Upd: Sensor noise identical M8 and M9 - difference only in firmware

[plasticman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Here is a re-post of a thread that I idiotically misnamed, and which I'll ask a Mod to delete:

 

As an additional help - here's an edit of what's said:

 

In fact the M9 is just as noisy as the M8 with respect to Sensor noise and A/D converter noise.

The fact that Sean’s images are showing the same amount of noise in the deep dark for the M8 and the M9 proves this point....

At low ISO and higher luminance’s though, the uncompressed M9 image’s are showing less noise as the compressed M8 images have.

This is the range where three types of noise are dominating: shot noise, PRNU (Pixel Related Non Uniformity) noise and noise made by compressing the Image to 8 bits for the M8

Shot noise is there because of physical reasons, and cannot be influenced other than changing the size of the pixel. But for the M8 and the M9 the shot noise will be the same.

..also having an uncompressed image from the M9 helps to reduce noise over the M8 with theoretically ½ stop . Both factors would explain why the images from the M9 are having less noise, together even a full stop as Leica claims.

 

This post over on the M9 forum suggests the intriguing possibility that a simple firmware update would bring the same noise benefits of the M9 to the M8.

 

Important to remember that we would have to accept a much slower camera if there were a menu choice for uncompressed DNGs, but I'd certainly be willing to accept that.

 

I have a cynical feeling that this will never happen, but who else thinks this would be a great customer relations move on the part of Leica? It might at least quell the criticism of those who feel the 'perpetual upgrade' program of the M8 was abandoned rather too quickly (I'm not one of those, it's worth noting).

Though it's not top of my list, I'd love the better high-ISO performance on the M8.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[odyocu]

I hope the M8 have enough memory and capability for firmware changes that may include a better noise reduction, as well as usage of uncoded lenses.

 

Here is a re-post of a thread that I idiotically misnamed, and which I'll ask a Mod to delete:

 

As an additional help - here's an edit of what's said:

 

 

 

This post over on the M9 forum suggests the intriguing possibility that a simple firmware update would bring the same noise benefits of the M9 to the M8.

 

Important to remember that we would have to accept a much slower camera if there were a menu choice for uncompressed DNGs, but I'd certainly be willing to accept that.

 

I have a cynical feeling that this will never happen, but who else thinks this would be a great customer relations move on the part of Leica? It might at least quell the criticism of those who feel the 'perpetual upgrade' program of the M8 was abandoned rather too quickly (I'm not one of those, it's worth noting).

Though it's not top of my list, I'd love the better high-ISO performance on the M8.

[plasticman]

Maybe I'm being premature, but I thought this news would light a fire.

 

The M8 and M9 sensors appear possibly to have identical noise characteristics apart from changes in the M9 firmware, but no-one seems interested...

 

Apart from full-frame I thought this was the biggest news on the M9, and the fact it might be possible on the M8 doesn't seem to interest anyone, at all.

 

Or maybe it's a slow day on the quiet backwater forum.

 

Or maybe I shouldn't have drunk that extra espresso after lunch...

 

EDIT: Ah thanks Odyocu! Our posts crossed. I thought I was alone on here for a while.

 

The point that made me excited in the original post was that it was actually the extra processing done by the M8, in the form of 8bit compression, that increased the noise. The hit would then be in the longer write time of the larger file on the M8, rather than on noise processing, so then there wouldn't be any need for any more powerful processing.

[Nicoleica]

Hi,

 

Sorry for mis-understanding your original post. I too need to cut down on the espresso.

 

Anyway, if this is possible, it would be very much appreciated by all I would think. Let's hope that we don't have too much longer to wait for the next M8 firmware update. It has been promised for quite some time now.

 

One other good thing that's come out of the M9 feeding-frenzy, was to learn that the M8 also has a pseudo-T mode too.

[el.nino]

As far as i understood there is also a difference in how the data is read from the sensor.

and that's a hardware-issue.

[plasticman]

As far as i understood there is also a difference in how the data is read from the sensor.

and that's a hardware-issue.

 

Hi el niño!. Is there anywhere we can get this information?

I'm actually sure that if we could bring the M8 up to the noise levels of the M9 we'd see a real resurgence of enthusiasm for this great camera, and because it's not full-frame, this 'upgrade' shouldn't eat into M9 sales I'd hope.

 

Nicole - no problem about the misunderstanding - my daughter has a bit of a night-time cough at the moment - espresso is the only way I keep my eyelids open...

[sandymc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not wanting to pour cold water on this one, but Hans's half stop figure as quoted on the the other thread I think would only be visible in deep blacks, not mid-tones.

 

I think that what the evidence is showing is that if you compare the M8 and M9:

 

1. On a pixel by pixel basis, the M9 has only a slight advantage over the M8. So if you were to compare an M8 image to an uncompressed M9 image cropped to the same number of pixels as the M8, 10MP image vs 10MP image, the images would be very similar, except perhaps in the shadows where the M9 has the advantage of not being compressed, and different black level processing.

 

2. However, if you compared a shot of the same scene, 18MP image vs. 10MP image both printed on the same size paper, the M9 would have the near 1 stop advantage that most people see, just because visually smaller pixels with the same amount of individual noise give a less noisy overall image.

 

Hope I'm being clear in comparing the two situations.

 

Sandy

[miami91]

Hi el niño!. Is there anywhere we can get this information?

 

Do you receive LFI? The latest issue (07-2009), which I received yesterday, ascribes the improved high ISO performance to several factors, some hardware and some firmware. In addition to what el nino says above, they also mention the improved color filters on the sensor as being a factor.

 

I'm at work and don't have access to my copy of the magazine, but if no one beats me to it, I'll quote the relevant section verbatim later today.

 

Jeff.

[plasticman]

Do you receive LFI? The latest issue (07-2009), which I received yesterday, ascribes the improved high ISO performance to several factors, some hardware and some firmware. In addition to what el nino says above, they also mention the improved color filters on the sensor as being a factor.

 

I'm at work and don't have access to my copy of the magazine, but if no one beats me to it, I'll quote the relevant section verbatim later today.

 

Jeff.

 

Yep I've read that and had forgotten about the color filters. With regard to that, imho, I'm slightly wary of the word "improved" in these contexts: to a certain extent the changes are driven to achieve a certain specific aim (such as lower apparent sensor noise), but whether the resulting color is objectively "improved" is surely open to discussion. The use of the word "improved" is at least partially marketing-driven, is my personal feeling.

 

Anyway, LFI is an excellent magazine, and I thoroughly enjoy it. They do tend to be enthusiastic about pretty much every camera Leica releases though.

[BerndReini]

Sean Reid tried to explain this before, let me try again. If the M9 has the same pixel pitch as the M8 but a larger sensor, this means that it will have the same grain appearance at 100% view. But at 100% view, the M9 files are much bigger than those of the M8.

To illustrate the implications of this, take a particularly grainy M8 file and print it as a 4x6, then as an 8x10. The noise will most likely be more offensive in the bigger print since it is printed at a higher magnification.

 

To get the same size prints from an M8 file as from an M9 file, you will have to print at higher magnification, and you will thus magnify the grain.

 

I believe that this is the main difference between the M9 and the M8, and this cannot be compensated for with any kind of firmware.

[plasticman]

Not wanting to pour cold water on this one, but Hans's half stop figure as quoted on the the other thread I think would only be visible in deep blacks, not mid-tones...

 

Thanks Sandy - I think we're all in agreement that the M9 possesses other advantages, and that improvements in sensor noise might not necessarily be as dramatic as the linked post might suggest on first view, but I do hope that Leica takes the long view on their customer-base, and do their utmost to keep the M8 updated.

[plasticman]

Sean Reid tried to explain this before, let me try again. If the M9 has the same pixel pitch as the M8 but a larger sensor, this means that it will have the same grain appearance at 100% view. But at 100% view, the M9 files are much bigger than those of the M8.

To illustrate the implications of this, take a particularly grainy M8 file and print it as a 4x6, then as an 8x10. The noise will most likely be more offensive in the bigger print since it is printed at a higher magnification.

 

To get the same size prints from an M8 file as from an M9 file, you will have to print at higher magnification, and you will thus magnify the grain.

 

I believe that this is the main difference between the M9 and the M8, and this cannot be compensated for with any kind of firmware.

 

Hi Bernd - I work in advertising and deal with images as small as an online thumbnail and as large as the side of a building (luckily for me I don't have to do any actual work on those images myself, but that's another matter). Naturally the thread title was condensed for space and for dramatic impact. But I also think it's fair to point out that not all images are destined to be printed. Nor all printed at the same size. Nor cropped in a certain way, and so on.

 

People seem now to be taking this personally as some sort of 'the M9 is a con and no better than the M8' type of thread. Whereas my intention was to highlight the positive effect enabling uncompressed DNGs on the M8 might have.

 

EDIT: I'm gonna add - just for extreme clarity - my point was in no way to suggest that the result of a firmware update would make the M8 somehow equal the M9. The thread title had to be short and punchy, and this seems to have begun upsetting people. This is the last thing I need considering the Mods are already upset at me after yesterday's totally unnecessary fight. Please keep it civil and positive, otherwise I'll be kicked off.

[tienshan]

I hope the M8 have enough memory and capability for firmware changes that may include a better noise reduction, as well as usage of uncoded lenses.

 

I keep seeing references to the idea that the M8 may not have enough memory to apply corrections to uncoded lenses... However, that can simply not be the case. At the moment every M8/M8.2 has the lens database in its firmware -- the six bit coding simply tells it which lens to choose. All that has happened in the M9 is that Leica has made this lens database accessible via a menu option on the back and not just via the six bit lens coding. (The lens coding contains no information of itself, merely a reference to be matched to a database, i.e. a way for the lens to tell the camera which lens it is.)

 

Or am I alone in thinking that? [First time poster, so be gentle .]

[offshore]

Maybe I'm being premature, but I thought this news would light a fire.

 

The M8 and M9 sensors appear possibly to have identical noise characteristics apart from changes in the M9 firmware, but no-one seems interested...

 

Apart from full-frame I thought this was the biggest news on the M9, and the fact it might be possible on the M8 doesn't seem to interest anyone, at all.

 

Or maybe it's a slow day on the quiet backwater forum.

 

Or maybe I shouldn't have drunk that extra espresso after lunch...

 

EDIT: Ah thanks Odyocu! Our posts crossed. I thought I was alone on here for a while.

 

The point that made me excited in the original post was that it was actually the extra processing done by the M8, in the form of 8bit compression, that increased the noise. The hit would then be in the longer write time of the larger file on the M8, rather than on noise processing, so then there wouldn't be any need for any more powerful processing.

Plasticman I don't think it is a case of people not being interested as witnessed by posts on this forum regarding Leica keeping their word about upgrading the M8 series. What is being suggested is not proven yet and perhaps one of our resident geniuses in software could figure out the algorithms the M9 uses and apply them to the M8 to see if it will work. I don't think M8 users are going to make Leica do anything they don't want to do and if the corporate decision has been made to abandon the M8 and let it go quietly into the night all the shouting in the world won't make a difference. Personally I hope not but after all the pants wetting anticipating the M9 this forum seems to have turned into a bickering contest about it. I see them as two distinct and individual cameras and should be accepted as such and used accordingly. Let's give the M9 some breathing room for a while and see how it performs otherwise we are just repeating what happened with the M8.

[plasticman]

Plasticman I don't think it is a case of people not being interested as witnessed by posts on this forum regarding Leica keeping their word about upgrading the M8 series... I don't think M8 users are going to make Leica do anything they don't want to do and if the corporate decision has been made to abandon the M8 and let it go quietly into the night all the shouting in the world won't make a difference. ... after all the pants wetting anticipating the M9 this forum seems to have turned into a bickering contest about it. I see them as two distinct and individual cameras and should be accepted as such and used accordingly. Let's give the M9 some breathing room for a while and see how it performs otherwise we are just repeating what happened with the M8.

 

I really just want to set the record straight, and then take a break from the forum, if I have the strength of will. It does seem that everything can be misinterpreted and often a negative spin put on even the most enthusiastic post.

I was simply excited by the post over on the other subsection, mostly because I'm eager for the M8 to have uncompressed DNGs - something which I've argued in favor of for a long time, and been told made no difference to image quality (often by the same people who are now saying it makes an enormous improvement to M9 files). My interest in improved noise characteristics is secondary.

 

1. I bought my M8 long after it was clear that the 'perpetual upgrade' program was dead - I have no beef about this whatsoever. I do think it is good customer relations not to suddenly abandon your loyal base, however - and therefore imho it would be to their own advantage if Leica supported the M8 in future.

 

2. I didn't consider this thread to be "shouting" about anything.

 

3. This was definitely not in any way intended to be any sort of attack or denigration of the M9. As I said, I was just trying to make the thread title snappy and short, and thereby the obvious misunderstandings.

 

Next time the thread will be called:

 

"Sensor noise in M8 (at the pixel level) rather similar (in the dark tones at least - and possibly not even there) to the M9 (which has other hardware advantages) but don't forget the bigger sensor of the M9 (which allows for much better noise characteristics in the final print - if the prints are the same size. If the M8 print is smaller and you stand closer, then it might look similar)."

Mods - could you change the thread title as above please? This will spare me a lot of grief and avoid misunderstandings.

[wparsonsgisnet]

Now that would be a great title. The thread might not even have to have any posts in it.

 

I support uncompressed dng's in the M8, as well. And, I echo your sentiment as follows: We were told it didn't matter. Now we can see that it does.

 

I just don't like having stuff taken away (in this case data).

 

Let's hope Leica has this on their short list for a sw upgrade to the M8.x.

[BerndReini]

I didn't take the thread as a knock on the M9. I just had a conversation with a good friend of mine, and he is getting really confused by the M8 and M9 comparisons. Since I can see that a lot of other people are getting really confused, I just tried to clarify things a little. My friend keeps telling me things like "people are saying that the M9 and the M8 are the same," but I think it is so much better. Then I complicate matters worse by telling him that since he has never printed over letter size from his M8, there is no reason for him to upgrade to the M9 and so on. No attack on you in any way, I hope you know me well enough.

[ChrisC]

A firmware update for the M8 is in Leica's interest. I hope they do it, though I have no confidence they will.

 

The M9 is Leica's aspirational camera, and it seems it needs Leica's best optics to get the best out of it. A secondhand M8 is the only entry to the Leica digital rangefinder system, and a customer new to the Leica system can be up and photographing without the hideous outlay a new customer faces with the M9. The key point is that the M8 purchaser would now be in the 'M' system, and likely for the long haul, and eventually would migrate to the M9 or later models, and the best optics.

 

The M9 is selling, and will continue to do so. Deliberately keeping the M8 firmware subdued on the basis that it will help M9 sales would, I believe, be a bad marketing move by Leica; they need an entry to the system which functions closely to the M9.

 

Leica - If you can't give M8/M8.2 users the update because they deserve it, then give the update because it makes sense to and likely will bring you lifelong customers. I speak as someone who would have got into the M system 30 years before my first purchase [an M8] had there been an inexpensive way in. Hasselblad's, Mamiya's, Linhoff's, Fuji's, Plaubel's, and Nikon's gain; was Leica's loss.

 

................... Chris

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[brill64]

Hi el niño!. Is there anywhere we can get this information?

I'm actually sure that if we could bring the M8 up to the noise levels of the M9 we'd see a real resurgence of enthusiasm for this great camera, and because it's not full-frame, this 'upgrade' shouldn't eat into M9 sales I'd hope.

 

Nicole - no problem about the misunderstanding - my daughter has a bit of a night-time cough at the moment - espresso is the only way I keep my eyelids open...

 

thanks for pointing this out plasticman, such a firmware upgrade would increase demand and sales for the m8/m8.2 even though leica have stopped manufacturing them. it would fulfill their ongoing but quiet of late promise however to continuously upgrade the m8/m8.2, which i seem to be repeating a lot lately. i'm remaining staunchly hopeful on this subject. COME ON LEICA!!! when are we over here going to have improved noise, soft/discrete release, manual lens selection, etc.? probably when the dust over m9/s2 manufacture and distribution has settled

[mhoersch]

Mods - could you change the thread title as above please? This will spare me a lot of grief and avoid misunderstandings.

 

I admire your efforts not to offend anyone on this forum, but I doubt you will be successful. Since the advent of the M9 it appears, that to say anything that might be interpreted as even mildly critical of Leica, their management or any of their products will not be tolerated any longer. Surely, titles like "A Humble Ode to the M9" are what is expected of you.