ISO samples M9

[parisian]

Not too shabby
In French but easy enough.

[Benchista]

To be honest, the thing that's disappointed me about the M9 is the limited ISO range - given the fact that Leicas are available light cameras par excellance, I had hoped it would go up to 6400, which I've come to use regularly enough on the 5D II. Kodak sensors have always tended to have issues at higher ISO settings, though, I suppose. Not too sure about the 2500 result, but the rest looks good.

[photogeek]

As you say not too sure about 2500, I guess Leica were not happy with 3200 or 6400,, so did not put it in as an option. Can't say I blame them as a lot of reviews seem to concentrate on poor quality at high ISOs in camera reviews, so best avoid negative feedback.

1600 or 2500 is nt too shabby for a rangefinder as you can open the lens right up and get excellent results.

The more I think about the M9 (and the more I use my Panasonic LX3 and get astounded by the results) the more I want one. Especially as we have Leica glass for the M6 TTL

[parisian]

So far I've sold three grannies a cat and a budgie and I still don't have enough

[Benchista]

Hmmm, not convinced by that. The sort of people who are going to be buying the M9 are the sort of people who have been using the D3, D700, 5D and 5D II and who know already what can be achieved with fast glass and high ISOs. They're the sort of people who are far more likely to be critical of a missed opportunity than of somebody else's opinion about noise - they've too many opinions of their own.

[TimF]

FWIW I think high ISO noise is better judged from looking at the picture as a whole rather than some 100% sample, especially in an area of flat tone which will show up such problems more.

Have a look at the high ISO pictures on Jono Slack's pages. There are both colour and B&W samples there, which don't look bad to me at 2500. There's a few at the end of that section which are very noisy indeed, so it'd be interesting to know what the shooting parameters were with those vis a vis the earlier pictures which don't show such noise extremes.

[Benchista]

You're absolutely right, Tim. and I did look at it as a whole. Itls far from terrible, just nowhere near class leading , even for the number of pixels.

[TimF]

Riposte from Riccis

[Barney]

Riposte from Riccis

The thing is, comparing the M9 to it's predecessor isn't the key, he should be comparing it to other full frame sensors, and the problem he ignores is that ISO1600 is no longer thought of as being 'high'.

[TimF]

Well, what would I know. I've never felt the need to shoot above 400 ever. The way some people go on about high ISO you'd think they spend their entire lives photographing the proverbial black cat in a cellar.

[Barney]

Well, what would I know. I've never felt the need to shoot above 400 ever. The way some people go on about high ISO you'd think they spend their entire lives photographing the proverbial black cat in a cellar.

True, it depends on what you want to shoot, but I, and many others including wedding togs, do shoot a lot at 1600-3200 so high ISO performance is important to us.

It would be interesting to know what subect M9 users tend to shoot to see whether the lack of high ISO speeds is a hindrance or not.

[TimF]

Riposte from Riccis

The thing is, comparing the M9 to it's predecessor isn't the key, he should be comparing it to other full frame sensors, and the problem he ignores is that ISO1600 is no longer thought of as being 'high'.

A look at noise etc on other full frame cameras. I think we perhaps need to exclude the D3 and D700 from this, being rather lower in the pixel count thing.

[TimF]

Well, what would I know. I've never felt the need to shoot above 400 ever. The way some people go on about high ISO you'd think they spend their entire lives photographing the proverbial black cat in a cellar.

True, it depends on what you want to shoot, but I, and many others including wedding togs, do shoot a lot at 1600-3200 so high ISO performance is important to us.

It would be interesting to know what subect M9 users tend to shoot to see whether the lack of high ISO speeds is a hindrance or not.

Just on that, Riccis' samples were indeed shot at a wedding. Perhaps the difference is that he is using Leica prime lenses of either f/2 (35mm and 90mm) or f/0.95 (50mm), so gaining one stop over a f/2.8 zoom and a lot more where the Nocti is concerned (the Leica glass can also be used no qualms wide open, not many SLR lenses - excepting super-teles - you can say that about, even nowadays). What does the average DSLR toting wedding photographer use?

[Barney]

Riposte from Riccis

The thing is, comparing the M9 to it's predecessor isn't the key, he should be comparing it to other full frame sensors, and the problem he ignores is that ISO1600 is no longer thought of as being 'high'.

A look at noise etc on other full frame cameras. I think we perhaps need to exclude the D3 and D700 from this, being rather lower in the pixel count thing.

lol You can't say that! The very reason they have a lower pixel counts is because of the benefits it brings, just as the reason the D3x has twice the resolution is because there are specific benefits to that.

[TimF]

I think it's reasonable. If we're comparing apples with apples then all parameters should be similar surely.

[Barney]

I think it's reasonable. If we're comparing apples with apples then all parameters should be similar surely.

But the 18MP sensor of the M9 is as close to the 12MP D3 as it is to the 24MP D3x?

[alanS]

He says they're razor sharp, is it my eyes or are those Riccis shots all rather soft?

[TimF]

A lot of them were shot with the new-ish 50mm Noctilux at maximum aperture, which is f/0.95!

Our chum Mr Hicks wrote some years back that an f/1 lens at 1 metre and maximum aperture can't hold an eyelash in focus from front to back. You do the math, as the Americans say.

[TimF]

I think it's reasonable. If we're comparing apples with apples then all parameters should be similar surely.

But the 18MP sensor of the M9 is as close to the 12MP D3 as it is to the 24MP D3x?

As close as is an 6MP DSLR to the D3, but you wouldn't put those in the same category either!

[Barney]

I think it's reasonable. If we're comparing apples with apples then all parameters should be similar surely.

But the 18MP sensor of the M9 is as close to the 12MP D3 as it is to the 24MP D3x?

As close as is an 6MP DSLR to the D3, but you wouldn't put those in the same category either!

Well the diminishing returns gained as pixels are added to a sensor would suggest that a 12MP camera has a lot more in common with an 18MP one than a 6MP one, but if you were going to charge >£5k for a full frame 6MP camera then I'd expect it to be compared against the competition.