New ISO-comparisons.

[ulrikft]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've done a few iso comparions more, in addition to day-to-day use testing.

I'll just link to the full files themselves (nikon d700 upressed to 18mpix). I would say that the M9 is between 0.5 and 1 stop behind the D700 noisewise, but that it keeps the detail very well in spite of the noise. No noise reduction exept the default lightroom done to any of the files. I have upressed the D700 to the M9-size of files, beacause i think that the margin of error when comparing two different filesizes on a pixel level, is larger than the errors that resizing can induce. I understand that some people disagree on this point, but I prefer this method.

 

Leica M9 @ iso400:

http://fc03.deviantart.com/fs37/f/2009/269/6/7/Leica_400_by_cainadamsson.jpg

 

Nikon D700 @ iso400:

http://fc02.deviantart.com/fs37/f/2009/269/8/a/nikon_400_by_cainadamsson.jpg

 

Leica M9 @ iso1600:

http://fc09.deviantart.com/fs36/f/2009/269/f/9/Leica_1600_by_cainadamsson.jpg

 

Nikon D700 @ iso1600:

http://fc06.deviantart.com/fs36/f/2009/269/6/4/Nikon_1600_by_cainadamsson.jpg

 

Leica M9 @ iso2500:

http://fc08.deviantart.com/fs37/f/2009/269/4/c/leica_2500_by_cainadamsson.jpg

 

Nikon d700 @ iso2500:

http://fc02.deviantart.com/fs36/f/2009/269/a/f/Nikon_2500_by_cainadamsson.jpg

[georg]

Thanks for this comparison!

I'm not sure how the changes in image size actually manipulate our perception of noise, but somehow we have to equal the difference in size (are there special algorithms to downsample images with better noise?)

It might be interesting to see how the converters affect noise (Nikon Capture for the D700 and C1 for the M9).

[eronald]

Thank you for the comparison. It's incredible how good the D700 is at 2500.

I have a D3x and similar results.

 

 

Edmund

[eronald]

Thank you for the comparison. It's incredible how good the D700 is at 2500.

I have a D3x and similar results.

 

 

Edmund

 

Actually, I just did some tests and the M8 I own (4th body after a set of swaps) has superb 320 ISO, and can shoot the 21mm Elmarit at 1/30 f2.8 into (day)light where I can barely see. At 640 Iso noise becomes an issue, but on the basis of this test I cannot imagine any daylight situation where I would ever need anything above 320, especially if using a Summilux.

 

The D3x can shoot decently in the same light at any ISO you care to name.

 

The M8 is a beautiful machine with many interesting capabilities; the D3x is built like a tank and can cope with any existing photographic situation, and yields giant enlargements. Horses for courses.

 

It's amazing how good these machines are.

 

Edmund

[John Ricard]

I showed all of the samples to my wife and she liked the Leica images better at both ISOs.

[BerndReini]

When you tell your wife how much the M9 costs, she will like the D700 better.

[erl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

When you tell your wife how much the M9 costs, she will like the D700 better.

 

Reading a number of thread on this forum lately makes me wonder if it is better designed for "choosing a wife!" rather than a camera.

[ulrikft]

I got a good tip for a nice read on megapixels, resolution, pixel size and noise comparisons!

 

The Real Megapixel Myth

[jsjxyz]

I download the 1600 and 2500 samples then run the Noise Ninja,

the 1600 result makes Leica comparible to 1600 Nikon

But the 2500 result, on the eyes of the portrait, NN can't recover the detail, so even with noise reduction software Leica Image is below standard then 2500 Nikon.

[erl]

The comparison is interesting, as are many comparisons, but when stepping back to look at the whole picture, so to speak, deciding on which camera/tool is "best" for oneself, it is a little more complex.

 

Cost; portability; ergonomics; image quality; discreetness; 'sex appeal'; and probably many other personal factors must all be put on the scales together. Now the resulting preference is going to be different for everyone, depending on the 'score' value we each give all of those items. There will be no best, just most suited to each individuals needs, according to how that individual rates relevant factors. Rather like choosing a partner. Sometimes it is best to take one 'lower scoring' attribute to benefit from the other 'high scoring' attributes.

[diogenis]

I've done a few iso comparions more, in addition to day-to-day use testing.

I'll just link to the full files themselves (nikon d700 upressed to 18mpix). I would say that the M9 is between 0.5 and 1 stop behind the D700 noisewise, but that it keeps the detail very well in spite of the noise.

 

Nice examples.

Now to be more sincere and to try a more decent comparison between the two, try running dfine2 from Nik, which is supposed to preserve details on the Leica file and see what the outcome will look like. Because we know Leica is not using any form of NR.

However even though the photos from d700 are indeed less noisy, they have lost a lot of "wow" factor because of further denoising...

[pascal_meheut]

Nice examples.

try running dfine2 from Nik, which is supposed to preserve details on the Leica file and see what the outcome will look like. .

 

I tried quickly with dfine and noiseware on the 2500 ISO imag. This is better indeed but their is less details than in the Nikon files then. And even some good sharpening cannot get them back.

 

But of course, this is Sunday morning where I am so it is probably possible to do much better than I did.

If someone can and is kind enough to post its results, that would be good.

[jackal]

nikon looks plastic coated and over-soft

 

at least at 1600 a very quick degrain gets the M8 file better than the D700 file in most areas. Note that I did this in TWENTY SECONDS so teh degrain settings might need tweaking but I took a quick glance and it looked pretty good to me, still keeping detail. In fact grain is BETTER is dark areas and the sharpness of the image is a fair bit better. Look at the edges of the lettering on Bacardi and Epson, the M9 is still sharp.

 

 

http://www.jackals-forge.com/TMP/Leica_1600_by_cainadamsson_degrain.jpg

[jackal]

the 2500 file I can get pretty damm close... close enough to mean precious little in terms of actual output. Just using a simple degrain filter by the way and nothing fancy or bespoke like Ninja.

 

 

 

http://www.jackals-forge.com/TMP/leica_2500_by_cainadamsson_degrain.jpg

 

 

 

M9 rocks

[Guido]

I found that Neat Image provides excellent results with the M9.

[erl]

Jackal, a quick look at what you did impresses me.

[andybarton]

The factor that seems to be missing from this discussion is that we don't know what lens was used on the Nikon (nor the M9 for that matter)

[ulrikft]

The factor that seems to be missing from this discussion is that we don't know what lens was used on the Nikon (nor the M9 for that matter)

 

I used a 50 2.5 summarit @ f/8 and a sigma 50 1.4 @ f/8. I don't think that lens performance is/should be a very large factor here.

[andybarton]

I think that Leica would beg to differ in that one. Otherwise - what's the point of Leica?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[ulrikft]

I think that Leica would beg to differ in that one. Otherwise - what's the point of Leica?

 

Of course they would, but I think that noise degrading of image quality at iso 1600-2500 is bigger than the difference between a sigma 50 1.4 and a summarit 2.5 at f/8. I would agree with your premise if we used the summilux 50 at 1.4 vs. a sigma at 1.4 (though I think the sigma, commonly called sigmalux would do quite well, considering the price diference). But at F8, most of the advantage is gone. At least for practical purposes. But if it disqualifies the test for you, I'm sorry and I'm afraid I can't do much to help you.