M9 and its high ISO quality

I've been using a 5D lately, the interface sucks but the files are excellent.

One thing I've decided for sure, with regards to the digital treadmill: unless it's an inexpensive body to begin with, I'm staying off until the next model at least. This avoids the steep digital depreciation.

With regards to the 5D, it was acquired for about $700 and it'll be worth that or more for quite some time.
 
jaapv said:
Quite - the Canon upgrade cycle is indeed 18 months
Click to expand...

I had to wait more than three years for them to replace the 5D with the MkII so I could get a refurb MkI @ closeout price. They may still be replacing the low-end models on a shorter cycle but the high-end models seem to be in for longer runs in general.
 
Richard Marks said:
Well never say never! I thought that too.
You know I still can not belive the R system has been dumped. Any word on the proposed 'solution for R users'? Is it simply to buy an S2?

Richard
Click to expand...
Well - my solution is a DMR. I guess I can keep that going for quite a number of years yet. After that - either Leica's "solution"- if I like it - or migrate my lenses to Canon.
 
I was working most of the weekend so I'm late to the party (as usual) ;)

Sensor technology and programming in the Nikon and Canon bodies are leaps and bounds ahead of Leica.

Leica can't or hasn't developed their own sensor - They are relying on Kodak technology which is not near the Canon and/or Nikon technology. Similarly, I guess they could have tried to get in bed with Sony but they didn't. I'm not a Leica insider like, well, it appears many on the board here may be :D so I can't profess to know why they wouldn't have attempted to discuss with Sony.

As I've recently switched from Canon to Nikon (I've been using the 5D since it was released 3+ years ago now) I can say that I'm just as happy (if not more so) with the Nikon D700 than I was with the 5D. Usable files up to ISO6400 that look good and print well is a good thing imho.

Sure, I can (and will again) use my M7 with film for my own personal use - but the M8 couldn't come close for me professionally speaking.

WRT grain vs noise - I have said this before, and this is my own personal opinion on the topic (I have no experiments or formal research to back this up); digital noise lacks the "randomness" that makes/made film grain in B&W such a wonderful aesthetic item. Digital noise does not seem to be "random" in nature but has more of a pattern, to me, and that, alone, is what seems to be "annoying" about it versus film grain. I feel that you really can't compare the two.

Cheers,
Dave
 
jaapv said:
Quite - the Canon upgrade cycle is indeed 18 months - I got off that treadmill and I'm not getting onto it again.
Click to expand...


And, what do you anticipate will be the product cycle for Leica, assuming the new products generate longer term stability? M8, M8.2, M9...M9.2? M10?, etc. Not a bad thing, but what's inherently wrong with an 18 month...give or take 6 months...cycle? One doesn't have to buy every new offering.

Jeff
 
JSU said:
Anyone who compares image quality from a Leica sensor with any DSLR sensor and equates the two is sorely missing an essential point. That is that RF's and SLR's are not necessarily used with the same technique and not necessarily to make the same images. I can drive a Porsche to get across town and I can drive a Toyota pickup truck to get across town, but the trip will be fundamentally different. And if there are extenuations to that cross town trip one vehicle might be better suited than the other.
Click to expand...

But if an SLR suddenly beats a RF at the things a RF is supposed to do better, then things get funky. You take your truck to Home Depot to pick up a fridge but it won't fit in the newly designed bed. Meanwhile the same fridge fits nicely into another guys Porsche.

My favorite camera is my M6, but I totally get comparisons between various sensors, especially when you add price to the equation.
 
This whole discussion, I have to say, is a little unbelievable.

People have been pining for ages about getting a full-frame sensor, and now that Leica delivers on it (despite their many statements about the immense technical difficulties this presented), people find something else to whine about.

Leica has accomplished a huge feat by actually producing a full-frame digital M camera with currently existing technologies. For years we heard it couldn't be done, but a team of dedicated workers has made it happen. I can't imagine how much time and expenses have been poured into the R&D of this project.

...and this is how we thank them?

To those who simply suggest that they put a CMOS sensor in the camera instead - CMOS sensors are known for the larger amount of physical space required for their housing. Can you imagine the reaction if Leica released the M9 with a larger body styling? I hear outrage. Not to mention that the "magic" of most CMOS sensor-based cameras out there these days relies more on the power of the processor to clean things up (just look at the Sony A900...).

I personally think the image quality of the M9 is spectacular. Look at this sample image at 1600: http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/leicam9_preview/originals/l1070439_aw.jpg

Yes, it's noisy. But look at the detail! Even in the extreme corners, we see tack-sharp detail. Even though it's noisy, the noise has a very tight arrangement, and very little image quality overall is lost due to it. This is no small feat. With firmware upgrades, I expect Leica will clean up the noise issues.

All I'm saying is, let's stop the whining. Leica is a brand that needs support, not nit-picking and whining. They've done the unthinkable (and released it at a VERY reasonable price point, to boot!), and they deserve our thanks and respect.

And to those who are complaining about having to shoot at a lower ISO and a 15th of a second... I thought all Leica shooters were comfortable with much more absurd shutter speeds than that! ;)
 
Last edited:
Despite the obvious benevolence of all those hard working folks at the Leica R&D facility, I still have trouble thinking of $7,000 as "very reasonable" for a DRF.

Actually, after all the hoopla leading up to the M9's introduction, the actual availability of the camera seems like an anticlimax. Perhaps if it had been the first FF digital camera of any kind, folks would have been more likely to jump on it for $7 grand. But there are, even if they aren't RF's, excellent FF DSLR's at about a third the price, which takes some of the wow factor away from the M9.
 
I'm getting really tired of "digital is so smooth"... seriously? If you can't postprocess your files, keep to film and imagine that you are unique and special, ok? :)
 
cole said:
They've done the unthinkable (and released it at a VERY reasonable price point, to boot!), and they deserve our thanks and respect.
Click to expand...

Just keep in mind that they, and their extended marketing arm were the ones telling you it's un-thinkable while they were building it.

I'm sure it's a great camera. But, as possible Leica customer, I would consider an M-mount Nikon, Canon or ZI just the same.
 
Last edited:
Honestly folks, when you consider the years of work that have gone into this single camera, not to mention the amount of hands-on work (ie, each camera being assembled by hand), the cost of materials that NO other camera manufacturer is using (brass?), and the complexity of each single camera... $7,000 sounds pretty reasonable to me. Not to mention that Leica isn't a company that can make money back in volume sales. They are a speciality brand appealing to a speciality market.

I don't mean this to sound harsh, but if price is a concern, why would someone look at Leica in the first place? I'm no doctor or lawyer (hell, I live hand-to-mouth and paycheque-to-paycheque for my "art"), but I know that such speciality equipment is not cheap to make, nor does it have a huge market share to financially back it.

I don't normally contribute to these kinds of threads, but at some point enough is enough. Most of these armchair critics should either muscle up and buy an M9 or stick with shooting film. It's not like anyone is holding a gun to yr head.
 
Also - I'm sorry, but stating that there are great FF DSLRs on the market when talking about the M9 is also absurd.

Are you shooting Leica because you love the brand and product, or are you just after a good digital image? Sure, you can get a great image out of a Canon 5D, but the lenses are nowhere near the quality of the Leica optics, and there is NO debating that.

By all means, if people want great quality digital images and don't care about the format, buy a DSLR.

But being a Leica shooter, to me, is about more than the high ISO war (seems to be the new fad since the megapixel war has died down... I can't believe how dreary the camera industry is these days).
 
I know of cheaply-made cars that can outrace Porches... but driving a Porsche isn't about the top speed as far as I'm aware.
 
I think the main reason why this bothers many is because Leica is charging so much for a full-frame sensor which really isn't much of an improvement from the M8 in terms of ISO performance and definately waayy behind compared to recent CMOS FF sensors.

Deep down, we all know people won't complain this much if Leica marketed the M9 at a much cheaper price, somewhere around the price of a D3 or even better a D700.

Sensor development will continue and ISO performance will get better, now that most of the big guys have moved on to full frame. Most people can afford to upgrade their dslrs when something better comes, but not a Digital Leica :p
 
This should make for some interesting responses, as there was only one shot above 1250, which is the apparent line of demarcation according to some. Not to mention shooting with a new Noct. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom