jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Now that everybody has had his favorite snarl, this happens when you back up just a little bit: ISO 1600: Compare it to the artificial smoothness of the Nikon shot above.
"Everyone" - NOT! I'm not snarling at the images posted, look good to me.
I'm happy the M8 has an ISO 160 setting, and wish it had ISO 32 setting. "Bokeh" shots in full-daylight setting. The high-speed shutter is nice for those.
As far as the Sensor vs Signal processing debate: download the Technical Datasheets and look for the Signal to Noise ratio in terms of dark current. The Kodak datasheet is available for download. Does anyone have links to the Sensor Datasheets for the Nikon and Canon?
I'm happy the M8 has an ISO 160 setting, and wish it had ISO 32 setting. "Bokeh" shots in full-daylight setting. The high-speed shutter is nice for those.
As far as the Sensor vs Signal processing debate: download the Technical Datasheets and look for the Signal to Noise ratio in terms of dark current. The Kodak datasheet is available for download. Does anyone have links to the Sensor Datasheets for the Nikon and Canon?
Last edited:
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
IT wouldn't say much, Brian. CCD vs CMos- which means Nikon has considerable noisereduction on-sensor.
The Kodak datasheets for sensors tend to be definitive. Some of the other vendors "datasheets" read like marketing hype. Not always, but they can be annoying.
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/business/ISS/Products/Fullframe/index.jhtml?pq-path=11937/11938/14425
However- the point to be taken is that Noise Reduction can be done in software, whether on or off camera. Most cameras can apply some type of noise reduction before storing the image. The algorithms used make a difference. I'd rather use a low-ISO setting and a fast lens, or write my own.
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/business/ISS/Products/Fullframe/index.jhtml?pq-path=11937/11938/14425
However- the point to be taken is that Noise Reduction can be done in software, whether on or off camera. Most cameras can apply some type of noise reduction before storing the image. The algorithms used make a difference. I'd rather use a low-ISO setting and a fast lens, or write my own.
punkromance
Poor art student
Artificial smoothness...?
Ehh, not sure where you're getting this from. Here's a 100% of the below image. 1600 ISO, with no editing at all save the brightness boosted from 50 to 74 in Lightroom. No NR.
Hate to break it to you but for high ISO the M9 can't touch the D700.
jjovin
Established
Jaap, thanks for your images.
It appears to me that M9 is a superb performer at high ISO,
and it is a stellar performer at low ISO. Those who think that Nikon or Canon have better camera, well great for you. Use your cameras and be happy with them. Not everyone shares your opinion.
It appears to me that M9 is a superb performer at high ISO,
and it is a stellar performer at low ISO. Those who think that Nikon or Canon have better camera, well great for you. Use your cameras and be happy with them. Not everyone shares your opinion.
The fine point being made is analog performance from the sensor, noise introduced before the analog to digital conversion, digital signal processing applied in the camera, and back-end signal processing applied in the computer.
Anybody want to hook of an O-Scope to the analog output lines of their Sensor? I'll need someone to send me a D700 and an M9 for this. They will be returned in pieces.
Anybody want to hook of an O-Scope to the analog output lines of their Sensor? I'll need someone to send me a D700 and an M9 for this. They will be returned in pieces.
gho
Well-known
I find these comparisons are a bit hard to judge, because the scenes and light are so different. I would find it interesting to see the same scene taken with rather identical setups on the M9 and D700.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
So would I. That church shot -M9/Summilux 24 @ISO 640 - more detail, far more clarity and the gilt on the banisters would look like gold instead of yellow paint, I bet 
And that dog - where is the detail on the hair?
And that dog - where is the detail on the hair?
I demand that the 2D Fourier transform of the images be posted in addition to the spatial image, and that the images not be marked from which camera they came from.
Otherwise, you are just eyeballing it. And after all, the debate of high-ISO performance from these cameras does not appear to have anything to do with the actual end-result. Just seems to be a Nikon vs Leica vs Canon endless-loop debate.
AND: My Sensors Unlimited Near-IR sensor has them all beat. Especially with the Canon 50/0.95. I could light the room with a -10dBm Laser Diode.
Otherwise, you are just eyeballing it. And after all, the debate of high-ISO performance from these cameras does not appear to have anything to do with the actual end-result. Just seems to be a Nikon vs Leica vs Canon endless-loop debate.
AND: My Sensors Unlimited Near-IR sensor has them all beat. Especially with the Canon 50/0.95. I could light the room with a -10dBm Laser Diode.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Oh, ok. So, do you have a real sample of Leica Quality ISO-2500? I'd like to see it also compared with the Sony Cybershot's ISO 2500.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
On the nosey! (like Ee-gor said). I think the word "Leica" makes reason go out the door out most people's minds. It's all about "your team" and how viral you can be.
Can you measure more-money-spent-means-God-like-performance viral trends with a laser?
I wonder if in car forums you always get "my biodiesel Yugo can take me from point A to point B just like your Bentley!"
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
And worst of all, the M9 has a serious flaw: there is no auto-focus. The M9 can't touch the D700 in auto-focus performance lack of mirror, and the ability to have the word "Nikon" on it.
Settled: Leica is clearly a loser for not being exactly like Nikon.
punkromance
Poor art student
I never said anything about one camera being better than the other. I said in my first post the image looked fine, and while noisier than I would expect a FF sensor to be, I still thought it didn't ruin the photo at all. Then Jaap started throwing out silly statements like how the M9 deals with high ISOs better than the D700. I simply corrected him.
And your predictable little sarcastic "X is better than Y because of Z" dig about Leicas not having autofocus was lost on me too as I only have old manual focus lenses for my Nikon.
And Jaap, seriously, when your camera is churning out shots like this at 2500, please don't try and retort with "And that dog - where is the detail on the hair?" when yours looks smudged to high hell and back.
250swb
Well-known
Do not underestimate the ability of a photo vest and a wide strap with Nikon written on them to make you look like a twat. Its what a lot of people forget.
Steve
ampguy
Veteran
There's something weird about the right side of the image, the foreground and background, and left side seem somewhat in focus, but the patch of dirt and snow that goes up a meter or so looks out of focus, maybe this lens has a selective field curvature?? And the glow around the lights, did you leave the filters on from the M8 days??
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I typed that? Hmm, had no idea
punkromance said:
punkromance said:
Yeah, I clearly implied you owned a D700 (which is an auto-focus camera). How silly of me. :bang:
biggambi
Vivere!
Now that's funny!
There is no accurate way to do this comparison in this manner. This becomes a moot debate. When done in this manner. You need the same subject, light levels, the same aperture setting, shutter speed, and light. As Sweeney has already pointed out. The dark current, the cross contamination between sensors, etc. Must be taken into account. Not to mention you can not do a critical comparison on a monitor, if the final intent is to print. So, we need to establish final intent.
As for what is best, when it comes to low noise. If we are going to go down this road. Why would we stop with SLR's, If the purpose is to look to the highest standard. I am quite sure the larger sensor on a digital Hasselblad will produce a "cleaner" image. I understand the desire to compare cameras with similar or same sensor sizes. Or, with similar intent of use. It has merit, from an informative standpoint. But, I think one needs to be careful. SLR's are not RF... The reasons one chooses to use one type of camera system are varied. Both systems capture images, but they do so in a different manner.
In many ways, I think it would be more appropriate to compare RF performance with the best films vs digital. Also, I do not understand how one can not look at the system as a whole. It would seem that the standard for any one system should include what the lenses are capable of capturing. How close are we to reaching a system that is perfectly optimized.
Or, look to each cameras strengths and weaknesses with regard to intent. I would not try to argue that under the lowest of light conditions, I would opt for an M9. If lowest noise was my goal, and I did not care about the process. But, I do care. I find a RF system much more satisfying, as it brings me closer to the moment at hand. The more involved I am with the process, the closer I feel to the moment at hand. Also, there is a very strong tactile aspect that appeals to me.
I can not speak for anyone else. But, for me the current quest towards a single look is rather disappointing, from a historical perspective. One often chooses Leica for the look of the final print, when shooting film. All lenses have a unique fingerprint, and digital seems to be seeking to eliminate it. I would love to have an M9 that captured all that Leica has to offer in their lenses. That would seem to be the ultimate goal for me.
Just my thoughts...
