Jonas
Established
He says that they are converted from DNG so send him an email and ask if you can get the DNG´s
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Well, you need the car. But, there are the children....
leicashot
Well-known
looks ok, looks equivelent to the 5D, but still 1.5 stops behind from ISO 800+ from first impressions.
gavinlg
Veteran
get the file, downsize it to 12mp equiv and run it through a chrome noise reduction. Looks better than 5d.
Though iso 2500 looks like a Boost ISO - it's not super pretty. ISO 1600 is fine though.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Oh dear, the 2500 ISO looks noisy...
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
"get the file, downsize it to 12mp equiv and run it through a chrome noise reduction. Looks better than 5d."
Why would you want to do that? That's kinda like downsizing a 5DII file , processing it, and saying it looks like the original 5D. I guess I don't understand.
Why would you want to do that? That's kinda like downsizing a 5DII file , processing it, and saying it looks like the original 5D. I guess I don't understand.
Matus
Well-known
That is my impression too. And the ISO 1600 (roof of some church) ... well ... I do not know. I not overly that sure it is better than D3 or 5DMkII. But i guess that direct comparisons will be out soon ...
R
Roberto
Guest
You sure it is good? I do not have a FF camera, just a poor EOS1000d, but to mee it is a bit noisy..
Rob.
morgan
Well-known
Yeah 2500 doesn't look great, but 1600 decent. The lower ISO shots look very very nice. I'm already plotting what I can sell as well. All my canon stuff (3k) + R-D1 + kidney = still not enough money.
PURWO
Newbie
thanks gavin for your sharing, would you try with cv or zeiss, agree for color & range also rendetion, superb image, especially in 24" monitor
morgan
Well-known
I'm drooling over the M9, but I don't think the higher ISO stuff comes even close to the 5DMk2 stuff I've seen.
Ken Shipman
Well-known
Not bad. The bottles (ISO 80 versus 2500) show some effect at 2500, but not all that bad considering I won't use that speed much. Colors seem well controlled if not brilliant, and the new IR filtering seems to be doing its job.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Well, the M8 was declared by many to be better than the 1Ds MIII, so I'm guessing the M9 will be compared to the Hasselblad digital.
gavinlg
Veteran
Because it's horses for courses. To compare with a 12mp camera, you should downsize an 18mp camera to 12mp, it's only fair.
It's not better than the d3 - definitely not. But it's near the original 5d which is the staple for low light shooting. In other words, it looks like it's good enough. More impressive is the color and dynamic range I'm seeing in those shots, much more impressive than any noise control.
chroma noise mainly, but it's other aspects that are impressing me, the noise control looks good - it's at the level where it doesn't matter anymore.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
Erik's ISO1600 shots look better than the DPReview sample but then again, Flickr compresses quite a bit.
The detail in the ISO1600 organ shot @ DPreview, to me, shows an awful lot of noise compared to what I've grown accustomed to from the 5D and, now, the D700.
The advances in high ISO really raise the bar for all camera companies (not just Leica) and therefore, you're not just going to need a really good sensor but you're going to have to balance that with good programming in the body to ensure a nice balance between detail and smoothness.
Cheers,
Dave
The detail in the ISO1600 organ shot @ DPreview, to me, shows an awful lot of noise compared to what I've grown accustomed to from the 5D and, now, the D700.
The advances in high ISO really raise the bar for all camera companies (not just Leica) and therefore, you're not just going to need a really good sensor but you're going to have to balance that with good programming in the body to ensure a nice balance between detail and smoothness.
Cheers,
Dave
gavinlg
Veteran
The low ISO shots can take a LOT of sharpening...
gavinlg
Veteran
Yeah in that church shot it's not as good as the 5d, but in Eriks iso1600 shot in the theatre it looks pretty similar. Either way, it looks like high ISO noise is no longer a problem for the digital M, or it wouldn't be for me anyway
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
I don't think the point is whether the output of the camera is actually better than existing cameras...there are amazing FF cameras out there already so the bar is pretty high. I think the whole point is that finally there is a FF sensor in an M digital.
LeicaFoReVer
Addicted to Rangefinders
That is exactly what I meant. However I agree that the church ceiling photo is looking good for 1600.
That photo 15 (320iso) is weird because it looks worse than that church ceiling (1600iso).
dimitris
Established
I am sorry folks but I am not impressed at all by these photos. Colors seem way off and there is no dynamic range at all. I hope its either post processing or the Jpeg conversion. On the photo with the bald guy there is a halo over his head!!! Kind of reminds me my very old Nikon D70.