M9 and its high ISO quality

[nksyoon]

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.

As far as I know, the only 21/1.4 is for Leica M. For DSLRs there's a Canon 24/1.4 and a Nikon 28/1.4.

 

[Gid]

I think the question should be - is the camera usable at the highest ISO you would normally work with? If the answer is yes then fine, if no, then, choose something else or just go out during the day or get some fast lenses.

Comparisons are just that, they don't make the noise levels of any camera better or worse. Leica chose to work (assuming they had a choice) with a sensor supplier that has a history of producing noisy sensors, albeit with great colour, so it makes the job more difficult to start with.

 

[italy74]

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!

Agree with Keith. I wondered when I saw a Tri-X 400 or even a BW400CN pushed at 1600 and then having less grain than a native 1600 roll, properly exposed. Still, with B/W grain is expected and, wanted, it has kind of its own charme, if you know what I mean. While, if I shoot with a digicam, whatever it is, I DON'T want to see any noise at that iso! It should be said that digital grain is much worse - looking at it - than the same amout of grain over a film roll.. No idea why, but that's it for me.

Another thing. Having fast and marvelous lenses doesn't imply automatically you don't have to improve your iq. Even the best F/1.4 lens in the world has a physical limitation if it's forced to shoot at F/1.4: you can't just use any dof, while you could if you could gain a 2 - 3 stops with high ISO capability.

Of course, I'm aware that Leica chose a CCD sensor, still it wouldn't have been my choice but it's just my opinion.

 

[aldobonnard]

We might all have a try at the local Leica dealer's, because the sample photos I've seen so far are appalling as concerns high sensitivities. ISO640 still seems the maximum, but because this might be more of a processing software issue than a genuine sensor limitation, let's give the benefit of doubt to Leica. Hopefully this M9 might be usable in typical low/available light situations (EV 0-8) where the immensely talented FF DSLR do struggle a lot and where RFF shine (well, with film, at least)

 

[MacDaddy]

As usual, I find it highly amusing that all these opinions about the M9 are already being tossed out when NO ONE TO MY KNOWLEDGE has YET put their hands on a production camera and shot with it in the wild!
The prisoner has been found guilty by all without a trial. Shall we not rather wait until a member has one in their hands and has returned real world results until we condemn the M9? Just my observations, folks!
OH! And I'm "somewhat" putting MY money where my mouth is—I've pre-ordered an X1. Not an M9, but only because it is beyond my financial reach at this point and the X1 appears to fit my personal shooting requirements almost perfectly. And THAT was done without ANY reviews or previews. Hope I'm not as sorry as original M8 buyers, but when I get mine (January 2010?) I WILL stress it to the max and post results.

 

[mfunnell]

Shall we not rather wait until a member has one in their hands and has returned real world results until we condemn the M9?

Of course not This is the internet. Besides, it might turn out to be really good, so we'd miss all the fun of condemning it.

...Mike

 

[Olsen]

As usual, I find it highly amusing that all these opinions about the M9 are already being tossed out when NO ONE TO MY KNOWLEDGE has YET put their hands on a production camera and shot with it in the wild!
The prisoner has been found guilty by all without a trial. Shall we not rather wait until a member has one in their hands and has returned real world results until we condemn the M9? Just my observations, folks!
OH! And I'm "somewhat" putting MY money where my mouth is—I've pre-ordered an X1. Not an M9, but only because it is beyond my financial reach at this point and the X1 appears to fit my personal shooting requirements almost perfectly. And THAT was done without ANY reviews or previews. Hope I'm not as sorry as original M8 buyers, but when I get mine (January 2010?) I WILL stress it to the max and post results.

We are discussing 'tests' that has been issued recently by people who do more systematic testing than any of us ordinary users. This time, I will not spend all that money just to become a beta tester. I (we) want to know what M9 is good for.

 

[blondie1]

In that case we might have expected a better, or at least a same result as Canon and Nikon.

Don't you think low light photography is most needed in tungsten light?

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.

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.

 

[MacDaddy]

We are discussing 'tests' that has been issued recently by people who do more systematic testing than any of us ordinary users. This time, I will not spend all that money just to become a beta tester. I (we) want to know what M9 is good for.

Having spent 34 years in IT as a systems engineer I know all about being a beta tester! *o) And you are supporting my point—let's wait until the real deal is in an end users' hands and we see real world results rather than speculate endlessly on what MAY turn out to be non-issues!

And Mike, regarding your comment: "Of course not This is the internet. Besides, it might turn out to be really good, so we'd miss all the fun of condemning it." All I can say is, it's fun indeed to attempt to execute the prisoner without a trial, but I am willing to give the M9 a chance to defend itself in the field. (Of course, all this is purely of academic interest to me because I do not have the financial means to get one, although I'd like to!)

 

[Steve Ash]

Best is to go to a Leica shop and convince yourself what the camera is capable of.
What I have seen so far it looks like there is a valuable improvement in high iso performance and some other good changes in the control of the camera. Last but not least it is full frame finally.

Regards
Steve

 

[splitimageview]

Depending on registration distance it might have to correct vignetting just like the M9. Which looses a few stops doing that.

The difference with the X1 is that they had the opportunity to design the lens to the sensor, so perhaps this isn't an issue.

 

[italy74]

Hi guys
another thought about it. Look a moment at the other thread:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79391

Of course numbers are little (we could say none) for a meaningful sample, still among who voted, half have a great expectation from M9 but a 30% would like to wait for something else and another 20% doesn't look persuaded completely by the new camera (Leica should take it into account too). If we could vote it extensively, maybe we would have a better hint on what could be people trend desire about M9 and/or wait for an eventual competitor (namely Zeiss or whoever else).

Think of it. An evidence of such interest here, a highly qualified place for RF cameras, might be a sign for someone out there.

 

[Rob-F]

I agree with those who say that criticism is premature. I recall reading that the M9 was to become available in stores as of 9/13. That's today, folks. Let's wait until a sufficient number of them are in the hands of photographers, and enough time has gone by, to permit a large number of observations and reports. That's the right way to facilitate a meaningful and valid conclusion.

 

[blondie1]

That won't be necessary for those who have experience with the M8, and now read four tests of the M9: The test in the Polish magazine, the Head-2-Head Reviews, the test at Focus Numerique, and the Sean Reid test.
Is that not enough? Conclusion: Leica is still behind Canon and Nikon, and its progress to the M8 is not really substantial. Next to Sean Reid the result at 1250 is even worse than 1250 of the M8. Therefore we can easily say that the M is no longer a good availible light camera. That is for sure now.

Best is to go to a Leica shop and convince yourself what the camera is capable of.
What I have seen so far it looks like there is a valuable improvement in high iso performance and some other good changes in the control of the camera. Last but not least it is full frame finally.

Regards
Steve

 

[Fabian]

@blondie1: when the m8 came out at first I was also wondering about the philosophy at Leica. Producing a camera that is famous for its available light ability, being only useful at Iso 640 seemed very strange to me.
But now I understand that their first goal is to fully exploit the power of their lenses. And that is only possible with a ccd sensor.

So you kinda have to compare the Leica to medium format backs and their high iso perfomance.

I have made my peace with their Philosophy and I think if you shoot a 50 summilux asph. wide open at 1/15 you can use iso1250 and shoot in very dark places. The results are propably comparable to a dslr shot at 2.8, 1/50 at iso 12500.

The good thing is that Leica will have a very good sensor somteimes in the future, but I doubt that canon and Nikon will ever have lenses outperforming Leica glass.

So I think Leica might become interesting for professional Photographers again, in the next few years.

Regards Fabian

 

[furcafe]

I agree, but haven't made peace w/their philosophy. I'll repeat my wish that Leica develop 2 versions of the M9 (& succeeding cameras), though I doubt that they can or will go down that path. I think "pklein" in the L-Camera Forum summed up Leica's dilemma best:

"But we have to remember that all of this is part of a trade-off between two somewhat contradictory goals. Some people want to have every gnat's eyebrow of detail that the best Leica lenses can provide (Kodachrome/Velvia/TMAX 100 users from the film era). Others want to photograph the human condition in dark pubs and cafes (the Tri-X/Neopan 1600/TMAX 3200 bunch). Both approaches are part of the tradition of Leica photography.

Back in the film era, one could optimize the camera for either of the two approaches simply by switching films. So you could have your cake and eat it, too. Not so with digital. Leica had to design one digital M9 with one sensor. So they had to choose. My guess is that they chose to make fine detail rendition the primary goal--just as they did with the M8--and then do the best they could with high ISO. It looks like they've done very well given that choice."
​

In my experience, there are indeed 2 types of "Leica photographer," & their current choice of sensor does seem to privilege the 1st type so as to exploit the capability of their lenses.

Sadly, like the OP, I'm the 2nd type. I shoot in many dark places, don't need or want the equivalent of medium format in an M body (I have medium format film cameras for that), & rarely use my M8 @ less than ISO 640 because I'm happy using film for ISOs in the 25-400 range.

@blondie1: when the m8 came out at first I was also wondering about the philosophy at Leica. Producing a camera that is famous for its available light ability, being only useful at Iso 640 seemed very strange to me.
But now I understand that their first goal is to fully exploit the power of their lenses. And that is only possible with a ccd sensor.

So you kinda have to compare the Leica to medium format backs and their high iso perfomance.

I have made my peace with their Philosophy and I think if you shoot a 50 summilux asph. wide open at 1/15 you can use iso1250 and shoot in very dark places. The results are propably comparable to a dslr shot at 2.8, 1/50 at iso 12500.

The good thing is that Leica will have a very good sensor somteimes in the future, but I doubt that canon and Nikon will ever have lenses outperforming Leica glass.

So I think Leica might become interesting for professional Photographers again, in the next few years.

Regards Fabian

 

[blondie1]

ISO 12500 on a DSLR is very bad, so if you like to compare that with ISO 1250 from a Leica M, you are right. Very bad indeed.
It seems to me that you have not an idea what professional photography is about. Do you think we never have to use some DOF? Never more than 1/15 second?
Leica lenses are very good, but not that so much better than DSLR lenses as you suggest. Most pro press photographers are using DSLR cameras. Look at World Press Photo. Bad pictures? Not at all.

@blondie1:

I have made my peace with their Philosophy and I think if you shoot a 50 summilux asph. wide open at 1/15 you can use iso1250 and shoot in very dark places. The results are propably comparable to a dslr shot at 2.8, 1/50 at iso 12500.

The good thing is that Leica will have a very good sensor somteimes in the future, but I doubt that canon and Nikon will ever have lenses outperforming Leica glass.

So I think Leica might become interesting for professional Photographers again, in the next few years.

Regards Fabian

 

[splitimageview]

Well it depends on which DSLR. Which one are you speaking of? And how does one define 'bad?' I know a lot of people that think TriX at 1600 is 'bad' and I know others that think it is 'good.'

We are talking subjectives here. The M9 isn't even out yet, and neither are the custom DNG profiles.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/m9-first.shtml

"High ISO performance is described by Leica as being at least a full stop better than on the M8 and M8.2. I did not have time to do any rigorous high ISO testing, but to my eye noise is minimal up to ISO 1200, and even 2500 is suitable for publication. Don't look to this camera for extraordinary high ISOs performance such as one gets with CMOS based DSLRs, with ISOs up to 25,000 rather than 2,500. Leica, along with medium format back makers, has chosen a CCD imager rather than a CMOS for reasons of image quality at bright to moderate light levels. Low light shooting can be accomplished by using fast lenses, of which Leica has quite a number of excellent examples."

 

[Ben Z]

Therefore we can easily say that the M is no longer a good availible light camera. That is for sure now.

That conclusion is illogical. At most, we can say that it's high-ISO noise may be only slightly improved from the M8, and that there are other cameras whose sensor produces less noise at high ISOs. It says nothing of their comparative ability to be handheld at slow shutter speeds. It says nothing of the comparative capabilities of their lenses in low-light situations. It says nothing of their comparative ability to be used discreetly and unobtrusively. It does not address any parameters of low-light shooting capability other than sensor noise.

 

[Nikon Bob]

That conclusion is illogical. At most, we can say that it's high-ISO noise may be only slightly improved from the M8, and that there are other cameras whose sensor produces less noise at high ISOs. It says nothing of their comparative ability to be handheld at slow shutter speeds. It says nothing of the comparative capabilities of their lenses in low-light situations. It says nothing of their comparative ability to be used discreetly and unobtrusively. It does not address any parameters of low-light shooting capability other than sensor noise.

Amen, to that. I think I'll wait for a sizable body of actual field user results are in before I come to any conclusions.