D700 vs. M9, high iso.

U

ulrikft

Established
Local time
8:04 AM
Joined
May 22, 2009
Messages
137
I did a test with two 50mm lenses and two cameras today. Metholody is quite easy, I found some high detail thing to shoot. Shot them from a quite similar angle/distance. Upressed the d700 file to match the M9 file, and cropped a 100% crop from each file. All done in photoshop and no noise reduction or other features used.

Result:

Leica M9 + 50 2.5 @ 2.8, center 100% crop:
http://ulrikft.smugmug.com/photos/654075426_5DyRK-O.jpg

Nikon D700 + 50 1.4 (sigmalux) @ 2.8, upressed to match M9 resolution, center 100% crop:

http://ulrikft.smugmug.com/photos/654074997_pv2pU-O.jpg


I think the M9 does very, very well against the class leader...

Edit:

Same image indeed.. Thanks for noticing Derek! Fixed the right link for the Leica shot now.
 
Last edited:
What were the ISOs?

The d700 appears to handle color noise better, especially in the black areas and on the bottom center box.
 
The M9 actually retains more signal (and more noise), so I would not be so quick to judge it, with proper nosie reduction, you end up with a very clean iso3200 with very high resolution. Better resolution than the d700 (and most things, in other words, on the market).
 
It looks like the Leica does quite well at high ISO. The D700 certainly does not "blow away" the M9 as said on "dslr heavy" photo forums.

But one always must be cognizant of the fact that these are two different class of cameras.
 
So IF you assume they are equal (or very close) in image quality at high ISO, is the M9 worth $4500 MORE?
Or, is it worth $4500 MORE to get very similar image quality plus the advantages of a smaller RF package?
Those who can afford the M9 can ponder this. I wish I were amongst them.
 
Pablito said:
So IF you assume they are equal (or very close) in image quality at high ISO, is the M9 worth $4500 MORE?
Or, is it worth $4500 MORE to get very similar image quality plus the advantages of a smaller RF package?
Those who can afford the M9 can ponder this. I wish I were amongst them.
Click to expand...


Again, two different class of cameras for two very different class of customer.
 
I think that's why leica limited I to 2500. My d700 is impressive at iso 6400. Thom wrote that the d700 does better than the d3x at iso 3200 and higher, and I believe we'll find the same for the M9. It really boils down to the basics of sensor size and number/pitch/size of pixels and the rest are just frivolous details.
 
Not only two different classes of cameras but two different types of sensors, each with different strengths.
 
Good low-light capabilities is the current fad in cameras. It was face detection and before that there was vibrating sensors.

I don't consider the high ISO capabilities of the Leica a deal breaker even if they don't compare favorably to current DSLRs. I have held an m-mount camera by hand at 1/4 of a second with a 28mm lens and gotten a very sharp picture. Many of the great Leica decisive moment shooters like David Alan Harvey or William Albert Allard shot colour with really slow slide film and they have lots of night scenes and bars and occasionally used a beautifully balanced flash. If I could make images like that...

Leica is going to fall behind more often than companies like Canon with a huge research and development budget. It's simple math. Then again, Canon is also always going to try and convince you to by their camera with gadgets and useless tools and knobs. I will tell you right now...it's a never ending roller-coaster. They want you to toss your 5D for the Mark II. They want you to be never happy with your camera. You're buying what they are selling---and it's not really cameras!

Leica has a respect for photography and photographers and just pairs down the tool to the basic necessities. Some people appreciate that and will pay the premium for it. Some will not. If you don't, well, move on and go for the wonderful tools that DSLRs are. They all can make great pictures in the right hands.

Peace.
 
Last edited:
No, ulrikft. It's the next great thing. Trust me. There are going to be more.

I'm not a luddite. Why are you at "Rangefinder" forum?
 
The only thing I see looks to be a lot of CA in the lower right corner for the 50 Sigma.. However I too think that high iso is NOT a fad rather a helpful tool for all those must work under cover or without using a flash. I do see the Leica strive in optimizing images for lower isos, still I think they should (also, at best) provide a rugged, sealed, tropicalized high-iso tool for stealth reportage. Having a big DSLR isn't that stealth, you know!
 
I meant it's the latest fad topic in cameras. Yeah, it's useful. I would love a 5D. Face detections is useful too if you want a small camera that can quickly and reliably take pictures of people.

Yes, this is a useful topic and comparison. It's helpful of ulrikft to help inform M9 users and potential buyers how it's performing at high ISO compared to market peers.

My comment was---on topic---about the value of this as a benchmark in evaluating the worth of the Leica M9 as a camera. It think it's not so important as there will always be some other camera that does something better. It was not to aggravate or insult anyone on this fine Saturday morning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top