charlesphoto99 Posted September 14, 2009 Share #81 Posted September 14, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) 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. Cameras will never take the "darkroom" out of the equation, no matter how much they cost. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 14, 2009 Posted September 14, 2009 Hi charlesphoto99, Take a look here Read Sean's ISO results and quite disappointed.. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
think Posted September 14, 2009 Share #82 Posted September 14, 2009 [quote name=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. .[/quote] Not to nitpick, but the M8 has a 1.33 FL effect. 35mm=46.6mm somewhat close to 50mm in use. 50mm=66.5mm not as close to 75mm. Still a lovely length to work with. I agree in principal though...I've waited for the M9 to be able to use my 35 and 75 Lux as I have on film. They're a wonderful and complementary combination to my eye. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken_tanaka Posted September 14, 2009 Share #83 Posted September 14, 2009 ...I've waited for the M9 to be able to use my 35 and 75 Lux as I have on film. They're a wonderful and complementary combination to my eye. Indeed, the 1:1 focal length/capture frame correspondence was perhaps the most compelling reason for me to grab an M9. Having worked full-frame with my Canon cameras for some time I can say that the experience is wonderful. I've been so eager to be able to use my Leica lenses on a full-frame sensor but had low expectations for the experience any time soon. It will also be terrific to finally be able to use my $$ universal external viewfinder on a digital M without translation/approximation. Sorry, off-topic here. But, regarding noise, I have to say that I'll probably be doing some serious slack-cutting on such performance fronts due to my general euphoria of finally having the "digital M" that I (and many others) dreamed of having for so long. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
skimmel Posted September 14, 2009 Share #84 Posted September 14, 2009 Below is a clip from by blog... . Bo: where can I find your blog? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bo_Lorentzen Posted September 14, 2009 Share #85 Posted September 14, 2009 Skimmel, BoPhoto.com Just my personal impressions, check Sean Reid for hardcore insight. ;-) . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
skimmel Posted September 14, 2009 Share #86 Posted September 14, 2009 Thanks Bo. I've read Sean's review as well. Everyone has something to add, from personal experience to more formal testing. Getting back to the noise issue -- looking at the images from the link below, it really looks to me like DSLRs are applying more noise smoothing (or maybe's it's anti-alias filter)??? Regardless, there appears to be more detail in M9 shots (and I'd personally rather add a bit of noise reduction than extra sharpening). Leica M9 and its full frame competitors - RAW comparison - Lenstip.com The more I think about noise, the more I realize how hard it is to judge with "numbers." Also, the ability to maintain color accuracy and dynamic range at higher ISO is as, if not more, important, to me -- I can reduce a lot of noise, but can't easily get back color or dynamic range. This is the reason I'm most pleased with my Nikon D3 -- it really maintains excellent color (and good DR) at high ISOs. And, of course, to me, the prints the thing. Skimmel, BoPhoto.com Just my personal impressions, check Sean Reid for hardcore insight. ;-) . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted September 14, 2009 Share #87 Posted September 14, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) 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 Once the files from the two camera are sized to the same dimensions (for screen or print) I think the M9 has about a stop advantage over the M8.2. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpattinson Posted September 14, 2009 Share #88 Posted September 14, 2009 Thanks Bo. I've read Sean's review as well. Everyone has something to add, from personal experience to more formal testing. Getting back to the noise issue -- looking at the images from the link below, it really looks to me like DSLRs are applying more noise smoothing (or maybe's it's anti-alias filter)??? Regardless, there appears to be more detail in M9 shots (and I'd personally rather add a bit of noise reduction than extra sharpening). Leica M9 and its full frame competitors - RAW comparison - Lenstip.com The more I think about noise, the more I realize how hard it is to judge with "numbers." Also, the ability to maintain color accuracy and dynamic range at higher ISO is as, if not more, important, to me -- I can reduce a lot of noise, but can't easily get back color or dynamic range. This is the reason I'm most pleased with my Nikon D3 -- it really maintains excellent color (and good DR) at high ISOs. And, of course, to me, the prints the thing. Looks to me that they didn't correct the white balance in the M9 shots. I usually see a reduction in apparent noise when I do a proper white balance on my M8 high iso shots. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bybrett Posted September 15, 2009 Share #89 Posted September 15, 2009 Once the files from the two camera are sized to the same dimensions (for screen or print) I think the M9 has about a stop advantage over the M8.2. Cheers, Sean Exactly my interpretation from my non-scientific (visual) comparisons. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
skimmel Posted September 15, 2009 Share #90 Posted September 15, 2009 Looks to me that they didn't correct the white balance in the M9 shots. I usually see a reduction in apparent noise when I do a proper white balance on my M8 high iso shots. Yeah, it's a shame that they didn't. Regardless, looks like more detail in the M9 to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinA Posted September 15, 2009 Share #91 Posted September 15, 2009 People sure are funny. Leica essentially do the impossible (make a FF digital M) and give an extra stop to a stop and half iso but still not good enough. But then again it doesn't fit in my pocket, doesn't focus to 6", doesn't zoom from 18-300mm, and so on. Get real people! Learn how to take a photograph and the noise won't be a problem. Go shoot some high speed color neg or TMAX 3200 under low light and then come back and talk about noise. Or better yet lug around a D3 everywhere (and I'm a D3 owner). There really is no single camera that will "do it all." And thank heavens for that. Rolls of film are no longer the competition, low noise at high iso has been proven to be achievable, so it is only natural that a purchaser of one of the more expensive 35mm cameras should expect a similar level of performance. Wether or not you think the M9 has a competitive performance in the high iso range will no doubt depend on the individual photographer. I hope I don't hear the "more film like" , "I prefer a more gritty image" or "cleans up well in Black and white" range of excuses being applied to the M9. Kevin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted September 15, 2009 Share #92 Posted September 15, 2009 Rolls of film are no longer the competition, low noise at high iso has been proven to be achievable, so it is only natural that a purchaser of one of the more expensive 35mm cameras should expect a similar level of performance My understanding is that it's about getting an acceptable compromise between low noise and fine detail. Nikon and Canon have gone down the low noise route at the expense of fine detail by using higher levels of in camera noise reduction, while Leica have decided to apply minimal noise reduction and retain as much detail as possible. I'm sure the M8 could match Nikon or Canon cameras in terms of high ISO noise, but it would be at the expense of loosing detail. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinA Posted September 15, 2009 Share #93 Posted September 15, 2009 My understanding is that it's about getting an acceptable compromise between low noise and fine detail. Nikon and Canon have gone down the low noise route at the expense of fine detail by using higher levels of in camera noise reduction, while Leica have decided to apply minimal noise reduction and retain as much detail as possible. I'm sure the M8 could match Nikon or Canon cameras in terms of high ISO noise, but it would be at the expense of loosing detail. I don't have both to compare. The advantage Leica does have is no flappy mirror and fast lenses that can be used wide open, unless the subject requires some DoF. Plus my Canon can be hit and miss in the dark with the AF. I think the real problem in low light is how the camera handles the transition from near dark to dark. Banding being the most ugly thing that can happen. I do not think there has been enough evidence to say the M9 is good or bad in low light. I can never see the point in shooting a test at high iso in good light. The truly bad things happen in real low light conditions which also tend to be contrasty as well. Having good fast lenses appeals to me as I feel keeping the iso down on any camera is still the best way to shoot, not just for detail but DR also. Here is a link to my last low light assignment Welcome If Leica would like me to test an S and M (can I say S&M?) on my next night helicopter shoot I would be only to pleased:D Kevin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted September 16, 2009 Share #94 Posted September 16, 2009 My understanding is that it's about getting an acceptable compromise between low noise and fine detail. Nikon and Canon have gone down the low noise route at the expense of fine detail by using higher levels of in camera noise reduction, while Leica have decided to apply minimal noise reduction and retain as much detail as possible. I'm sure the M8 could match Nikon or Canon cameras in terms of high ISO noise, but it would be at the expense of loosing detail. That's actually not my experience with a camera like the 1Ds Mk III. I hear it quoted all the time but its not what I saw in testing. That camera is pretty conservative with noise filtering. I really like the M8 and M9 but I don't believe, based on what I've seen in testing, that either one could match one of the better Canons or Nikons with respect to S/N (no matter what was done with filtering). But the Leica DRFs are getting closer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinA Posted September 16, 2009 Share #95 Posted September 16, 2009 That's actually not my experience with a camera like the 1Ds Mk III. I hear it quoted all the time but its not what I saw in testing. That camera is pretty conservative with noise filtering. I tested my 1DsmkIII against a 5dmkII up-to 1250iso the difference was unnoticeable, we also had a D700 along it did look less noisy, but smoother detail. A slight touch of Noise Ninja and Canon looked like Nikon. The AF in the 1Ds gave up before the 5D in low light, which was my main reason for testing and not noise. I find it amazing that I can now shoot at 3200iso and deliver professional salable images, I used to struggle with 800 iso neg in a Makina 67 Kevin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinA Posted September 16, 2009 Share #96 Posted September 16, 2009 That's actually not my experience with a camera like the 1Ds Mk III. I hear it quoted all the time but its not what I saw in testing. That camera is pretty conservative with noise filtering. I really like the M8 and M9 but I don't believe, based on what I've seen in testing, that either one could match one of the better Canons or Nikons with respect to S/N (no matter what was done with filtering). But the Leica DRFs are getting closer. Same here Sean, there is less detail but not smudgy detail, just as a fast film records less detail. Kevin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.