has lousy high ISO prevented what fast M lenses can really do?

[user237428934]

I shoot with my M9 at ISO 1000 and 1250 regularly. Most people who complain about high ISO performance tend to shoot jpegs exclusively, and don't know how to or bother with post processing.

But 1000 or 1250 is not really high ISO nowadays.

 

[Ben Z]

Get over the need for digital perfection and embrace photography as it is.

I don't ever recall anybody complaining back in the film days when they announced a new higher-speed emulsion with tighter grain. I think that was because we didn't have to replace our cameras to take advantage of it. Today getting less noise at higher ISO means buying a new camera, even though the one we have now is only a couple years old and works perfectly. I can see where that's infuriating, especially when our preferred make of camera doesn't offer something competitive at present.

Whenever I hear Leica enthusiasts point to the work of Eisenstadt or Cartier-Bresson as examples of what was achieved and yet to be surpassed, with analog film and slow emulsions, I realize that we really don't know if either of those gentlemen would be using an M9 if they were alive and working today.

 

[Tobers]

I shoot quite a few events and parties and am quite happy with the M9 at ISO2500 with my 50/2 Zeiss Planar (fab lens). The noise from the M9s sensor is much "nicer" than my Canon 1D4 in terms of its granular nature. The Canon noise is more speckly and uneven although it only gets that way higher than the M9 goes. Correctly exposed though, the M9 pictures at 2500 look great and there's still a lot of latitude in the RAW files to push quite a way.

However the Canon almost shoots in the dark so when the lights go down and the disco starts I'll swap to the Canon and a 580ExII flash if required.

So, horses for courses. If you didn't know the M9 had a max ISO of 2500 when you bought it then more fool you. If you did know, then put up with it. And regards comparisons to the X100 don't forget that max shutter speed at f/2 is 1/1000 compared to 1/4000 on the M9, so every camera has its good and bad points.

 

[250swb]

I think if you want the "mystery of the night" type image, you might want to.....

The mystery of the night is because night is mysterious, its dark, you can't see into the shadows. One thing guaranteed to undo the mystery of the night is when a camera can out perform the human eye, and night is just as accessible as daylight. Yes, the benefits of a Noctilux and 8000 ISO, wonderful, won't that be a great big advance in photography......🙁

There are so few good photographs made with a Noctilux as it is, do we need yet more brought about by having higher ISO?

Steve

 

[jamato8]

I was upset with the ISO performance from 1200 up on the M9, at first. Then I started using it more and exposing it correctly. No problems here. There have been places I could not use the SLR due to size and distraction. Shooting the M9 at 2500 has given me excellent results. You see I also reflect on the fact that I used to shoot 32 ASA 50 and 100 and anything above that for my work just didn't do it. Now I can go so much higher it is silly but good. Some day we will be able to shoot just about any ISO and it will all be the same. Then adding grain, as some do now, will be a requirement for anything to look truly different. :^)

 

[sepiareverb]

...even though the one we have now is only a couple years old and works perfectly...

If it works perfectly then there is no need to upgrade. I rarely shoot at an ISO over 800 with film, and when I go to 1000 it is with Neopan 1600 and nearly always to take advantage of the wonderful grain. With digital I rarely shoot over 800- because I don't need to. I don't feel the need to shoot at 1/500 when it is dim, 1/30 works fine for me. But I don't shoot sports.

My annoyance is with the general consensus that ISO 2500 is something every digital camera must be able to do. My ideal would be a sensor that could deliver ISO 32. But I'll work with the ISO 160 and 80 pull the M9 gives as I can use great lenses as they were designed- on a FF sensor, and make prints at the same size of those I make from my Adox 25, Pan F, FP4, HP5 and Neopan 1600 35mm negs. So I have to add an ND filter from time to time. Granted there is no anti-ND filter, but having worked for years with ISO 400-800 as my max, 2500 seems completly excessive.

 

[Ben Z]

If it works perfectly then there is no need to upgrade.

I guess I was unclear. I meant "works perfectly" in the sense of, functions without need of repair.

My annoyance is with the general consensus that ISO 2500 is something every digital camera must be able to do.

I think the general consensus is that every camera should be able to do at least what comparably-priced cameras can do. In the case of high-ISO, the M9 is out-gunned by several cameras costing far less, and not all advertised, as the M9 is, as the consummate professional's camera.

In fact I happen to shoot 99% of the time @ whatever a camera's "native" ISO happens to be (160 in the case of the M9) and find it totally adequate. I rarely ever reach beyond ISO 800. But that's because of my shooting preferences, and I recognize that other people have different wants. I'm not willing to assert that everyone, or even the majority, who wish the M9 had more contemporary high-ISO performance, do so simply from some obsession with having gear that doesn't take a back seat to anyone else's. It isn't as though better high-ISO performance would come at the expense of low-ISO performance. You and I would still be able to shoot @ ISO160 and get the same great results.

 

[sepiareverb]

I think the general consensus is that every camera should be able to do at least what comparably-priced cameras can do. In the case of high-ISO, the M9 is out-gunned by several cameras costing far less, and not all advertised, as the M9 is, as the consummate professional's camera.

Ah. Better for everything to be as much the same as possible. That I can understand. The American way.

 

[Ben Z]

Ah. Better for everything to be as much the same as possible. That I can understand. The American way.

Actually, "everything to be as much the same as possible" was the Soviet Way and (until maybe 10 years ago) the Maoist Chinese Way. The American Way has always been to differentiate one's product as much as possible from the competition so as not to have to compete strictly on price. And the German Way, since we're talking Leica here, was always to set benchmarks for the rest of the world. The German automobile industry is still following that philosophy pretty much. Leica is also, if you consider the S2. It's only the M9 that lags behind the curve. Part of it may be that the unique technical demands of a digital rangefinder are daunting, but part of it no doubt is that Leica has a large segment of the M-series customer base who can be, let's just say, very accomodating.