Olsen
Well-known
1)
The first of these pictures is taken with my 1Ds III /16-35 mm 2,8L II at 1600ISO on tripod at 5,6 and 1/30 (as far as I remember). this is a 10% crop from the center.
2)
The second is taken with my M9/WATE set at the same as the Canon alternative.
What you see here is samples of the raw materials that come straight out of the camera before post processing. My conclusion is that 'Canon makes better cameras', but 'Leica makes better lenses'. And also; Leica is getting close regarding camera quality.
The first of these pictures is taken with my 1Ds III /16-35 mm 2,8L II at 1600ISO on tripod at 5,6 and 1/30 (as far as I remember). this is a 10% crop from the center.
2)
The second is taken with my M9/WATE set at the same as the Canon alternative.
What you see here is samples of the raw materials that come straight out of the camera before post processing. My conclusion is that 'Canon makes better cameras', but 'Leica makes better lenses'. And also; Leica is getting close regarding camera quality.
Attachments
Ronald M
Veteran
Fine the way it is.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
With proper technique the M9 can be made to come very close to the 5DII at high ISO in the noise department(equalized high ISO that is, the sensitivity is defined differently on both cameras) Some prefer the better detail and color rendering of the M9 - so the original poll is based on a rather shaky presumption.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
Jaap
I'm intrigued. I haven't used a 5D2, but I find my 1Ds3 better than my M9 for low noise work. That's not to say the M9 is terrible - it's far better than I expected given the reviews/internet 'wisdom', but it doesn't do really low light as well. What is your proper technique?
Also, looked at your website. Love the Africa work in particular. I have enjoyed my time there, travelling around Southern and East mostly. Malawi was a particular favourite.
Mike
flyalf
Well-known
I think you should read the poll again. There is nothing about 5DII, or comparing to any camera. Just a choice between high resolution or high ISO performance. This is a classical choice. There is a reason for Nikon to deliver two different D3 models; D3S / D3X. In the same way one could imagine different M9s.
So what exactly is the rather shaky assumption?
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
The point is that the M9 is as close as it gets to the optimum balance as possible for a CCD sensor.That it can get better without losing resolution is proved by the Canon 1DIV which is virtually without noise out of the camera up to 6400 - but with a 16Mp APSC-H sensor! So again old truths get bowled over...
furcafe
Veteran
I thought the point of the poll was to gauge the interest in a digital M w/a CMOS sensor.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Which is very strange, as a CMos sensor is unsuitable for short-register cameras by definition.
deirdre
Well-known
Okay, for those of us new to the fold -- I'd be interested in why this is the case.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
On a rangefinder lenses have a short distance to the sensor (called register distance) That means that wideangle lenses will produce extremely acute incidence angles of the light towards the edges and corners of the sensor. Leica and Kodak have managed to get the acceptance angle of the sensor corrected by shifting the microlenses over the sensor towards the edges. But long lenses will produce light rays that are more or less coming in straight. That means the sensor pixels need to have quite a wide acceptance angle for this technique to work. CCD sensors provide this angle. However, Cmos sensors have electronic circuitry between and partly in front of the pixel, reducing the acceptance angle and thus making them unsuitable for this application. This is quite apart from the fact that the image quality of CCD sensors at lower ISO is superior to CMos sensors. It may be that back-lit CMos sensors can solve the dilemma, but they are not (yet?) available for full-frame and even then they will have to prove themselves.
The reason CMos sensors need these electronics is because they are extermely noisy to the extent that the noise cannot be reduced on output,so the pixel levels need to be balanced individually on the sensor.
The reason CMos sensors need these electronics is because they are extermely noisy to the extent that the noise cannot be reduced on output,so the pixel levels need to be balanced individually on the sensor.
Last edited:
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Means to pay for it.
f/14
Established
There is no technical reason why we should move "backwards" in time and technology to the 12MP period to have low noise. Just upgraded from D3 to D3x with 24.5MP. D3x noise is lower than in M9 so the technology is there. The difference in noise from D3 at 12MP to D3x at 24.5MP is hardly noticeable in practise. Carrying 2kg of DSLR is no fun though, so the hope of using my M-lenses on a digital camera one day is still there. Meanwhile they sit on M6 and some Bessa Rs.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
f/1.4
Well, hopefully Nikon or an other company will see fit to produce a smaller lighter FF DSLR or that mythical someone will eventually produces a FF M mount DFR like camera that is somewhat affordable.
Bob
Well, hopefully Nikon or an other company will see fit to produce a smaller lighter FF DSLR or that mythical someone will eventually produces a FF M mount DFR like camera that is somewhat affordable.
Bob
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Nikon might produce one if so inclined, but going by past experience it would probably make the M9 look cheap....
Turtle
Veteran
I would take improved high ISO over improved resolution for the M10 for sure. Another couple of stops would be nice and leave it doing all I would need. A cleanish 3200 is pretty important. Grain I love, but digital noise, no thanks.
Had Leica produced a 13-14 MP M9 with a two stop better high ISO it would have appealed more. I might still buy a M9 but in the hope that the M10 will deliver the high ISO I want, leaving the M9 in back up role. I will be hugely disappointed if the M10 has 24 MP or so and no improvement on noise. For the cameras application, I think low noise is a big deal. If you want super resolution there is always the Pentax 645D at about the same money once lens costs are factored in (or less).
Had Leica produced a 13-14 MP M9 with a two stop better high ISO it would have appealed more. I might still buy a M9 but in the hope that the M10 will deliver the high ISO I want, leaving the M9 in back up role. I will be hugely disappointed if the M10 has 24 MP or so and no improvement on noise. For the cameras application, I think low noise is a big deal. If you want super resolution there is always the Pentax 645D at about the same money once lens costs are factored in (or less).
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Actually it's the other way round. Every sensor needs readout electronics. The motivation for having CMOS sensors in the first place is that if you have the readout electronics on the sensor itself, you don't need separate readout electronics as with a CCD. As a result, you have everything on one die and the whole thing becomes much more integrated and cheaper.
The tradeoff for that is that you have to sacrifice some sensor area for per-pixel readout electronics that in a CCD sensor would be useful for potential wells, i.e. pixel area. That's why on a CMOS sensor you have less sensitivity per-pixel and greater variation between individual pixels.
Early CMOS sensors therefore sacrificed a lot of sensor area to readout electronics instead of photosites. This earned CMOS sensors their early reputation of low sensitivity and lots of noise. As miniaturization advanced, however, the size of the few transistors you need for the readout electronics has been decreasing in relation to the pixel size. So the relative pixel size advantage of CCD sensors is becoming less and less relevant. This is the primary reason why in the past we've been able to observe enormous progress in CMOS sensors, as witnessed in the outstanding lowlight capabilities of cameras like the recent Nikons.
The electronics themselves can be built rather flat in comparison to the size of the sensor cells. As far as I can see, the problem is not primarily that the 3D structure somehow obstructs light rays at extremely oblique angles, but that for an on-sensor microlens array it helps if the underlying pixels are large. I don't think there's anything that precludes CMOS sensors in digital rangefinder cameras.
Leica solved this problem by using a (slightly dated) Kodak CCD, but they could have solved it by using a halfway modern large-photosite CMOS sensor as well if they had got access to one. I guess they didn't find a supplier, or they didn't have enough free electronics R&D capacity to redesign their in-camera electronics for a CMOS sensor, or both.
Last edited:
Alberti
Well-known
. . I have seen that the current M9 has better B/W conversion capabilities than the M8, and colour has a higher detail and saturation level. It's tempting...
But remember that a FF 12MP camera obviously offers better High ISO: the pixel area is larger; other advantages are that the microlenses can be designed and produced easier.
I expect, a FF 12 MP will still have a significantly nicer look to it than the M8 10,5MP with it's crop factor. It can't be 'sold' as a giant leap, of course, but it is a different option than going high resolution.
Let's make it more complicated and add a dimension: if a full-frame 12MP RF camera would be offered for 55% - 60% of the price of a 18MP one (for instance because the cheaper one has a sensor that is easier to make, and is also fitted with a manual advance), then I'd probably opt for that.
Maybe a comparison like in this poll is a little simplistic. [But very important!
]
albert
But remember that a FF 12MP camera obviously offers better High ISO: the pixel area is larger; other advantages are that the microlenses can be designed and produced easier.
I expect, a FF 12 MP will still have a significantly nicer look to it than the M8 10,5MP with it's crop factor. It can't be 'sold' as a giant leap, of course, but it is a different option than going high resolution.
Let's make it more complicated and add a dimension: if a full-frame 12MP RF camera would be offered for 55% - 60% of the price of a 18MP one (for instance because the cheaper one has a sensor that is easier to make, and is also fitted with a manual advance), then I'd probably opt for that.
Maybe a comparison like in this poll is a little simplistic. [But very important!
]albert
flyalf
Well-known
Thanks for all good answers, please keep em coming. Although the poll is simplistic the answers indicate that many would give up resolution for improved high ISO performance .
-
.-
Last edited:
sojournerphoto
Veteran
Thanks for all good answers, please keep em coming. Although the poll is simplistic the answers indicate that many would give up resolution for improved high ISO performance
-
But, I think that most of the users would prefer to keep the resolution they already have. I wouldn't have bought a 12mp M9.
Mike
bizarrius
the great
i'd buy the M9 if it was film.
oh wait !
oh wait !