High ISO prints from M9

[JLV]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks Noah,

 

Very useful post.

As soon as I get my M9 (end of month I hope) and as soon as a picture deserves it I will give it to pro lab for a large print. (just to see)

 

All the best,

Jean-Luc

[adli]

This is one of the best posts I've read regading the capabilities of the M9 (both stand-alone and compared to the M8)

 

And, hm, I need a larger printer....

[TimF]

I just printed a few small crops up to A4, iso 2500. I must say that while perfectly usable in monochrome, this is not something I would use to any critical use in color. Just too much noise. I think my "Print limit" for a3+ and a2+ would be 800-1600 somewhere on the M9, while it is 3200 on my D700... and that annoys me, greatly. But not much I can do about that now, is there?

Just out of interest, what speed are your M lenses, and what speed are those you typically put on the Nikon?

[ulrikft]

Just out of interest, what speed are your M lenses, and what speed are those you typically put on the Nikon?

 

I don't have M-lenses, I just borrowed a M9 with a 24 2.8 and 90 2.5. My d700 has a 20 1.8, 24 2.0, 35 1.4, 50 1.4, 58 1.2, 85 1.4, 105 2.5, 180 2.8... So I can get an advantage at 35 (CV 1.2) and at 50 (1.1 vs 1.2/1.4). But the high iso problems are not such an issue for me, I don't care _too_ much about it, as long as i get a shot, I'm mostly happy. Even shots like this:

 

http://fc04.deviantart.com/fs44/i/2009/130/2/f/Cigarette_by_cainadamsson.jpg

 

where you have a bit of noise, I'm happy. (that is 3200 with my d700)

[noah_addis]

I just printed a few small crops up to A4, iso 2500. I must say that while perfectly usable in monochrome, this is not something I would use to any critical use in color. Just too much noise. I think my "Print limit" for a3+ and a2+ would be 800-1600 somewhere on the M9, while it is 3200 on my D700... and that annoys me, greatly. But not much I can do about that now, is there?

 

I don't print my work in color, but this is why I said in my original post that people should do their own print tests.

 

I may agree that 1600 is the limit for A3 for critical color work, I'll have to try some color printing. I turn ALL sharpening OFF with the M9. I just haven't seen an advantage to sharpening since the files are so sharp to begin with. Also, keep in mind that by using noise reduction software you may be able to match the results you're getting from your Nikon, which is doing more processing in-camera. Also, exposure is critical at high-iso.

 

I shot with D700s for a few months earlier this year. I don't like the D700 prints at 3200, there is too much smoothing of fine detail for my tastes, and it becomes more obvious at larger print sizes.

 

I don't usually print my work large, but the tests were just to see what is possible. The main reason why the larger resolution of the M9 is useful for me is because the files (8bit tiff) work out to around 50MB, which is precisely what I need for my agency. With the M8 (and D700) I need to interpolate, which is a pain because they want the files interpolated during RAW conversion, which means I need to convert everything twice (one interpolated for the agency and one at native size for my archive). And then tone both files, etc.

 

The thing about my work is that I need to be able to shoot at high iso, but the vast majority of my work is at ISO 320 or below. Sometimes super-high iso is not the answer anyway. When I was shooting film I would mostly shoot tri-x at 400. Even when the light got low, I would push the limits of shutter and aperture and sometimes the images would be blurry, but often they would capture the feeling of the moment. I was shooting a party in Brazil with the D700 earlier in the year, and it was amazing that I could shoot at 3200. The photos were sharp and well-exposed with not too much noise, but they were dull and flat. Most of my favorite images came when I slowed back down to 400 and shot at slower shutter speeds to capture the movement and mood of the event.

 

Now this doesn't work for everyone's photographic style, nor does it work for every client. And I'm not saying a camera only needs to go up to 400. But I'd gladly trade a small amount of high-iso performance for the amazing advantage the Leica has in good light (no AA filter, rangefinder focusing, great Leica glass).

[ulrikft]

I don't print my work in color, but this is why I said in my original post that people should do their own print tests.

 

I may agree that 1600 is the limit for A3 for critical color work, I'll have to try some color printing. I turn ALL sharpening OFF with the M9. I just haven't seen an advantage to sharpening since the files are so sharp to begin with. Also, keep in mind that by using noise reduction software you may be able to match the results you're getting from your Nikon, which is doing more processing in-camera. Also, exposure is critical at high-iso.

 

I shot with D700s for a few months earlier this year. I don't like the D700 prints at 3200, there is too much smoothing of fine detail for my tastes, and it becomes more obvious at larger print sizes.

 

I don't usually print my work large, but the tests were just to see what is possible. The main reason why the larger resolution of the M9 is useful for me is because the files (8bit tiff) work out to around 50MB, which is precisely what I need for my agency. With the M8 (and D700) I need to interpolate, which is a pain because they want the files interpolated during RAW conversion, which means I need to convert everything twice (one interpolated for the agency and one at native size for my archive). And then tone both files, etc.

 

The thing about my work is that I need to be able to shoot at high iso, but the vast majority of my work is at ISO 320 or below. Sometimes super-high iso is not the answer anyway. When I was shooting film I would mostly shoot tri-x at 400. Even when the light got low, I would push the limits of shutter and aperture and sometimes the images would be blurry, but often they would capture the feeling of the moment. I was shooting a party in Brazil with the D700 earlier in the year, and it was amazing that I could shoot at 3200. The photos were sharp and well-exposed with not too much noise, but they were dull and flat. Most of my favorite images came when I slowed back down to 400 and shot at slower shutter speeds to capture the movement and mood of the event.

 

Now this doesn't work for everyone's photographic style, nor does it work for every client. And I'm not saying a camera only needs to go up to 400. But I'd gladly trade a small amount of high-iso performance for the amazing advantage the Leica has in good light (no AA filter, rangefinder focusing, great Leica glass).

 

Hmm, your experienec with the d700 just does not mirror very well with mine. But people are different I guess. I have iso 6400 shots that show a great amount of detail (and noise), and as long as you are carefull using raw and a converter that does not apply any standard noise reducing (most of them do though) by default, you should not get "plastic" or "smoothed out" noise. Of course, a lower iso will give you more accurate colors and higher dynamic range, so if you want movement in the shot/don't mind movements, it is of course a good idea to stop down to 400-800.

 

As said earlier, I don't mind high iso problems too much. But I would like a somewhat better iso1600, as I think 90% of my shots are 800-1600. I guess, as implied over, a 50 1.1 could solve one stop of that.

[noah_addis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

As said earlier, I don't mind high iso problems too much. But I would like a somewhat better iso1600, as I think 90% of my shots are 800-1600. I guess, as implied over, a 50 1.1 could solve one stop of that.

 

If such a high percentage of my work was at ISO 800 and over I might have different views on the topic. I didn't mean to imply that the D700 was bad, it's an amazing camera. But when comparing prints at ISO 320 I found that the Leica files have more bite and definition at my normal 12x18in. print size as well as at larger sizes. And even at higher ISO when the Leica gets more noise, it still looks a tad sharper to me. A lot of it could be due to the great Leica lenses, but I suspect some is from the lack of an AA filter.

 

I was using Zeiss primes with my D700s. May I recommend if you're happy with your D700 that you try out a ZF 28/2 or 35/2. They are amazing lenses and in my opinion a good match for the D700.

 

In any event it's almost not fair to compare the D700 and M9, since they have vastly different specs. The D3x is a better comparison, but I've never used one so I can't compare at low or high iso.

 

Comparing digital cameras gets tricky. If you don't print above A3 then you could compare the D700 and M9 because for your application they both do the job well. But if you need larger files, either for large prints or to satisfy client requirements, then the cameras are not really in the same class anymore since the D700 will need interpolation to match the resolution of the M9. I never got complaints from my agency over my interpolated 10mp M8 files, but it was a stopgap measure and a compromise.

 

This issue is further complicated by the fact that more and more photographs are ONLY seen online and never printed. This will be even more true in the future. If you're primarily shooting for the web then the 18MP of the M9 is a liability, not a benefit. The D700 would be a better choice. Or an M8. A 6MP full-frame camera with even better high-iso would be better still.

 

I think Nikon was very smart to come out with the D700 at 12MP instead if trying to jam more pixels into it. For most uses it's a perfect size for medium-size prints and most publication and journalistic uses.

 

The M9, with its larger file size (and high price tag), will probably compete more with the D3x, 5dII and 1dsMKIII for photographers doing commercial and advertising photography as well as high-end editorial work.

[ulrikft]

If such a high percentage of my work was at ISO 800 and over I might have different views on the topic. I didn't mean to imply that the D700 was bad, it's an amazing camera. But when comparing prints at ISO 320 I found that the Leica files have more bite and definition at my normal 12x18in. print size as well as at larger sizes. And even at higher ISO when the Leica gets more noise, it still looks a tad sharper to me. A lot of it could be due to the great Leica lenses, but I suspect some is from the lack of an AA filter.

 

I was using Zeiss primes with my D700s. May I recommend if you're happy with your D700 that you try out a ZF 28/2 or 35/2. They are amazing lenses and in my opinion a good match for the D700.

 

In any event it's almost not fair to compare the D700 and M9, since they have vastly different specs. The D3x is a better comparison, but I've never used one so I can't compare at low or high iso.

 

Comparing digital cameras gets tricky. If you don't print above A3 then you could compare the D700 and M9 because for your application they both do the job well. But if you need larger files, either for large prints or to satisfy client requirements, then the cameras are not really in the same class anymore since the D700 will need interpolation to match the resolution of the M9. I never got complaints from my agency over my interpolated 10mp M8 files, but it was a stopgap measure and a compromise.

 

This issue is further complicated by the fact that more and more photographs are ONLY seen online and never printed. This will be even more true in the future. If you're primarily shooting for the web then the 18MP of the M9 is a liability, not a benefit. The D700 would be a better choice. Or an M8. A 6MP full-frame camera with even better high-iso would be better still.

 

I think Nikon was very smart to come out with the D700 at 12MP instead if trying to jam more pixels into it. For most uses it's a perfect size for medium-size prints and most publication and journalistic uses.

 

The M9, with its larger file size (and high price tag), will probably compete more with the D3x, 5dII and 1dsMKIII for photographers doing commercial and advertising photography as well as high-end editorial work.

Quite true, the d700 is a low light machine, not a tripod, landscape, high definition machine. I do print well up to about 17x25 inches with it, but that is pushing it, and i prefer having nice files to start with when doing that.

 

My main problem with the d700 is neither IQ or lenses really, it is the weight and the size. I try to get small-ish lenses like the 24 2.0 and the 50 1.8 AI-S-es for when doing some things, but when the body alone is as heavy as it is, it is hard to cut weight from the get-go.

 

I have tried a few zeiss lenses, and I have thought about changing my 35 1.4 AI-S for a 35 2.0, not sure yet though.. I kind of love the close focus and low light capability of the 35 1.4.

[lars_bergquist]

As I have pointed out before, discussing high-ISO noise in a meter-size print is pretty absurd. We can 'see' or perceive a picture as a complete entity only if its diagonal is not longer than the wiewing distance. I have checked this by field observations in museums etc. People do spontaneously use this sort of viewing distance. So an A4-size print is normally held at a distance of c. 30cm. Larger prints are viewed at correspondingly larger distances, so that -- here's the point -- the picture tends to always subtend approximately the same angle of view. This means that noise etc. that falls below the resolution of Eyeball Mk I at A4 will fall below it at any other, larger size! --People who insist on daubing exhibition-size prints with their own nosegrease are pedants, whose purpose in life is finding fault with other peoples' work.

 

The reason why this is so difficult to understand is that we are conditioned by our experience of small print sizes. The natural close-focusing limit (and natural reading distance) of human eyes is about 30cm. This means that prints smaller than A4 will still be viewed from a 30cm distance, regardless of size. So you may see a nice 10x15cm and wonder if it would stand enlarging to 18x24cm -- or A4. And it might not, because unsharpness and grain that you can't see at 10x15 will be only too visible at 18x24, because now the eye may be able to resolve them. But as I have said, this increased resolution ceases to occur beyond the A4 limit.

 

Of course you may see 'faults' if you insist on it. If Eyeball Mk I at 30cm is not enough, you may use a magnifier. Or why not a microscope? If other peoples' imperfection is what you live and thrive on, you can have it. But I think your criteria are ridiculous.

 

I do nevertheless have a M9 on order. This is because there are other considerations that speak for it, besides its ability to satisfy marginally more noise ghouls than the M8 does. Such as getting the traditional 24mm field of view from a f:2.8 24mm lens instead of a f:4 18mm lens. And that one stop gain in speed, Sir, does also translate all by itself into a one stop gain in noise. And as noise occurs on the pixel level, more pixels in a print of a given size means smaller pixels -- that we may no longer see. The gains add up.

 

The old man from the Age of 35mm Tri-X

[ennjott]

The natural close-focusing limit (and natural reading distance) of human eyes is about 30cm.

What? Young people can often focus down to 5 cm (used to be 10 for me), and I can still focus to 15 cm now at age 32.

 

What's actually natural, at least it seems to me, is to take at least a short close look at short distance to spot details in the photo. That's the moment when digital falls apart.. or when it did; the latest FF sensors (5D2, Sony A9xx, M9 etc) are finally good enough imho.

[ulrikft]

What? Young people can often focus down to 5 cm (used to be 10 for me), and I can still focus to 15 cm now at age 32.

 

What's actually natural, at least it seems to me, is to take at least a short close look at short distance to spot details in the photo. That's the moment when digital falls apart.. or when it did; the latest FF sensors (5D2, Sony A9xx, M9 etc) are finally good enough imho.

 

I'm 26 and focus to about 8cm.. so yeah.