D700 vs. M9, high iso.

mikemyers said:
Just curious - if you guys are serious, why are you comparing the Leica to the D700 and not the D3? The D3 (not D3x) is the real "iso classleader", costs $5000 or so, and is considered a "pro" camera, much more so than the D700 and D300.

I expect that the M9 at lower iso settings will provide better resolution than the D3, but that's not what the D3 was designed for - if you're concerned with resolution, we should be talking about the D3x.

The D700 is a very nice camera, and produces great pictures, and many people enjoy it very much, but it's no D3, nor does it cost as much - far from it!

(I've got a D3 and an M8, and while the M8 seems to capture more detail than the D3, the M8 doesn't even come close when it comes to high speed operation and high iso - which is perfectly acceptable, as each was designed for a different purpose...)
Click to expand...


Are you kidding now? You are aware that the D700 has the exact same iso performance as the D3...? right? The D700 has the same image quality as the D3, in any way.

Seriously, guys, get your basic, basic facts straight, it would make any debate more worthwhile.
 
You're right, and I'm wrong. I was under the impression that the D700 didn't go as high in ISO as the D3, but I just checked on dpreview and it does.

Sorry for the misleading information - I don't have a D700, and obviously wherever I read that, it was incorrect.

According to dpreview, the list of differences between the two cameras is as follows:

  • Smaller, lighter body *
  • Built-in iTTL flash (G.No 17 / ISO 200)
  • No rear information panel (new info display on main LCD)
  • D700 doesn't have the D3's 5:4 aspect ratio option
  • 95% coverage, 0.72x viewfinder (D3: 100% / 0.7x)
  • Focus screen DX mode now indicated with a rectangle rather than shaded area
  • Lower burst rate (5.0 fps / 8.0 fps with optional MB-D10)
  • 100 frames maximum in continuous shooting mode
  • Smaller battery (EN-EL3e)
  • Optional battery grip (MB-D10, same as D300)
  • Expanded Function button options (can assign any camera menu item)
  • Live View can be assigned to FUNC, AE-L or Preview buttons (allowing LV + different drive modes)
  • Virtual Horizon can be overlaid on Live View preview image
  • Different shutter (150,000 cycle rating - same as D300)
  • Image Sensor cleaning ('sensor shake' dust reduction)
  • Single CF slot (D3 has two)
  • Minor menu and control differences (control layout is almost identical to D300)
 
If we're only comparing high iso performance, the M9 could therefore be compared to the D700 or D3, but if we're comparing resolution, the better comparison would be be M9 vs. D3x, which are close to the same price (D3x used to be $8k, but I think it's come down a bit.)
 
On the way to Reno Nevada to pick up this piece of photographic equipment, I got to check out the M9 first hand for over 2 hours, see "Home away from Home":

http://kodachromeproject.com/blog/

Anyhoo, I shot a lot of photos that I got to take with me. I had to REALLY resist the urge to get an M9, seriously. But when I thought about it, the camera was a lot of money and would be a distraction from shooting what is really important to me right now, Kodachrome. So I have decided to pass for right now. Last night, I got back from treating my girlfriend to a stay in Vegas for her 40th birthday, I shot some Leica photos and some digital on my D700 with my favorite lens for it, the Carl Zeiss 35mm F/2 ZF.

The CZ 35 seriously gives Leica glass a run for the money in terms of sharpness and color saturation. While we were driving home last night, I got some photos together for her. Here is one with the D700 / 35 F/2 wide open. I did nothing to it, it looks great, is at ISO 1,600. The M9 does not quite pull this off at that high an ISO, not even 800 for that matter. And using great glass with the D700 makes a lot of difference in the overall image quality.

It is what it is. I use my Nikons for the strengths they give me that Leica M can not. Examples would be extreme wide angle or telephoto and macro shots. So when I travel and shoot Kodachrome now, Leica M is my go to kit, but the Nikons are ready and waiting for the other tasks. The relatively inexpensive D700 makes a perfect digital to have along. It is durable, proven and damn good at any ISO.

I am not knocking the M9, I am just saying that tests are no good, shoot real photographs and then you will have your answer. That said, I would love to have an M9, but I just can not justify it for the next 18 months.
 
arturo said:
Am I the only one who thinks the tests pictures are not ideal for the purpose? Almost all digital cameras have good noise rendering at high iso, provided there is even light in the frame and the picture is properly exposed. This is the case of the images tested here. I would be more interested in images with deep shadows or underexposed. That is also more like real shooting conditions.

Arturo
Click to expand...
This is the point. You need shaddow areas low light and long exposures to get the eroneous 'noisy pixels'.

But why the comparison. Those who want a rangefinder presumably would not go for a D700 and use the saving to buy the increadible 14-24 and the new 70-200 would they?

Richard
 
awilder said:
After looking at the image comparison and glancing at DP Review, I've noticed a few interesting differences:
1. There is only the slightest amount of purple on dark subjects with the M9, something that I think might explain why an earlier poster felt the D700 "looked miles more natural". It's not nearly as objectionable like the M8 but it does show up when compared to the D700. The good news is that the IR filters you had to buy for lenses with M8 use completely eliminates this minor problem.
.
Click to expand...

Are you serious? This means there is still an IR problem albeit reduced and this means one still needs IR filters. This is actually a real deal breaker if others confirm the same.

Interstingly I have sold 3 lots of IR filters on the bay today!

Richard
 
The M9 is comparable to the D3x at low isos and comparable to the D700 at high iso, I don't see why some people seem to be offended or be greatly pantibunched over this fact. This is great, it means that you get a M9 beacause you love a small, manual focus package with great image quality, and not get a D700 (as i did instead of the M8) beacause you just can't live without the low light capability at paying jobs. Now I can ditch the D700, and live with a minor noise disadvantage, get bigger prints when i shoot nature, and get it in a far smaller package. I don't really see why people keep whining about "if you want a rangefinder, you would not go for the d700" I tested it against the d700 beacause that is the high iso leader, period. And the M9 did well.... this forum is a bit too much for me though, last time I try to inform people trough testing...
 
What about B&W on the M9?

What about B&W on the M9?

All of the M9 discussions I've seen have been focussed on color images. When a RAW file is eventually converted to B&W, how good is the IQ and how bad is the noise. Does the M9 have a B&W shooting mode? If so, same questions. Some of us just don't do color.

Harry
 
ulrikft said:
The M9 is comparable to the D3x at low isos and comparable to the D700 at high iso, I don't see why some people seem to be offended or be greatly pantibunched over this fact. This is great, it means that you get a M9 beacause you love a small, manual focus package with great image quality, and not get a D700 (as i did instead of the M8) beacause you just can't live without the low light capability at paying jobs. Now I can ditch the D700, and live with a minor noise disadvantage, get bigger prints when i shoot nature, and get it in a far smaller package. I don't really see why people keep whining about "if you want a rangefinder, you would not go for the d700" I tested it against the d700 beacause that is the high iso leader, period. And the M9 did well.... this forum is a bit too much for me though, last time I try to inform people trough testing...
Click to expand...


Dear Ulrik

Many thanks for this test.

But you should not be so sensitive. You have posted on one of the most controversial issues surounding the M8 and it is a real big question mark regarding the M9. I do not think you should be too suprised if you get a lot of feedback. And that some of it may not feel too positive.

The reality is that low light has always been the area in which Leicas reign supreme and now there are other ways of taking available light exposures with DSLR's. Clearly a DSLR with a chunk of VR glass on the end whizing round is never going to get close to the effortless experience of using a rangefinder in close quarters, but for the difference in price a lot of people might put up with the excess weight.

I think a number of us potential M9 buyers are just a bit underwhelmed with what we are hearing on the net. The real problem is that demo M9's are not exactly easy to come by at the moment!

Enjoy your M9

Richard
 
Richard Marks said:
Dear Ulrik

Many thanks for this test.

But you should not be so sensitive. You have posted on one of the most controversial issues surounding the M8 and it is a real big question mark regarding the M9. I do not think you should be too suprised if you get a lot of feedback. And that some of it may not feel too positive.

The reality is that low light has always been the area in which Leicas reign supreme and now there are other ways of taking available light exposures with DSLR's. Clearly a DSLR with a chunk of VR glass on the end whizing round is never going to get close to the effortless experience of using a rangefinder in close quarters, but for the difference in price a lot of people might put up with the excess weight.

I think a number of us potential M9 buyers are just a bit underwhelmed with what we are hearing on the net. The real problem is that demo M9's are not exactly easy to come by at the moment!

Enjoy your M9

Richard
Click to expand...

Thank you! I guess I Should not be so sensitive, I just think people are weirdly positive about it being 1-2 stops behind the best out there, and stating that it is ok, beacause they have fast glass. But then, when I show that it is nowhere close to 1-2 stops, more 0.5-1 stop difference, people seem very negative... I just think that this performance is highy capable. It is surely on par or better than both the D3x and A900 in high iso, and some test shows it as better in low iso color rendition accurancy and resolution (beacause of the lack of AA-filter i guess). This means that you have a low light machine that is small, light, anonymous AND can shoot almost MF-quality landscapes... I don't see how you can not like that!

Of course there are drawbacks... the processing speed when it comes to zooming in on images, the not-so-good lcd-screen and a few other things, but imagine the size advantage over a d3x or a900 if you do landscapes in far-away places, if you use a tripod and wide angles, you can get away with something like 3kg camera gear, while with a D3x, you would end up with 8-10kg (D3x itself, 14-24, a few primes, tripod vs. m9 + 12mm, 20mm, 50mm and 90mm). And for backpacking like I do in cities around the world, having 1.5kg of gear instead of 3-4, as I do with the d700.. would be a blessing indeed!.

But I'll stop drooling now... 😛
 
arturo said:
Am I the only one who thinks the tests pictures are not ideal for the purpose? Almost all digital cameras have good noise rendering at high iso, provided there is even light in the frame and the picture is properly exposed.
Click to expand...
Agreed. You're absolutely right.

Here are two "real world" examples (posted here before, but buried in another thread):

http://www.nikonweb.com/m9/M9_800_iso_L1000479.jpg

http://www.nikonweb.com/m9/M9_1600_iso_L1000463.jpg

M9 DNG file opened in Adobe Photoshop - default settings only - full frame downsized to 1000 pixels, insert is shown at 100%. Make sure to see the photos at 100% (some browsers will downsize photos to fit in browser window).

Jarle
 
M9 5000 ISO sample

M9 5000 ISO sample

ulrikft said:
I think I could safely underexpose the M9 with 1.5 or 2.5 stops, and push it to 6400 or 12800, without it looking miles behind the d700.
Click to expand...
Think again. Here's a 5000 ISO M9 shot for you:

http://www.nikonweb.com/m9/M9_5000_ISO_L1000465.jpg (760 KB JPEG)

Shot at ISO 2500, exposure set to + 1 in Adobe Camera Raw. People: It's time to realize that Leica stopped at 2500 ISO for a reason. At lower ISOs, the M9 will produce excellent results - but it's not a high ISO camera. If that's what you really need, get a Nikon D700 (or similar) instead.

Jarle
 
Last edited:
efkbl said:
You can have a look on dpreview:
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/LeicaM9/page8.asp

There is no comparison with the d700, but compared to the d3x or eos 5d mk II, there is only a very slight difference.
Click to expand...
Agreed
I can not see any significant difference with our without the filter.
It certainly has improved on the M8 very much in this department (and it needed to!)

Regards

Richard
 
ulrikft said:
Thank you! I guess I Should not be so sensitive, I just think people are weirdly positive about it being 1-2 stops behind the best out there, and stating that it is ok, beacause they have fast glass. But then, when I show that it is nowhere close to 1-2 stops, more 0.5-1 stop difference, people seem very negative... I just think that this performance is highy capable. It is surely on par or better than both the D3x and A900 in high iso, and some test shows it as better in low iso color rendition accurancy and resolution (beacause of the lack of AA-filter i guess). This means that you have a low light machine that is small, light, anonymous AND can shoot almost MF-quality landscapes... I don't see how you can not like that!

Of course there are drawbacks... the processing speed when it comes to zooming in on images, the not-so-good lcd-screen and a few other things, but imagine the size advantage over a d3x or a900 if you do landscapes in far-away places, if you use a tripod and wide angles, you can get away with something like 3kg camera gear, while with a D3x, you would end up with 8-10kg (D3x itself, 14-24, a few primes, tripod vs. m9 + 12mm, 20mm, 50mm and 90mm). And for backpacking like I do in cities around the world, having 1.5kg of gear instead of 3-4, as I do with the d700.. would be a blessing indeed!.

But I'll stop drooling now... 😛
Click to expand...


Ulrik fair point. It has its limitations and advantages just like every other camera. For travel I loved my M8 and certainly would not relish lugging a big DSLR multi zoom kit around. I think though it is inevitable that it is now being compared with DSLRs with good high ISO performance and to be honest using the D700 with fast fixed focus manual lenses it is not such a big deal. The real deal is in the price. Manual prime Nikons are an absolute steal at the moment. I bought a D700 as an interim measure whilst waiting to see what happens with the M9. This is very much the case and most probably Ill be back at some stage.

Richard
 
Jarle Aasland said:
Think again. Here's a 5000 ISO M9 shot for you:

http://www.nikonweb.com/m9/M9_5000_ISO_L1000465.jpg (760 KB JPEG)

Shot at ISO 2500, exposure set to + 1 in Adobe Camera Raw. People: It's time to realize that Leica stopped at 2500 ISO for a reason. At lower ISOs, the M9 will produce excellent results - but it's not a high ISO camera. If that's what you really need, get a Nikon D700 (or similar) instead.

Jarle
Click to expand...

I have tested both 2500 pushed to 3200 and 2500 pushed to 5000 against the D700 now, and even with a fair bit of color noise, the files are easily correctable and you regain more*detail with the M9 than you do with the D700. Especially for BW, I would say that the M9 is superior up to about 3200-5000, and even in color, you can get creat results at least up to 3200. People seem to underestimate this sensor.
 
ulrikft said:
Especially for BW, I would say that the M9 is superior up to about 3200-5000, and even in color, you can get creat results at least up to 3200.
Click to expand...
M9 superior to the D700 at 3200 ISO??! What are you smoking?

(Sorry, couldn't resist - no offense)

Jarle
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom