elmer3.5
Well-known
Hi, recently purchased an m9 (i´m waiting for it), i sold away a lot of gear including my upgraded M8 (lovely camera)
The m8 didn´t have a great iso performance (i used to over expose a litle and then it changed considerably)
Well i would like to know your opinions on high iso shots with the m9, say 1250 and 2500.
Hope some samples too!
PD: What about pulled ISO 80
Bye!
The m8 didn´t have a great iso performance (i used to over expose a litle and then it changed considerably)
Well i would like to know your opinions on high iso shots with the m9, say 1250 and 2500.
Hope some samples too!
PD: What about pulled ISO 80
Bye!
Last edited:
bizarrius
the great
ken rockwell says its better so it has to be.
(at least you got an answer )
(at least you got an answer
)Jeff S
Well-known
ramosa
B&W
ken rockwell says its better so it has to be.
(at least you got an answer
Haha. Indeed, he's some source.
elmer3.5
Well-known
Hi, i see, at least got some answers!
Thanks!
Thanks!
I'll have to try it- so far I have not had the need to go past ISO 160. The Iso 80 works well, makes up for the 1/4000th top speed compared with the M8.
The M9 is everything that I want in a camera.
The M9 is everything that I want in a camera.
scottwallick
ambition ≥ skill
You should see an improvement of approximately 0.8.
efix
RF user by conviction
ken rockwell says its better so it has to be.
(at least you got an answer
You know, that phrase in your signature really doesn't work for people speaking British English ...
efix
RF user by conviction
But seriously, you could compare the results over at DxO mark. There are people who believe what they say is rubbish, but judge for yourself. According to their measurements, the M9's ISO shows about one stop improvement over the M8. I.e. The M9's ISO 2500 is as noisy as the M8's 1250, and so on.
ISO 160 on the m9:
ISO 2500 on the M9, used Photoshop 7.0 dust filter with threshold set to 15 and pixel setting of 2.
Uncoated Sonnar 5cm F1.5, wide-open.
All in all, I'm pretty happy with the M9! I never shoot film above ISO 800.
ISO 2500 on the M9, used Photoshop 7.0 dust filter with threshold set to 15 and pixel setting of 2.
Uncoated Sonnar 5cm F1.5, wide-open.
All in all, I'm pretty happy with the M9! I never shoot film above ISO 800.
ZlatkoBatistich
Established
I think you will find the M9 is easily 1 stop better at high ISO than the M8. But you will get much better noise reduction for any camera using Lightroom 3.3 set to "Process: 2010 (Current)" in the Develop module, and Noise Reduction set as needed, 15 or higher for luminance and 50 or higher for color. The noise reduction built into the current Lightroom/Photoshop/Adobe Camera Raw has improved high ISO performance for all cameras.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
ISO 160 on the m9:
ISO 2500 on the M9, used Photoshop 7.0 dust filter with threshold set to 15 and pixel setting of 2.
Uncoated Sonnar 5cm F1.5, wide-open.
All in all, I'm pretty happy with the M9! I never shoot film above ISO 800.
Call me a nit picker but I really dont think two comparative ISO shots of an image on a flat surface are going to show anything. There's virtually no shadows or highlights for the sensor to deal with ... just even tones.
Black is black. There is enough black paint in the section of the painting of the woman's hair to be below the noise floor.
More significant is the quick and dirty use of the Photoshop dust filter. Interpolate over the sensor induced artifacts using a threshold that exceeded the apparent spatial gradient of the underlying image. Seemed like a good idea at the time. Sometimes I miss writing my own noise reduction software.
More significant is the quick and dirty use of the Photoshop dust filter. Interpolate over the sensor induced artifacts using a threshold that exceeded the apparent spatial gradient of the underlying image. Seemed like a good idea at the time. Sometimes I miss writing my own noise reduction software.
Last edited:
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I actually see the difference. I can also see that ISO 2500 on the M9 (based on this and little I've seen elsewhere) is better than the M8's.
I also get around the issue by over-exposing by about half a stop. Although it depends on the shot. If the shot is mostly dark, I over-expose; if it's mostly bright, then I let it shoot as metered.
I also get around the issue by over-exposing by about half a stop. Although it depends on the shot. If the shot is mostly dark, I over-expose; if it's mostly bright, then I let it shoot as metered.
elmer3.5
Well-known
Hi everybody!
JSU, very true your observations on the practical differences about using lenses on each camera, one of the reasons for selling my m8 (and rd1) was precisely that. Summarit 35mm f2.5 great lens but very "boring" on the m8.
Of course now i can use at full capabilities my sonnar or canon 1.2
Great comparison shots, i know very well iso capabilities of the m8 and those taken with 2500 on the m9 are nothing like m8´s performance!
i don´t like using too much PS or LR, i do when info is lost and recover a bit, but not much of contrast or sharpening.
This week i´ll get the hektor 50mm f2.5 and the m9, with that i´m done with it! no more gas attack until an M FF camera is made with the size of an m4! I have to say leica got the lesson of the m5, they realised they can make a thicker camera but never a longer one!
I´m thrilled about 80 pulled iso, hope it doesn´t affect dinamic range or other aspect of the m9 performance!
Thanks a lot!
JSU, very true your observations on the practical differences about using lenses on each camera, one of the reasons for selling my m8 (and rd1) was precisely that. Summarit 35mm f2.5 great lens but very "boring" on the m8.
Of course now i can use at full capabilities my sonnar or canon 1.2
Great comparison shots, i know very well iso capabilities of the m8 and those taken with 2500 on the m9 are nothing like m8´s performance!
i don´t like using too much PS or LR, i do when info is lost and recover a bit, but not much of contrast or sharpening.
This week i´ll get the hektor 50mm f2.5 and the m9, with that i´m done with it! no more gas attack until an M FF camera is made with the size of an m4! I have to say leica got the lesson of the m5, they realised they can make a thicker camera but never a longer one!
I´m thrilled about 80 pulled iso, hope it doesn´t affect dinamic range or other aspect of the m9 performance!
Thanks a lot!
ZlatkoBatistich
Established
I'm pretty sure that it does affect dynamic range. The result of ISO 80 is that you overexpose and "underdevelop" (or darken) in camera.
elmer3.5
Well-known
So, would be far better to add a filter?
ZlatkoBatistich
Established
Yes, I think so. I've only played with ISO 80 a little, and it did not look so good. I think you would get better results with an ND filter -- that is, if you need the characteristics of a low ISO.
Paul Luscher
Well-known
I shoot the M9 regularly at ISO 1600 and I don't find the noise to be too bad. Can be noticeable in shadow detail under some circumstances,but not really horrible.
Didn't have that many kicks against the M8 re noise, either...which I also used to shoot regularly at ISO 1600. But then, I come from the time of Tmax P3200, and that terrible Konica 3200 speed print film, which made every picture look more like a mosaic than a photograph....
Didn't have that many kicks against the M8 re noise, either...which I also used to shoot regularly at ISO 1600. But then, I come from the time of Tmax P3200, and that terrible Konica 3200 speed print film, which made every picture look more like a mosaic than a photograph....
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Yes- ISO 80 pull is a real pull. So it does actually lop one stop off the dynamic range, unfortunately. And it is not enough to go to 1.4 in sunlight, let alone 0.95. Not a replacement for an ND filter I fear.