We don't need no high ISO's

[Stuart John]

However high the Hi ISO race goes people will always demand more. Photographers are rather spoiled today and seem to be constanly looking for the magic bullet. Better hi ISO performace won't improve most people photos sure the images will be cleaner but the content will remain the same and the quest for the next latest and greatest camera will continue.

 

[Sparrow]

.... well iso is a lot better than asa was, you were lucky to get beyond 500 with your asa, and don't even ask about din, 27 was pushing it in din :yes:

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Kodak is one of the few companies to post "long sheets" on their products, although the KAF-18500 is not up.

On the sensor used in the M8, the nominal total noise figure (includes amplifier and system noise) is given as 18 electrons.

http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins...ISS/datasheet/fullframe/KAF-10500LongSpec.pdf

I found some long sheets on older CMOS sensors. Most of them included information on signal processing applied in acquiring the signal. The Kodak CCD's tend to give a true "Raw" readout.

To compare the true sensor noise of the Kodak based Leica cameras with a CMOS based SLR, the native noise of the CMOS sensor is required. Comparing noise measured in electrons allows "apples to apples" comparisons. Anything else is a comparison of CCD raw output compared with CMOS processed output. The Leica uses a 16-bit RISC processor that is more of a data flow engine rather than signal processing engine.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Quite honestly, even the M9 at 2500 is better than any colour film at 2500, so even though I hope an M10 (or whatever) will deliver better quality at higher speeds, the M9 is still pretty amazing.

Cheers,

R.

Yes. I don't compare the M9 to DSLRs, I compare it to film Ms. And it compares very favorably. When occasionally I need to shoot in very low light, I use my DSLR. Why must an M compete?

The CCD sensor has a distinctive look. I wouldn't want to sacrifice it for better low light performance.

 

[Luna]

Wow. DxO is still flipping tricks. And people are still buying into them.

 

[dseelig]

I am shooting a personal project right now using mostly M9s. However when I go to no ligth zones needing 3200 to 6400 I have to take my canon mk1v out as the m9 just does not cut it. Mind you I have 24 through 75 summilux lenses. With the canon I am shooting 24 , 35 50 and 85 L . I hate carrying the extra weight but I have to get the shot I have to shoot the canons.

 

[furcafe]

I compare my film Leicas w/film SLRs & my M9 w/dSLRs. IMHO, it is perfectly reasonable (as a photographer, maybe not as an electronics engineer) to expect any digital M to compete w/dSLRs because it is used by many, such as me, instead of a dSLR. I don't think the world has gotten darker, it's just that people are shooting available light in places where in years past they would have used flash or not shot @ all. Why should I be forced to buy a big, fat D700 or 5D or be stuck using f/1 & f/1.4 just to shoot digital in low light? It's not that Leica must compete, but it would be nice if they did.

Of course, like any other group of photographers, Leica users come in all types & I know there are plenty of people who are happy w/slow Elmars & low ISOs, just as there were back in the days of film. The problem is there is no Leica-mount camera that excels @ high ISOs. As I've written before, my ideal solution would be for Leica to offer 2 separate models: 1 for daylight shooters (like the current M9) & 1 optimized for available darkness (perhaps w/fewer, but bigger pixels & a native ISO of 400 or higher). Like it or not, in the digital era, camera manufacturers must be "film" suppliers, too. Unfortunately, this is probably beyond the capabilities of the current company & would probably require partnering up w/1 of the Japanese manufacturers (I would vote for Sony, since they make sensors & are the successor to Minolta).

Yes. I don't compare the M9 to DSLRs, I compare it to film Ms. And it compares very favorably. When occasionally I need to shoot in very low light, I use my DSLR. Why must an M compete?

The CCD sensor has a distinctive look. I wouldn't want to sacrifice it for better low light performance.

 

[Richard G]

At short notice I discovered my good friend was delivering his inaugural professorial lecture. I had my M5 with 50 1.5 at work with me, but only 100 ISO film. This is straight out of your chapter in the Leica Manual. The camera on the front rail and lots of shots at 1/4 and even 1/2s and finally he stayed still enough to get this. So I won't be getting the M9 yet either.


Dean's Lecture by Richard GM2, on Flickr

 

[Thardy]

At short notice I discovered my good friend was delivering his inaugural professorial lecture. I had my M5 with 50 1.5 at work with me, but only 100 ISO film. This is straight out of your chapter in the Leica Manual. The camera on the front rail and lots of shots at 1/4 and even 1/2s and finally he stayed still enough to get this. So I won't be getting the M9 yet either.


Dean's Lecture by Richard GM2, on Flickr

I did the same thing on a cruise ship during the evening entertainment, except I had Velvia 50 loaded. The shots were quite good.

 

[kshapero]

I think high ISO has value but whenever I have used a camera that has it, my shots, they always look more like they were taken in daytime. Almost like Army night vision. I dunno, I am swiftly letting the world pass me by.

 

[jsrockit]

The bottom line is that high ISO lets people do handheld photography is more situations (some of us don't only photograph in bright sun). How can that be bad? I would never not own a camera that doesn't have great high ISO. I love my M8 and M3, but when high ISO is needed, I'm glad I have a the X1 (and soon the X100). If Leica brings out a digital M with high ISO, I'll be in heaven.

 

[jsrockit]

I think high ISO has value but whenever I have used a camera that has it, my shots, they always look more like they were taken in daytime. Almost like Army night vision. I dunno, I am swiftly letting the world pass me by.

Do yuo do post processing of the images or rely strictly on in camera?

 

[sig]

The bottom line is that high ISO lets people do handheld photography is more situations (some of us don't only photograph in bright sun). How can that be bad? I would never not own a camera that doesn't have great high ISO. I love my M8 and M3, but when high ISO is needed, I'm glad I have a the X1 (and soon the X100). If Leica brings out a digital M with high ISO, I'll be in heaven.

How can that be bad? Easy, there is a reference camera out there. Functionality not covered by the reference camera is bad or not needed. And if you think you need, or even see benefits of the functionality, you probably are not a real photographer 🙂

 

[Keith]

I think high ISO has value but whenever I have used a camera that has it, my shots, they always look more like they were taken in daytime. Almost like Army night vision. I dunno, I am swiftly letting the world pass me by.

That's just a metering/exposure issue ... the camera wants everything to look like an 18% grey card shot at ev 15! 😀

 

[jsrockit]

How can that be bad? Easy, there is a reference camera out there. Functionality not covered by the reference camera is bad or not needed. And if you think you need, or even see benefits of the functionality, you probably are not a real photographer 🙂

Huh? A real photographer uses the tools that are available to him/her to get the photo he/she wants...

and what is this reference camera you speak of?

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Quite honestly, even the M9 at 2500 is better than any colour film at 2500, so even though I hope an M10 (or whatever) will deliver better quality at higher speeds, the M9 is still pretty amazing.

However high the Hi ISO race goes people will always demand more. Photographers are rather spoiled today and seem to be constanly looking for the magic bullet. Better hi ISO performace won't improve most people photos sure the images will be cleaner but the content will remain the same and the quest for the next latest and greatest camera will continue.

Very true. People have been whining (some of them are claiming for, but many are whining) about how "bad" ISO 1250 (or if you'll be reading this in 2014, ISO 64000000000) when during the days of film people who used ISO 800 in color they would have loved to get the "grain" (or from that point of view, lack thereof) you can get at ISO 3200 from a Nikon circa 2007.

More and more barely-trained photographers are meeting the needs of commercial photography. Many have hardly ever used anything other than the P or green square mode.

On the other hand, there are a few specialized photographers who really know what they're doing, and given the current economic and workflow realities you must use digital photography and the "slow and tedious" world of B&W (OMG! lack of color!) silver photography is just not in today's do-you-want-fries-with-that consumer society.

You can never satisfy everyone. If Leica were in the business of selling to sports photographers, I'm sure they would have tended to that a while back. Canon and Nikon, however, are the go-to brands for that market, and of course they will make educated and researched compromises in image quality to try to please everybody.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: if Harley Davidson had a market for young couples with young kids who need to be weathered from the elements and be given distracting entertainment options, they would have already built a minivan. If you need a minivan, buy it from a minivan seller, and don't bash HD's head for its "myopic offerings".

My twopence.

 

[shadowfox]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: if Harley Davidson had a market for young couples with young kids who need to be weathered from the elements and be given distracting entertainment options, they would have already built a minivan. If you need a minivan, buy it from a minivan seller, and don't bash HD's head for its "myopic offerings".

My twopence.

Agree.

Also,

the *need* for high ISO has to be distinguished between professional (shooting for a client) and non-professional (shooting for ourselves).

Those who are professionals can't dictate their preference of standard on which the high ISO performance is based on. They may prefer film, but the digital world has trained the clients to expect "clean" images.

Those who are non-professionals can choose what they compare the high ISO against. I personally like grain and texture, so I compare any digital cameras against film. And so will most of us here on RFF. Good thing that I'm not a wedding photographer.

Now this is not to say that at some point in the future, people will be bored with the clean images and start to appreciate imperfections, at that time, the manufacturers will then start to sell High ISO *with texture*

Just watch.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Now this is not to say that at some point in the future, people will be bored with the clean images and start to appreciate imperfections, at that time, the manufacturers will then start to sell High ISO *with texture*

Of course it will happen. Then people will b & moan "where is the noise function?!" and "remember the good old days of noise and grain?"

During the 20th century there was this insane drive for "sharpness". Then came Lensbaby, Holga and Diana.

Not to mention that everybody wants something for nothing: "sharpness" and clean digital images come after years of manpower and hard money, but if you charge the customer for it, they'd balk. Why, technology grows on trees in the magical land of You-sent-your-email-and-you-b-and-moaned-enough-on-Internet-forums...

I don't deride progress; I deride demands with a sense of entitlement, like those spoiled kids on "My Super Sweet 16".

 

[furcafe]

Point taken, but your analogy only goes so far. At one point in the increasing distant past (like the early '60s), Leicas were used for the same purpose as the competition & they have made pretty good SLRs over the years. Leica may have ended up being like Harley-Davidson as a niche manufacturer of old-style motorcycles, but an alternative path would have been for them to emulate BMW & Honda, both of which were able to successfully enter the car business.

On the other hand, there are a few specialized photographers who really know what they're doing, and given the current economic and workflow realities you must use digital photography and the "slow and tedious" world of B&W (OMG! lack of color!) silver photography is just not in today's do-you-want-fries-with-that consumer society.

You can never satisfy everyone. If Leica were in the business of selling to sports photographers, I'm sure they would have tended to that a while back. Canon and Nikon, however, are the go-to brands for that market, and of course they will make educated and researched compromises in image quality to try to please everybody.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: if Harley Davidson had a market for young couples with young kids who need to be weathered from the elements and be given distracting entertainment options, they would have already built a minivan. If you need a minivan, buy it from a minivan seller, and don't bash HD's head for its "myopic offerings".

My twopence.

 

[Archiver]

My M9 is set to Auto ISO 800, and I rarely go above that unless I want that little bit extra, or I have forgotten a fast lens. But I never use it in situations that demand clean performance at upper levels, anyway. I use the Canon 5D Mark II for that.

I don't think it is unreasonable to want better high ISO performance from any high end camera in this day and age; at the same time, 35mm sensors seem to have the edge over medium format sensors in this area, so perhaps it is a matter of horses for courses. The digital M's images have often been favourably compared with medium format, so perhaps those similarities run to the negatives as well as the positives.

Riccis Valladares tends to shoot very low light using 3200 speed film and a Noctilux. He gets great results, but only for those who like that look. It would be very difficult, perhaps impossible, to get acceptable results with colour film at that speed.