Richard Marks
Rexel
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 betAnd that dog - where is the detail on the hair?
Dear JAAP
Are you referring to my humble offering of the shot in Hexam Abbey?
Firstly it was ISO 6400 not 640! I would be worried if an M9 at 640 were not showing more detail (as would the D700 shot) but at 6400 I really do not think the M9 would get a look in 24 lux or no?(Does it go that high?). As for the 24 lux I am sure that is also wondeful but it might struggle to get this much detail as it was taken at around 14mm!
Regarding the rail in the front of the shot it is made of a rather dull brass which is quite yellow. If you managed to make it look like gold you would be doing it a dis-service.
Your earlier comment referred to the 'artificial smoothness' of the Nikon image. I rather think smoothness is quite a good attribute at ISO6400. If i wanted it a bit rougher there is always ISO 12,800.
Regarding the fact that CMOS sensors have on board processing this is quite true. My post simply said I had not added any noise reduction myself to the RAW image.
I genuinely belive the M9 capable of some very good images as was the M8 before it but I genuinely do not consider hi ISO performance its strong point. By all accounts its a stop better than an M8. Thats about what your picture suggests. Acceptable but nothing to write home about. Its going to feel very dated in not so many months in my opinion.
Incidentally if you are in the UK I can recommend Hexam Abbey. Nearby Hadrains wall is brilliant for landscapes too.
best wishes
Richard
I guess this would subtract out "hot pixels", ones that are noisier than the surrounding pixels. More efficient than storing a calibration table for non-uniformity and hot pixel map? You have to assume the noise is static, not changing as it would with the electronic noise of the camera and surrounding environment creeping into the image.
LeicaM3
Well-known
Yawn....
Almost every time I read on the digital forum I regret it.
Just another run of irrelevant images of dog hair or cats to show that digital has made some progress.
Almost every time I read on the digital forum I regret it.
Just another run of irrelevant images of dog hair or cats to show that digital has made some progress.
gb hill
Veteran
Ok I admit that with the settings you speak of you guys are right! I still don't see anything to be thrilled about because in all actuallity it's all about the finished product. Here is a test a friend of mine did on his G-11. The camera shows alot of noise at 3200.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joebokeh/4009748016/in/photostream/
Here is the photograph...Not bad!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joebokeh/4009766638/in/photostream/
Here is one from flickr friend Magnus @ 3200 under ambient light
http://www.flickr.com/photos/viridari/4174734905/
But we are talking about a $450.00 camera vs a $7.000 camera!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joebokeh/4009748016/in/photostream/
Here is the photograph...Not bad!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joebokeh/4009766638/in/photostream/
Here is one from flickr friend Magnus @ 3200 under ambient light
http://www.flickr.com/photos/viridari/4174734905/
But we are talking about a $450.00 camera vs a $7.000 camera!
Okay. So basically we've arrived at the consensus that High-ISO requires signal processing to be performed either in the camera or in the computer after the image is downloaded. The Nikon and Canon DSLR's are big, and have big-powerful batteries. They do a lot of processing in the camera. The M9 is smaller and lighter, and packs a much smaller battery. It does not expend the space and power required for in-camera processing. So it needs the extended processing done in a computer.
Last edited:
biggambi
Vivere!
jaapv: Have you made any prints from it? Have you compared any critical shots with an M8 or film? I would love to hear what you are seeing? What print size do you feel is attainable, before the image quality falls off?
thanks
thanks
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I have made prints all my life. My personal preference - my old Cibachrome prints from Kodachrome 25 - alas no more nowadays. My second preference - Professionally made laser prints or professionally profiled inkjet prints from DMR files, with the M9 vying for that second place - third preference M8 - after that - well, a mish-mash of prints....
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Yawn again - a predictable knee-jerk post from the film ghetto - there is more, Horatio, etc....
Last edited:
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Not criticizing the quality of the image, Richard
For 6400, I doubt one could do better. It is just that the processing of such images lack something that -not just the M9- but any other high-end camera will produce at lower ISO. I fear even higher ISO would only aggaravate the problem. BTW, how many months before a 91200 ISO cam will make the current crop of DSLRs feel dated?
Last edited:
Richard Marks
Rexel
Dear FriendNot criticizing the quality of the image, Richard
For 6400, I doubt one could do better. It is just that the processing of such images lack something that -not just the M9- but any other high-end camera will produce at lower ISO. I fear even higher ISO would only aggaravate the problem. BTW, how many months before a 91200 ISO cam will make the current crop of DSLRs feel dated?
Sorry if i miss understood.
Agreed lower ISO= more detail and certainly one can not yet claim equivalence in resolution irrespective of ISo.
Regarding digital updates, agreed its a pretty endless cycle. Until we find something else to winge about digital noise is certainly the thing to improve. Agreed my D700 will be displaced by a D700s probably March (slight improvements) and the D4 lineage will probably be 2011 at the earliest with substantial improvements. The real issue is the total outlay is considerably less. If I were to invest in an M9 I would at least want the noise issue to be up there with a 2 year old DSLR given the sum involved.
Best wishes
Richard
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
The nice thing about these DRFs is that they are far less pressured to upgrade within a short span of time. Just look at the proportion of posters here that don't want or need an M9 - and with reason. Far larger than the number of D70 shooters on Nikon forums
biggambi
Vivere!
Jaap: Your choice for a reference print is a fine one, as I am sure it is the same choice for many of us. I should be more clear. The resolution on a screen is considerably less then print. Some forms of noise artifacts need to be critically analyzed in a different medium than the one we are using to view your pictures. I just wondered if you had looked this critically at the problem.
One thing I am interested in, what are you seeing with regard to color artifacts in the spurious resolution?
Secondly, while the lights you have give me some idea. Light sources are a real problem. Do you have any other examples or response to what you are seeing in this area?
thank you
One thing I am interested in, what are you seeing with regard to color artifacts in the spurious resolution?
Secondly, while the lights you have give me some idea. Light sources are a real problem. Do you have any other examples or response to what you are seeing in this area?
thank you
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Yes - it was a misty night..On specular highlights I have not seen the blue halos the M8 produces yet on the M9 after about 4000 shots. Nor have I seen any of the labyrinth artefacts.
Last edited:
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
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:
Richard Marks
Rexel
Dear JAAPThe nice thing about these DRFs is that they are far less pressured to upgrade within a short span of time. Just look at the proportion of posters here that don't want or need an M9 - and with reason. Far larger than the number of D70 shooters on Nikon forums
I am ot sure if you are including me in this generalisation. However for clarification for any one still reading this thread I did have an M8 for 3 years. Jumped ship whilst awaiting the M9 and have been overwhelmed by the price of the M9 and underwhelmed by the advances over the M8 and genuinely impressed by the D700. I continue to shoot film on my M7. I am sure that I will at some stage re invest in a digital RF but am still unsre about the M9. Unfortunately supplies of M9's are so scarce that there is not the opportunity to give it a fair evaluation. As such threads such as this one get a lot of attention. Personally If i was going to vaunt the high ISO performance I would have posted an image which made the case a bit more decisively. The picture does not seem much different to my departed M8.
As for less pressure to upgrade DRF's there may be some truth in this however Leica did release the substantially improved M8.2 in less than 3 years and the M9 the year after. Not so different to the D700 life cycle but the capital outlay is considerably greater. I suspect threre will be M9 upgrades in less than 12 months. My money is on the LCD screen for starters. (at least it ought to be).
Best wishes
Richard
Richard Marks
Rexel
Dear Steve
I find your choice of language offensive and I suspect a number of females may take particular exception.
If I were a moderator i would have no difficulty in removing your post.
Richard
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Wow ... good to see high end digital gear being put to such excellent use ... more dog shots, please! :angel:
The nice thing about these DRFs is that they are far less pressured to upgrade within a short span of time. Just look at the proportion of posters here that don't want or need an M9 - and with reason. Far larger than the number of D70 shooters on Nikon forums
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.
Ben Z
Veteran
I find that for many of the shots where I need to crank up the ISO, the viewfinder blackout of a reflex becomes an issue even if the slap doesn't. Thus although I readily admit that both my 20D and 5D-1 produce about 2 stops less noise than my M8 above 640, unless its a shot I can do on a tripod, the M8 gives me the better results in terms of content. If I miss the decisive moment, it's the delete button regardless of if the shot is noise-free.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
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.
Last edited: