M9-iso 2500

[Gid]

Back to the OP. Jaap said "pretty good". He didn't say as good as it gets or better than brand X, Y, or Z.

From personal experience I know the M8 isn't a patch on my Canon 5D at high ISOs (or the Epson RD1 for that matter). The M9 may have improved high ISO noise a bit, but it still isn't as good as the competition (does it really have any competition?). However, comparative performance is, sort of, irrelevant if, in absolute terms, it is good enough. So the question should be "Is it good enough for my needs?", not "Is it as good as the best?". If it isn't good enough for your needs then don't buy one.

 

[Davidin10003]

How can you say that?

How can you say that?

Yawn at the Yawn. Yaawwwwnnn...


When somebody talks about how great their coffee mug is, some clown always barges in saying "Carrot juice is the best drink ever!"

Just kidding. They say "beer is the best drink ever!" :angel:

Gabriel we all know that beer is great, but Scotch whiskey is the greatest drink ever. 😉

Sorry, I couldn't resist. Good point though...for me its enough to say that the M9 is better at high ISO than the M8/8.2 and it will hopefully meet my needs. It's not "better" at high ISO than my 5DII, but everything is a tradeoff.

 

[jaapv]

Back to the OP. Jaap said "pretty good". He didn't say as good as it gets or better than brand X, Y, or Z.

From personal experience I know the M8 isn't a patch on my Canon 5D at high ISOs (or the Epson RD1 for that matter). The M9 may have improved high ISO noise a bit, but it still isn't as good as the competition (does it really have any competition?). However, comparative performance is, sort of, irrelevant if, in absolute terms, it is good enough. So the question should be "Is it good enough for my needs?", not "Is it as good as the best?". If it isn't good enough for your needs then don't buy one.

That is right, Gid, it has improved by about two ISO values. That is, for a CCD sensor, about the best we can expect today. With all the low-ISO advantages of a CCD sensor I would say that Leica has struck a good compromise for most uses, but obviously not for all.
We must remember that it is always a compromise. It is logical, with the megapixel race dead in the water and the Full-Frame marketing hype replaced with horses for courses, that High ISO is the main area for marketing leapfrog for Canon and Nikon, which obviously influences the technical choices made. I wonder what the next thing will be in a few years' time...

 

[_mark__]

**** N**kon

 

[Richard Marks]

I can understand a pro wedding or glamor photographer needing to upgrade to the latest equipment. The quality of the delivered prints are essential.

I take great satisfaction in using a Nikon E3 (1998 vintage) and D1x (2002 vintage) for technical reports at work. Put a 60/2.8 and SB-29 on the full-frame E3, does fine. They're all I need to deliver the product. After working with Digital imaging for thirty years, I do not play the continuous upgrade game. They both have straps that say "Nikon". They have red Stripes on the grip, not Red Dots. I could not justify an M9 for work, using a Viso-Flex would be a pain compared to the Micro-Nikkors.

Dear Brian

I do consider live view quite a considerable recent advance for critical focusing macro lenses. Enlarging the central portion really helps. However as you say you have all you need. no need to look any further job done!

Best wishes

Richard

 

[Richard Marks]

Dear Richard,

Oh, come on! 'Nikon' isn't THAT vulgar a word.

Besides, a lot of it's cultural. remember Sarkozy and casse-toi, pauv'con?

Cheers,

R.

Dear Roger

What has Sarkozy got to do with Nikon? Surely thats not cultural!

Regards

Richard

 

[jaapv]

Well, if your queen uses an M6, he is sure to use something BIGGER! 😀

 

[Makten]

This discussion is a bit ridiculous. The M9 is great at ISO 2500, for what it is; a CCD sensor optimized for low ISO speeds. The Nikon FX sensors are better at 3200, but who cares? I've got the D700, and still I'd rather have an M9 even for high ISO shots. It would be good enough, while also having the ability to focus accurately at very low light. Yes, I can focus more accurately with my M8 than the AF on the D700 can, when light is very low.

The Nikon 12 mpix sensor in a Leica M body would be killer! But it doesn't exist such a camera. So, choose your tool carfully and be happy with it.

 

[250swb]

Back to the OP. Jaap said "pretty good". He didn't say as good as it gets or better than brand X, Y, or Z.

From personal experience I know the M8 isn't a patch on my Canon 5D at high ISOs (or the Epson RD1 for that matter). The M9 may have improved high ISO noise a bit, but it still isn't as good as the competition (does it really have any competition?). However, comparative performance is, sort of, irrelevant if, in absolute terms, it is good enough. So the question should be "Is it good enough for my needs?", not "Is it as good as the best?". If it isn't good enough for your needs then don't buy one.

Well OK, would you say that if you wanted to make the best night time photo that you could from your Canon 5D you would still use a tripod and a low ISO? If not, what is your point? That the Canon 5D can make second rate images better than a Leica M9? This holds true for a Nikon D700 as well. And the ISO debate is all about which camera can make second rate images better that the others, because the lowest ISO still rules, and as long as you are allowed to use a tripod by the thought police it will always rule. Each camera has its sweet spot for use, but at least the Leica has its sweet spot in a tradition of available light work that doesn't need to look like it was made in bright daylight to be acceptable. As things stand in the 5D and D700 camp it would seem the best thing to do is apologise for all your previous work because its not as good as your current camera, and apologise for your current camera because it isn't as good as the 6D and D800 will be. Steve
once again apologies for all the text running together, I have no idea why para breaks don't appear.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Dear Brian

I do consider live view quite a considerable recent advance for critical focusing macro lenses. Enlarging the central portion really helps. However as you say you have all you need. no need to look any further job done!

Best wishes

Richard

I always regarded SLR's as live view. Never required more for the macro work. If I needed more, I'd use the Microscopes with the Digital camera on them. Nikon, Zeiss, and Olympus. As for "bleeding edge", Zeiss Deep-View. Had to cancel an order for a $130K microscope, they could not meet spec. Software problems.

 

[Gid]

Well OK, would you say that if you wanted to make the best night time photo that you could from your Canon 5D you would still use a tripod and a low ISO? If not, what is your point? That the Canon 5D can make second rate images better than a Leica M9? This holds true for a Nikon D700 as well. And the ISO debate is all about which camera can make second rate images better that the others, because the lowest ISO still rules, and as long as you are allowed to use a tripod by the thought police it will always rule. Each camera has its sweet spot for use, but at least the Leica has its sweet spot in a tradition of available light work that doesn't need to look like it was made in bright daylight to be acceptable. As things stand in the 5D and D700 camp it would seem the best thing to do is apologise for all your previous work because its not as good as your current camera, and apologise for your current camera because it isn't as good as the 6D and D800 will be. Steve
once again apologies for all the text running together, I have no idea why para breaks don't appear.

For clarity. My point is that the performance of any camera should be judged on its usefulness to the owner, not how good it is relative to any other camera - that is, is it good enough. I made no comparison between the Canon 5D and the Leica M9. Also, what is all that crap about second rate images? Clearly you've let the Leica red mist get to you - perhaps read my post a little more slowly or go and have a lie down.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Roger

What has Sarkozy got to do with Nikon? Surely thats not cultural!

Regards

Richard

Dear Richard,

Consider the orginal meaning of 'con'.

Words like 'Nikon', 'con' and 'twat' have different weights in different circles and at different times.

As for culture, wenn ich Kultur hoere, entsichere ich meinen Browning (I release the safety catch on my pistol). The quote is of course Hanns Johst, not Goering.

Mit freundlich Grueßen,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

For clarity. My point is that the performance of any camera should be judged on its usefulness to the owner, not how good it is relative to any other camera - that is, is it good enough. I made no comparison between the Canon 5D and the Leica M9. Also, what is all that crap about second rate images? Clearly you've let the Leica red mist get to you - perhaps read my post a little more slowly or go and have a lie down.

Nor, indeed, how good it is relative to any other camera for another purpose.

The best camera in the world is the one that gives you the images you want, in the situations you shoot in, as easily as possible.

For me, M9.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Well I just used my Nikon 5cm f2 lens on the M8 for the first time. Well balanced and first-rate combination. 100% crops, the Nikkor looks good. Will be putting a side-by-side up with a Zeiss Sonnar and Summicron.

I have a 43mm IR cut filter coming in. I'll be using more Nikkors on the Leica.

Right now- M8. Next camera will be an M9. Unless the D1x dies at work. Then I'll spend someone else's money on a D3x.

 

[biggambi]

Gabriel we all know that beer is great, but Scotch whiskey is the greatest drink ever. 😉

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Oh, it had to be said. Now where's the bloody bottle? Because, these are things to argue over.

 

[250swb]

For clarity. My point is that the performance of any camera should be judged on its usefulness to the owner, not how good it is relative to any other camera - that is, is it good enough. I made no comparison between the Canon 5D and the Leica M9. Also, what is all that crap about second rate images? Clearly you've let the Leica red mist get to you - perhaps read my post a little more slowly or go and have a lie down.

'Second rate images' , hmmm, its you who should read the posts more carefully. I made no assumption at all that an M9 image is better, I simply said that if you use anything other than the optimal ISO its not perfection in the eyes of pixel peepers. This applies to any camera.

Steve

 

[Gid]

'Second rate images' , hmmm, its you who should read the posts more carefully. I made no assumption at all that an M9 image is better, I simply said that if you use anything other than the optimal ISO its not perfection in the eyes of pixel peepers. This applies to any camera.

Steve

You said a bit more than that. If all you had said was what is in the quote above I would have had no argument.

 

[Richard Marks]

Well, if your queen uses an M6, he is sure to use something BIGGER! 😀

I wonder if she is into rangefinder forum?
The sponsorship might come in handy🙂

 

[Richard Marks]

I always regarded SLR's as live view. Never required more for the macro work. If I needed more, I'd use the Microscopes with the Digital camera on them. Nikon, Zeiss, and Olympus. As for "bleeding edge", Zeiss Deep-View. Had to cancel an order for a $130K microscope, they could not meet spec. Software problems.

Brian
I cant imagine your D1x is ever likely to pack up. But I can honestly recommend the live view function for macro if you were ever to replace it. If I remeber the playback screen on the D1x is tiny but with a decent size screen and the ability to enlarge portions of the image this actually becomes very useful. Critical focusing is a doddle. maybe one day you might try it!

Regards

Richard

 

[Richard Marks]

Dear Richard,

Consider the orginal meaning of 'con'.

Words like 'Nikon', 'con' and 'twat' have different weights in different circles and at different times.

As for culture, wenn ich Kultur hoere, entsichere ich meinen Browning (I release the safety catch on my pistol). The quote is of course Hanns Johst, not Goering.

Mit freundlich Grueßen,

R.

Dear Roger

The original post was really not very polite and I am sorry that you feel the need to run to dubious arguments about cultural context in its defence. However be reassured, I promise never to call you a Nikon.

Cheers

Richard