jaapv Posted September 25, 2009 Share #41 Posted September 25, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Is there a debate between M8 and M9 then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 25, 2009 Posted September 25, 2009 Hi jaapv, Take a look here M8 versus M9 @ different iso 160 - 2500. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
erl Posted September 25, 2009 Author Share #42 Posted September 25, 2009 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. Ooops!! Does that mean I have it double? Yes I did notice your post Bob, but as you can see, my powers of obs. are lacking. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted September 25, 2009 Author Share #43 Posted September 25, 2009 Is there a debate between M8 and M9 then? Clearly there is. Question is, which one is winning? I think the answer depends on each individuals criteria. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pklein Posted September 25, 2009 Share #44 Posted September 25, 2009 Thanks to both erl and Scott for the originals and crops. This is very interesting. I see significant smoothing in the M9 file beginning at ISO 640, where the M8 file has more detail in the sweater, but more noise with it. There does seem to be a little greater exposure in the M8 files (or is that white balance differences?), so looking at the same object in each shot isn't quite comparing apples to apples. The M8 may therefore be a little noisier than it appears in Scott's comparisons. Still, a good portion of the M9's noise advantage does appear to be achieved by smoothing (with attendant loss of detail), not reduced noise in the sensor and electronics. Which also means that the M8 files could probably be processed in Neat Image, Noise Ninja or similar to give noise characteristics similar to the M9. Back to the old echo: The M9's greater number of pixels means that the bits of noise will be smaller, and therefore be less apparent on the final print or screen image. That, plus a bit of extra noise reduction in the M9 translates to about 1 stop better noise performance in the final image. But the reliance on noise reduction for a visible amount of this advantage means that the noise reduction isn't free. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
padraigm Posted September 25, 2009 Share #45 Posted September 25, 2009 It's a bit of a ruse if you ask me. I mean here we have smoothing by software and the fact that it has a larger sensor you can downsize so therefore you have a cleaner image(with less detail) as the claim to "better high ISO performance" Like I said it is a ruse. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalina Posted September 26, 2009 Share #46 Posted September 26, 2009 Would beautiful young ladies be more interested in a gentleman wearing an M9 versus an M8? Most won't even know what a Leica is Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted September 26, 2009 Author Share #47 Posted September 26, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) It's a bit of a ruse if you ask me. I mean here we have smoothing by software and the fact that it has a larger sensor you can downsize so therefore you have a cleaner image(with less detail) as the claim to "better high ISO performance" Like I said it is a ruse. I think you may be confusing the fact with the method. Or just confusing web jpegs with real end product. OTOH if you can present your evidence, we would all be indebted for the guidance. Still a lot of leaning to be done on this issue for all of us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted September 26, 2009 Author Share #48 Posted September 26, 2009 Most won't even know what a Leica is Now if one of us blokes had said that .........! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander † Posted September 26, 2009 Share #49 Posted September 26, 2009 It seems to me that as the M8 and M9 sensors have the same 6.8micron size receptors, unless Kodak have done something similar to Canon in using gapless microlenses then the intrinsic ISO performance is going to be the same. Smoothing to remove noise? Well a lot of noise is visually reduced when printing so do we really want the smoothing shown in these crops? Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.