High ISO performance or high resolution on M9

[flyalf]

Hi,

if you were to purchase a M9 now, what would you prefer?
...

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Alf,

I need high resolution much more often than I need high ISOs, and besides, having grown up with film, ISO 1000 is pretty damn' fast as far as I am concerned.

I'm not one of those who says 'no one needs high ISO' because all my life I've been shooting 'available darkness': there's quite a lot of it on my web-site. I am however reasonably confident that the high-ISO performance of an M9, together with fast primes and slow shutter speeds, does pretty much all I need.

Cheers,

R.

 

[sojournerphoto]

This makes a very nice print - can't remember the iso, but it was high enough and I lifted the shadows on lightroom.

Mike

The M9 is no 1Ds3 (or presumably 5D2 or Nikon wunderthing), but it's better than you might think. I did have one frame broke up totally, but then when I looked it was trying to be iso10,000. The 1Ds3 is better in these circumstances.

Mike

 

[flyalf]

Thanks. To be clear, I myself have a personal preference towards high resolution for most of my use. But I meet the high ISO argument from DSLR-camp.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Thanks. To be clear, I myself have a personal preference towards high resolution for most of my use. But I meet the high ISO argument from DSLR-camp.

Well, they have to come up with some excuse for using huge, heavy cameras with slow lenses...

Cheers,

R.

 

[Jim-st]

This makes a very nice print - can't remember the iso, but it was high enough and I lifted the shadows on lightroom.

Mike

The M9 is no 1Ds3 (or presumably 5D2 or Nikon wunderthing), but it's better than you might think. I did have one frame broke up totally, but then when I looked it was trying to be iso10,000. The 1Ds3 is better in these circumstances.

Mike

FWIW, here's a comparator, also taken at Fountains(?), on a bright, sunny day, with a Canon EOS400D and EF-S 17-85 lens. 1/20 @f8, ISO400

Converted to B&W in LR3, no other processing beyond default LR3/2010 sharpening & noise reduction.
Not sure it proves anything, but couldn't resist the coincidence...

 

[sojournerphoto]

Ah, the other side of the columns🙂

Agree, doesn't prove much, though I wouldn't be surprised if a 400D is similar to the M9 in noise performance. The real advantage of the dslr's is the ability to sustain useable dynamic range at higher sensitivities. I often use the 1Ds3 at iso 800, but undeexpose a couple of stops to give some protection for highlights and still get good useable pictures out of it. The M9 seems (more or less) to increase iso by truncating the ADC output rather than amplifying the signal, which means there may be little point in even using higher iso settings. I've not worked through it completely yet and won't get worked up about it, but it is a significant difference.

Edited to add:- actually, no theve just moved the cross. Same side! It must have been a bright day to get 1/20th at f8 in there.

Mike

 

[Nikon Bob]

Well, they have to come up with some excuse for using huge, heavy cameras with slow lenses...

Cheers,

R.

Now, now Roger, with statements like that you are just asking for someone to retort that the M9 is for possers with money to burn for jewelry. Personally I don't think that is true a lot of the time.

One thing for sure is that future digitals will have better high ISO performance and higher resolution than what is available today. Some camera companies offer the same model in two versions, one for high ISO and another for high resolution. I think we are spoilt today with what the FF sensors give use already in terms of both high ISO performance and resolution compared to fast film. The sensor on any FF digital camera today should have enough high ISO and resolution for any sane person used to using fast 35mm film. Just my long winded way of saying that any future FF digital cameras will give you both and you are not likely have to choose.

Bob

 

[sojournerphoto]

I think that the current full frame (35mm) cqameras already give us both. I've not used a Nikon or 5D2, but the 1Ds3 still amazes me, even though it's apparently unfashionable and behind the curve...

I also wonder what we need ever more for, though undoubtedly some will find uses. There are though some physical limits that we bump into - how many photons are there at any light level and how variable is their arrival time means that low light imaging is inherently noisy, even without further noise from the sensing equipment. We may not actually want the pictures we can make at those very low light levels once we see what they look like. By way of comparison, consider the need to stack hundreds or thousands of images to extract data from astronomical photos.

Mike

 

[Roger Hicks]

Now, now Roger, with statements like that you are just asking for someone to retort that the M9 is for possers with money to burn for jewelry. Personally I don't think that is true a lot of the time.

One thing for sure is that future digitals will have better high ISO performance and higher resolution than what is available today. Some camera companies offer the same model in two versions, one for high ISO and another for high resolution. I think we are spoilt today with what the FF sensors give use already in terms of both high ISO performance and resolution compared to fast film. The sensor on any FF digital camera today should have enough high ISO and resolution for any sane person used to using fast 35mm film. Just my long winded way of saying that any future FF digital cameras will give you both and you are not likely have to choose.

Bob

Dear Bob,

Of course you're right. It's just that when people start saying, "My camera can do things yours can't" they tend to ignore the mirror image of that, which is "Your camera can do things mine can't."

Cheers,

R.

 

[sojournerphoto]

Another thought - the OP commented about 'those in the dslr camp'.

I wonder how many regular rf users on here don't have a dslr of some sort hidden under the bed. I do (though I've considered dumping that and 35mm film at times)

MIke

 

[Nikon Bob]

Dear Bob,

Of course you're right. It's just that when people start saying, "My camera can do things yours can't" they tend to ignore the mirror image of that, which is "Your camera can do things mine can't."

Cheers,

R.

Exactly the point, if you had of stated it that way in the first place it would have been just as effective and far less inflamatory. IMHO

Bob

 

[Roger Hicks]

Exactly the point, if you had of stated it that way in the first place it would have been just as effective and far less inflamatory. IMHO

Bob

Dear Bob,

Inflammatory isn't always bad, if it makes people stop and think. A lot depends on how determined people are to be enflamed. Fortunately RFF is pretty good that way.

Cheers,

R.

 

[kevin m]

There's no great practical advantage to owning a digital rangefinder as there was a film rangefinder - those advantages have been all but eliminated by advances in technology. Really useable high iso and image stabilization get shots that leave "1/15th and no mirror slap" in the dust and negate the need, if not the desire, for super-speed lenses.

That's the left-brain talking. My right-brain is still jonesing for the 35/1.2 I sold and day-dreaming about a camera to mount it to. 😀

 

[kevin m]

Dear Bob,

Inflammatory isn't always bad....

But 'all the time' it is.

 

[sojournerphoto]

There's no great practical advantage to owning a digital rangefinder as there was a film rangefinder - those advantages have been all but eliminated by advances in technology. Really useable high iso and image stabilization get shots that leave "1/15th and no mirror slap" in the dust and negate the need, if not the desire, for super-speed lenses.

That's the left-brain talking. My right-brain is still jonesing for the 35/1.2 I sold and day-dreaming about a camera to mount it to. 😀

Indeed. My left brain would keep the 1Ds3 and LX5 and my right brain would keep the M9 and Zeiss Ikon...

Mike

 

[Nikon Bob]

kevin m

I would tend to agree that the playing field has been leveled to a certain extent between DSLRs and DRFs with one exception and that being size. My left brain says I will be staying with DSLRs for the time being but my right brain is still open to other possibilities.

Bob

 

[thrice]

I'm looking forward to an M10 using that new 29 megapixel Kodak sensor 😀

 

[kevin m]

My left brain says I will be staying with DSLRs for the time being but my right brain is still open to other possibilities.

I think a lot of us are there. Much as I would like to ditch the SLR form, I can't deny its functional value. The appeal of the rangefinder is still huge, but I feel it has yet to be optimized for the digital age.

 

[Keith]

Well, they have to come up with some excuse for using huge, heavy cameras with slow lenses...

Cheers,

R.

What's with this 'huge heavy camera' crap ... ?

A huge heavy camera is an RB67 or a P67 ... modern DSLR's are not quite the behemoths that they are being portrayed as here by you Roger.

An M9 is an 'absolute tank' compared to to a delicate little Barnack ... it's all subjective mate!

😀