Learning to love 1250

[chris_tribble]

Post Firmware 2.0, I don't know how others feel about high ISO on the M8 / M8.2, but I'm feeling a much greater respect for the results I can get on the M8 at higher ISOs than I used to.

I've been experimenting with using Auto ISO for walk-about work and have been pleasantly surprised. What is happening is that the camera is dropping me into 1250 much sooner than I'd elect to start using it, so that rather than selecting it in extremis only, it's become part of the normal range of options that are brought into play to ensure maximum image quality across the board. The shot here is a case in point. Just a grab while walking past Smithfield Market in London (the wholesale meat market for the city). Absolutely printable, but also acceptable to my eyes at 100%.

Anyone else having similar results?

[danyves]

Same. Auto ISO drop more often to 1250 and noise treatment is much more better than before.

Great improvment.

My settings are 1/60th - 2500 ISO

[Shootist]

I've always found 1250 ISO usable when nreeded.
Here are 2 from last year with FW 1.107. Both @1250 and the second is @ 1/20s

L1005784 Post LUF.jpg

L1005830 Post.jpg

Chris what do you have your lowest shutter speed set to and what RAW converter did you use.
I use ACR 99.9999999% of my work just because I'm so use to it and find C1 not to my liking.

[chris_tribble]

Originally Posted by Shootist

Chris what do you have your lowest shutter speed set to and what RAW converter did you use.
I use ACR 99.9999999% of my work just because I'm so use to it and find C1 not to my liking.

Shutter - I'm experimenting with lens dependent at the moment... My gut is to set 60th but there seems to be a value with coded lenses (my 75/90/135 all are) of using Lens Dependent as the high ISO cuts in sooner than I'd ever invoke it otherwise...

A good reason for getting my 50 coded I fear...

RAW processing - ACR in Lightroom 2.0... I find this suits the way I work ... I can see why some would like C1 but I really need the keywording / archiving and output options from LR2.

BTW - Shootist - interesting shots.

PS - I'm experimenting with a default 1250 import preset in LR which applies +50 Luminance noise reduction and +20 sharpening / +15 mask... Seems to work well.

Best

[Shootist]

Originally Posted by chris_tribble

BTW - Shootist - interesting shots.

PS - I'm experimenting with a default 1250 import preset in LR which applies +50 Luminance noise reduction and +20 sharpening / +15 mask... Seems to work well.

Best

Thanks
As for the default 1250 import preset is that something you have created and saved as a Preset? And what if you are importing images @ multiple ISO's does the import feature of LR2 allow different presets to be applied to different ISO values? And are you talking about importing as you download images from the card?
Excuse my ignorance, I do use LR sometimes but I'm not that familar with it and I don't normally use the LR import from card feature. I use the Adobe Photo downloader program that cames with PS CS3/Bridge 2 to get images off the cards.

[JGW]

I've never understood all the fuss made by many about 1250 noise on the M8. I've used it for publication and have been complimented on how sharp the images were by picture editors, who were so used to seeing images (usually flashed in anyway) from the usual Canon and Nikon brands. Perhaps most people can't remember what 1600 asa film used to be like? Even 400 asa Fujichrome used to be very contrasty and sometimes disappointing; 1600 even more so. As far as I'm concerned, 1250 always was useable and good enough, for magazine publication anyway.
Jeffrey.

[chris_tribble]

Originally Posted by Shootist

Thanks
As for the default 1250 import preset is that something you have created and saved as a Preset? And what if you are importing images @ multiple ISO's does the import feature of LR2 allow different presets to be applied to different ISO values? And are you talking about importing as you download images from the card?

Sorry - I misused the language here. It's a Preset which can be used on Import if you know that all images are 1250 - but otherwise which you can apply to a batch immediately after import (the sensible way to go). I like the way you can use filters to select images by specific criteria (eg ISO) in LR - see example below.

Best

[guywalder]

Chris,
how would the FW update improve noise of the RAW files?
I always understood that RAW files are not subject to in-camera noise treatment, or are you talking about JPGs looking better??

[guywalder]

Originally Posted by JGW

Perhaps most people can't remember what 1600 asa film used to be like?
Jeffrey.

Perhaps, but then again its no longer a useful comparison since various 1D or D3 cameras can produce such noise free results at well over 1250.
Whether they are as sharp or not is another matter, but I like to think there is Some reason for paying thousands for Leica lenses when I can get much cheaper ones for my Nikon....

[sm23221]

I find 1250 to be very acceptable but I find it is very dependent on getting the exposure right. If you underexpose then it becomes borderline noisey. Nail the exposure and you can get very good results.

[dpattinson]

I haven't seen any improvement in the noise reduction. I suspect the newly discovered beauty of 1250 is due to it no longer being underexposed, thanks to auto-iso.

[Shootist]

Originally Posted by sm23221

I find 1250 to be very acceptable but I find it is very dependent on getting the exposure right. If you underexpose then it becomes borderline noisey. Nail the exposure and you can get very good results.

Correct but also I think is dependent on white balance also. If you're shooting in difficult lighting and either the AWB or what you've set as a WB is way off the noise seems to be more noticeable.

[ChrisC]

Originally Posted by dpattinson

... the newly discovered beauty of 1250 is due to it no longer being underexposed.....

Underexposed 1250 is a higher ISO than 1250.

............... Chris

[dpattinson]

Originally Posted by Shootist

Correct but also I think is dependent on white balance also. If you're shooting in difficult lighting and either the AWB or what you've set as a WB is way off the noise seems to be more noticeable.

That's true, actually I just came across a hint to use daylight WB (instead of auto or tungsten) when shooting high iso in low light because it will suppress noise in the blue channel. I haven't actually tried it yet - but will do next time I'm shooting indoors.

[dpattinson]

Originally Posted by ChrisC

Underexposed 1250 is a higher ISO than 1250.

............... Chris

If accompanied by the digital equivalent of over-development, then I guess it is. However it seems that in many cases people were underexposing not because they wanted a 'higher iso' but because they were afraid of blowing highlights - which resulted in obnoxious noise when they subsequently pulled up the shadows and midtones. I think that with auto-iso the camera is better able to manage 'correct exposure' than it was before, as noted by some people in this thread - they are now using higher iso's much earlier than they would have done if manually setting the iso.

[robertwright]

Originally Posted by chris_tribble

Sorry - I misused the language here. It's a Preset which can be used on Import if you know that all images are 1250 - but otherwise which you can apply to a batch immediately after import (the sensible way to go). I like the way you can use filters to select images by specific criteria (eg ISO) in LR - see example below.

Best

Actually in Lr 2.0 you can alter the develop presets to be camera and ISO specific, so you don't have to apply a preset after the fact.

There is a checkbox in the prefs to make ACR defaults camera and ISO specific. Once you check that you can go ahead and save out different noise reduction settings for different ISO's-the mod is under the develop menu-Set Default Settings.

pretty nifty.

[reynoldsyoung]

Hey folks!

These images were taken on the set of "Imus in the Morning" when they broadcast from DC the other day. Setting aside how you may feel about the old nut, I was amazed at the performance of the M8. I was using a 90mm Cron f2 from forever away on Auto ISO and WB in this studio lighting situation. These all turned out at ISO 1250. Am I just easy to impress or did the camera really nail it?

BTW...8.2 arrives Saturday! Can't wait!

Best,

Reynolds

[jevidon]

guywalder,

You said:
"Perhaps, but then again its no longer a useful comparison since various 1D or D3 cameras can produce such noise free results at well over 1250.
Whether they are as sharp or not is another matter, but I like to think there is Some reason for paying thousands for Leica lenses when I can get much cheaper ones for my Nikon...."

There is a very good reason why your German lenses cost more than the Nikon/Canon SLR lenses and are generally better for your purposes If we limit the discussion to sharpness and the flatness of the field, the Japanese fixed focal length lenses are as good as the German glass. But the Japanese lens makers prefer a lower contrast formula. In addition, the digital Nikons, Canons, et al are equipped with zoom lenses and there is then no comparison to what you can get with a fixed focal length lens. The German formulae tend to be higher contrast which most of us; Sean excepted, prefer for the crisp imagery they deliver at a small loss of shadow detail.

So what it boils down to is comparing a lower performance Japanese formula zoom lens built in Thailand for lower labor costs to very high performance fixed focal length German lenses costing many more Euros to produce. Now, if you fit my old Nikkor 50mm f1.4 to your Nikon digital SLR, now you're talking! But that is not what they normally come with. So, in short, you're comparing apples and lemons.

So, there is a reason why your Leica & Zeiss lenses cost more and are in the long run worth more on your rangefinder camera. BTW, you can get closer to the German type of fixed focal length lenses at a relative bargain price if you consider some of the better performing CV lenses that are available, such as the Noktons and even some of the smaller but very sharp Skopars. Check out Sean Reid's reviews.
Jim Evidon.

[chris_tribble]

Originally Posted by robertwright

Actually in Lr 2.0 you can alter the develop presets to be camera and ISO specific, so you don't have to apply a preset after the fact.

There is a checkbox in the prefs to make ACR defaults camera and ISO specific. Once you check that you can go ahead and save out different noise reduction settings for different ISO's-the mod is under the develop menu-Set Default Settings.

pretty nifty.

Robert - thanks - I knew it was in there somewhere but had forgotten where it was - I'll set this up...

Originally Posted by dpattinson

If accompanied by the digital equivalent of over-development, then I guess it is. However it seems that in many cases people were underexposing not because they wanted a 'higher iso' but because they were afraid of blowing highlights - which resulted in obnoxious noise when they subsequently pulled up the shadows and midtones. I think that with auto-iso the camera is better able to manage 'correct exposure' than it was before, as noted by some people in this thread - they are now using higher iso's much earlier than they would have done if manually setting the iso.

I think this is right. Example below from a gig I was working on last night. I was working with M8s + 5D. 2 shots.

1/ M8u + 75 cron asph Auto ISO (limit 1250), AWB.
2/ M8.2 + 28 cron asph Auto ISO (limit 640)

I'm happy. The band's happy.

[ChrisC]

Originally Posted by jevidon

..... The German formulae tend to be higher contrast which most of us; Sean excepted, prefer for the crisp imagery they deliver at a small loss of shadow detail........

Jim - A slight misrepresentation of Sean's outlook; which I think is closer to a 'horses for courses' attitude. For a lower than average contrast condition he would, I believe, choose a higher contrast lens than a lower contrast one. Many of us appreciate that he distinguishes between lens resolution, and the illusion of resolution created by lens contrast. Choosing a lens with good resolution, and slightly lower contrast, sounds to me like an excellent choice for a high contrast medium like digital. I too am a fan of 'sunny day lenses'.

Buck the convention Sean!

................. Chris