Santtu Määttänen
Visual Poet
And I haven't shot with any digital leicas so can't compare them. I did compare to Nikon D700 and there LX100 / d-lux 109 is very similar in high iso values. Haven't done direct comparisons since haven't felt the need. But in the dark I would be equally happy / unhappy with both. Besides I don't rely on high iso in my workflow. If there ain't good light, there ain't good light to photograph anyway 
And longer shutterspeeds work just fine with tripod and static subjects (which I mainly photograph).
And longer shutterspeeds work just fine with tripod and static subjects (which I mainly photograph).user237428934
User deletion pending
When you nail exposure with the M240 at 3200 then you have sharp pixel information and some noise above. I don't have the 109 but the LX100. If you use ISO 3200 I already see some smearing. So the noise my be comparable but the sharness is not.
The main difference is the usable time. If I use both cameras on ISO 1600, I can't go below 1/60 with the M240 if I want a good hit rate of sharp images. Already at 1/30 I have a 50% chance of blurry images. With the LX100 I can go to 1/15 and have sharp images because of the stabilizer.
The main difference is the usable time. If I use both cameras on ISO 1600, I can't go below 1/60 with the M240 if I want a good hit rate of sharp images. Already at 1/30 I have a 50% chance of blurry images. With the LX100 I can go to 1/15 and have sharp images because of the stabilizer.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Exactly. Most of the noise problems people are having originate from underexposure at low light levels, often caused by the light meter being fooled by specular highlights.
Exposing to the right will even produce excellent high-ISO shots on an M8, let alone an M240. The histogram is the tool to use.
Exposing to the right will even produce excellent high-ISO shots on an M8, let alone an M240. The histogram is the tool to use.
willie_901
Mentor
Exactly!
Sometimes all we think about is the 'noise' (which we can't control) instead of the 'signal' which we can control by optimizing exposure.
I would read some Panasonic LX100 reviews for some non-biased reviews that aren't shaped by the red dot.
ferider
Mentor
But: (since the OP has another thread going on about which 50 to buy) one can put an affordable lens on the 240 that is a full stop faster than the lx100. Plus, I like portraits below 1/30s, here with the 1.1 Nokton:
Roland.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Which leads to the following thought: It may well be that the light meter of the 109 exposes differently from an M at low and/or contrasty light levels. It certainly works differently. This alone can cause huge variations in noise performance. Even if we set exposure manually the T-stops of the lenses will be different.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Of course, I was asking about what is in the correctly exposed ISO 3200 and 6400. And Tom gave clear answer:
Thank you tom.w.bn, Santtu Määttänen and jsrockit! It all makes sense to me
Thank you tom.w.bn, Santtu Määttänen and jsrockit! It all makes sense to me
MikeMGB
Well-known
Not to belittle the 109 (loved the X1, X2)
But it could not possibly compete with the 240 when Printing Large
For the Web and 11 x14 prints I'm sure it's a mighty machine Miss 109
All depends on One's needs.
I print up to 4 feet wide from my 109, on a professional plotter with a high end RIP, the results are far better than you would expect from the camera.
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
What is the viewing distance involved? Just curious.
As an M-P 240 owner/shooter, I can't imagine trading off the M-P and its 24x36mm sensor for a 109 with a 17.3x13mm sensor, even for improved IQ at ISO 3200 & 6400.
While I haven't printed large from an M-P file shot at ISO 3200, they look pretty good on a large screen with a minimum of noise reduction applied.