Would you buy a lower MP M9 with much better high ISO if one were made?

E

eleskin

Well-known
Local time
5:24 AM
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
1,080
We all know at the lower megapixel range, high ISO suffers much less than the high MP models. So if Leica made a version of the M9 with 12MP or so and a very useful ISO 6400 or so would you buy one? I would be first in line, even preferring this over the current M9 sensor. So who would buy one? Nikon and Canon offer these sensor options so why can't Leica?
 
Assuming the sensor would still be full frame and bit cheaper than the M9 then yes I would certainly consider one.

The ultimate MP Digital to me would include the ability to easily swap out the entire electronics as a package.
So the body and main mechanical parts of the camera would remain and only the sensor, LCD, card reader etc could be swapped out as a module.
Similar to a Digital back for a medium format camera.

Imagine old school mechanical MP digitals that were "future proof"! :eek:
 
OK, I may be a Philistine or blind or something, but I use my M9 at ISO 1250 and the pics look just fine to me. I have yet to take the ISO up to 2500. So I'm pretty happy with things as they are.

I know Nikon's got that new camera that goes up to, what, ISO 12,800, supposedly without noise. But it's like selling a car on the basis that it's top-end speed is XXX miles per hour. You're rarely if ever going to need to get there.
 
I use the m9 up to iso 2000 and like the results... Not as clean as my 5d2, but usable. As I rarely want to shoot either camera above iso 2000, I'm ok with the current camera(s) that i have.
 
Currently I am shooting musicians in dim clubs with my R-D1 at ISO 1600. There are times when I am shooting at F1.4 and 1/15sec. Needless to say, slow focuser that I am, I become somewhat conservative when the musicians are moving around a lot. I would love there to be an RF equivalent of the high-ISO options Nikon DSLR users now have. So the answer to the question is yes.
 
In a blink of an eye.

Bring on the M10. I wasn't impressed with the 'improvement' in low light high ISO performance of the M9 to make me run to replace my M8u :eek:.

FF is nice, but I'd rather have the improved ISO. For FF I still have & use my trusty R3a, M6 & M7 :D.

It would appear, I'm in the minority group, but in the interim, I'm fairly satisfied withe the M8, using my NEX along with M glass when it gets dark.
 
Rob, I initially was not impressed with the iso improvement either... However, I have to objectively say that coming from an M8, it is like night and day. In fact, cost aside, the whole package, as someone who shoots and digitally develops the photos, remarkably improved. The price of admission was a bit painful :). Rob
 
I find that correctly exposed higher ISO's of the M9 come out fine. I always reflect on 'trying" to get good performance from pushing slide film to 360 and getting horrible results. I normally shot an ASA 50 or 100. Now with an ISO of 400 or 800 working out fine, hey the rest is gravy, at least that is what I try to convince myself of. :^)
 
This is certainly a matter of personal usage, as I know some users find high ISO performance much more important than other users. It's not so important to me, as ~1200 is plenty high, and I don't object to some luminance noise.

But there are other benefits to having a lower photo-site density on a sensor, like dynamic range. So I might be interested in an M9 with a 10.3 Mp sensor, at 24x36 in size but with larger photo sites.

I saw an article describing some sensor development work to reduce the size of the electronic circuitry around the photo sites... This would allow the same site density on the same size chip but with larger photo sites. This strikes me as an attractive improvement. I understand there is a physical limitation with very small sites, in that quantum effects increase scatter and decrease sensor efficiency. So there may be practical limits to site density. Digital medium format, anyone? :)
 
jsrockit said:
High ISO quality is not what is keeping a lot of us from buying the M9...
Click to expand...

I agree. I'd buy an M9 right now if I could afford one. If only for the reason that I could use my 21mm ZM as a 21, my 35 UC Hexanon as a 35, my 50mm lenses as 50's and my 10.5cm Nikkor as its intended focal length. The M9 could have lower pixel density and worse high ISO performance for all I care, just for the sake of using my lenses as they were intended.

Alas, I don't think I'll ever be able to afford an M9 even though I can take advantage of the student purchase program for another year. Saying that the camera is "only" $5200 USD is analogous to offering me a Ferrari F430 at a mere $135,000. I still can't afford it.

As far as the Ferrari goes, I'll take one in blue.
The M9, in black.

Phil Forrest
 
The question is a bit obsolete since Lightroom3, which has brought a vast improvement in noise behaviour. The M9 gives very good 1600 nowadays in LR3 or CS5, good 2000 and usable 2500. Now if you need ISO 12500, Nikon is the only game in town, of course.
 
Depends on the price tag.

I think the ISO performance on the M9 is good enough for my usage but the price tag is still out of my range. Better ISO performance would be nice though.
 
An interesting question. I'm not so into high ISO performance but I suppose it would certainly make the M9 more appealing to a lot of people, myself included.

Then again I haven't shot my M8 above 320 so far, maybe I should try some high ISO experiments for fun?
 
By the way-
Isn't it the same to downsample your high megapixel count by, say, a factor of 4 to get four times "better" noise specs? (although the noise is not linear with pixel area, but you get what i mean right? 4 small pixels of say 5x5 micron photoshop-united for one BIG pixel of 10x10 micron size should deliver same noise as a "real" 1 big pixel)
or maybe a bit less, having some extra losses here and there?
 
jaapv said:
The question is a bit obsolete since Lightroom3, which has brought a vast improvement in noise behaviour. The M9 gives very good 1600 nowadays in LR3 or CS5, good 2000 and usable 2500. Now if you need ISO 12500, Nikon is the only game in town, of course.
Click to expand...

I'm wondering how much lower shutter speed , by full stops, someone could reliably hand hold a M9 with say a 24mm 1.4 vs D700 with a 24 1.4G thereby cutting into the Nikon's high ISO advantage.
 
Although not a hard and fast rule...the subjects (and things) serious photographers shoot with a Leica are often where high ISO may not be a distinct advantage (or necessary). The opposite is often true with those shooting a DSLR for certain situations...although crossovers expamples of the opposite can certainly be found and this is where higher ISO capabilty of the M9 would have been advantagous.

Take for example, shooting low light p[erforming arts where subjects are quickly moving and low lighting characteristics are constantly changing on the fly. Little time to meter precisely for the scene to minimize noise where already the shooting situation is at the limits of acceptabilty (ISO and noise wise). Here and in other situations where a higher ISO DSLR has a clear advantage, would a high ISO performing M9 be welcome to take adavntges of what shooting with a small discrete rangefinder has to offer. It's in these situations to get the absolute manditory shot, that one will generally opt for the high ISO DSLR.

I would have thought that two models of the M9 would have been successful. A higher pixel count M9 (like the one we already have) with it's somewhat lower high ISO performance but greater resolution....and a much higher ISO performing one at a very respectable 12 MP. Similar to what Nikon has with their D3s and D3x. People can choose their respective cameras based on their needs and I think there might be a good market for both options.

Dave (D&A)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom