M9 Dynamic Range

C

crittertoo

Newbie
Local time
2:50 AM
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
4
Out of curiosity, anyone knows the dynamic range of the M9? How close is the DR to a human eye (the DR of the human eye is about 12 stops)

thanks
 
I didn´t knew that you could take HDRI files with the M9!
Interesting!
I am sorry I cannot answer your question.

Ernesto
 
Ansel Adams created his zone system to limit the exposure/develop/print process to 10 stops which was all that film/developers/paper could handle in large format.

I would guess the M9 would handle 7-8 stops if carefully exposed/processed/printed. I thought I read in one of Puts' article something about the dynamic range of the Leica digital cameras but it was a while back.
 
There is probably a difference between the technically possible range and a more useful one. When processing DNGs I often get a lot out of skies that are burnt out - but sometimes the colours are shifted and useless. Posterization also frequently occurs when pushing it.

I feel that the M8 at least has better dynamic range than a scanned positive - with the possible exception of medium format scanned on a Hasselblad. Tried that once, amazing result...
 
I would assume it all depends on how dynamic range is measured. I can shoot a Kodak Q13 and see all the steps with a M8. There are 20 steps in the Q13. However steps are not stops. If I expose so that the A patch reads 255 in RGB, then I get slightly less than 30/30/30 in the B patch which represents the last step that renders even the slightest shadow detail and a full 0/0/0 in step 19. This equates to roughly 6 stops of usable dynamic range in the M8. Some claim another stop for the M9. I'm not sure how they come by this as both cameras use the same sensor, though the M9 has made improvements in the micro lenses. Perhaps better noise reduction in the shadows gives rise to this claim. So lets go with 7 stops for the M9.
To put things in perspective, BetterLight claims 12-13 stops of dynamic range. When I use my BetterLight back, I need to shrink that range using curves to get to a 9-10 stop range required for reproducing art.
So, the M8 and M9 fall a little short of perfection but they are better than slide film, about the same as color neg portrait film and 75% of perfectly exposed and developed large format black and white film.
Works for me!

Tom
 
aniMal said:
There is probably a difference between the technically possible range and a more useful one. When processing DNGs I often get a lot out of skies that are burnt out - but sometimes the colours are shifted and useless. Posterization also frequently occurs when pushing it.

I feel that the M8 at least has better dynamic range than a scanned positive - with the possible exception of medium format scanned on a Hasselblad. Tried that once, amazing result...
Click to expand...
Posterisation can usually be avoided by working in 16 bits instead of 8 out of RAW conversion.
 
great response....i gather the conclusion is - after all the advancement...we are back to the basics again...COLOUR FILMs...:) unless we are talking about the latest Hassy/Phase One backs...!
 
Current digi sensors are better than slides, much like a mix of pro and amateur color neg.

There is always multiple processing of a raw file and HDR and it does not have to look like cartoon HDR if you do it right.

Raw converters, photoshop and NX, have a control to increase brightness of shadows.
This is like adding fill light after the fact.

The bottom line is there is more control with digi than you could ever get get with film short of masking and some obscure chemical baths.
 
Tom Niblick said:
I would assume it all depends on how dynamic range is measured. I can shoot a Kodak Q13 and see all the steps with a M8. There are 20 steps in the Q13. However steps are not stops. If I expose so that the A patch reads 255 in RGB, then I get slightly less than 30/30/30 in the B patch which represents the last step that renders even the slightest shadow detail and a full 0/0/0 in step 19. This equates to roughly 6 stops of usable dynamic range in the M8. Some claim another stop for the M9. I'm not sure how they come by this as both cameras use the same sensor, though the M9 has made improvements in the micro lenses. Perhaps better noise reduction in the shadows gives rise to this claim. So lets go with 7 stops for the M9.
To put things in perspective, BetterLight claims 12-13 stops of dynamic range. When I use my BetterLight back, I need to shrink that range using curves to get to a 9-10 stop range required for reproducing art.
So, the M8 and M9 fall a little short of perfection but they are better than slide film, about the same as color neg portrait film and 75% of perfectly exposed and developed large format black and white film.
Works for me!

Tom
Click to expand...

Interesting results Tom, I agree it depends on the testing methodology. I have been considering an M9 off and on for months, so I am trying to get a handle on the advantages for the cost difference when compared to my M8.

I reviewed the testing results of Erwin Puts and he has a DR @ISO 160 of 8 Stops/SNR of 47 for the M8 and 7 Stops/SNR 43.5 for the M9. As the ISO goes up to ISO 2500, he shows both cameras delivering around 6.5 stops/SNR 36. He includes the D3X as well; it is a different kettle of fish.

His analysis is here: http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/camera/page159/page159.html
 
Last edited:
I find the method for measuring DR using a Q13 more generally relevant than the imatest measure, I want to know how much visual contrast I'm dealing with, noise is secondary to me. Notice in the test that the D3x had a lot brighter shadows in it's curve than the M8/9, even though the imatest results were not that different in 'high quality' stops. The D3X's tonality is going to be a lot easier to deal with. Puts' conclusion was pretty amusing...
 
crittertoo said:
great response....i gather the conclusion is - after all the advancement...we are back to the basics again...COLOUR FILMs...:) unless we are talking about the latest Hassy/Phase One backs...!
Click to expand...
Not quite - the latest LFI article on the subject concludes that digital images from the better digital cameras the last few years have a larger dynamic range than film - if they are exposed properly and not "like film". The test results that suggest the opposite are supposed incorrect due to flawed methodology. Fwiiw. Maybe better to let theoretical debate be and just take photographs - each on his medium of choice. Fundamentalist exegesis on basis of wobbly theoretical values brings us nowhere.
 
gdi said:
Interesting results Tom, I agree it depends on the testing methodology. I have been considering an M9 off and on for months, so I am trying to get a handle on the advantages for the cost difference when compared to my M8.

I reviewed the testing results of Erwin Puts and he has a DR @ISO 160 of 8 Stops/SNR of 47 for the M8 and 7 Stops/SNR 43.5 for the M9. As the ISO goes up to ISO 2500, he shows both cameras delivering around 6.5 stops/SNR 36. He includes the D3X as well; it is a different kettle of fish.

His analysis is here: http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/camera/page159/page159.html
Click to expand...

GDI

There are so many different ways to measure the same thing. I just use the tools at hand. While I do have various Macbeth charts (which I use to profile my cameras and lighting setups), most of the time I just fall back on my Kodak Q13 and use the eyedropper in Photoshop or in the BetterLight software. The Q13 is a tool I've used since the late 60s and I'm quite comfortable with it. Its been on the edge of every painting I've shot for as long as I can remember. By measuring and manipulating the AMB patches, it is possible to get a perfect reproduction of art or a studio setup. White (gray) balance and exposure are easy to set with just a few clicks. Anyone can quickly master studio lighting ratios using this simple tool.
Puts's results are something not easily duplicated, so I just assume he's right. His work with Leica lenses is quite impressive. But for us working photographers, the latest cameras from Leica, Nikon and Canon are wonderful tools. We don't need to split hairs on this dynamic range business because the results we can get from our cameras are far superior than those possible from most films. Case in point, I used to shoot 4x5 and 8x10 chromes over exposed and under developed to get maximum dynamic range from cross polarized lighting. Regardless of the amount of light or quality of the scan (I used Crosfield and Hell drum scanners at that time) I could never reproduce both the highlight and shadow detail perfectly. With today's digital equipment, getting everything is never a problem.
As for M8 vs M9, the reason to go with a M9 is more about improvements in the camera than in dynamic range. The M9 is a better camera but the M8 is still great. No need to change for the range.

Tom
 
Tom Niblick said:
GDI

There are so many different ways to measure the same thing. I just use the tools at hand. While I do have various Macbeth charts (which I use to profile my cameras and lighting setups), most of the time I just fall back on my Kodak Q13 and use the eyedropper in Photoshop or in the BetterLight software. The Q13 is a tool I've used since the late 60s and I'm quite comfortable with it. Its been on the edge of every painting I've shot for as long as I can remember. By measuring and manipulating the AMB patches, it is possible to get a perfect reproduction of art or a studio setup. White (gray) balance and exposure are easy to set with just a few clicks. Anyone can quickly master studio lighting ratios using this simple tool.
Puts's results are something not easily duplicated, so I just assume he's right. His work with Leica lenses is quite impressive. But for us working photographers, the latest cameras from Leica, Nikon and Canon are wonderful tools. We don't need to split hairs on this dynamic range business because the results we can get from our cameras are far superior than those possible from most films. Case in point, I used to shoot 4x5 and 8x10 chromes over exposed and under developed to get maximum dynamic range from cross polarized lighting. Regardless of the amount of light or quality of the scan (I used Crosfield and Hell drum scanners at that time) I could never reproduce both the highlight and shadow detail perfectly. With today's digital equipment, getting everything is never a problem.
As for M8 vs M9, the reason to go with a M9 is more about improvements in the camera than in dynamic range. The M9 is a better camera but the M8 is still great. No need to change for the range.

Tom
Click to expand...

I appreciate your viewpoint, Tom. I don't take anything I read on the net as definitive, but try to take in what info I can from all sources I judge as generally reliable. Of course Puts has his critics, so I take his info with a grain of salt like all the others.

For me personally, I see his work as valuable due to the comparison of the two cameras I was trying to decide between. I use the M8 and I do not find the DR lacking. So the measured number of stops really are irrelevant for me. I am sure the M9 is better than the M8 in multiple areas, but for me the major cost to upgrade probably isn't worth it - I know it is for many people.
 
gdi said:
I appreciate your viewpoint, Tom. I don't take anything I read on the net as definitive, but try to take in what info I can from all sources I judge as generally reliable. Of course Puts has his critics, so I take his info with a grain of salt like all the others.

For me personally, I see his work as valuable due to the comparison of the two cameras I was trying to decide between. I use the M8 and I do not find the DR lacking. So the measured number of stops really are irrelevant for me. I am sure the M9 is better than the M8 in multiple areas, but for me the major cost to upgrade probably isn't worth it - I know it is for many people.
Click to expand...

I'm in the same boat... literally. I'm about to drop the price of a M9 on new sails and rigging so I'll be making due with my old M8 for another year or so. Its one or the other and since I'm about to do a crossing, possibly solo, I think the boat comes before the M9.

Tom
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom