D3x and I always use it at 1600 ISO, I print 44" form Jpeg at that speed. If the M9 is really comparable to a D3/D3x@1600 then it will be a bestseller. Edmund Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted September 9, 2009 Share #43 Posted September 9, 2009 Maybe I should buy your D3 ? No joke, tell me if you are selling cheap. I have a D3x and I always use it at 1600 ISO, I print 44" form Jpeg at that speed. If the M9 is really comparable to a D3/D3x@1600 then it will be a bestseller. Edmund Hey Edmund, Nice to hear from you! I may be selling my D3, along with my Nikkors. Seriously. So PM me if you're interested Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markowich Posted September 9, 2009 Share #44 Posted September 9, 2009 If the M9 is really comparable to a D3/D3x@1600 then it will be a bestseller. Edmund it is not, by far. peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted September 9, 2009 Share #45 Posted September 9, 2009 it is not, by far.peter Not yet, you mean. And as I said before, I bet the M9 at ISO 1000 is as sensitive as the D3 at ISO 1600 if the metering is the same as on the M8. And what should I use again on the Nikon in place of a 24 Lux at 1.4? That's two stops better than a Nikkor zoom right there, so given ISO 1250 looks pretty good, that would make ISO 5000 right there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markowich Posted September 9, 2009 Share #46 Posted September 9, 2009 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 joseph e. reid ? photographer | oh yes, m8 after launch was BAD at high iso !!!!!!! let us hope for high iso FW improvements in M9, but i do not hold my breath for it. at low iso M9 file quality is very good, comparable to D3x files after some sharpening (which does not really degrade IQ or res if done properly), with the very best nikon lenses. i have no feeling for DR yet. for me the advantage is the light weight of the camera and lenses. the retro bottom plate borders the ridiculous and the top plate step is a funny design mistake. certainly not bauhaus level. peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markowich Posted September 9, 2009 Share #47 Posted September 9, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Not yet, you mean. And what should I use again on the Nikon in place of a 24 Lux at 1.4? That's two stops better than a Nikkor zoom right there, so given ISO 1250 looks pretty good, that would make ISO 5000 right there. that depends on your desired DOF. p Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
egibaud Posted September 9, 2009 Share #48 Posted September 9, 2009 I honestly expected less noise at 2500 ISO. For this price, the M9 at ISO2500 cannot be "usable," it has to be a lot better. I really cannot understand how a camera that has made its name on available light cannot live up to its fame. I was not going to buy an M9 anyway, but I hopped I would have it on my wish list.... surely not with what I have seen here. Let's wait and see. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
psss Posted September 9, 2009 Share #49 Posted September 9, 2009 i am amazed that people here keep comparing the m9 to the d3x (or the 5dii) in term of high iso? the m9 has a ccd....the nikons/canons are cmos......both have pros and cons.....the most obvious con of ccds is relatively poor high iso.... i am also amazed how good the m9 shots i have seen so far actually look! as we all know leica is a little more conservative with the metering so in the big picture the files actually DO compare with the canon/nikons! that is totally amazing! phase and hasselblad use the same technology and can't get past decent 400 with their 20000$+ backs..... considering that without mirror slap and soft release one can probably get another stop out of the camera (compared to nikon/canon) we are in the same ball park.... the big question is DR performance.....ccds really suffer terribly as you turn the iso "dial"....these samples don't really seem to have those problems either....but without seeing the dngs, it really is impossible to make a judgement...... if this is a starting point and with firmware we might getter even better results, this looks really good..... i would still like to see a raw m9 compared to a raw d3x file.....at base iso and at 1000.....compare detail, noise and DR..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
patrick parker Posted September 9, 2009 Share #50 Posted September 9, 2009 i am amazed that people here keep comparing the m9 to the d3x (or the 5dii) in term of high iso? the m9 has a ccd....the nikons/canons are cmos......both have pros and cons.....the most obvious con of ccds is relatively poor high iso.... i am also amazed how good the m9 shots i have seen so far actually look! as we all know leica is a little more conservative with the metering so in the big picture the files actually DO compare with the canon/nikons! that is totally amazing! phase and hasselblad use the same technology and can't get past decent 400 with their 20000$+ backs..... considering that without mirror slap and soft release one can probably get another stop out of the camera (compared to nikon/canon) we are in the same ball park.... the big question is DR performance.....ccds really suffer terribly as you turn the iso "dial"....these samples don't really seem to have those problems either....but without seeing the dngs, it really is impossible to make a judgement...... if this is a starting point and with firmware we might getter even better results, this looks really good..... i would still like to see a raw m9 compared to a raw d3x file.....at base iso and at 1000.....compare detail, noise and DR..... hello psss, what are the good qualities of ccd that can't be found in cmos sensors? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markowich Posted September 9, 2009 Share #51 Posted September 9, 2009 i i would still like to see a raw m9 compared to a raw d3x file.....at base iso and at 1000.....compare detail, noise and DR..... i did some low iso comparisms between D3x and M9 today, both at their respective base isos.. nikon 85 f1.4 and leica summicrom 90mm. NX 2 for NEFs and lightroom (GRRRRRRR!!!!!) for DNGs. out of the box the leica DNGs looked better, or rather more acute. this advantage faded when some moderate sharpening was applied to the nikon files and in the end i came to the impression that the D3x files have a clear resolution advantage (24mpx compared to 18mpx). it was an evenly illuminated scene, so i have no DR comparism to offer. anyway, i shall keep the m9 but tomorrow i shall cancel my S2 preorder. in all honesty, i am disappointed by the conservative leica approach (yes, i did know it when i bought the M9). but the direct comparism to the D3x (and most likely also to the 5Dmark2) is kind of frustrating. it is like comparing a TGV trip to a vienna streetcar. and yes, sometimes streetcar trips are fun....but you arrive faster on the TGV. peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
yanidel Posted September 9, 2009 Share #52 Posted September 9, 2009 i am amazed that people here keep comparing the m9 to the d3x (or the 5dii) in term of high iso? I just don't understand why they compare these cameras. Isn't it like comparing a motorcycle to a car ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
psss Posted September 9, 2009 Share #53 Posted September 9, 2009 no AA filter...less "mush"....more detail..... which is why the m8 with 10mpix compares to about a 16mpix DSLR with AA filter... people are talking about a 3D look which is really the better (stronger) micro contrast along fine edges.....AA filters very very very slightly diffuse the image and require stronger sharpen in post production..... imo once the detail is blurred it can be sharpened but it won't be the same as if it wasn't blurred in the first place.... ccd do have problems (because they are "sharper": moire (color and pattern) and jagged edges....moire really should be under control with the latest kodak chips...i believe the micro lenses help as well (as does software).... ccds also are more power hungry and don't like heat (more noise).... but all these "problems" should be pretty much under control...kodak has providing chips for the high end since the beginning and the focus has always been to provide the highest quality (detail, IQ, DR) possible at the lowest iso.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomasis7 Posted September 9, 2009 Share #54 Posted September 9, 2009 I just don't understand why they compare these cameras. Isn't it like comparing a motorcycle to a car ? it is like laptop vs server (which is big as a fridge) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
patrick parker Posted September 9, 2009 Share #55 Posted September 9, 2009 no AA filter...less "mush"....more detail..... which is why the m8 with 10mpix compares to about a 16mpix DSLR with AA filter... people are talking about a 3D look which is really the better (stronger) micro contrast along fine edges.....AA filters very very very slightly diffuse the image and require stronger sharpen in post production..... imo once the detail is blurred it can be sharpened but it won't be the same as if it wasn't blurred in the first place.... ccd do have problems (because they are "sharper": moire (color and pattern) and jagged edges....moire really should be under control with the latest kodak chips...i believe the micro lenses help as well (as does software).... ccds also are more power hungry and don't like heat (more noise).... but all these "problems" should be pretty much under control...kodak has providing chips for the high end since the beginning and the focus has always been to provide the highest quality (detail, IQ, DR) possible at the lowest iso.... Thank you Psss. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leica007 Posted September 9, 2009 Share #56 Posted September 9, 2009 Do people think that with the latest or later firmware and LR releases , we might get better samples at 1250-2500 iso? I think the comparison with other top-of-the-line DSLRs: D3x /1dMkiii / or even 5Dii /D700 is pretty fair. people want to get the best product in the market which their money can buy, even when they want a desired object; in any case, within a year there will be somehing new from Canon /Nikon and the catching up game will be renewed and initial enthusiasm will recede. Who knows Phaseone and Hassy might also lower the price of their lower end products to compete in this price bracket. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
yanidel Posted September 9, 2009 Share #57 Posted September 9, 2009 Do people think that with the latest or later firmware and LR releases , we might get better samples at 1250-2500 iso? I think the comparison with other top-of-the-line DSLRs: D3x /1dMkiii / or even 5Dii /D700 is pretty fair. people want to get the best product in the market which their money can buy, even when they want a desired object; in any case, within a year there will be somehing new from Canon /Nikon and the catching up game will be renewed and initial enthusiasm will recede. Who knows Phaseone and Hassy might also lower the price of their lower end products to compete in this price bracket. So you mean some pros base a D3x vs M9 purchase decision based on a one stop high ISO difference in IQ ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leica007 Posted September 9, 2009 Share #58 Posted September 9, 2009 So you mean some pros base a D3x vs M9 purchase decision based on a one stop high ISO difference in IQ ? not on 1-stop IQ difference, but a host of issues. that much I know. And that's where well-rounded comparisons come into being. that's why Leica tried to bump up the pixel count, ISO range, bit depth, above all full frame - just to keep up with the time and race. DSLRs became popular because of their versatility and value for money. And it's no coincidence that most of the pros use DSLR. To make Leica M9 attractive to a wider base of consumers, it must fulfil people'e expectations and provide good value for money. Emotional attachment and technical outputs need to converge to make the purchase decision. $7000/$4850/€5500 is no joke, for bulk of the population of the world ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tashley Posted September 9, 2009 Author Share #59 Posted September 9, 2009 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. Hate to rain on parades here buddy, and I won't post because they're private shots of people at a party, but at 2500 and less so down to 1250, I see banding under tungsten lighting. Not terrible, dealable with, but high ISO work under dim natural light is flattering to sensors that can lose it in the blue channel under artificial light. My first impressions are that the M9 is better than the M8, clearly, but that in dim tungsten lighting I'd prefer to use a 5DII - BUT - I would like to take (and more importantly PRINT) a lot more shots before making a real case for that. Tim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tashley Posted September 9, 2009 Author Share #60 Posted September 9, 2009 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, I just looked at a tricky 2500 file in C1 and it's a real mess: HOWEVER as we all know the positions of the sliders are key for any real comparison and there are too many variables for me to tweak this evening! But out of the box, LR does better than C1 here at this stage. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.