Leica M9 + 0.95 at ISO 640 and ISO 160

[anorphirith]

This has got to be the worst ISO 640 picture I've seen, the noise looks SO bad.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/haykal/3934903687/sizes/l/
VERY large http://www.flickr.com/photos/haykal/3934903687/sizes/o/

The iso 160 looks very good
http://www.flickr.com/photos/haykal/3944372939/sizes/l/
VERY large
http://www.flickr.com/photos/haykal/3944372939/sizes/o/

 

[Pickett Wilson]

You must be mistaken. This had to have come from a D700. :angel:

 

[Pickett Wilson]

It looks like they were trying to bring detail up everywhere. You're right, probably badly underexposed.

 

[wontonny]

Also, it was a long exposure. So doesn't noise always increase with long exposures?

 

[Ron (Netherlands)]

why are these pictures so 'blurry' (look at te leaves of the trees)?

 

[samoksner]

That noise does not match the sort of noise i've seen from the M9 before. It looks like post processing artifact. And the images are blurry because the exposures are just long enough so that blur in the wind and trees would show up.

 

[furcafe]

According to the EXIF, shutter speed was 0.7 seconds.

why are these pictures so 'blurry' (look at te leaves of the trees)?

 

[JPSuisse]

I am not 100% convinced that the camera is an M9.

 

[bolohead]

Long exposures at high-ish ISO's have always perplexed me, especially when a tripod is used.

 

[Jamie123]

Looks like a very bad jpeg conversion on both of them.

 

[sepiareverb]

One never knows how dense the maker of some flickr image may be. I'm going to give one a try before I decide how awful it is at whatever ISO.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I think the fault lies with the guy processing this photo. I've seen much worse come straight out of my 20D at ISO 400, back when I didn't know what the h3ll I was doing with RAW files.

A lot of clueless people out there, and even more taking their cluelessness as evidence.

 

[Keith]

Wow ... so this is what can be done with $17000.00 worth of state of the art photographic equipment if you put your mind to it!

 

[Anupam]

The light flare pattern indicates that the lens was stopped down quite a way. For street light like that, if you stopped to f22 at ISO 640 and shot at 2/3 sec you might still be a stop or two underexposed. I bet he was trying to get the lightening trails and pushed the exposure up in postprocessing until the sky was glowing purple!

 

[Riccis]

These are some of my M9 + Nocti ASPH (quick and dirty EAW conversions) from a recent wedding two weeks ago and I'm very happy with the results...

ISO 1600

ISO 1000

Cheers,

 

[Pickett Wilson]

Yeah, but look at those blown highlights.

 

[TWoK]

Long exposures at high-ish ISO's have always perplexed me, especially when a tripod is used.

Anyone that calls ISO 640 on digital a high ISO has always perplexed me.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

Really, I think with noise reduction programs like Noiseware Pro, whatever noise is in ISO 1600 images can be made irrelevant.

 

[TWoK]

Really, I think with noise reduction programs like Noiseware Pro, whatever noise is in ISO 1600 images can be made irrelevant.

I disagree. I should be able to shoot JPG and get sharp, high-ISO, low-noise results out of any modern FX camera.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

Canon 50D, B&W Conversion done in camera, jpeg at ISO 12,500, Noiseware professional on auto. Not too shabby, and you save $6,000. :angel: