M9 Sample pictures enclosed:

I just did a very quick develop of a DNG a friend sent me from one of the events- much better color than the M8 hands down.
 
I didn't adjust the saturation or vibrance at all and got color like I get with the M8 with some pretty good tweaks there- yet the M9 colors don't look hyper real at all. No changes to temperature either- seems like the new IR filters are much better than the threaded ones- whites are nice and white without any cast, and no wacky purple-black. If it handles as well as an M7 I'm going to like this camera a lot.

This was ISO 160- I don't shoot the M8 much higher than 320 very often at all, most often at 160.
 
Last edited:
This really shows you how much better the 50/1.4 is than the WATE (no surprise). Still, there's some pretty wicked purple fringing in this 50/1.4 shot: http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/leicam9_preview/originals/l1070519.jpg
To be fair, pretty much any camera/lens would have issues on that shot.

ISO1600 looks pretty blotchy with the colors, but good in terms of detail retention. Seems about a stop behind the 5D II in terms of high-ISO performance. ISO640 looks pretty smooth though. This is still beta firmware, so there's no point making final judgements, but it's clear that high-ISO performance isn't their priority (not that there's anything wrong with that).

Terrible bokeh on this 35/2 shot (doesn't say which version... but I'm assuming it's the latest): http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/leicam9_preview/originals/l1070950_aw.jpg
But that isn't really the camera's fault.
 
Sam N said:
EXIF says it's ISO1600. B&W is a good way to get rid of the color blotching as long as you don't do crazy things with the greyscale mixing. It's still a bit grainy but it looks pretty good overall.
Click to expand...

Interesting that you use the word "grainy" instead of "noisy". Grainy came to my mind also, as in B&W film.
 
furcafe said:
Agree w/you on the 1st point, but I think there are plenty of photojournalists that care about high ISO noise (or lack thereof). The relative merits of Tri-X & other B&W isn't really relevant because 1 of the great things about digital is that it's such an improvement over high-speed color film @ high ISOs.
Click to expand...

Yep.. bingo.

Highest ISO film I ever shot that was "any good" was Fuji NPZ (colour Neg - no push). I liked it but boy, it would have been great in the darker churches/banquet halls to be able to use ISO 2500+ but that, at least to me, wasn't possible only back 7-8 years ago.

High ISO is what a lot of folks want :)

Cheers,
Dave
 
I'm wondering what people can fixate on for improving their prints, er, screen images, after high-iso.
 
Just saw Phil Askey's comments on his dpreview previews at high ISO:

1. Beta camera

2. Beta ACR (with no profile for the camera) (JPEGs are cleaner)

3. ISO 1600 +0.5 EV (the extra was added in ACR, so it's more like ISO 2200)

4. I think nobody's under any illusions that this Kodak sensor is going to be as clean as a Canon CMOS.
 
People get more greedy year by year. 5 years ago no one dreamed about so good 1600, now it is "too noisy". If a picture does not look good with this ISO 1600 then perhaps its content is weak, not that the sensor is too noisy... :)
 
AhtoT said:
People get more greedy year by year. 5 years ago no one dreamed about so good 1600, now it is "too noisy". If a picture does not look good with this ISO 1600 then perhaps its content is weak, not that the sensor is too noisy... :)
Click to expand...

Not more greedy, the bar just keeps getting set higher. When you're paying 7k for a camera, it should probably be in the same technological ball park as other high end cameras. I know it's apples and oranges and watermelons and whatever, but people are going to compare. For me, it's just that rangefinders (as really defined by Leica) are all about available light. I feel like whatever lens I'm using it's almost always wide open. Why wouldn't I want more stops of clean files?
 
Well theres a lot of shots taken wide open here.
This makes it very difficult to assess corner sharpness.
I think the higher ISO images look noisy.
Some of you may remember the initial M8 review which compared noise against the Canon 5D mark I. One reviewer affectionally referred to the colour noise as "LeicaChrome" and conveniently ignored it. Well we were all so pleased to have an M8 that early adopters did too. But clearly it has become an issue. Personally I would expect a £5,000 new release camera to do better at ISO1600. It has been favourably compared to a 5D, but that is a 4 year old! I do not think for a minute the M9 can get close to the D3 / D700 sensor, but time will tell.

I would not be surprised to find early adopters are in for a series of software fix updates to improve corner sharpness and high iso performance.

Available light work has always been my reason for using a rangefinder, but VR and high ISO performance from the class leading DSLR's are certainly encroaching on this teratory. Obviously the high ISO issue is less of a problem for a rangefinder since one can generally work at lower shutter speeds and wider appertures with rangefinders. The issue for me would be more the limitation on pushing exposure for under exposed shadow areas. Clearly exposure accuracy will be paramount.

I might just pass on this M9 and wait for the D4 whith 14MP sensor.

Richard
 
Just to clarify, I may have gotten a little excited comparing it to my 5d - at ISO1600 it looks pretty similar, maybe slightly worse. But still totally acceptable. At ISO2500 it looks quite a bit more noisy than the 5d at 3200... Makes me think that the 2500 setting may actually be a boost on the kodak sensor. Even though the 5d is 5 years old, it's still comparable to the d700/d3, and in real world use they're all at the point where it doesn't matter. I'll bet the m8 will be able to be used at iso1600 easily.

My point is, don't worry about noise - I feel it's gotten to the point where it doesn't matter as much as DR and color etc.

Also, I feel the DR is pretty impressive in those pics, as well as the colors. Others may not agree, but knowing DPreviews test pictures, I think it did really really well..
 
CMOS vs CCD

CMOS vs CCD

I just wanted to add a word of caution on comparing apples to oranges with the M9 verses various dSLRs out of Japan from Canon and Nikon. The CCD in the M9 is very different then the CMOS image sensors in the the other cameras and it has a big impact on noise.

CMOS sensors can be "read twice"---that is, clocking out the image from the sensor is non-destructive. A dark frame can be clocked out first, then the image taken and the image clocked out. This gives a noise reference frame, then an image frame. This allows for considerable noise reduction.

CCDs clock out a destructive read. You get the image, but that is it. So the noise reference frame is not available. Therefore the noise is more prevalent in final form and will show greater at high ISO. The counter point is that CCDs can be made with a very high signal to noise ratio.

The Kodak sensors in the M8 and M9 perform like medium format camera backs, especially since its basically the same image sensor technology. MF backs are not known for high ISO performance, but have superb image quality.

If the M9 proves out in the field, the real hallmark is in achieving full frame at all, then doing so with rangefinder lenses that have very small amounts of chromatic aberration, which is resolution robbing. If Leica has achieved that, they are home free. A huge gain to digital photography....

Pete
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/images/smilies/banghead.gif
 
call me greedy or whatevery you prefer, but it's too noisy.
I don't even need to do pixel peeping.Even in a size that fits on the screen fully, it is noisy.

Greedy is a funny idea anyway, since i'll never afford it so yeah, go ahead and buy it and convince yourself how great it is ;)
 
Humm not impress at all for an 1 million dollars camera... !
And they are some labyrinth pattern "Nyquist frequency" (That is not acceptable at all !!!)

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