M9 comparison photos on dpreview

[daveywaugh]

You do notice, though, that the Canon lens they used gets significantly softer towards the edge while the Leica lens doesn't. I guess what they say about Leica lenses is true after all 😉

That was one thing that stood out to me also. High ISO comments: agree of course ;-) But up to 400 I'd have the M9 over the others any day. I was particularly surprised by the 'plastic' look of the D3x.

As a designer I work with digi files everyday from different photographers. I am yet to use an M9 file unfortunately - I seem to get 95% 5DmkII and a bit of Hasselblad HxD at the high end. Processed my first Pentax 645D file the other day though and it was very nice.

I just really like the character of the files that come from the M9. How much 'post-processing' can mitigate that is another issue, but out of the camera, the Leica photos are wonderfully textured. Of course the lenses must attribute a lot to that.

 

[daveywaugh]

Actually, I had another look and you're right, it doesn't get softer. The problem is that the Canon seems to be focused a bit closer than the Leica (most noticeably if you look at the Queen of hearts card).

Yes that does seem to be the case - just saw your post and agree. Must be hard getting everything 100% for these types of tests. That's why it's dangerous to make assumptions from a single photo ;-)

 

[gavinlg]

The M9 doesn't look that bad at all (I don't own one BTW). That is not to say that the Canon and Nikon are not better and have an extended usable range, but I would not be unhappy with that level of noise from the M9. At least the detail is preserved at 2500. These things are all relative and don't indicate absolute usability at any given ISO for any given camera.

Yeah I agree 100% - I could use the m9 high ISO and never need any better I think...

 

[Vince Lupo]

It would be interesting to compare ISO 2500 on the M9 vs ISO 2500 of film. Any comparisons like that out there?

 

[celluloidprop]

It looks pretty ugly at 2500 in the shadows... in color.

Converted to B&W? Perfectly acceptable. Not stunning, but acceptable. I didn't play with curves much, but that's assuming the file is still workable in terms of dynamic range.

If I could justify $6k for a used M9, I'd still jump on one in a heartbeat.

 

[jsrockit]

It would be interesting to compare ISO 2500 on the M9 vs ISO 2500 of film. Any comparisons like that out there?

Yes, it would be...and it would reveal how spoiled we are now with high ISO.

 

[Vince Lupo]

I think this is the thing -- are we expecting ISO 2500 to look like ISO 100? In the approximately 34 years I've been taking pictures (including 3 years with the AP) I think I've shot at ISO 1600 once, and ISO 800 maybe about a dozen times. Perhaps I'm less adventurous than many others.

Film seems to have been the benchmark when assessing digital (maybe no more?), so maybe there needs to be a test like that. Let's see TMAX 3200 vs the M9 at 2500, or how about colour film shot at ISO 2500 compared to the M9 in colour at that speed?

 

[Keith]

I think this is the thing -- are we expecting ISO 2500 to look like ISO 100? In the approximately 34 years I've been taking pictures (including 3 years with the AP) I think I've shot at ISO 1600 once, and ISO 800 maybe about a dozen times. Perhaps I'm less adventurous than many others.

Film seems to have been the benchmark when assessing digital (maybe no more?), so maybe there needs to be a test like that. Let's see TMAX 3200 vs the M9 at 2500, or how about colour film shot at ISO 2500 compared to the M9 in colour at that speed?

Horses for courses ... my D700 is seldom below ISO 3200 and in the light I use it predominantly in ... that's where it needs to be at f2.

If Nikon hadn't made this camera with such staggering high ISO performance a lot of my photographs wouldn't exist ... were they wrong in going in this direction? Not for me they weren't and if Leica wan't to sell me a digital M they will have to come close to this standard.

 

[jsrockit]

If Nikon hadn't made this camera with such staggering high ISO performance a lot of my photographs wouldn't exist ... were they wrong in going in this direction? Not for me they weren't and if Leica wan't to sell me a digital M they will have to come close to this standard.

Of course they were not wrong and I love high ISO cameras personally, but I also love the M9. The M series hasn't been about innovation since the 50s... so I'm not so concerned that the M9 did not keep up with other digital cameras. It has given more pleasure to use than any camera ever... but I also have a X100 for when I need high ISO.

I think Vince's point is that the M9 is still pretty damn good when compared to high ISO film.

 

[Vince Lupo]

I love my D700 too, though here again I rarely shoot it above ISO 800 for the type of work that I do with it. I'm just wondering if our expectations have changed since these sensor wars have begun, and film is no longer the standard by which these digital cameras are measured.

As well, as far as the D700 goes, what's the safest hand-held shutter speed? Like maybe 1/30th, or 1/15th if you're lucky, and depending upon the lens you have on it? You can probably hand-hold the M9 at least two shutter speeds slower, and potentially negating the need for all that extra image performance at ISO 2500.

Just a couple of thoughts, but I could definitely be wrong in both regards!

 

[photogdave]

I think these DPReview comparisons are kind of useless because they can't put the same lens on the different sensors.

 

[dcsang]

I think these DPReview comparisons are kind of useless because they can't put the same lens on the different sensors.

I think this is true if you're looking at sharpness and all that but I looked at this comparison yesterday and it was the ISO comparisons that disappointed me. I know there are no other options for a digital rangefinder right now (beyond the well used R-D1s) so if I want a digital full frame rangefinder I have to buy the M9.

I may never use ISO 2500 but even at ISO 1600 (which I would use often) disappoints me. I know many are happy with their M9's and I've waffled between getting one and not getting one but this type of comparison (regardless of what lens was used) has soured my ideas of acquiring the M9.

I'll just wait it out till Leica decide to do something about the sensor/image processing combination in their next camera.

Cheers,
Dave

 

[_mark__]

What lenses were used I cant find the info?

 

[Keith]

I love my D700 too, though here again I rarely shoot it above ISO 800 for the type of work that I do with it. I'm just wondering if our expectations have changed since these sensor wars have begun, and film is no longer the standard by which these digital cameras are measured.

As well, as far as the D700 goes, what's the safest hand-held shutter speed? Like maybe 1/30th, or 1/15th if you're lucky, and depending upon the lens you have on it? You can probably hand-hold the M9 at least two shutter speeds slower, and potentially negating the need for all that extra image performance at ISO 2500.

Just a couple of thoughts, but I could definitely be wrong in both regards!

Hi Vince,

It's true that the digital M is very hand holdable down to some pretty impressively low shutter speeds but the D700 has surprised me in this area ... far better than I expected in fact. I regularly use shutter speeds below 1/30 without any real problem though sharpness is not an absolute priority for me. Subject motion blur is the main issue at these speeds though I don't really mind that either. 😀

 

[Lss]

Regarding noise, all four cameras (M9, 5DII, D3s, A900) appear perfectly usable. The M9 seems to give the best detail overall, although there must be a difference in focus plane. The output of the other cameras gets smudgier with increasing ISO. On the other hand, the noise level certainly appears better controlled on the DSLRs. A quick look reveals some disturbing problems with D3s and A900 (e.g. center of image, both JPEG and RAW), although this should not be anything to worry about in real life.

Meh. I guess it would be nice to have a super-high-ISO-with-noise-reduction mode on the M10. Ignore it or use it.

 

[luuca]

as a former A900 and actual M9 user, the test corresponds to my experience, except for sharpness (my M9 shots have never been so soft...)

just for fun, here you are an EXTREME (for m9 at least 😀 ) high iso shot from my leica...

DNG
1/8
f1,4
iso 2500 "pushed" @ 5000 in lightroom 😀

 

[rogerzilla]

Were these JPEGs off the camera? The M9 is notorious for making poor JPEGs; shooting RAW and then converting in third party software works better.

 

[Ronald M]

My D700 and D3 are stuck on ISO 200 99% of the time. So what does high ISO matter?

I used Kodachrome 25 for decades without complaining.

But if you want to take pics in the dark without a tripod and without flash, Nikon or Canon is the way to go. Not much differnt than cars. If you want to carry 4 weeks lugage, wife and three kids, don`t buy a sports car.

Nice clean files with auto focus, think about a S2 and empty bank account.