eleskin
Well-known
I own two M8 cameras and have found them to have been very reliable workhorses for 85% of everything I do. There is one issue, however, that I have and that has been spoken about on this forum before. Both the M8 and M9 high ISO is not that great when compared to even the Fuji X100. In fact, many have relegated the digital M to brighter light and to use a DSLR when it gets really dim. The rangefinder camera was not designed for brighter conditions. In the past, the lack of vibration (quiet shutter) and superior rangefinder focusing in very dim light made the rangefinder camera the tool of choice when one could hardly see due to darkness. This is still true. How many times have you seen autofocus cameras constantly trying to focus and cannot dude to dim conditions?
Another point: Leica and other high quality lenses (Voigtlander, Zeiss) are designed to be used at ALL f stops without compromise. Given that we have fast f.95, f1.0. f1.2, f1.4 lenses with superior wide open performance, having a great ISO 6400 (Think Fuji x100) would do wonders for Noctilux, Nokton, and Summilux owners (other lenses too). Now this is not to say what we have now is not capable in low light. I have used my Noctilux and 35mm Nokton very effectivly in low light, but I really wish we had a decent high ISO 6400 for M mount lenses.
The megapixel war is over, as I am sure most of you have known for some time. It is now time for Leica and others to concentrate their efforts on improving their high ISO on the next digital M. If Leica does not do it soon, someone else will (I hope so, competition is good- Maybe a full frame Fuji X200 with M mount @ $2500 or so?).
On a personal note: I really hate it when some DSLR users say the digital M is not a real camera and how it is not a good low light tool. Their comments are half true, in that the high ISO is terrible for the prices we are paying, but the other half is how much of a joy it is to use a rangefinder and really wonderful lenses that are built to last more than one lifetime!
Another point: Leica and other high quality lenses (Voigtlander, Zeiss) are designed to be used at ALL f stops without compromise. Given that we have fast f.95, f1.0. f1.2, f1.4 lenses with superior wide open performance, having a great ISO 6400 (Think Fuji x100) would do wonders for Noctilux, Nokton, and Summilux owners (other lenses too). Now this is not to say what we have now is not capable in low light. I have used my Noctilux and 35mm Nokton very effectivly in low light, but I really wish we had a decent high ISO 6400 for M mount lenses.
The megapixel war is over, as I am sure most of you have known for some time. It is now time for Leica and others to concentrate their efforts on improving their high ISO on the next digital M. If Leica does not do it soon, someone else will (I hope so, competition is good- Maybe a full frame Fuji X200 with M mount @ $2500 or so?).
On a personal note: I really hate it when some DSLR users say the digital M is not a real camera and how it is not a good low light tool. Their comments are half true, in that the high ISO is terrible for the prices we are paying, but the other half is how much of a joy it is to use a rangefinder and really wonderful lenses that are built to last more than one lifetime!
efix
RF user by conviction
I really don't get it why people constantly complain about the digital M series' allegedly bad high-ISO performance. Have you ever seen 1600 or 3200 ISO film with the grain of a 100 ISO slide film emulsion? 800 ISO is already far too much for a colour positive film, I'd personally even stay from 400 ISO colour positive film. The M8's ISO 640 and the M9's ISO 1250 work very nicely for colour shots. Go one stop higher and convert to b&w, and it'll still look better than most 400 ISO b&w emulsions.
There's nothing you could do with a film M that you can't do with a digital M.
There's nothing you could do with a film M that you can't do with a digital M.
squinza
Established
I don't think is correct comparing digital performance to film performance. That's a classic case of apples vs oranges.
The benchmark is the performance of modern DSLRs. I don't really care about grain, slides, emulsions. My M8 simply can't compare with my 5D MKII under this aspect.
On the other hand, 160ISO is enough for most cases, sometimes I try 320ISO but with little satisfaction.
And yes, sometimes I shoot film, and I love tmax 3200, but that's good only for a specific look.
The benchmark is the performance of modern DSLRs. I don't really care about grain, slides, emulsions. My M8 simply can't compare with my 5D MKII under this aspect.
On the other hand, 160ISO is enough for most cases, sometimes I try 320ISO but with little satisfaction.
And yes, sometimes I shoot film, and I love tmax 3200, but that's good only for a specific look.
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
+1...It makes me a little sad that when it's time to shoot in really low light, I now reach for my D700 and 35/1.4 instead of my M8.
sevres_babylone
Veteran
I bought an M9, aware that it's high ISO is not as good as on some other cameras My rationale was I'd rather have it and use it now than wait for something that might or might not come in the future (for a long time I was a believer in the Nikon DRF rumours, but eventually...
I do agree with eleskin that Leica should work on trying to improve and extend high ISO performance.
By the way, I do use 2500 a lot, as I shoot bands in dim bars. I am happy to have this capacity that I don't have with my Epson. However, there are situations, where I really would like a bit more depth of field to compensate for my slow focussing reaction time.
I do agree with eleskin that Leica should work on trying to improve and extend high ISO performance.
By the way, I do use 2500 a lot, as I shoot bands in dim bars. I am happy to have this capacity that I don't have with my Epson. However, there are situations, where I really would like a bit more depth of field to compensate for my slow focussing reaction time.
Peter Klein
Well-known
I would love a digital M with the high-ISO capability of a D700 or 5D Mk II. But remember, every camera is an engineering compromise. The M8 and M9 give amazing image detail which can approach that of the highest-resolution 35mm films. Leica accomplished that by using a CCD sensor with no anti-alias filter. If they used a CMOS sensor, they would lose some of those qualities along with the high-ISO gain.
Leica chose to optimize the digital Ms for image detail, which is just as much a touchstone of their legacy as is high-ISO performance. I suspect that if they optimized for high ISO, a different group of people would be complaining that they had betrayed their legacy of ultimate image quality.
We can improve high-ISO performance with image processing, whether in the camera or in RAW post-processing. But all noise reduction carries a penalty in the loss of fine detail. Some people actually prefer the digital M's noise to the more "plastic" rendition of the high-ISO champion DSLRs. Up to a point, anyway.
There's always room for improvement. But there are tradeoffs. Remember the old business joke: "Do you want it fast, cheap or good? " I suspect the same thing applies to high ISO vs. detail.
It's almost as if we need two different sensors in our M bodies--a "Velvia/Tech Pan" CCD sensor for the details crowd, and a "Neopan 6400" sensor for the denizens of darkness. We used to get that by changing film. Now the camera company has to deal with that as well as the optics, shutter and "box." And Leica does not have the deep pockets and R&D resources of Brand N or C.
--Peter
Leica chose to optimize the digital Ms for image detail, which is just as much a touchstone of their legacy as is high-ISO performance. I suspect that if they optimized for high ISO, a different group of people would be complaining that they had betrayed their legacy of ultimate image quality.
We can improve high-ISO performance with image processing, whether in the camera or in RAW post-processing. But all noise reduction carries a penalty in the loss of fine detail. Some people actually prefer the digital M's noise to the more "plastic" rendition of the high-ISO champion DSLRs. Up to a point, anyway.
There's always room for improvement. But there are tradeoffs. Remember the old business joke: "Do you want it fast, cheap or good? " I suspect the same thing applies to high ISO vs. detail.
It's almost as if we need two different sensors in our M bodies--a "Velvia/Tech Pan" CCD sensor for the details crowd, and a "Neopan 6400" sensor for the denizens of darkness. We used to get that by changing film. Now the camera company has to deal with that as well as the optics, shutter and "box." And Leica does not have the deep pockets and R&D resources of Brand N or C.
--Peter
Pablito
coco frío
One word: NEX
With a ClearViewer.
GREAT in low light with M lenses @ high ISO
With a ClearViewer.
GREAT in low light with M lenses @ high ISO
willie_901
Veteran
It is clear that if low image noise in EV 5-7 light is critical to one's work, the M8 and M9 are not viable options. So what? A camera's signal-to-noise ratio is just one factor of many. In some situations this is a significant handicap. In others the signal-to-noise ratio performance irrelevant.
The reason the M8/M9 have average signal-to-noise ratios is Kodak.
Besides the fact that Kodak and Leica have a partnership, what is the advantage of CCD sensors?
I would like to see any links that explain the technical details as to how CCD sensors outperform CMOS sensors in terms of resolution or any other parameter relevant to lens performance. Of course AA filters can affect both CCD and CMOS sensors. BTW, one can send DSLRs off for modification to remove AA filters.
The signal-to-noise ratio is important for fundamental reasons. All fields of measurement strive to increase signal-to-noise ratios. Excellent signal-to-noise ratios are not just marketing hype (although ISO performance is abused in camera marketing). Noise is uncertainty and uncertainty is bad. Stated another way, I can add all sorts of noise to high-quality data for aesthetic purposes. But I can not remove noise without reducing information content. Data where the noise is filtered to improve the image also degrades the resolution retained by not using an AA (spatial) filter or delivered by a superior lens. Increasing noise filtering decreases resolution (information content). If the information content is low (such the sky), then superior lens and AA filter-less resolution is meaningless and noise filtering has a low impact. A noisy region with high information content (a shaded tree line in a landscape) will lose resolution when noise filtering is present and the impact can be significant. So the potential for superior resolution delivered by the lens and lack of AA filtering is compromised.
The D300/D3/D700 cameras can be configured such that they rarely focus hunt in extremely low light. All they need is some sort of contrast difference (yes, I know these bodies use phase-based AF). Likewise the ZI-M I once owned required some level of contrast difference for RF patch alignment. I'm not sure Nikon's best AF is at a disadvantage over optical rangefinders. I do know I would rather use a rangefinder camera though because even a D300 is just to way to large, much too heavy and too loud.
Right now it seems to me the M8/M9 advantage primarily has to do with what type of camera one prefers to operate. The digital M's have many operational advantages no other camera form can claim and everyone here knows exactly what these advantages are.
I seriously doubt any difference in image quality between a M9 and a dozen or so DSLR systems with high-quality lenses is of commercial or aesthetic importance. Of course a M9 owner can experience significant personal pleasure by appreciating the superior details in their images. This sort of satisfaction is valuable. But I reject the notion that an art director or gallery curator would ever care (or notice). Their first priority is content. A high level of technical excellence is expected in commercial work and is not even relevant for a great deal of fine art work.
The reason the M8/M9 have average signal-to-noise ratios is Kodak.
Besides the fact that Kodak and Leica have a partnership, what is the advantage of CCD sensors?
I would like to see any links that explain the technical details as to how CCD sensors outperform CMOS sensors in terms of resolution or any other parameter relevant to lens performance. Of course AA filters can affect both CCD and CMOS sensors. BTW, one can send DSLRs off for modification to remove AA filters.
The signal-to-noise ratio is important for fundamental reasons. All fields of measurement strive to increase signal-to-noise ratios. Excellent signal-to-noise ratios are not just marketing hype (although ISO performance is abused in camera marketing). Noise is uncertainty and uncertainty is bad. Stated another way, I can add all sorts of noise to high-quality data for aesthetic purposes. But I can not remove noise without reducing information content. Data where the noise is filtered to improve the image also degrades the resolution retained by not using an AA (spatial) filter or delivered by a superior lens. Increasing noise filtering decreases resolution (information content). If the information content is low (such the sky), then superior lens and AA filter-less resolution is meaningless and noise filtering has a low impact. A noisy region with high information content (a shaded tree line in a landscape) will lose resolution when noise filtering is present and the impact can be significant. So the potential for superior resolution delivered by the lens and lack of AA filtering is compromised.
The D300/D3/D700 cameras can be configured such that they rarely focus hunt in extremely low light. All they need is some sort of contrast difference (yes, I know these bodies use phase-based AF). Likewise the ZI-M I once owned required some level of contrast difference for RF patch alignment. I'm not sure Nikon's best AF is at a disadvantage over optical rangefinders. I do know I would rather use a rangefinder camera though because even a D300 is just to way to large, much too heavy and too loud.
Right now it seems to me the M8/M9 advantage primarily has to do with what type of camera one prefers to operate. The digital M's have many operational advantages no other camera form can claim and everyone here knows exactly what these advantages are.
I seriously doubt any difference in image quality between a M9 and a dozen or so DSLR systems with high-quality lenses is of commercial or aesthetic importance. Of course a M9 owner can experience significant personal pleasure by appreciating the superior details in their images. This sort of satisfaction is valuable. But I reject the notion that an art director or gallery curator would ever care (or notice). Their first priority is content. A high level of technical excellence is expected in commercial work and is not even relevant for a great deal of fine art work.
Paul Luscher
Well-known
I'll go with efix...as I have stated before, I started shooting in the days of pushed Tri-X and T-Max 3200. Considering the sandpaper-like grain of those films, the high ISO of the M9 is PERFECTLY FINE with me.
'Sides, these days you have people trying to recreate the grainy look of those films. What was considered a drawback in those days is now considered...."character". Or "style".Maybe people will feel that way one day about the supposed deficiency of the M9's high ISO....
'Sides, these days you have people trying to recreate the grainy look of those films. What was considered a drawback in those days is now considered...."character". Or "style".Maybe people will feel that way one day about the supposed deficiency of the M9's high ISO....
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Sheesh-put all digital medium format stuff on the bonfire- CCD has disadvantages but more advantages for high quality. Most lousy high ISO is lousy postprocessing anyway. Up to 1250 on the M8 you can get perfectly clean images without using plugins.
From the Data sheets that are available, the Kodak CCD's provide better signal to noise ratio and better uniformity than a comparable CMOS sensor. Much more signal processing is required to clean up a CMOS signal. Signal procesing can be applied in the camera or outof the camera. CCD's provide cleaner images without a lot of processing on the acquired image.
gdi
Veteran
I am with Jaap on this.
The M8/9 require you to do more when shooting; they also require you to do and know more when processing high ISO images.
If I were one of those who couldn't be bothered to develop a satisfactory high ISO workflow and was longing for the results of the fuji/sony P&S jpgs, I would simply switch. There is nothing wrong with taking the quickest and easiest path to reach the image quality which will satisfy you.
The M8/9 require you to do more when shooting; they also require you to do and know more when processing high ISO images.
If I were one of those who couldn't be bothered to develop a satisfactory high ISO workflow and was longing for the results of the fuji/sony P&S jpgs, I would simply switch. There is nothing wrong with taking the quickest and easiest path to reach the image quality which will satisfy you.
robert blu
quiet photographer
I do not think that at leica they are so fools or masochist to give on purpose a camera with "lower high iso performances" than competitors. Probably there are technical reason or choices. Would you accept a rangefinder digital camera bigger and heavier than the m9 with better high iso performances ? How many would buy it if the cost would be a 30% higher? Of course these are just ideas as examples, but I think at the end it is a question of choices.
robert
PS I have not (yet?) an m9, only m7 + x1 and I use this one in low light situation when I need more than 400 iso...
robert
PS I have not (yet?) an m9, only m7 + x1 and I use this one in low light situation when I need more than 400 iso...
Last edited:
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
I think the choice is made between a DSLR and an M9 based more on DSLR vs RF than CMOS vs CCD. Whatever theoretical (or actual) differences in image quality exist between a CMOS sensor and CCD sensor, the reality is that in practical use (even at low ISOs), there is no difference in quality between the two. A 5D II or M9 both create images well beyond the quality needs of most folks shooting FF sensor cameras.
I agree. I use both and find both very capable technically.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Emm, comparing pineapples vs. oranges doesn't make the case about not comparing apples vs. oranges.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Look at these "lousy high ISO" shots from the M8 at ISO 1250:
Leica M8 + 35mm f/2 Summicron "pre-asph" IV
Leica M8 + 50mm f/1.4 Summilux "pre-asph" E46
Leica M8 + 35mm f/2 Summicron "pre-asph" IV
Leica M8 + 50mm f/1.4 Summilux "pre-asph" E46
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Well, some people believe everything they read; 'tis the age of "One Button Press vs. Thinking". I still see people double-clicking web links, so it wouldn't surprise me that there are people who prefer the camera to do everything for you vs. it letting you what you want as you see fit.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
It does. It's like people wanting a four-wheeled motorcycle to drive like an SUV: "they both have four wheels, so how come this motorcycle rolls over when I go too fast on a curve?" or "shame on them! No roof or DVD player?!" ::sigh::
But then again, some people don't know what they are asking for: "why can't I use the same rules of grammar found in English for Italian? They're both languages, aren't they? No! It is the same: I expect to find the same type of iambic pentameter found in Shakespeare in Machiavelli; it is Literature, isn't it?"
Double ::sigh::
Nikkor AIS
Nikkor AIS
50 1.0 Noctilux on Leica M9
While the high ISO of the M9 leaves much to be desired compared to my Nikon D3, with a steady hand and a co-operative subject, it's still possible to get some decent images in extremely low light with the M9 and the Noctilux.
I often shoot (almost always, in fact) with a D3 and the 58 1.2 Nocturnal alongside of the M9 and 50 1.0 Noctilux and each has its own advantages. For me, the small buffer of the M9 has been more of a disadvantage than dismal high ISO performance.
It is interesting that Leica, which has always been thought of as the king of low light, is now taking a back seat to the Nikon D3S. But I don't even have a D3S yet. There is always going to be something better and newer coming down the pike. The thing is to make the best of what you've got right now.
I am sure the M10 will have better high ISO performance. Until then, I will make do with the M9.
Last edited: