blondie1
Member
Sean Reid test show us that the high ISO quality of the M9 is about the same as the M8. And that quality is not good as we all know. And the speed of the processor is a little faster than the M8, but still pretty slow. A big disappointment. One begins to wonder if Leica still knows what the most important thing about the M camera was: the great advantage it had in low light photography. The M8 killed that advantage. Three years later, while in the meantime other factories highly improved their ISO results, Leica comes up with almost nothing on this point. And if you still buy a M9 and shoot at 1250, you have to wait 4 seconds until you can take the next photo. Nevertheless Leica shouts hurrah, and so does a lot of their uncritical customers. Surely, it is FF now, but it is not enough. Leica again did it not. For professionals like me who often have to work in low light conditions and have to work fast, the M9 does not fit the job. Considering its price it should be. - Blondie1.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
"And if you still buy a M9 and shoot at 1250, you have to wait 4 seconds until you can take the next photo."
Why would that be? Could you post a link to where you read that?
Why would that be? Could you post a link to where you read that?
furcafe
Veteran
I don't subscribe to Reid Reviews, but if your synopsis is correct then that is a serious blow to my desire for an M9.
Perhaps Leica should make 2 versions of the M9, 1 w/the existing Kodak sensor for the daylight shooters, & 1 w/a CMOS &/or lower pixel-count sensor for available darkness types.
Perhaps Leica should make 2 versions of the M9, 1 w/the existing Kodak sensor for the daylight shooters, & 1 w/a CMOS &/or lower pixel-count sensor for available darkness types.
swoop
Well-known
From the samples I've seen the M9 is about a stop faster in terms of ISO quality. 1250 on an M9 looks like 640 on the M8. And that is enough for me.
No one is going to argue that there isn't any room for improvement. But for a full frame CCD sensor it does pretty well. Add to that a rangefinders inherent ability to shoot at slower shutter speeds and Leica's/Voigtlander's/Zeiss' wide selection of f1.4 or f2 lenses. And you have a camera that performs wonderfully.
I think the reason a perfect ISO 3200 is such a draw on DSLR's is because zoom lenses that naturally go with a DSLR and are that camera formats one primary convenience, often aren't any faster than f2.8.
No one is going to argue that there isn't any room for improvement. But for a full frame CCD sensor it does pretty well. Add to that a rangefinders inherent ability to shoot at slower shutter speeds and Leica's/Voigtlander's/Zeiss' wide selection of f1.4 or f2 lenses. And you have a camera that performs wonderfully.
I think the reason a perfect ISO 3200 is such a draw on DSLR's is because zoom lenses that naturally go with a DSLR and are that camera formats one primary convenience, often aren't any faster than f2.8.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
You may have to wait 4 seconds if the buffer is full to take the next shot. The M9 takes 2 fps.
furcafe
Veteran
OK, this is what Sean himself has written on the L-Camera Forum:
"Basically, for a given print size and a given level of noise, the M9 can go a stop faster in ISO than the M8. A stop gain is good even if it doesn't make the M9 a world champ at high ISO."
http://tinyurl.com/pmqo3j
"Basically, for a given print size and a given level of noise, the M9 can go a stop faster in ISO than the M8. A stop gain is good even if it doesn't make the M9 a world champ at high ISO."
http://tinyurl.com/pmqo3j
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
With the use most M9's will see, ISO 1250 is more than sufficient. If they follow the sales path of the M8, most will go to amateurs in Japan.
Considering the difficulty of putting a FF sensor in an M body, ISO 1250 seems a reasonable compromise.
Considering the difficulty of putting a FF sensor in an M body, ISO 1250 seems a reasonable compromise.
furcafe
Veteran
Most Leicas go to amateurs, period. And most will only be used to take photos of their kittens, kids, & vacations, just like other "pro" cameras. But, as swoop wrote, there is room for improvement.
High quality color imaging @ high ISOs is 1 of the great innovations brought by digital (to me the primary 1) & it is a shame that Leica can't partner up w/a better, or more diversified, sensor supplier because the combination of, say, a 5D or D3-quality sensor w/a Leica M body & glass would be incredible. As the OP noted, low & available light photography was 1 arena where Leica was totally competitive in the analog world. Heck, it was the main reason why I shoot w/Leica in the 1st place.
High quality color imaging @ high ISOs is 1 of the great innovations brought by digital (to me the primary 1) & it is a shame that Leica can't partner up w/a better, or more diversified, sensor supplier because the combination of, say, a 5D or D3-quality sensor w/a Leica M body & glass would be incredible. As the OP noted, low & available light photography was 1 arena where Leica was totally competitive in the analog world. Heck, it was the main reason why I shoot w/Leica in the 1st place.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
But the ISO 1250 "noise" of the M9 is far less obtrusive than the grain in any circa ISO 1250 speed film, yet you aren't complaining that fast B&W film is too grainy. You accept grain in available light photography with film, but complain about the digital equivalent in digital. 
flip
良かったね！
One wonders if Kodak was the only supplier willing to pick-up this contract. It's not high-production. It's not an easy solution. Perhaps the other sensor producers were either uninterested or had interests tied to other camera makers.
furcafe
Veteran
I actually complain about the grain in film all the time, particularly w/C41, but also w/B&W. Never underestimate the tyranny of high expectations!
Seriously, Fuji Neopan 1600 is good & I shoot tons of it, but I would love an ISO 6400 film that looked like Tri-X & that goes doubly/triply so for anything in color (especially E6).
And you're right, part of the problem in the digital era is that camera manufacturers must supply their own "film" w/the bodies. I just think Leica should get some more suppliers, though flip is probably right that they don't have much to work with given that the big Japanese manufacturers are all tied up w/their own camera industry.
Seriously, Fuji Neopan 1600 is good & I shoot tons of it, but I would love an ISO 6400 film that looked like Tri-X & that goes doubly/triply so for anything in color (especially E6).
And you're right, part of the problem in the digital era is that camera manufacturers must supply their own "film" w/the bodies. I just think Leica should get some more suppliers, though flip is probably right that they don't have much to work with given that the big Japanese manufacturers are all tied up w/their own camera industry.
But the ISO 1250 "noise" of the M9 is far less obtrusive than the grain in any circa ISO 1250 speed film, yet you aren't complaining that fast B&W film is too grainy. You accept grain in available light photography with film, but complain about the digital equivalent in digital.
What's really interesting is the X1, if it indeed has the same sensor as the D300, will work at 3200 without breaking a sweat.
ferider
Veteran
Depending on registration distance it might have to correct vignetting just like the M9. Which looses a few stops doing that.
blondie1
Member
You will have to go to the Sean Reids review. But I was not quite precise. The test shows when shooting at 1250 : 4 shots in buffer, then new frame every 5 seconds. And that is slow, is'nt it?
blondie1
Member
But the ISO 1250 "noise" of the M9 is far less obtrusive than the grain in any circa ISO 1250 speed film, yet you aren't complaining that fast B&W film is too grainy. You accept grain in available light photography with film, but complain about the digital equivalent in digital.
That is no argument. In the film period we simply had to accept the grain. Now we have a far better technology. And within that Leica cannot do well. Other manufacturers produce better sensors on the point of high ISO. Far better.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
But the ISO 1250 "noise" of the M9 is far less obtrusive than the grain in any circa ISO 1250 speed film, yet you aren't complaining that fast B&W film is too grainy. You accept grain in available light photography with film, but complain about the digital equivalent in digital.
I find that to be a bizzare statement. TX400 and several other modern black and white 400 films exhibit suprisingly little grain at 1600 when exposed acurately and processed in the appropriate developer.
I have images shot in low light at ISO 640 with my M8 that are decidedly ugly and images shot in similar circumstances with HP5 pushed to 1600 that have none of that ugliness. What grain there is with the film has a smoothness and progression that the digital image lacks totally IMO.
YMMV of course!
blondie1
Member
No. 1250 looks like 1250 on the M8 , and is even worse. Reids example pictures show that.
At 1.4 or 2.0 there is not much depth of field, and you might need that.
And DSLR's don't only have zoom lenses. On a DX3 one can put a 21mm f1.4 with good quality in 3200 ISO. Leica M9 is already not good at 1250.
UOTE=swoop;1138726]From the samples I've seen the M9 is about a stop faster in terms of ISO quality. 1250 on an M9 looks like 640 on the M8. And that is enough for me.
No one is going to argue that there isn't any room for improvement. But for a full frame CCD sensor it does pretty well. Add to that a rangefinders inherent ability to shoot at slower shutter speeds and Leica's/Voigtlander's/Zeiss' wide selection of f1.4 or f2 lenses. And you have a camera that performs wonderfully.
I think the reason a perfect ISO 3200 is such a draw on DSLR's is because zoom lenses that naturally go with a DSLR and are that camera formats one primary convenience, often aren't any faster than f2.8.[/QUOTE]
At 1.4 or 2.0 there is not much depth of field, and you might need that.
And DSLR's don't only have zoom lenses. On a DX3 one can put a 21mm f1.4 with good quality in 3200 ISO. Leica M9 is already not good at 1250.
UOTE=swoop;1138726]From the samples I've seen the M9 is about a stop faster in terms of ISO quality. 1250 on an M9 looks like 640 on the M8. And that is enough for me.
No one is going to argue that there isn't any room for improvement. But for a full frame CCD sensor it does pretty well. Add to that a rangefinders inherent ability to shoot at slower shutter speeds and Leica's/Voigtlander's/Zeiss' wide selection of f1.4 or f2 lenses. And you have a camera that performs wonderfully.
I think the reason a perfect ISO 3200 is such a draw on DSLR's is because zoom lenses that naturally go with a DSLR and are that camera formats one primary convenience, often aren't any faster than f2.8.[/QUOTE]
Ron (Netherlands)
Well-known
Well it is clearly a choice of sensor technique: CCD or CMOS. Since Leica choose the first it will lack possiblities that the CMOS provides in this respect to other brands, why the CCD: because it provides better image quality in terms of sharpness and resolution (according to some tests)
blondie1
Member
You are absolutely right. Is'nt it sad that Leica has become an amateur manufacturer, while they keep pretending much more and cannot fulfil it?
But lets be fair to amateurs. A lot of them also are going to shoot under difficult light conditions, given that such is possible nowadays.They see more and more what other cameras can do. Cameras that are much(!) cheaper.
Leica still can't pull itself out of the danger zone. And believe me, they are in it.
But lets be fair to amateurs. A lot of them also are going to shoot under difficult light conditions, given that such is possible nowadays.They see more and more what other cameras can do. Cameras that are much(!) cheaper.
Leica still can't pull itself out of the danger zone. And believe me, they are in it.
Olsen
Well-known
I have read the Read review. Due to his format of his web page, which I don't like, it is a bit difficult to compare the three alternatives. The picture alternatives which is alongside each other is fine to compare. Those stacked on top of each other is not so good to compare.
To me improvement of the 'high ISO performance' is far more important than 'Full Frame'. I have said this all along. Since you don't have to blow up a M9 file as much as a M8 file, the scene you have shot will not appear with so much noice with the M9. This is a similar effect to going from Canon 1Ds II to III.
It is obvious, however, that M9 do not have such a high ISO/low noise performance as Canon's 1Ds III or 5D II. But with the samples that Reid has posted it is not possible to see (I can't see it, at least) if that comes from a clever noise suppression program on Canon's hand. It is not the sensor of the M9 that picks up more noise than the Canon's. - According to experts a CMOS sensor picks up far more noise than CCDs and needs extensive noise reduction software to deliver anything useful.
My conclusion is that M9 moves the usable ISO setting from 640 on the M8 (which equals ISO800 on my Canon 1Ds III) to ISO1250 on the M9(which I would guess equals ISO1600 on the Canon). That is a vital step! That is the ONE aperture step I have missed on my M8.
I use my Canon 1Ds III regularly on ISO1600 which I find as producing an 'acceptable' noise level (I have photographed for 30 years with only 100ASA!). It seems to that the M9 can be used in the same way, - at ISO1250 - which, I believe, will equal my Canon's ISO1600, most likely with 'slightly' more noise.
It should be mentioned that Read tested the M9 under the most difficult of lights (tungsten) when testing the high ISO performance. Other samples I have seen on the Net as tests of high ISO performance of the M9, but in different light, comes out better.
Except for the fact that I had not reckoned Leica to launch a FF-DRF in foreseeable future, - if ever, I am also positively suprised that Leica has decided to let you manually set the lens you are using on the menue. - I had 'never' thought that they would be so generous. Now you can set the 16 mm corrections intended for Leica's WATE for you Voigtländer 15 mm 4,5 Super Wide - etc.
To me improvement of the 'high ISO performance' is far more important than 'Full Frame'. I have said this all along. Since you don't have to blow up a M9 file as much as a M8 file, the scene you have shot will not appear with so much noice with the M9. This is a similar effect to going from Canon 1Ds II to III.
It is obvious, however, that M9 do not have such a high ISO/low noise performance as Canon's 1Ds III or 5D II. But with the samples that Reid has posted it is not possible to see (I can't see it, at least) if that comes from a clever noise suppression program on Canon's hand. It is not the sensor of the M9 that picks up more noise than the Canon's. - According to experts a CMOS sensor picks up far more noise than CCDs and needs extensive noise reduction software to deliver anything useful.
My conclusion is that M9 moves the usable ISO setting from 640 on the M8 (which equals ISO800 on my Canon 1Ds III) to ISO1250 on the M9(which I would guess equals ISO1600 on the Canon). That is a vital step! That is the ONE aperture step I have missed on my M8.
I use my Canon 1Ds III regularly on ISO1600 which I find as producing an 'acceptable' noise level (I have photographed for 30 years with only 100ASA!). It seems to that the M9 can be used in the same way, - at ISO1250 - which, I believe, will equal my Canon's ISO1600, most likely with 'slightly' more noise.
It should be mentioned that Read tested the M9 under the most difficult of lights (tungsten) when testing the high ISO performance. Other samples I have seen on the Net as tests of high ISO performance of the M9, but in different light, comes out better.
Except for the fact that I had not reckoned Leica to launch a FF-DRF in foreseeable future, - if ever, I am also positively suprised that Leica has decided to let you manually set the lens you are using on the menue. - I had 'never' thought that they would be so generous. Now you can set the 16 mm corrections intended for Leica's WATE for you Voigtländer 15 mm 4,5 Super Wide - etc.
Last edited: