High ISO on M9 better than m8.2?

[Sonnar Brian]

I originally shot the sample shots using uncompressed DNG. I just compared the Histogram of the original sample image using Lightroom 3.3, and it is fully populated. It covers more of a spread than many of the "Live Images". Has a good tail to it, in the areas of black in the hair and pupil of the eyes.

 

[sojournerphoto]

M9, Elmar 134/4, iso 2500

full frame

100% crop, minimal noise reduciton in lr3 (colour 25, luminance <10)

Mike

 

[elmer3.5]

That´s a very nice example!

Definitely not like the great m8. (noise helps quite a bit on B/W conversions)

 

[bizarrius]

M9, Elmar 134/4, iso 2500

full frame

100% crop, minimal noise reduciton in lr3 (colour 25, luminance <10)

Mike

wow.

(and a few more words so i can post the wow)

 

[jaapv]

The " grain" works very well here; it could be reduced even more with ACR 6.0 (CS5) but there is no need. It will print beautifully 🙂

 

[colonel]

ken rockwell says its better so it has to be.

(at least you got an answer 😀 )

I would fundamentaly ignore much of what he says about Leica, although some of his lens reviews are ok

 

[colonel]

Have a look at DXOMARK. The M9 is better but not much better. note that the pixel pitch is essentially the same.
I wouldn't use ISO 80 as its a pull-ISO (not a the base sensor ISO, so it requires extra processing which degrades the picture).

 

[semordnilap]

My issue with M8 high iso (alas I have no M9, nor will I in the foreseeable future) is banding in the shadows, much more than noise, and I see what looks like banding or something similar in the dark areas above the woman's head in Brian's 2500 shot.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Brian--
Which version of PS are you using, I currently have CS3 and I'm unfamiliar with the dust filter? It isn't listed under filters, that I know of, is it elsewhere or only available in newer versions?

I am using Photoshop 7.0, circa 2002. I can export 16-bit/color PSD's to it from Lightroom and it works fine.

I'm surprised a Dust and Scratch filter is not in the newer versions.

Also- I am surprised by how "Flimsy" Lightroom 3.3 is with respect to crashing on start-up. It created a corrupt "Catalog" file, and crashed without recovery options. De-install and re-install did fix it. Finally, changing the Directory name of the path it was looking in allowed recovery. Apparently it "Hid" a corrupt catalog file somewhere in the directory. Once the directory was inaccessible, gave me the option to "create new catalog". Let's just say I am underwhelmed by Adobe Products of the last few years, after using them since 1994.

 

[luuca]

under LR3 high iso raw shots of the M9 are usable

M9, iso 2500
not a dslr result, but not so bad...

 

[bizarrius]

ofcourse they are.
look at this 2500 shot :|

 

[Sonnar Brian]

35/1.2 Nokton, wide-open, 1/6s, hand-held. ISO 2500 and -1 EV compensation. Straight JPEG conversion in LR 3.3.

At the Planetarium in Columbus, GA.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Found this ISO 2500 shot done with the M8.

Canon 50/1.4, wide-open, 1/125th sec ond.

No issues with banding, color is decent, noise is under control. I have a late-run M8.

 

[umcelinho]

I have an R-D1 and consider getting an M9 later on, and I worry about banding as well, mostly on scenes with bright lights on the background, leading to banding on the shadows. So when I pull up the backlight tab I get a purple stripe. I'm not sure if it's something that is intrinsic to digital sensor or if it can be fixed.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

ISO 2500, 35/1.2 Nokton wide-open, 1/6s, hand-held.



Raw mode, Auto white-balance, no corrections required for LR3.3 to convert to JPEG. About as straight from the camera as you can get.

I used the ISO 2500 setting quite a bit in two "no Flash Photography allowed" museums last week. I was happy- far better than my experience with Kodacolor 800.

 

[Ben Z]

My M8 was very similar in noise level to my Canon 20D. I find my M9 is similar to my 5D MK-I. So, improved but still a generation behind Canon (and so I'm told by my Nikon-shooting pals, 2 generations behind Nikon 😀). But although that's speaking of noise levels, my personal feeling is that noise quality is more pleasing in the M9 and M8 than my prior-gen Canons, particularly in b&w. As with film, the predominance of my photos are shot either in color in daylight (hence at ISO 320 max), or in low-light in b&w. So I'm at peace with the noise performance of the M9, and even think that if I had a D700 I might end up having to grain-effect in PP for those moody b&w shots I enjoy.

 

[jaapv]

Problem is, everybody is comparing the incomparable when quoting Canon/Nikon. With those brands noisereduction is standard in- camera, with the Leicas it is DIY in the computer. And we are comparing CMos with on - sensor reduction with CCD which does not do that.
As for M8/M9, the M9 has double the area, double the pixels and half the magnification, thus half the noise.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I wish Kodak would publish the long sheet for the KAF-18500. The sensor element size is the same. the Signal to Noise ratio for a CCD would normally be higher for a larger CCD type sensor as the electron charge must shift through more elements to make it off the chip. I suspect that Kodak substantially improved the system noise by a factor of 4 on the KAF-18500 as compared with the KAF-10500. I am not using any noise reduction on the shots done in the Planetarium- and needless to say, it was very dark. The projections are not very bright, hence the slow shutter speed with an F1.2 lens and ISO 2500.