I am hoping someone can set me straight because I don t get it? I always though the issue with noise in a digital rendering was more than just "digital grain". Noise seems to be used interchangeably for high ISO performance (not necessarily by SR but in most discussions).
To my eye .....there is absolutely no difference between the M8 and the M9 when it comes to high ISO performance. IMHO it still sucks. At 640 you have a loss in dynamic range, color saturation and resolution. Regardless if some photographers find higher ISO s acceptable .....I could see absolutely no improvement in high ISO performance. And I could easily see that the Canon 5DII was better in this specific test.
If I apply this to night photography( a joy with the M s ) ....I frequently lose images to lack of dynamic range. I can t expose for the shadows without blowing the highlights . It seems to defy logic to advise ..don t underexpose really anything at higher ISO s . I find about 1/2 to 3/4 stop latitude in bringing back shadows . The image quality suffers.
I understand the point about what you see in a print and this is a good point made frequently when comparing canon 5DII to the D3/D700 . But I believe thats only part of the discussion.
The other issue that jumped out at me in the review as the discussion of IR contamination . The M8 was unacceptable to most people without filters and the M9 is better.....but the contamination is still there? Compare the blacks from the 5DII to the M9 ....am I the only one that can see the difference?
In the big scheme of things ..the M9 ..is whatever Leica can build and I will certainly be trading my M8 s for M9 s...but in these two critical areas it seems that a lot of smoke is being blown about improvements.
(a qualifier..this is not a slam on SR review..it seems to show everything you need to know).
Is this stuff relevant or do I need another "education" ?