Guest John66 Posted September 10, 2009 Share #1 Posted September 10, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) highiso - L9941797 Very similar to the kind of banding I got with my M8, so no real improvement there if it turns out to be visible in production models. Perhaps they should have limted it to 1250. However, it appears to be a sensible mini review - http://www.slack.co.uk/M9 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 10, 2009 Posted September 10, 2009 Hi Guest John66, Take a look here Hope this banding is just pre-release.... I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted September 10, 2009 Share #2 Posted September 10, 2009 The shot looks quite underexposed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TEBnewyork Posted September 10, 2009 Share #3 Posted September 10, 2009 The shot looks quite underexposed. Agree. The shots before and after had a shutter speed of 1/16 and are fine. The one with bannding is at 1/30. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted September 10, 2009 Share #4 Posted September 10, 2009 Yes, but this is similar to shooting with the M8 at ISO 2500, which was so sensitive to underexposure. —Mitch/Potomac, MD Scratching the Surface© Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TEBnewyork Posted September 10, 2009 Share #5 Posted September 10, 2009 Yes, but this is similar to shooting with the M8 at ISO 2500, on which was so sensitive to underexposure. —Mitch/Potomac, MD Scratching the Surface© Every camera I own isn't at its best when you underexpose at high ISO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Valdemar Posted September 10, 2009 Share #6 Posted September 10, 2009 I see the "shooting into light bulb" nut cases are starting to chime in. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted September 10, 2009 Share #7 Posted September 10, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Every camera I own isn't at its best when you underexpose at high ISO.A matter of degree: my Nikon D300 at ISO 1600 and 3200 is better than my M8.2 at ISO 1250 and 2500 — and Jono Slack's picture linked by the OP is not encouraging in this respect. I was looking at the M9 for a great improvement over the M8 at ISO 2500 — let's see what the second part of Sean Reid's review shows. —Mitch/Potomac, MD Bangkok Hysteria©: Book Project Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TEBnewyork Posted September 10, 2009 Share #8 Posted September 10, 2009 A matter of degree: my Nikon D300 at ISO 1600 and 3200 is better than my M8.2 at ISO 1250 and 2500 — and Jono Slack's picture linked by the OP is not encouraging in this respect. I was looking at the M9 for a great improvement over the M8 at ISO 2500 — let's see what the second part of Sean Reid's review shows. I wasn't responding to the absolute quality of the 1250 and 2500 ISO and how it compares to other cameras. I was responding to your comment about the M9 being sensitive to underexposure at high ISO levels. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted September 10, 2009 Share #9 Posted September 10, 2009 Terry, but more interestingly, what is your take on the quality of ISO 1250 and 2500 on the basis of Jono's pictures and whatever else you've seen? —Mitch/Potomac, MD Bangkok Hysteria©: Book Project Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted September 10, 2009 Share #10 Posted September 10, 2009 A matter of degree: my Nikon D300 at ISO 1600 and 3200 is better than my M8.2 at ISO 1250 and 2500 — and Jono Slack's picture linked by the OP is not encouraging in this respect. I was looking at the M9 for a great improvement over the M8 at ISO 2500 — let's see what the second part of Sean Reid's review shows. —Mitch/Potomac, MD Bangkok Hysteria©: Book Project Did you look at his other ISO 2500 shots? They look two stops better than my M8 for sure. And I already know my M8 is more sensitive to light at a given ISO than my D3 by about a stop. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted September 10, 2009 Share #11 Posted September 10, 2009 highiso - L9941797 Very similar to the kind of banding I got with my M8, so no real improvement there if it turns out to be visible in production models. Perhaps they should have limted it to 1250. However, it appears to be a sensible mini review - M9 Um, no... I strongly suspect this is a very underexposed shots. There are shots there that look 'equally dark' at ISO 2500 that haven't been pushed. I wouldn't be surprised if that's an effective ISO 5000 or even more (but only Jono knows for sure) Especially given the very next shot, with a further stop exposure: http://www.slack.co.uk/m9/highiso/large-23.html And I gotta tell you, when the M8 first came out, ISO 2500 looked nothing at all like that. The whole set of shots is extremely encouraging, IMO (though I don't know what Jono is playing at with the last few shots; I suspect underexpose / push in post type stuff--his EV compensation is set for -3 according to the EXIF!!!) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted September 10, 2009 Share #12 Posted September 10, 2009 ...And I already know my M8 is more sensitive to light at a given ISO than my D3 by about a stop.Jamie, what I'm concerned about is the banding issue and extreme sensitivity to even slight underexposure at high ISOs, which is not the case with my D300 in comparison to my M8.2. I'm waiting for the second part of Sean Reid's review... —Mitch/Potomac, MD Bangkok Hysteria©: Book Project Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TEBnewyork Posted September 10, 2009 Share #13 Posted September 10, 2009 Terry, but more interestingly, what is your take on the quality of ISO 1250 and 2500 on the basis of Jono's pictures and whatever else you've seen? —Mitch/Potomac, MD Bangkok Hysteria©: Book Project I am with Jamie on this one. I think the files look much better than M8 files where shooting 2500 was purely for emergency use and I could never have gotten that clock shot or many of these as good. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 10, 2009 Share #14 Posted September 10, 2009 I quite agree. No reason to start a myth based on this shot. I have seen a number of examples to the contrary. Can't wait to try it out myself.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted September 10, 2009 Share #15 Posted September 10, 2009 I'm wrong about the pre-production firmware. But it's still early days and I stand by my sense of things for now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted September 10, 2009 Share #16 Posted September 10, 2009 ...I think the files look much better than M8 files where shooting 2500 was purely for emergency use...I like that, it's well put: "emergency use". Let's hope that Jamie and you are right about the M9 being much better at ISO 2500. —Mitch/Potomac, MD Bangkok Hysteria©: Book Project Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted September 10, 2009 Share #17 Posted September 10, 2009 Jamie, what I'm concerned about is the banding issue and extreme sensitivity to even slight underexposure at high ISOs, which is not the case with my D300 in comparison to my M8.2. I'm waiting for the second part of Sean Reid's review... —Mitch/Potomac, MD Bangkok Hysteria©: Book Project Even Sean will only have the first version of the firmware--with NO supported RAW processors (well, tweaked, anyway) yet My sense--and it's only that till I get my mitts on one--is that even now you're seeing 1.5 stops of leeway at ISO 2500 and so almost 2 at ISO 1250-ISO 1600, which given Leica's conservative ISO rating, is just a huge improvement from the M8. But if you hit the wall you hit the wall with any camera. So far, I'm impressed with what has to be a breakthrough CCD design. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlesphoto99 Posted September 10, 2009 Share #18 Posted September 10, 2009 From the little I shot with the M9 I find it greatly improved at high iso. esp 1600 and under but here's a 2500 shot. Obviously in flat light but you get the idea. But c'mon people. As long as Leica still uses a CCD sensor we can't expect Canon/Nikon results. They can mitigate it but never reach those levels. But with a 35 1.4 now truly a 35 1.4 and so on we gain a lot back by it being full frame. I'm sure further firmware will help things (AWB was all over the place) and it is imperative that one expose correctly (think slide film correctly!). It's a great camera and looking forward to getting mine. 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/96164-hope-this-banding-is-just-pre-release/?do=findComment&comment=1027438'>More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted September 10, 2009 Share #19 Posted September 10, 2009 What's clear from the high ISO shots in flat light, btw, is that you've got *at least* a stop more shadow detail there that is not encumbered with noise. I'm hoping that's 2 stops soon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomasis7 Posted September 10, 2009 Share #20 Posted September 10, 2009 From the little I shot with the M9 I find it greatly improved at high iso. esp 1600 and under but here's a 2500 shot. Obviously in flat light but you get the idea. But c'mon people. As long as Leica still uses a CCD sensor we can't expect Canon/Nikon results. They can mitigate it but never reach those levels. But with a 35 1.4 now truly a 35 1.4 and so on we gain a lot back by it being full frame. I'm sure further firmware will help things (AWB was all over the place) and it is imperative that one expose correctly (think slide film correctly!). It's a great camera and looking forward to getting mine. looks supergood.. if it is 2500... well done! malland will drop his jaw Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.