D700 vs. M9, high iso.

The bottom line is that people who buy $7,000 RF cameras must believe they are the best cameras in the world. It was the case with the M8 (well, before the M9 came out and the M8 was suddenly crap) and it will be so with the M9. You just have to believe that. After all, the M9 is the only game in town.

It seems to be a little different, though, with folks who buy 1DS MKIII's or D3X's rather than cheaper FF DSLR's. Those folks are usually willing to pay the $8,000 for weathersealing and super-ruggedness of the high dollar DSLRs. And don't seem to need to insist that the 1DS MIII blows away the 5D MII, for example, in image quality.

Comparing the output of the M9 to the output of a DSLR, though, seems odd among people who would never buy a DSLR of any kind because they prefer rangefinders.
 
Good low-light capabilities is the current fad in cameras. It was face detection and before that there was vibrating sensors.

I don't consider the high ISO capabilities of the Leica a deal breaker even if they don't compare favorably to current DSLRs. I have held an m-mount camera by hand at 1/4 of a second with a 28mm lens and gotten a very sharp picture. Many of the great Leica decisive moment shooters like David Alan Harvey or William Albert Allard shot colour with really slow slide film and they have lots of night scenes and bars and occasionally used a beautifully balanced flash. If I could make images like that...

Leica is going to fall behind more often than companies like Canon with a huge research and development budget. It's simple math. Then again, Canon is also always going to try and convince you to by their camera with gadgets and useless tools and knobs. I will tell you right now...it's a never ending roller-coaster. They want you to toss your 5D for the Mark II. They want you to be never happy with your camera. You're buying what they are selling---and it's not really cameras!

Leica has a respect for photography and photographers and just pairs down the tool to the basic necessities. Some people appreciate that and will pay the premium for it. Some will not. If you don't, well, move on and go for the wonderful tools that DSLRs are. They all can make great pictures in the right hands.

Peace.
Click to expand...

Hear, hear!

Good low light capability is not a "fad" and comparing it with face detection is.. at best ludditism.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

because I like to shoot the latest camera with the best high ISO performance
Click to expand...

Ha! Me too, isn't it interesting?
 
As has been said - the M9 sensor seems more sensitive and hence there is slightly more signal and noise.

I wonder how close the ISO calibrations are between cameras. I expect equal nominal ISO settings do not translate to equal practical sensitivity, as such comparisons should be made with caution.

The M9 does seem to have slightly higher res and dynamic range judging by eye. The lens is probably a significant variable in this test - considering this as a 'look see', the results are interesting.
 
ferider said:
The M9 high ISO noise will be better using a 50 vs. a wider angle, say a 35 or shorter.
Click to expand...

What does amplifier gain and signal to noise have to do with the field of view of the image on the CCD? The lens coding and lens menu selection does not affect the RAW images does it?

Cheers,
-Gautham
 
The software in the M9 is having to do more correction for vignetting, etc in wider lenses than in longer lenses, which could effect noise levels.
 
ferider said:
Yes it does: for vignetting correction. You have to increase the gain in the corners for wides only.
Click to expand...

So do the comparisons with the image center. Given the focus and DOF in the shots from the OP, he probably did take center crops unless he focussed it fairly off center.

This is also why I asked about the RAW images - the M9 isn't applying these lens corrections to the RAW images hopefully. Because what the heck happens if you have the wrong lens selected in the menu accidentally.

Cheers,
-Gautham
 
I ran Ulrik's M9 ISO1600 image through Neat Image and got a result I like more than the D700 image at equivalent ISO! I don't use higher than 1600 usually, so a result like this really pleases me. I'll try one of the ISO2500 shots later.

Thanks Ulrik, really appreciate the samples. People who criticise measuring/examining gear in anything but the photo only sub-forum... there's a special place reserved for them :p
 
Would it be to Leica's advantage to actually let you see in a raw file how much software manipulation they are doing to your $4,000 wide angle lens to make it work on the M9? I would think those things are done before a raw file is written to the memory card. Who really wants to see the man behnd the curtain?
 
Agree with you, PW. And I am not saying the M9 is a bad camera, au contraire ... A wide doesn't need to be as fast as a normal. Just saying that we are only seeing one aspect of the M9 low light performance here and comparison to SLRs makes only limited sense.
 
Pickett Wilson said:
Would it be to Leica's advantage to actually let you see in a raw file how much software manipulation they are doing to your $4,000 wide angle lens to make it work on the M9? I would think those things are done before a raw file is written to the memory card. Who really wants to see the man behnd the curtain?
Click to expand...

Well if they are doing corrections to the raw images (does some one have one single raw image for something like a 21mm lens and the corresponding jpeg - this would be easy to check) then it is still a fair comparison.

People presumably want to shoot an M9 with a 35mm so if it needs frieder's 1-2 stops of correction (I'd be stunned if it was that high - particularly since again you can do this comparison at the center of the image) and it applies it to the raw images (ughhh) then it is perfectly fair to compare it against a D700 at 35mm. Of course the OP was shooting a 50 ...
 
This test looks about right to me. The d700 shot looks a little bit flatter, but the M9 shot does look a touch underexposed.

I own a d700, and from all the ISO 2500 M9 shots I've seen, I'd say most of them look about equivalent to the d700@ 4000. Given that the d700's 4000 is completely usable, this is not bad at all. Heck, it's actually great. It's also fairly expected given the M9's greater pixel density.

And great high-ISO performance a fad??? Light sensitivity goes to the fundamentals of photography, how you control your exposure. Being able to shoot at 6400 with great, usable results opens you up to all sorts of previously impossible hand-held low light shots. M9 users who never shot above 1600 before will now start to find the same with 2500 (though to a bit of a lesser extent). P&S style face-detection it certainly ain't.
 
With so many fewer megapixels, it’d generally be expected that the D700 would have lower noise—and, of course, lower resolution. Also, it should be noted that the D700 does extraordinarily well with noise at even higher ISOs. But it’s hard to compare apples to oranges, no?

By the way, DxO Labs (http://www.dxomark.com/) compare the D700 to the M8, but not the M9.
 
Last edited:
Pickett Wilson said:
.

Comparing the output of the M9 to the output of a DSLR, though, seems odd among people who would never buy a DSLR of any kind because they prefer rangefinders.
Click to expand...

But many who prefer rangefinders have no choice (for any number of reasons) but to use DSLR's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom