Read Sean's ISO results and quite disappointed.

[Jamie Roberts]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

{snipped}

 

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

 

Ken--there's plenty of ISO 2500 shots on here with first-out-of-beta firmware. I've even played with a few RAWs in C1. I have no doubt I could print them well to moderate sizes.

 

ISO 1600 looks completely good, with almost no loss of DR (as I would start to see in the Nikon D3 as the ISO cranks up and noise reduction kicks in).

 

So I think you'll be happy, and I do think there's a lot of people who are being overly critical, and I have to believe a few firmwares down the road will make things even better.

 

After all, a full stop improvement is a lot; it seems to me from working the uncompressed files that there's a wee bit more there even. IOW, shadows don't drop off a cliff even to effective ISO 6400, which means at 2500 while you need to be careful its a huge improvement, practically speaking, to the M8 (at least my M8, which I can't print too well even in good light at ISO 2500).

[ken_tanaka]

Whew. Thanks for the reassurance, Jamie! Honestly, I'll be darn happy with a reasonably clean 1250 (as suggested by some of the Leica samples I've seen). I remain very eager to get my hands on the M9. I've been working mostly with M's, film and M8/M8.2s, on a project nearly all summer, so I'm firmly in Leica mode lately.

[Jamie Roberts]

Whew. Thanks for the reassurance, Jamie! Honestly, I'll be darn happy with a reasonably clean 1250 (as suggested by some of the Leica samples I've seen). I remain very eager to get my hands on the M9. I've been working mostly with M's, film and M8/M8.2s, on a project nearly all summer, so I'm firmly in Leica mode lately.

 

Cool--I can't wait to hear your impressions--and see the shots. I need to get my hands on one soon too

[Nick De Marco]

One main reason I sold the M8 and bought a 5D MkII is to have a good digital camera that can do well at high ISOs (if I don't want high ISOs I can use film Ms). I thought the M8 at 640 ISO was very ugly and noisy, 320 was OK but anything higher was not good enough. On my old 5D 1600 ISO was much less noisier than 640 ISO on an M8. On the new 5D II I think 3200 ISO is about the same as 640 on the M8. If the M9 means you can shoot about one stop better then maybe 640ISO is now acceptable. Not worth the money it costs in my view (but if someone gave me one I'd love them).

[georg]

It would be really strange to have a RAW-shooting CCD-based camera with internal noise-reduction!? The ISO1250-2500 shots held detail as well as the 5D2/D3X in my eyes when properly processed.

 

http://www.pbase.com/davidkilpatrick/image/107217427/original.jpg

This D3X 1600ASA-RAW pretty much show the amount of noise I've seen in my own tests. It can be filtered well, it's non-obtrusive in prints but really better than filtered M9-files? "Clean 3200ASA"? Which camera offers that without significant noise-reduction, loos of DR and detail?

 

I've added a 800ASA-M8-shot 100%-crop, doesn't look too different in terms of noise to me?

 

The few shots I made witzh the M9 showed less crucial artifacts ("blotches", banding...) at high ISO that made even noise-reduction in C1 with M8-files worthless. It seems like ISO2500 can be used when filtered properly!?

 

"think 3200 ISO is about the same as 640 on the M8"

What? How did you process the files? I barely can get usable ISO1250 out of the M8 but ISO640/ISO800 holds detail/noise well processed as well as other high-res DSLRs I've tested at 100%.

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!

[Jamie Roberts]

One main reason I sold the M8 and bought a 5D MkII is to have a good digital camera that can do well at high ISOs (if I don't want high ISOs I can use film Ms). I thought the M8 at 640 ISO was very ugly and noisy, 320 was OK but anything higher was not good enough. On my old 5D 1600 ISO was much less noisier than 640 ISO on an M8. On the new 5D II I think 3200 ISO is about the same as 640 on the M8. If the M9 means you can shoot about one stop better then maybe 640ISO is now acceptable. Not worth the money it costs in my view (but if someone gave me one I'd love them).

 

You're off by at least a stop and probably much more in your estimation.

 

But YMMV.

 

For others out there, I shoot ISO 640 (which is actually higher than 640 on both my Canons and Nikon) with an M8 all the time (literally keep it there unless I have to move it).

 

There is no way on earth that my 5d (or 1ds2) was less noisy at ISO 1600 than my M8 was at 640... sorry. You can see lots of M8 shots on my site. They're paired up with a D3 or 5d or 1ds2. They certainly hold their own.

 

So Nick, you're either not exposing properly, or you had a busted M8.

[george_b]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For those like me whose favorite FOV is 35mm, the M9 represents potentially about a 2-3 stops improvement over the M8. I use the 24mm Elmarit at F2.8 and will know use the 35mm Lux Asph 1.4 so two stops are already gained here (one for those that use the 28mm Cron). Add the one stop in prints gain + maybe a little bit more from the soft release option and you get IMO a big boost in low light capability at 35mm.

Obvioulsy one could opt for 24 Lux + M8.2 instead but as the Lux is basically the same price as the M9, it makes IMO more sense to go for the M9 and all the great improvements it brings beside higher ISO. Also need to take into account the significant difference insize and weight of the 24 Lux vs 35 Lux or even 35 Nokton 1.4.

For those whose favorite focal is 50mm and above, the practical gain of stops might be less as fast lenses at decent pricing were available.

Hi guys, I'm confused or missed something along the line. Can someone explain why the M9 repesents a 2 stop increase for the same lens? Or is that you can a wider aperture lens for the same equivalent focal length or something else?

[jaapv]

Not for the same lens. I admit it is a bit confusing, but what is meant that instead of using a 2.8/28 mm lens one can use a 35/1.4 lens to get the same angle of view, thus gaining two stops in lens speed. It is a bit too convoluted for me, as there are only a few lens pairs where this mathematic actually works.

[george_b]

Not for the same lens. I admit it is a bit confusing, but what is meant that instead of using a 2.8/28 mm lens one can use a 35/1.4 lens to get the same angle of view, thus gaining two stops in lens speed. It is a bit too convoluted for me, as there are only a few lens pairs where this mathematic actually works.

 

Thanks for clearing that up

[Mauribix]

OTOH, the big sensor means I can shoot my 21 f/2.8 instead of the C/V 15mm f/4.5 - so I can skip ISO 1600 and use ISO 400 in the same light (or spring for the 21 Summilux and shoot ISO 160).

 

Also remember that at the same print size (with more, smaller pixels from the M9) the noise speckles will be 1.33x smaller.

 

Spot on!

[wstotler]

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).

 

Sean--thanks so much for performing the tests.

 

Two questions?

 

(1) In your opinion (and to your eye) do you think the M9, in the explicit context of on-screen publishing and viewing as you describe above, has gained not 1 but 2 or even 3 "apparent" stops? Due to a combo of reduced noise and increased sensor size.

 

E.g., For *on-screen viewing* at sizes of *1280 wide/high or so*, M9 2500 noise is "to your eye" equivalent to M8 640. Likewise, M9 1250 is "to your eye" equivalent to M8 320?

 

Yeah, the question has some slop in it--room for interpretation. But a bit more of your opinion on the matter would quantify it for me.

 

(2) To lever this argument forward--in your opinion and to your eye, based on the same conditions above, would a 5"x7" and 8"x12" print size also be likely to benefit in the same way? (For 16"x20" size prints, or larger, I'm assuming a one-stop-only benefit applies.) Not gallery sizes by any means, but "everyday" for many of us.

 

 

Thanks kindly!

Will

[rosuna]

The overall image quality of the M8 is severely reduced when the ISO value is increased. It is not a question of noise, but also color, DR, detail, etc.

 

Yesterday I handled a M9 and the noise (aparent noise if you want) is lower than on the M8 files. The quality, and particularly noise, until ISO 1250 is very good. At ISO 1600 I see a noisy image, but there is much detail, and this noise can be reduced easily in Lightroom, preserving detail. I suppose Leica isn't applying much noise reduction by means of software algorithms or by means of electronics (it is a CCD). Some components of noise have fixed patterns, of forms that can be estimated or measured and substrated. It would like to see improvements in this regard.

[xand]

There really is no single camera that will "do it all." And thank heavens for that.

 

Uh. Whats wrong with a do it all?

[rolu]

So, after reading all the posts,

where to put MAX ISO in the AUTO ISO or manual ISO setting?

 

320 for superb quality,

640 for very good quality,

1250 for reasonable quality,

2500 only when really needed ?

 

I have the M9 since the 10th - very happy with it (;-)) - but it is my first digital camera and neither do I know much about workflow, nor do I have any workflow yet. Just looking at the camera screen at my low light pictures from yesterday I cannot notice noise until 640, but suddenly from 800, quite strongly at 2500. Sorry I cannot post them.

I'm not obessed with just a little noise - I think it is the digital grain. I would be bothered more about loss of dynamic range.

Any ideas about ISO settings as above?

[Jamie Roberts]

So, after reading all the posts,

where to put MAX ISO in the AUTO ISO or manual ISO setting?

 

{snipped}

 

Think about this way... from what I've seen so far, "ISO 6400" is where noise starts to take over from signal. That's pretty cool.

 

So I would try to keep my ISO at 1600 or less.

 

That would give me about 2 stops in the shadows, which is a nice amount of detail for a high ISO shot.

 

If by accident I underexpose a bit, then all is fine. If I want to make something dark and look "smooth," then all is fine.

 

Go any higher and you need to nail your exposure; at ISO 2500 you only have a little more than a stop left, so you need to be precise to get a usable shot. Less precise than the M8, for sure, but precise nonetheless

 

BTW--I'd strongly suggest that you don't use auto ISO unless you really, really, really need to (going between fully lit outdoors and cave-like dim interiors). It's too hard to get a sense of what you should be doing if you've never shot digitally before.

[jaapv]

So, after reading all the posts,

where to put MAX ISO in the AUTO ISO or manual ISO setting?

 

320 for superb quality,

640 for very good quality,

1250 for reasonable quality,

2500 only when really needed ?

 

I have the M9 since the 10th - very happy with it (;-)) - but it is my first digital camera and neither do I know much about workflow, nor do I have any workflow yet. Just looking at the camera screen at my low light pictures from yesterday I cannot notice noise until 640, but suddenly from 800, quite strongly at 2500. Sorry I cannot post them.

I'm not obessed with just a little noise - I think it is the digital grain. I would be bothered more about loss of dynamic range.

Any ideas about ISO settings as above?

 

In your case I would start reading up on postprocessing before worrying about camera settings I recommend getting the Scott Kelby Lightroom book.

[Jamie Roberts]

In your case I would start reading up on postprocessing before worrying about camera settings I recommend getting the Scott Kelby Lightroom book.

 

That's true Jaap, but I suspect the M9 will be a much more forgiving camera to shoot than the M8 (or the DMR).

[dpattinson]

I'm shooting my M8 at 2500 deliberately, because I like the way it looks - it's horses for courses imho.

[jaapv]

Ah- if forgiveness were to be had for 7000$.... I suspect, Jamie, that even with the M9 the difference in PP will tell in the end result.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[rolu]

Thanks !

I'm very grateful for your advice - many things to learn in the digital world.

 

[quote name='Jamie Roberts;1037351

]...

BTW--I'd strongly suggest that you don't use auto ISO unless you really' date=' really, really need to (going between fully lit outdoors and cave-like dim interiors). It's too hard to get a sense of what you should be doing if you've never shot digitally before.[/quote']

 

Thanks ! ... I'm even thinking about shooting manual with a grey card. (just in low light this is a bit difficult) The M9 is so great - feels like, no IS a real camera. Did I mention, how happy I am with it? (;-))

 

But - putting AUTO ISO (and pull 80) aside - would you say that every step up the ISO ladder from 160 you lose a little quality, and from 800 a bit more?

 

In your case I would start reading up on postprocessing before worrying about camera settings I recommend getting the Scott Kelby Lightroom book.

 

For now I just want to avoid dumb mistakes when taking pictures that needlessly cost quality.

I will not have the time to really go into postprocessing before winter. And then I want to have pictures I can use. The book is noted!

 

Thanks again!