Read Sean's ISO results and quite disappointed.

[sean_reid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You need to very careful about assuming that any blotchiness or whatever that you are seeing off of a compressed DNG is smoothing rather than compression artifacts. I think there's a problem with the M9 compression, and I would think its worse at high ISO. See the discussion here: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/98212-lightoom-mangling-m9-images-there-compression.html

 

For the purposes of discussing high ISO noise (or any IQ issue for that matter) I think you really need to be looking at uncompressed DNGs, and its not clear to me thats what's being discussed here.

 

Sandy

 

Sandy, those M9 DNGs were not compressed. Now clearly noted in the article. All testing from RAW files in that article was done with uncompressed DNGs in the M9 unless otherwise noted.

[sean_reid]

Sean - your experience tallies with mine - 1 stop difference - and for me this is actually a BIG deal. However, I'd be interested to know if you have any thoughts yet on the impact of using compressed DNG. Jamie and Sandymc have come up with what feel like important reflections on this. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/98212-lightoom-mangling-m9-images-there-compression.html#post1033764

 

Grateful for your work thus far () and looking forward to any further pearls of wisdom!

 

Thanks. I haven't gotten into that yet and won't have time to for awhile. But, of course, I will.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

One stop better coupled with faster lens options per focal length equivalent doesn't sound to bad.

 

Exactly. I think gaining a stop is great. The problem perhaps is expectations for this change in noise performance were set very high for some. I was happy to see a stop gain because that now lets me go to 1250 for work I used to limit to 640. It doesn't kill the M9 for me at all.

 

But...my expectations for this have been modest from the first time I looked at M9 files.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

This quote does not make sense to me. For what I see from the images available so far there is a valuable improvement in the high iso behavior.

 

To summarize my understanding from what I have read and seen so far is the following

1) there is a gain of minimum one stop in high iso

2) Leica decided to go no further with in-camera-noise-treatment with the advantage of preserving the details in high iso images.

3) This is contrary to the approach of their competitors who prefer higher levels of in-camera-noise-treatment at the expense of image details.

4) Leica's approach has the advantage that the user is free to add further noise treatment if desired or required but the disadvantage is that this requires some effort and knowledge.

5) The competitors approach has the advantage that no further noise treatment is required but the disadvantage that the details are lost for ever.

6) last but not least there is no other full frame digital rangefinder to compare with!

 

Some clarification from somebody who can present knowledge contrary to opinions would be appreciated.

 

Sean,

may be you can find a way to clarify without releasing all the details presented on your valuable review site.

 

Regards

Steve

 

Hi Steve,

 

You haven't read the review but you'd like me to paraphrase that work. Is that essentially what you're asking?

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[futureancient]

When I read Sean's review at first I started out with disappointment - the same old ISO, and it didn't make sense to me, as I had been taking shots earlier in the day at ISO 2000 and marvelling at them. But as Sean rightly states, when you take into account the full frame prints then you really do get a stop better (or slightly more in the mid ranges IMO) performance.

 

Enjoying the review Sean. It's funny how a new camera is so divisive at times..

[sandymc]

Sandy, those M9 DNGs were not compressed. Now clearly noted in the article. All testing from RAW files in that article was done with uncompressed DNGs in the M9 unless otherwise noted.

 

Cool. Can always trust you to get the testing right!!!

 

I think you're spot on as regards the 1 stop, btw.

 

Regards,

 

Sandy

[rpierce]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Is the low ISO M9 dynamic range improved? For the D3 there was discussion on Nikonians that the dynamic range at low ISO was improved along with lower noise at high ISO. If the M9 high ISO is improved by one stop using 'smoothing' then the low ISO dynamic range is likely not better. Sean may have commented in his review which I have not seen yet since I let my subscription lapse; I signed up, but don't have access yet.

 

Bob Pierce

[sean_reid]

I haven't tested DR yet but perhaps someone else has?

[charlesphoto99]

No, that's not what I'm talking about. I guess you didn't read my original post in the thread in which I explain my understanding that having fewer pixels in the first place would have helped more with noise than does subsequent down-sampling. If I'm correct, this is part of how our D3s achieve what they do. And I haven't damned Leica for anything, which I think is also clear from my original post.

 

Okay sorry, I guess I get what you are at. Yeah, I could have lived with less pixels myself but Leica would have been roasted on the open market if they had done anything less than 18mp. Nikon did take a big chance with 12mp but the camera was considerably cheaper and they almost immediately released an even cheaper version (which I actually wish I had instead of the D3). The D3 is definitely my ass saver in a lot of situations. The M's are what I make art with.

[Bo_Lorentzen]

Im happy with what I think the M9 is.

 

Im happy Leica made some compromises and shipped the M9 now instead of 1-2 years.

 

And having been printing this week Im thrilled what the M9 "probably" will do for my prints.

 

Nothing I have read anywhere have caused me to fret one bit, about my investment in a M9. If Sony had shocked the world and released a FF M, I would probably have happily used it for the same reasons as the M9 rings my bell.

 

Below is a clip from by blog...

 

ISO performance. Ahh yeah that is a issue, is it not. the shots I have seen say maybe 1 stop better than the M8, but I'm not entirely sure, maybe it's 1/2 stop better...

But there are more to that story, when printing a 13x19 inch glossy print, the M9 deliver 267dpi vs M8 at 172dpi...! That is 100 dots more per inch, this is going to significantly change the appearance of noise in a 13x19inch print. So IF the M9 have identical ISO performance to the M8 it is a significant upgrade in my prints.

 

Finally there is a different advantage. my 35 LUX can be used as a 35mm 1.4 on the M9, Leica do not make a 28lux, so if I wanted to shoot with a effective focal lenght of 35mm on the M8 I would have to use a 28 cron at 2.0 that's a stop less. Being able to shoot the 35LUX is a significant advantage and gave me a stop improvement in noise right there.

 

BTW.. Leica also do not make a 35mm Noctilux, which would be required for shooting 1.0 at 50mm efov on the M8, suddenly all the guys who happen to have a noct sitting around can use it again as a more normal lens than the 75noct they got on the M8. a 75noct is harder to hold still than a 50noct after hours.

 

Some will point to the 21 and 24 luxes, but these two top lenses have two drawbacks in my book, first they are huge, (and I mean that in the most polite way) second they together cost way more than a M9.

 

I believe that the M9, will deliver on avarage a full stop of more useful lenses from the original leica lens order, simply because the faster lenses always were in the ranges we use the most. In that regard the M9 will be a advantage to most shooters. (again don't misunderstand me, there is something very sexy about a 21mm 1.4 lens)

 

.

[padraigm]

Well everyone has all given some great point for the pros and cons. For me and this may be different to others, don't print that often and don't see that as a plus for getting that true perceived 1 stop extra. In the end as it has always been, up to the person to determine if any system is worth it to them and the if problems can be worked around for your needs. I am as i said before rather disappointed that this is all they could come up with. I sold my M8 and have been saving for months in anticipation of getting the M9. At this point I am pretty much sick of trying to make excuses and trying to bend reality to make me think it is better than it is. I did that with the M8 and I am not going to do it again. So for now I am off the market for an M9 and I will just continue to shoot my MP. I don't have a digital at the moment so I am thinking perhaps an EP-1 in the meantime until I figure out what I am going to do. I will be watching though and perhaps an M9 will be in my future. Just not now.

[sean_reid]

Well everyone has all given some great point for the pros and cons. For me and this may be different to others, don't print that often and don't see that as a plus for getting that true perceived 1 stop extra. In the end as it has always been, up to the person to determine if any system is worth it to them and the if problems can be worked around for your needs. I am as i said before rather disappointed that this is all they could come up with. I sold my M8 and have been saving for months in anticipation of getting the M9. At this point I am pretty much sick of trying to make excuses and trying to bend reality to make me think it is better than it is. I did that with the M8 and I am not going to do it again. So for now I am off the market for an M9 and I will just continue to shoot my MP. I don't have a digital at the moment so I am thinking perhaps an EP-1 in the meantime until I figure out what I am going to do. I will be watching though and perhaps an M9 will be in my future. Just not now.

 

I'm curious. If you don't print, what form do your pictures end up in and at what size? Most pictures sized for the web look fine even when they start out with some noise. So what is it you do with the pictures you make?

 

Cheers,

[padraigm]

Hi Sean,

 

Well I almost never print a digital image, I still work in the darkroom. Digital is mostly on the net flickr etc..To be honest I have very limited knowledge about resizing etc. i guess I am pretty ignorant about that and should change that soon. But low light is a big thing for me and I don't mind the grain with film but with digital I expect more. I know there seems to be some improvement but it's still iffy from what I can see. Leica has only a few things to worry about, body form, silent shutter and a great low noise sensor with which in my opinion could knock it out of the park. No extensive bells and whistles like IS, sensor cleaning and advanced metering etc.. just a few things are required and still the sensor is a "well it's great at low ISO" But they still lag in this regard and as always the digital part is never what it should be and what we all want.

 

Just my 2c hell I will probably get one at some point but I am still wishing...

 

 

I'm curious. If you don't print, what form do your pictures end up in and at what size? Most pictures sized for the web look fine even when they start out with some noise. So what is it you do with the pictures you make?

 

Cheers,

[Samir Jahjah]

It's not a performance issue but simply relates to what happens when corners are given a levels boost to offset luminance vignetting. That will increase the visibility of noise. Give me some time (I need to focus on client work this weekend as well as an S2 article) and I'll get into it. Theoretically, I'm also going to spend at least a bit of time with my family this weekend as well.

 

There's nothing about the corners noise levels that should be a deal breaker for anyone but it may be something Leica will want to revisit in future firmware (turning that correction down even further at high ISO levels).

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

Thanks. Indeed I see the problem. Also, does the offsetting of luminance vignetting change with the aperture? I guess not since there is no way to 'guess' the aperture. I presume Leica leaned to offset as much as it can at wider aperture.

[sean_reid]

With the M8 it changes according to estimated aperture (using that external sensor). I suspect it does also with the M9 but cannot confirm that.

 

If you're not printing and you're just making pictures for Flickr (maybe 1000 pixels wide or so) then much of the noise in any of your files will be down-sampled out. If one is not going to print then noise is more an academic issue than a real one (unless it is severe).

 

Cheers,

[Guest malland]

I'm with Sean, Charles and Bo on this: a one-stop improvement in noise is a big deal in prints and very important for me at ISO 2500 — at ISO 1250 that is good as well, but the latter speed was not giving me that much of a problem on the M8.2

 

While I could usually get good results on the M8.2 at ISO 1250, at the ISO 2500 each shot was a hit or miss affair and I would never know when even a slight underexposure would result in banding, particularly when I had to raise the value of the shadows. It seems to me that with the larger 18MP real estate of the M9 banding will show less because, as Sean states, one needs less up-sampling or can do more down-sampling than with the M8.

 

What I wonder about is whether anyone knows whether the dynamic range has changed at ISO 2500 so that very exact exposure has become a bit less critical with regard to banding?

 

Until reading Sean's ISO analysis I thought that I would hold on to my M8.2 and not upgrade, particularly as I was disappointed with Leica's elimination of the LCD on the top plate, failure to provide a higher resolution LCD on the back and elimination of the sapphire crystal cover and the lack of water-proofing. However, now with the one-stop improvement in noise I feel that the full frame M9 will have great advantages for my photography and have decided to by the new camera when I get to Paris in a couple of weeks, and am having someone in Paris trying to locate and reserve one for me.

 

—Mitch/Potomac,MD

Bangkok Hysteria©: Book Project

[futureancient]

padraig, the thing is, even if you just post you digital files online or simply look at them on a computer screen, are you going to do that at the new full frame size, or are you going to view them all at (for example) 1024 px wide or high ? If you view everything the same size (eg flickr's medium or large settings) then you will gain a stop+ over the old M8 files. Personally, this is quite a revelation I'm enjoying with my M9 today

[albertknappmd]

Most reasonable response, Sean...

I don't see the noise issue as a deal breaker. The M9 is a significant technological feat and a great improvement. It is not perfect but is that a surprise?:confused:

When shooting above 1250, just use Ninja or dfine as needed....

Look forward to seeing the M9 soon...

Albert:)

[pklein]

Sean, thank you so much for all your hard and patient work. As someone who has spent hours with Neat Image trying to find the sweet spot between noise reduction and detail retention, I think your conclusion about the M9 using in-camera noise reduction is spot-on. I think I see it at ISO 640, too--in darker areas on the M9 pictures, there are tell-tale "zits" of high-intensity noise amid a comparitively smoother background. This is characteristic of using noise reduction very sparingly.

 

All in all, the M9 represents a reasonable incremental improvement (noise-wise) over the M8. Since I am interested in low-light photography, I personally wish Leica had used a sensor with fewer, bigger pixels, say around 12 megapixels.

 

But we have to remember that all of this is part of a trade-off between two somewhat contradictory goals. Some people want to have every gnat's eyebrow of detail that the best Leica lenses can provide (Kodachrome/Velvia/TMAX 100 users from the film era). Others want to photograph the human condition in dark pubs and cafes (the Tri-X/Neopan 1600/TMAX 3200 bunch). Both approaches are part of the tradition of Leica photography.

 

Back in the film era, one could optimize the camera for either of the two approaches simply by switching films. So you could have your cake and eat it, too. Not so with digital. Leica had to design one digital M9 with one sensor. So they had to choose. My guess is that they chose to make fine detail rendition the primary goal--just as they did with the M8--and then do the best they could with high ISO. It looks like they've done very well given that choice.

 

We also have to remember that, as Sean says, noise at 100% magnification doesn't tell the real story--it's what it looks like on the print.

 

The good news is that those with $7,000 USD to spare can now get a full-frame rangefinder camera that looks competitive with the best full-frame offerings of brands C and N, in terms of detail at low to moderate ISOs. It is also looks to be a perfectly viable available light camera at ISO 1250, just as the M8 is at 640. People who like to shoot wide will benefit more from the M9 than those like me who preferred 50mm lenses on film.

 

As to whether it's worth it to upgrade, that's an individual choice. I suspect I'll get an M9 eventually. But I want to see what issues emerge, what other people do with the M9, and how Leica will optimize the firmware over time. In the meantime, there are still many wonderful pictures to be taken with an M8 or M8.2 and a 35/1.4 or 35/1.2 lens.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[ken_tanaka]

I've not read Sean's review and have no first-hand experience with the M9 yet. (Mine is on-order.) But plentiful early reports, here and elsewhere, of the M9's relatively poor high ISO performance improvement over the M8 are extremely disappointing. I don't tend to be a high-ISO shooter and rarely crank higher than 800 on any of m cameras, even my 5DII. But seven thousand hard-earned dollars ought to have bought at least a clean 2500 in the year 2009 when a camera costing half that figure can produce a usable image from an ISO 10-times that value.

 

I guess I'll wait to see for myself. But damn, I sure hope folks are being overly critical.