tashley Posted September 9, 2009 Author Share #61 Posted September 9, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Is there a link to the full frame of this shot - given this is a 100% crop - or have I missed it somewhere? I didn't post the full frame(s) because there is simply nothing to be learned from it (them) - the crops are where the interest is. They are from pretty much exactly centre frame and are 100%. Link to post Share on other sites 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!
jaapv Posted September 9, 2009 Share #62 Posted September 9, 2009 Erwin Puts says the noise hasn't improved. That's not nice to hear>Erwin Puts is a top expert on optics. Unfortunately he is not quite as reliable when it comes to the ins and outs of digital cameras and post-processing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted September 9, 2009 Share #63 Posted September 9, 2009 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 Do you use the last firmware? I know that you can't really compare this, but there are other examples around which look stainless at high iso: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/97745-i-have-m9-3.html#post1028937 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tashley Posted September 9, 2009 Author Share #64 Posted September 9, 2009 Do you use the last firmware? I know that you can't really compare this, but there are other examples around which look stainless at high iso: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/97745-i-have-m9-3.html#post1028937 My FW is 1.002 which is the latest. I followed the link you gave and let me just say that in Toke's shots, the people with the instruments are not the only bands on display... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
faffo99 Posted September 10, 2009 Share #65 Posted September 10, 2009 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 ! totally agree with you... it is exactly what i've always said... to keep it's place in the new digital world Leica has to reconcile the professional photographers who helped it to enter in the history. Leica must give us photographers what gave us with the M3... the lightest unnoticeable camera , with the best lenses out there....but also designed for the top MEDIUM...the 35mm film. In the old days... 35mm was the top for weightlessness and quality... it has to do the same in the digital era with the equivalent for film......SLIP A DAMNED 5DMK2 SENSOR IN THAT BODY!!! and you'll blow anyone else away !! All professional photo-reporters will come back home to lead Leica again to the top !! i don't understand why some praise the quality of the lenses and then say to use a noise reduction software to process the image...to me sounds like a counter-sense... anyway this is my opinion, an addicted M6 user who is dying for a digital M....which hasn't come yet.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlesphoto99 Posted September 10, 2009 Share #66 Posted September 10, 2009 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 Hmmm. Well I do own a Nikon D3 for those type situations (esp if a client shoot). I still think the M9 high iso better overall though. Looking forward to seeing what I can do with it under low light situations myself. Yeah, printing is important and working the file. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlesphoto99 Posted September 10, 2009 Share #67 Posted September 10, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) What I'm seeing (and liking) is that the noise is very film like (and sharp). I'm one of those people who actually like film grain, esp with a Leica. It's not a medium format camera and shouldn't be held to that standard. MF has a different look (due to lens depth) and way of shooting anyways. But it is important to expose properly at higher iso's. Just like color neg film if you underexpose too much there's just nothing there but grain/noise when trying to correct. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilfredo Posted September 10, 2009 Share #68 Posted September 10, 2009 Not impressed. I rarely go beyond 640 on my M8 and wouldn't with this camera either if I had one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
smoody Posted September 10, 2009 Share #69 Posted September 10, 2009 Thanks so much for posting the crops. What worries me is that @ 2500, the detail in the shadow of the ashtray -- the two dark stains -- is almost completely gone missing. You can still see the two stains if you know in advance that they're there, but I don't think there's any reasonable way to tease them out from the noise, which is important to note IMHO. Of course if one doesn't shoot at that ISO, then such things won't matter. It looks great at low ISOs. Thanks again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilfredo Posted September 10, 2009 Share #70 Posted September 10, 2009 totally agree with you... it is exactly what i've always said... to keep it's place in the new digital world Leica has to reconcile the professional photographers who helped it to enter in the history. Leica must give us photographers what gave us with the M3... the lightest unnoticeable camera , with the best lenses out there....but also designed for the top MEDIUM...the 35mm film. In the old days... 35mm was the top for weightlessness and quality... it has to do the same in the digital era with the equivalent for film......SLIP A DAMNED 5DMK2 SENSOR IN THAT BODY!!! and you'll blow anyone else away !! All professional photo-reporters will come back home to lead Leica again to the top !! i don't understand why some praise the quality of the lenses and then say to use a noise reduction software to process the image...to me sounds like a counter-sense... anyway this is my opinion, an addicted M6 user who is dying for a digital M....which hasn't come yet.. You make some very good points. I have an emotional attachment to the legacy of Leica but I find that Leica is exploiting this legacy wrongly by incorporating inflated prices in the sale of its gear. This is turning into a total turn-off. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilfredo Posted September 10, 2009 Share #71 Posted September 10, 2009 What I'm seeing (and liking) is that the noise is very film like (and sharp). I'm one of those people who actually like film grain, esp with a Leica. It's not a medium format camera and shouldn't be held to that standard. MF has a different look (due to lens depth) and way of shooting anyways. But it is important to expose properly at higher iso's. Just like color neg film if you underexpose too much there's just nothing there but grain/noise when trying to correct. Try Alien Skin, it cheaper and you will get better results if you want a film look. The ISO on the Canon 5D II @6400 is better than what you see here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted September 10, 2009 Share #72 Posted September 10, 2009 Do people think that with the latest or later firmware and LR releases , we might get better samples at 1250-2500 iso? {snipped}. Yes--absolutely. Peter in particular: I wouldn't be comparing the M9 to a streetcar right now. I mean really; it takes at least a couple of months to get what you want out of any new camera, and the fact that they measure up at all from Lightroom against a D3x in NX means Leica has in fact done a great job. I really do expect noise to get better in future firmware releases. That has happened on both the DMR and the M8 (and even on Canon and Nikon firmware releases). The fact is a lot of optimization takes place after shipping these days. So I do believe the best is yet to come: what amazes me is how good the files I'm seeing are today, with beta +1 or +2 firmware. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
autillo Posted September 10, 2009 Share #73 Posted September 10, 2009 I have an m8 and a d700, ISO on nikon d700 isn't accurate, I mean 1600 Iso is may be 1250, iso 3200 is 2500. These crops don't look bad, it isn't a real comparative....we need to see real comparatives next to nikon canon... and, anyway, with the summilux's you can shoot without problem at 1,4... ask what can you do with your canon primes at full aperture, rubish! real isos... D700 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted September 10, 2009 Share #74 Posted September 10, 2009 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. That's strange Tim; I can't even get the M9 DNGs to open in C1 Pro? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pascal_meheut Posted September 10, 2009 Share #75 Posted September 10, 2009 That's strange Tim; I can't even get the M9 DNGs to open in C1 Pro? It seems to depend on the DNGs. I have been able to open some of them but not all. Strange. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted September 10, 2009 Share #76 Posted September 10, 2009 It seems to depend on the DNGs. I have been able to open some of them but not all. Strange. But what it tells me is that C1 isn't at all optimized for M9 DNGs. There may be a profile placeholder there, and some may open, but it's not ready for release yet Ah well. Hopefully I can get my hands on an M9 soon! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spylaw4 Posted September 10, 2009 Share #77 Posted September 10, 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. You got it! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted September 10, 2009 Share #78 Posted September 10, 2009 My FW is 1.002 which is the latest. I followed the link you gave and let me just say that in Toke's shots, the people with the instruments are not the only bands on display... Hhhhmmm, perhaps have been too long before a monitor during the last days...Banding? I don't see it. Can you give an example - perhaps in the other thread? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
georg Posted September 10, 2009 Share #79 Posted September 10, 2009 The advantage of CCDs is their fill-rate, in fact they have more actual light-sensitive area than CMOS-sensors. But CCD-based cameras usually don't use noise-reduction in RAW-files while this is internally done by Nikon/Canon/Sony and cannot be entirely switched off. So when doing noise-comparisons keep that in mind and don't compare RAW-conversions directly. Instead, choose images with fine detail and use noise-reduction on both files and see how well detail/noise helds up (it's the same with DR). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean Cristophe Posted September 10, 2009 Share #80 Posted September 10, 2009 I now know what everybody meant with the "critique" levels upon introduction of any new Leica. It's very much like "when an unstoppable object colides with an unmovable one" On one side there are people trying their utmost to bringe the camera down, on the other side there is the group who'll do anything possible to counteract this, both into the depths of unreasonabilty. Anyway as a seasoned photogrpapher I must say say that the results for the M9 even at 2500 look very promissing, yes there is noise but there is also lots of detail. Quite the contrary from other current FF offerings. The 5D with which I work (don't own) has little noise and little detail at high ISO's, I don't know about Nikon, I would believe it's slightly better but it still blurs the detail..... I haven't used sony so I don't know about this. As a professional photogrpaher detail is more important to me than lack of noise, and technology today will enable Leica improving the noise levels with future firmware releases. The way it looks is that the M9 is a miraculously good camera, both for the price as for the size. Not a super performer, but there again which camera is? One thing that I would want to be certain of is the corner sharpness with wide angle lenses. I havent been able to find this on the web yet, but I have an appointment this afternoon to test this at my camera shop (not mine , the one where I buy things that is) Sorry for the english used. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.