ulrikft Posted September 20, 2009 Share #61 Posted September 20, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'm slowly, but surely convincing myself that I need a M9, some 1.1 and 1.2-glass and a far smaller camera bag in a few months Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 Hi ulrikft, Take a look here Noise. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
hammam Posted September 20, 2009 Share #62 Posted September 20, 2009 The color noise in the M9 crop is bad. Here is a genuine and straightwforward question (I am not a Leica basher, I've had an M8, I just bought an M7, but I'd like to understand Leica): if Nikon could achieve such noiseless images up to 6400 ISO with a full frame sensor in the D3/D700, why couldn't Leica do the same? Oh, right, the M9 has 18 megapix, compare to 12. Then, why did they have to go that high? Wouldn't, say, 12 megapix have been enough? Why did they have to give in to the silly pixel race, just like your ordinary P&S mass mega-company? Are they trying to sell to advertising people? Come on, these guys use MF and huge digital backs already. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulrikft Posted September 20, 2009 Share #63 Posted September 20, 2009 The color noise in the M9 crop is bad. Here is a genuine and straightwforward question (I am not a Leica basher, I've had an M8, I just bought an M7, but I'd like to understand Leica): if Nikon could achieve such noiseless images up to 6400 ISO with a full frame sensor in the D3/D700, why couldn't Leica do the same? Oh, right, the M9 has 18 megapix, compare to 12. Then, why did they have to go that high? Wouldn't, say, 12 megapix have been enough? Why did they have to give in to the silly pixel race, just like your ordinary P&S mass mega-company? Are they trying to sell to advertising people? Come on, these guys use MF and huge digital backs already. 1) the amount of megapixels has no relation to the iso capacity of a camera. As the 1ds mark III, 5d mark II and other cameras prove quite efficiently. 2) The color noise in the iso5000 crop is bad, if you want I'll show you some random 100% crop from a upressed d700 iso 6400 file... the files are not "noiseless", while great (I shoot lowlight with a d700 all the time, I know). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrice Posted September 20, 2009 Share #64 Posted September 20, 2009 Also the colour filter array is more precise and restricting on the M9. The M9 also uses a CCD instead of a CMOS sensor which (while it has lower A/D noise at low iso's) heats up and analogue noise gets higher at high ISO. The M9 files respond very well to neat image. I'm slowly, but surely convincing myself that I need a M9, some 1.1 and 1.2-glass and a far smaller camera bag in a few months I won't even need a camera bag anymore soon I've ordered a Billingham Photo Vest. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammam Posted September 21, 2009 Share #65 Posted September 21, 2009 1) the amount of megapixels has no relation to the iso capacity of a camera. As the 1ds mark III, 5d mark II and other cameras prove quite efficiently. 2) The color noise in the iso5000 crop is bad, if you want I'll show you some random 100% crop from a upressed d700 iso 6400 file... the files are not "noiseless", while great (I shoot lowlight with a d700 all the time, I know). I don't think you have read my post very carefully. 1) I never said «the amount of megapixels had a relation to the iso capacity of a camera.» What I did say, however, is that it had a direct relation to the NOISE of the images in a camera: the more the pixel count for a given sensor surface, the more likely there will be noise at higher ISO, as has been proven many times. 2) Of course you can show me noisy 6400 ISO images from the D700. Heck, I can show you noisy pictures at 200 ISO. It doesn't mean the D700 is not a fabulous camera, noise-wise. If Nikon have been wise enough to keep the pixel count to 12 megapx on the FF sensor of the D3/D700, thus getting clean images in the high ISO range, why didn't Leica do the same with the M9? Did they HAVE to go to 18 megapixels, and getting noisy images in the process? A Leica M full frame? Yeah! Noisy images at 640 ISO? Yuck! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulrikft Posted September 21, 2009 Share #66 Posted September 21, 2009 I don't think you have read my post very carefully. 1) I never said «the amount of megapixels had a relation to the iso capacity of a camera.» What I did say, however, is that it had a direct relation to the NOISE of the images in a camera: the more the pixel count for a given sensor surface, the more likely there will be noise at higher ISO, as has been proven many times. 2) Of course you can show me noisy 6400 ISO images from the D700. Heck, I can show you noisy pictures at 200 ISO. It doesn't mean the D700 is not a fabulous camera, noise-wise. If Nikon have been wise enough to keep the pixel count to 12 megapx on the FF sensor of the D3/D700, thus getting clean images in the high ISO range, why didn't Leica do the same with the M9? Did they HAVE to go to 18 megapixels, and getting noisy images in the process? A Leica M full frame? Yeah! Noisy images at 640 ISO? Yuck! 1) But it has not been proven. The pixel count of the 5d MKII with the same generation sensor, as the d700 (actually, the same sensor as the older 1ds mkIII basically is far higher than the pixel count of the d700 (pr surface area), is just as good at high iso. The premise "higher pixel density gives more noise" is a fallcy based on people viewing things on pixel view basis, which gimps the higher pixel density sensor. In reality, I have seen no indications that higher density necessarily means lower ico capability. 2) As I have tested and shown (both in crops here and in print for myself) the Leica M9 is very, very close to the D700/D3. If you did not check out my last comparison links, I would want you to do so. If you think 640 iso is noisy in the M9, you pretty much think that iso 800-1600 is useless on the d700 too, so... I just don't know if you are very realistic in your critique. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 21, 2009 Share #67 Posted September 21, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) . In reality, I have seen no indications that higher density necessarily means lower ico capability. You cannot say this without taking into account the different types of sensor and the different amounts of noise-reduction processing going on.( as indeed you cannot say the opposite either) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
j. borger Posted September 21, 2009 Share #68 Posted September 21, 2009 The color noise in the M9 crop is bad. Here is a genuine and straightwforward question (I am not a Leica basher, I've had an M8, I just bought an M7, but I'd like to understand Leica): if Nikon could achieve such noiseless images up to 6400 ISO with a full frame sensor in the D3/D700, why couldn't Leica do the same? Oh, right, the M9 has 18 megapix, compare to 12. Then, why did they have to go that high? Wouldn't, say, 12 megapix have been enough? Why did they have to give in to the silly pixel race, just like your ordinary P&S mass mega-company? Are they trying to sell to advertising people? Come on, these guys use MF and huge digital backs already. I think 10 MP is enough BUT ..... the mega pixel race realy works perfect for Leica looking at the huge amount of M8s available 2nd hand. They finaly have understood they have to follow in Nikon and Canon's footsteps with upgrades every 2-3 year to survive. The M9 is NOT the end of the line ........ a lot left for improvement. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulrikft Posted September 21, 2009 Share #69 Posted September 21, 2009 I think 10 MP is enough BUT ..... the mega pixel race realy works perfect for Leica looking at the huge amount of M8s available 2nd hand. They finaly have understood they have to follow in Nikon and Canon's footsteps with upgrades every 2-3 year to survive. The M9 is NOT the end of the line ........ a lot left for improvement. This might be the main reason for not getting a M9, the line of digital Ms not being fully mature (or close to it) yet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 21, 2009 Share #70 Posted September 21, 2009 I'm too old to wait till 2025 for the final digital M whatever that may be... Perfection is always around the corner, never in one's hands. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulrikft Posted September 21, 2009 Share #71 Posted September 21, 2009 I'm too old to wait till 2025 for the final digital M whatever that may be... Perfection is always around the corner, never in one's hands. That is true, I just want to wait till the curve flattens a bit and development becomes more.. like the 20d, 30d, 40d, 50d.. slow increments. But maybe that has happened now? Who knows. I would love to get a M-digital, but I kind of have to know that it is the only m-digital I'm getting the next 4-5 years. I do think that the M9 is a good candidate though, and I guess that a M9 + 35 1.4 (CV of course.. ) and 50 1.1 (also CV) is within reach when I sell some nikon gear. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JHAG Posted September 21, 2009 Share #72 Posted September 21, 2009 M8 ISO 320 (and this is just a JPEG) Handheld 1/180 sec. f. 1.4 Natural light Smart sharpening in CS3, local contrast with Viveza and nothing else. Do you hear any noise ? 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/97220-noise/?do=findComment&comment=1044778'>More sharing options...
Olsen Posted September 21, 2009 Share #73 Posted September 21, 2009 I think the M9 does it quite well: upressed nikon d700 + sigmalux 50 1.4 @ 2.8, iso3200 100% crop: http://ulrikft.smugmug.com/photos/654074997_pv2pU-O.jpg native res M9 + summarit 50 2.5 @ 2.8 iso2500 pushed to 2500, 100% crop: http://ulrikft.smugmug.com/photos/654075426_5DyRK-O.jpg I'll just have to find a place to upload rawfiles, and then you guys can have at them Why is the M9 file more blown up than the Nikon file? Is this a fair comparison? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted September 21, 2009 Share #74 Posted September 21, 2009 I suspect that ulrikft used a noisy raw converter for his poor M9 pics above. I've asked him for a raw file last week but i'm like Sister Ann i don't see anything coming. See Guy Mancuso's noise tests and raw files here : Raws - 800-1600 iso - 160-2500 iso. C1's NR setting is disabled in the latters (bathroom). Suffice it to enable C1's default settings to get excellent results up to 800 iso and very good ones up to 1600 iso IMHO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulrikft Posted September 21, 2009 Share #75 Posted September 21, 2009 Why is the M9 file more blown up than the Nikon file? Is this a fair comparison? The d700 file is the one that is blown up actually, to match the 18mp resolution of the M9, and yes, that is the only way to make a fair 100% crop comparison imo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulrikft Posted September 21, 2009 Share #76 Posted September 21, 2009 I suspect that ulrikft used a noisy raw converter for his poor M9 pics above. I've asked him for a raw file last week but i'm like Sister Ann i don't see anything coming. See Guy Mancuso's noise tests and raw files here : Raws - 800-1600 iso - 160-2500 iso. C1's NR setting is disabled in the latters (bathroom). Suffice it to enable C1's default settings to get excellent results up to 800 iso and very good ones up to 1600 iso IMHO. You seem to change opinions quite often between "these are better" and "poor". Let me know if you have somewhere I can upload raws, as I said earlier, and you can have them I have uploaded them to a private server, but I can't put that online, as i don't want people to clog the line. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammam Posted September 21, 2009 Share #77 Posted September 21, 2009 Interesting that although the M9 has more noise (and I seem to remember that the D700 is revered for being a bit of a high iso champ?) the shot is more focussed and sharp on the M9 than the Nikon... Could be more an effect of the Leica lenses than of the camera itself. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrice Posted September 22, 2009 Share #78 Posted September 22, 2009 Could be more an effect of the Leica lenses than of the camera itself. More a case of upressing the D700 file, as has been discussed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted September 22, 2009 Share #79 Posted September 22, 2009 You seem to change opinions quite often between "these are better" and "poor".... Sorry? Your first picture was poor, to say the least, when you compared it to a smeared sample out of the Nikon D700, so i asked if your DNG file was available. You said yes and you posted a 2nd picture that was obviously better. Then i asked what happened in the meantime. You did not respond to this question so i still offer to develop your first pic myself. Just send your raw file to lctphot at aol dot com and i'll be pleased to demonstrate what the M9 can do when it is treated with the minimum fairness it deserves IMHO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulrikft Posted September 22, 2009 Share #80 Posted September 22, 2009 Sorry? Your first picture was poor, to say the least, when you compared it to a smeared sample out of the Nikon D700, so i asked if your DNG file was available. You said yes and you posted a 2nd picture that was obviously better. Then i asked what happened in the meantime. You did not respond to this question so i still offer to develop your first pic myself. Just send your raw file to lctphot at aol dot com and i'll be pleased to demonstrate what the M9 can do when it is treated with the minimum fairness it deserves IMHO. The maximum file size of my mail is 20MB per file, the raw files are 35MB other suggestions? And nothing happened between those things, other than two different M9 bodies and two different lenses. It might have been the fact that the first was a 24 2.8 (and hence, corner adjustment, since the first crop was on the side of the picture?) or it might have been firmware. The post processing was just the same, in lightroom. And i also posted a C1 version iirc. Which did not differ much. If you promise not to share the link, I can pm you a url with files. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.