anupmc Posted September 24, 2009 Share #21 Posted September 24, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Erl, is it just me or is there actually a line right smack in the middle of that M8 image with different shades on either side (just above the cushions against the wall, left of the lamp)? Its there in the 1250 image as well, just fainter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 24, 2009 Posted September 24, 2009 Hi anupmc, Take a look here M8 versus M9 @ different iso 160 - 2500. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Lasex Posted September 24, 2009 Share #22 Posted September 24, 2009 Well, if someone sees a remarkable difference in the noise between these shots, ok. I don't, not even at 2500. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
graeme_hutton Posted September 24, 2009 Share #23 Posted September 24, 2009 Just as interesting is the colour balance between the two with the M9 distinctly pinker (or M8 less pink, depending on your point of view). Graeme Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted September 25, 2009 Author Share #24 Posted September 25, 2009 Erl, is it just me or is there actually a line right smack in the middle of that M8 image with different shades on either side (just above the cushions against the wall, left of the lamp)? Its there in the 1250 image as well, just fainter. anupmc, I do believe you are right. Now that you have pointed it out I can see it. Damn! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted September 25, 2009 Author Share #25 Posted September 25, 2009 Well, if someone sees a remarkable difference in the noise between these shots, ok. I don't, not even at 2500. Lasex, I can't speak for your monitor, so I won't. On mine, the original DNG files show a definite improvement of noise in the M9 over the M8. It is still there of course, but 'finer' if that makes sense. Conversion to jpeg and reduced and compressed for internet viewing is not a sensible way to make these assessment as so many other variables are introduced. In PS the jpegs also exhibit the difference. Later today I will make test prints that I expect to be the definitive test of real difference. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoppyman Posted September 25, 2009 Share #26 Posted September 25, 2009 Just as interesting is the colour balance between the two with the M9 distinctly pinker (or M8 less pink, depending on your point of view). Graeme Graeme you cannot draw any conclusion from that, though. White balance is not set in DNG files (or any Raw files) and depends entirely on the conversion program and settings used. That is irrespective of WB setting in the camera too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted September 25, 2009 Author Share #27 Posted September 25, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Graeme you cannot draw any conclusion from that, though. White balance is not set in DNG files (or any Raw files) and depends entirely on the conversion program and settings used. That is irrespective of WB setting in the camera too. To further support you Hoppyman, I am finding the M9 to be slightly cooler than the M8, straight out of the camera. My pics above are totally without profiles or any colour balancing. They are no way near the correct colour as they would be when processed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted September 25, 2009 Share #28 Posted September 25, 2009 Following is my comparison of M8 and M9 at various iso settings. The same lens was used, a noctilux set at f1.0, on both cameras. An IR cut filter was used only for the M8. Exposure was set at 'A' on both cameras. If anyone is interested in the DNG's for examination I will make them available. Please do make the dng's available. 7zip or WinRar will take both types of file down to about half their original size. Uploading them to YouSendit and posting the link for us to download works fine for me, unless you have a server available with greater upload convenience. thanks, scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted September 25, 2009 Author Share #29 Posted September 25, 2009 Scott, I will load them onto my website with a private url. May take awhile but I will post the urls here when they are up. PS. I have started the upload. Gotta do some shopping. They will probably be up by then! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted September 25, 2009 Author Share #30 Posted September 25, 2009 OK Scott, here is the url where the files are listed. The individual file names indicates which is which. http://www.showplace.com.au/M9DNG/ For M8 - range from 2500, 1250, 640, 320, 160. For M9 - range from 160, 320, 640, 1250, 2500. Note that the M8 iso starts hi and reduces, whereas I shot the M9 the other way round for some reason. I hope these prove useful to you. I would normally process them in C1 ver 4.3 and apply Jamie Roberts V1 profile. Also, I would individually tweak each file manually after processing, all done in C1 rather than PS. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
graeme_hutton Posted September 25, 2009 Share #31 Posted September 25, 2009 Graeme you cannot draw any conclusion from that, though. White balance is not set in DNG files (or any Raw files) and depends entirely on the conversion program and settings used. That is irrespective of WB setting in the camera too. Doh!...Of course, thanks. Graeme Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gravastar Posted September 25, 2009 Share #32 Posted September 25, 2009 anupmc, I do believe you are right. Now that you have pointed it out I can see it. Damn! Erl, I hope I'm not on your ignore list , I did mention this in post #17. My M8 had a very slight mismatch between the two halves of the sensor but when it came back from being upgraded Solms had fixed it . Bob. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lasex Posted September 25, 2009 Share #33 Posted September 25, 2009 ....On mine, the original DNG files show a definite improvement of noise in the M9 over the M8. ... Naturally I was referring to the jpg:s in your original postings. They don't show any remarkable difference in the noise. Comparing original DNG files is a different thing altogether. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted September 25, 2009 Share #34 Posted September 25, 2009 OK Scott, here is the url where the files are listed. The individual file names indicates which is which. Index of /M9DNG . I've downloaded them and developed them the same way that you have C1 4.8.3 default M9 and M8 UV/IR profiles. I cropped to a small area including the shoulder of the sweater (for texture in the shadows, and the pillow) and will see I can get these to post by using links without the site reducing the jpeg quality. These are 100% crops, same # of pixels and and same field of view in each. 2500 ISO (M9 first) M9: 1250 ISO M9 first Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted September 25, 2009 Share #35 Posted September 25, 2009 continuing with 100% crops: 640 ISO M9 first 320 ISO M9 first Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted September 25, 2009 Share #36 Posted September 25, 2009 and finally 160 ISO M9 first comments ? scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted September 25, 2009 Share #37 Posted September 25, 2009 My one thought after staring at the crops above for a while is that the M9 seems to be losing some of the texture in the sweater as it does a stronger job of chroma noise reduction at the intermediate ISOs 1250 and 640. I can't see any real difference in the pattern of the cushion. My suggestion is that it would be nice to let us turn all this off, and optionally do the noise reduction in post. scott PS, the M9 files are compressed, which may be a factor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
padraigm Posted September 25, 2009 Share #38 Posted September 25, 2009 I am of the agreement that the reduced noise is mainly in camera smoothing. I suppose the argument of there being more mega pixels gives you the ability to downsize which is a subject I must admit I know little about. But for practical purposes for me there is little high ISO improvement. There does seem from what i have see from peoples pictures a significant reduction in the banding that plagued my M8. I remain unconvinced that the lower noise is significant and remain on the fence on whether or not I will get one. Full frame is nice no doubt, but the sensor improvement is a disappointment. In the end was that not the one thing Leica had to get right ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
georg Posted September 25, 2009 Share #39 Posted September 25, 2009 "I am of the agreement that the reduced noise is mainly in camera smoothing" That's pretty much the case with all cameras. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jl4069 Posted September 25, 2009 Share #40 Posted September 25, 2009 According this particular thread it would seem that in the debate between M8 and M9 we are still in an deadlock. Of course on other threads the thoughts are rather different. No consensus now and I wonder if there ever will be. j Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.