Epson RD1s way better than Leica M8 (v2.0) in low light/high ISO

[nugat]

During my comparison tests for the new M8 (2.0) firmware I had Canon 350D, Leica M8 and Epson RD1s compared . The whole thread started by me is at leica forum:

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/63952-m8-2-0-firmware-high-iso.html

I should only add to the below quote of myself that it was really dark: 1/8 sec/f2.0/IS0 1600 (1250). For ISO 400 (320) even longer times of course. Chair and release cable.

"Something was telling me to compare Epson RD1s in the same lighting situation with Leica M8 (v2.0) and Canon 350D Digital Rebel. Epson was released in 2004 and had a 6MP APS-C CCD from Sony. I tried to recreate the same situation as yesterday. I put the same lens on Epson (Ultron 28mm) and set it to 1600 ASA. Canon is with kit cheapo lens. Look at the pictures (ca 1/3 crops of the original frames) , explanation is below the pictures. You can click properties to confirm source: Leica has file designation "L" , Canon "IMG", Epson "EPSN". All pictures at the "same" ISO (L1250/EPSN&IMG1600). Same parameters in LR2. Sharpening to 0. Color noise 25.

1

2

3

4

The pictures are from top to bottom:
1. Canon 1600 ISO
2. Leica 1250 ISO
3. Epson 1600 ISO
4. Leica 320 ISO


No, it's not a mistake. Epson at 1600 ISO (nr 2) is waaaay better than Leica at 1250 (3) and almost as good with noise as Leica at 320 ISO (5). The latter comes as a real surprise. To tell the truth I am shocked.

Leica M8: 10MP, bigger sensor (1.3 crop), 2006
Epson RD1: 6MP, smaller sensor (1.6 crop), 2004
__________________

 

[nugat]

Since there is a limit of 4 images per post : Epson at 400 ISO nr 5 top, and again Leica at 320 ISO nr 4 bottom.

5

4

__________________

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

It's true, the R-D1 is very good with chroma noise...what a nice surprise!

 

[edhohoho]

Wow, great post! Thanks. Yet another reason why I love my R-D1.

 

[amateriat]

Oh, boy...more stirring of the pot, indeed...


- Barrett

 

[Ray Nalley]

Yeah. In another thread the OP is claiming the M8 is competitive with the D3 for high ISO performance. So does it follow that the R-D1s is even better than the D3? 🙂

Objectivity just gets harder to find.

 

[nugat]

Yeah. In another thread the OP is claiming the M8 is competitive with the D3 for high ISO performance. So does it follow that the R-D1s is even better than the D3? 🙂

Objectivity just gets harder to find.

Which thread, where ? I'll be happy to see the methodology. One can learn about mine from the thread on the leica forum. M8 low light performance has been verified multiple times. I only compared it to "low" Canon and RD1. Given that I bought the Leica last Monday, I'd rather found it better than my old, cheap cameras.

 

[jaapv]

Oh dear, here we go again. Of course the Epson shot seems to have less noise. It lacks sharpness and resolution. That is called AA filter to soften it and mainly electronic cooking to smear it. If you stop pixel peeping and start looking at photographs the Leica shot looks 100% better. I fact, despite its underexposure the Leica shot has the best visual impact of all shots presented.
I wonder why you even bought an M8 and started this new discussion about alledged noise. It has been done 100 times before, so you could have known.
Once again. Canon and Nikon use sensors that are exactly as noisy as any other CCD (Nikon) or noisier (CMos) by Canon and the RD1 simply uses old Nikon technology.
These companies apply electronic noise reduction to the signal before the RAW file gets written. This reduction gets better and better as time goes by, reason that Nikon seems to have "overtaken" Canon in "sensor technology" (meaning noise reduction algorithms) at the moment.
Leica has made another choice. The offer a manual camera with as much user control as possible. So they leave the noise reduction to the user, not to an engineer's choice in the camera. You want smooooooth....? Buy a Canon or Nikon. Or Noise Ninja for your Leica.
Btw - most top end printers choose to add noise to a Canon or Nikon file to get the best prints;great - double processing does not do file quality any good.

 

[tmfabian]

Of course the Epson shot seems to have less noise. I lacks sharpness and resolution. That is called AA filter.

you nailed it jaapv as usual.
the epson has less noise at the expense of sharpness and resolution.
any and all noise reduction smears and softens images, which is the reason leica engineers give for not including any on the m8.
Neither method is better or worse...just different

Regardless, I think this goes along way to showing that there's compromises everywhere being made in regards to high ISO performance.
Some sacrifice sharpness for less noise, and others leave the noise reduction to the users post processing to retain sharpness and give the photographer control over how much or how little noise reduction to apply.

Yeah. In another thread the OP is claiming the M8 is competitive with the D3 for high ISO performance. So does it follow that the R-D1s is even better than the D3?

that is actually your own inference and twist of my words, I just put the images next to eachother. Of course the D3 is top dog in low noise/high ISO performance...i don't think anyone in the world would argue that point at this date.


anywho...another valid point to make is that a mere 6MP camera can still hold it's own in the current vat of modern technology. The RD1 is another camera I feel very much so has been considered obsolete way too early...it's still very much a perfectly capable camera that should be given respect.

 

[gavinlg]

An AA filter will not enlarge or reduce noise, as noise is made on the sensor, after the light has already gone through the AA filter.

The m8 is relatively noisy because it's old technology sensor. R-d1 is less noisy because there are less pixels on the sensor.

 

[jaapv]

Of course it will not reduce noise. It will reduce the perception thereof by softening the image.
Btw - see Tim Fabian's thread on noise. The example produced here is totally unsuitable for any comparison. It is horribly underexposed, and post- processing is not what it should be. It is well documented that the M8 demands competent exposing or the image will turn noisy.
The poster obviously has not yet the expertise with the Leica to know that exposure must be spot-on and suddenly noise disappear for a major part.

 

[Ray Nalley]

"The m8 is relatively noisy because it's old technology sensor."

Exactly! And it's another box that has been built around Leica by those who defend the M8 against all comers. That old Kodak sensor has been elevated to and ascribed mythical powers as it's touted as the best sensor in the digital realm. How can Leica ever replace it?

 

[tmfabian]

Still...the epson is a beautiful camera, I have nothing but respect for the RD1, and if they were still servicing them I'd buy one in a heartbeat as a backup.

To be honest with everyone, I'd love to see an RD1 thread posting nothing but it's high ISO images...not as comparison or piss contest, but to further enhance the photographic community. We're all photographers, regardless of our individual status...from hobbyist to professional(meant as someone who makes their living off it, not quality of work) the more we communicate our experiences and techniques and results...the better we all become. And because the RD1 is the only other DRF... furthering our knowledge of what it's capable of can only be a good thing.

Go forth and post more RD1 high ISO shots...I for one will be back to enjoy the pleasure of looking at them.

 

[jaapv]

"The m8 is relatively noisy because it's old technology sensor."

Exactly! And it's another box that has been built around Leica by those who defend the M8 against all comers. That old Kodak sensor has been elevated to and ascribed mythical powers as it's touted as the best sensor in the digital realm. How can Leica ever replace it?

And pray - what "new technology" sensor that can be used for rangefinders is there on the market? And has everybody trashed their photographs taken last year with their two year old, hopelessly obsolete Nikons, as the are useless ****?

I'm with you, Tim, drop all this mindless technobabble and start enjoying images!

 

[edhohoho]

The R-D1 shouldn't be considered obsolete, as it was the first digital rangefinder and is the only alternative to the M8 in the digital RF realm. And it seems a bit harder to find the R-D1 on the used market than the M8, so it is definitely in demand. Lastly, although the R-D1 is no longer in production, I believe Epson is still servicing and supplying parts for them at least for a few more years, and there are third-party repair centers/people willing to work on them. So it's still relevant and supported in the digital RF world, at least until a new and better player enters the market--and even then, the pricing level and time needed for the new technology to prove itself will still demonstrate the pertinence of the R-D1 for a while to come.

 

[yanidel]

Interesting, thanks for sharing.
And Jaapv, don't blast new posters like that or the RFF will find itself with 40 members in two months😉
As a matter of fact, I want to a Leica dealer again yesterday to see if I would take the M8 plunge. So I took my RD1 and a CV35, which is supposedly the sharpest lens I own. I did some test shots with both camera to compare telling the salesmen "everybody says the M8 IQ is much better than the RD1". Well, again (I had already down that a few months ago), after close analysis of the resulting dng and erf file, I did not see such a big difference. The M8 is a bit sharper in the details but the RD1 has a much nicer noice from 800 up to 1600. Sincerely, the many comments I see "the M8 IQ is much better than the RD1" are simply not correct. Maybe using a tripod in controlled condition (exposure and so on), but street shots, no. If you read reidreviews.com, a series of tests were made (ok, fruits ...) the M8 is sharper yet the RD1 is not far behind and it says that a little sharpening through PS makes it very close.
This does not take anything from the fact that the M8 is an amazing tool and I'll probably acquire one in the coming weeks as it features several benefits over the RD1 (service, frames, durability, pixels, finder, shutter noise). I think they are complimentary. RD1 for travel, low light. The M8 for the rest.
But I hope we stop statement over the great superiority of the M8 over the RD1 in IQ (unless you can prove it) because IMHO, it is not true.

 

[kingmillo]

I think we should drop all this. I am truly enjoying my Leica M8. Because it's "Leica". I wouldnt bet a penny that your RD1 shot is better than my M8. But I enjoy it. Painful manual focusing, high noise, etc, just enjooooy. Any camera is as good

 

[nugat]

I rest my case. It is impossible to try to evaluate Leicas at Leicas' forums. Emotions of some Lecaists (who often don't even have experience with the models in question) always fight for the better with reason.
Do "quick&dirty" tests on the day new firmware comes out: you are incompetent, because others saw the light and less noise under high ISO with the new software. They'll publish "competent" images comparing them to...own imagination.
Try to look into details--Nada! It's "pixel--peeping"! (Leica talk for criticism). You are allowed to enjoy only the whole picture.

As a farewell to all of you I dedicate the appraisal of M8 capabilities by a pro. World Press Photo winner, 3 times Pulitzer nominee etc....Of course you will answer "oh, that one..we know the villain. He was paid by Nikon. And his criticism is despicable because Leica cannot be used at such work (reportage, sic!) and in some foreign war-torn country on top. And he is a pixel-peeping >prevert<...".

http://web.mac.com/kamberm/Leica_M8_Field_Test,_Iraq/Page_1.html

I bought and will use Leicas for the same reason I drive a 20 year old car. I am an excentric masochist.

Pedro


PS. If Leica is so pure an image machine why:
1. There is a message "noise reduction 2 sec...1 sec..." after taking long shutter pictures?
2. What's the lens coding for? Only EXIF or some image processing?
3. Can you turn off the above processesing?

PS.PS.
Noise is not the direct result of the sensor size or number of pixels, or concomitant of sharpness or resolution. It starts with the pixel (photodiodes) size, but also depends on sensor manufacturing, eg. microlens construction. Why custom Kodak sensor is so bad in this respect? Also, sensors with similar apparent noise should be "cleaner" as the pixel count goes up. More pixels> less noise enlargement> higher frequency=finer grained noise.

You can find primers here:

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=noise
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-sensors.htm
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/noise.htm

PS.PSs.PS
The purpose of the excercise was to expose noise (not win World Press Photo). For that you need low light, shadows, high ISO.
Average exposure at 1600 (1250) ISO was 1/8 second and f2.0
The examples are not underexposed, they are overexposed and brought down 1 stop in LR, if anything. I won't bother publishing histograms , they can be manipulated. Full frames show highlights (lamps) on the verge of overblowing.

There was minimum processing of the original raw/dng in LR2:
cropping-3x zoom in, slight correction of still horrible M8/2.0 white balance, bringing default sharpness down to 0.

Good night and good luck.

 

[Ray Nalley]

"And pray - what "new technology" sensor that can be used for rangefinders is there on the market? And has everybody trashed their photographs taken last year with their two year old, hopelessly obsolete Nikons, as the are useless ****? "

The point is that it's all technobabble. In real world photos printed at real world sizes, digital imaging is good enough now that any dslr or drf from the XTi, to the D3 to the M8 or 1DsMkIII, will yield photos that 99 percent of real world viewers would find indistinguishable. If you are paying big money, you are paying for durability or precision construction, or some other factor, not significant real world differences in image quality. These posts and others have made that pretty clear.

 

[gavinlg]

And pray - what "new technology" sensor that can be used for rangefinders is there on the market? And has everybody trashed their photographs taken last year with their two year old, hopelessly obsolete Nikons, as the are useless ****?

I'm with you, Tim, drop all this mindless technobabble and start enjoying images!

I never said anything was obsolete or useless.

All I said was it's an older technology sensor, and thats why it doesn't stack up to the canon cmos and nikon cmos in high iso noise stakes. It's perfectly fine though, because as we all know it's all about the photographer. And obviously theres no other drfs so no other choices.

You guys get your undies in a knot all too easily. I shoot an olympus e-3 at the moment and it's about the same in low light abilities as the m8. It has other strengths - thats why I use it. But I have no problems admitting the canon cmos is a better sensor.

just relax up a bit haha.