jackal Posted September 18, 2009 Author Share #21 Posted September 18, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) J Think I'll sign out. Make us a cuppa can you ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 18, 2009 Posted September 18, 2009 Hi jackal, Take a look here Noise. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
lct Posted September 18, 2009 Share #22 Posted September 18, 2009 What raw converter do you use to get crappy pics like that folks? I've tested a lot of dng files from the M9 with my old C1 v4.1 converter and noise was very well controlled including at 2500 iso. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nugat Posted September 18, 2009 Share #23 Posted September 18, 2009 The Exif says CS3 windows. We also learn the pictures were taken 1.5 year apart (if the bottom one is M9) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpattinson Posted September 18, 2009 Share #24 Posted September 18, 2009 The noise on the M9 is proper nasty... but proper nasty as in no worse that what you see in the image above it which is the M8 at 320 (not 2500 !) The M9 is in a different league (admittedly in part because of the larger res). I can push underexposed shadow 2 stops at iso640 with results that could be sent to clients. If you did this on an M8 file it would look like Josephs Technicolour dreamcoat ! I'm curious about why you would need to push stuff 2 stops? I'm guessing because you need to keep a fast shutter speed to stop movement in crappy light? My experience has certainly been that pushing more than 0.5 stops is generally not pleasant with higher ISO colour images unless you can beat down the shadows. Thankfully I only shoot for myself and I prefer black and white - where the noise is not normally much of an issue for me. Personally I have no care either way, I will probably buy a M9 the next time my M8 needs a trip to Solms. Certainly the higher res should make for better output (print) in any case and I'm looking forward using my lenses on FF digital Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted September 18, 2009 Share #25 Posted September 18, 2009 Just retrieved a 2500 iso file developed last week with default sharpening and NR settings of my old C1 v4 converter. Don't tell me that this is unacceptable from the smallest digi FF ever folks. 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=1040864'>More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted September 18, 2009 Share #26 Posted September 18, 2009 Now for [insert preferred deity here]'s sake, if you all want to publish crops, do shoot an old Kodak Gray Card with both the M8 and the M9, and publish them first at identical percentages, and then sized to take account of the difference in sensor size. That's what I am going to do when I get my M9. There will be no sense got out of this discussion unless we keep all other things equal. That is what scientists do. This sounds more like a theological debate. The old man from the Land of Ceteris-Paribus Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulrikft Posted September 18, 2009 Share #27 Posted September 18, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I managed to rescue my d700 files, but realize that the leica lens is... somewhat better than my old 24 ai-s.. But i guess you guys get somewhat of a picture of what the camera is capable of, going to go down and test the sigmalux vs. a summilux tomorrow, instead. Since I think most of the softness in the d700-file is due to lens and focus. But you get some kind of impression of amount and nature of noise? Anyway, sorry for this halfass comparison, I'll make a better one tomorrow ps, this is iso1600 M9: D700 upressed: hard facts: d700 + 24 2.0 AI-S, M9 + 24 2.8 Elmarit, both at iso 1600. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulrikft Posted September 18, 2009 Share #28 Posted September 18, 2009 Just in case you guys think the 24 2.0 AI-S is a total dog, here is a full image, trough a window at f/8 (or 11? don't remember) http://ulrikft.smugmug.com/photos/646109420_mCBam-O.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted September 18, 2009 Share #29 Posted September 18, 2009 What converter did you use to get such ugly results with your M9? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lotw Posted September 18, 2009 Share #30 Posted September 18, 2009 not that difficult to create noise with nearly 1 stop overexposure, IMHO Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted September 18, 2009 Share #31 Posted September 18, 2009 Most details are lost in your D700 pic above. I'm a Nikonian as well but it's pretty clear that clean high iso have a price in terms of data loss here. Is your M9 DNG file available somewhere? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulrikft Posted September 18, 2009 Share #32 Posted September 18, 2009 What converter did you use to get such ugly results with your M9? it compares quite well with the class leader in high iso in that sample, imo, when one compares signal to noise. It was in CS4. But I can happily edit it in C1 or something else, if you guys think that will give better results? I'll do a more controlled test with two 50 1.4 lenses tomorrow though, I can upload dng-files/raw-files from that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted September 18, 2009 Share #33 Posted September 18, 2009 it compares quite well with the class leader in high iso in that sample, imo... You must be kidding my friend. Is your DNG file available? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicoleica Posted September 18, 2009 Share #34 Posted September 18, 2009 Forgive me for trying to pour some soothing oil to calm the seething waters of sensor-ship. But has anybody thought of just how good the results from any of the above complained about sensors are, when compared to the same speed colour film abused in the same manner? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
epand56 Posted September 18, 2009 Share #35 Posted September 18, 2009 , for a start the M8 (top crop) is iso320 YES... the M8 was/is THAT bad Never got such a result at 320 Iso and not even at 640 unless i really missed the exposition. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted September 18, 2009 Share #36 Posted September 18, 2009 ..has anybody thought of just how good the results from any of the above complained about sensors are, when compared to the same speed colour film abused in the same manner? Yes daguerreotypes were noisy as well but it is a shame to do comparisons like that, reason why i'm asking this gentleman his dng file so that i san show how to develop it properly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulrikft Posted September 18, 2009 Share #37 Posted September 18, 2009 You must be kidding my friend. Is your DNG file available? As I said, I'll make the ones i make tomorrow avilable. But it does compare quite well when it comes to signal/noise ratio, with the D700. When you upres the D700 files, that is. I'll upload nef/dngs tomorrow! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulrikft Posted September 18, 2009 Share #38 Posted September 18, 2009 Yes daguerreotypes were noisy as well but it is a shame to do comparisons like that, reason why i'm asking this gentleman his dng file so that i san show how to develop it properly. Not to... pour salt in anyones wine, but I think I have a fairly good way of developing files, and I have developed this one in ACR/Lightroom, Capture One and Bibble5, and it does not get much more or less noisy. Butagain, you'll get DNG-files to play with tomorrow, so you can give me a lesson then.. (I'm not applying any noise removing features now of course, that would be a bit counter productive for such a comparison). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted September 19, 2009 Share #39 Posted September 19, 2009 ...Butagain, you'll get DNG-files to play with tomorrow, so you can give me a lesson then.... No problem i'll just use my old C1 v4 converter and crop the file in my even older Photoshop Elements 2.0. As a leicaepsonikocanosony user i'm 95% impartial. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted September 19, 2009 Share #40 Posted September 19, 2009 I was right. Sounds just like the dear old 'filioque' debate. But that was during the Late Roman era. There has been a scientific revolution since then, sometime in the seventeenth century (you know, Galileo and Newton and all those old useless fogies). The old man from the Age of Controlled Evidence Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.