M9 for professional use: highest ISO?

[geesbert]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have a couple of jobs comming up in the next few weeks, where I am considering the m9 instead of the Canons, filesize being acceptable by now. I just wonder, what is the highest ISO you would go for a full page spread, especially as most clients today are used to those super-clear, noise-free canikon files? I am usually topping it at 640. PP will be done out of house, with me not much controll over it.

 

 

stefan

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[jaapv]

Stefan, in that case there are many variables, maybe too many for a meaningful answer. Can you use a tripod? How will your light be? Will you be using flash, if only for contrast control? The way you formulate it, I would go for the lowest ISO possible, However, if you can get your editor to play, there might be a case for shooting with ISOs around 1250-1600 to get a distinctive look that sets your images apart from the run-of-the-mill Canikon stuff. Personally I find shots at that ISO, especially in bright light, very nice indeed. Knowing the quality of your work I'm sure you have thought of this;)

[geesbert]

shure, shooting as low as possible is mostly the way to go, but as I am not having control over the postprocessing, where I can easily deal with high noise levels I have to find a top ISO. I am looking for experiences by other photographers, who deal with commercial clients. the work will be reportage style shooting to accompany my food-setups, mostly indoor with mixed light, usually no space to get the strobes up, with a lot of fluoresence light, has to be shot in color (doesn't that sound like a nightmare?). the Canons usually do allright, wtih the skin tones suffering a bit.

 

something like that:

 

Nespresso

 

or that:

 

Mazza

 

or that:

 

Schweinsbraten

[jklotz]

Man, I gotta say that as much as I love my M9, I don't think I'd use it for a job like that. That's just me. Not that it won't make great environmental portraits, it's just that under the pressure of a job, I need to know my focus is spot on for as many shots as possible and I need to be able to trust the auto white balance and high iso performance.

 

That being said, what I have done before is to shoot the job w/ my 5DII, then ask if I could do a few with my Leica as a "new camera test", and usually they will say fine. Then you can take them home and compare.

 

Horses for courses my friend....

[geesbert]

Usually I am using the 5Dmk2 or the 1dsmk3 for that kind of things, but the white balance is helter kelter anyway, so I do a macbeth first. my keeper rate with AF is not that much higher and I am on manual exposure. my only concern really is noise.

[charlesphoto99]

I have the same issue comv up for a potential ad job. It all really depends on the client and the look they are after. I would probably use the M9 up to 800 for color and 1600 for b&w as long as they were hiring me for a reportage look. Will definitely have dslr along as well ("hey can you do a close up of that label?!!!).

 

That said I would never place RAW files into the hands of a client esp if you can't trust them to deal with noise etc what else can't they get right? At the very least give them a match tif and detailed instructions.

[Steve Ash]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I do not know about the requirements at professional level but I do wonder why you think that whitebalance is a problem? Why has every image from any camera to be close to Macbeth standards? What did all the professional photographers in times of film cameras with films far off from "Macbeth" standards? I do not know which one is closer to Macbeth but If you like the standard Canon colors go for Canon but do not try to emulate a Canon camera with your Leica or vice versa. So if I would be a professional photographer I would definetely try to have a whitebalance which is off from Macbeth and the standard look. A Leica could be a starting point as it is not that common as canon or nikon.

 

Further in the discussions I still not get the craziness for high iso performance. Did I miss that digital has proven that rule f16 is not valid anymore? Or is there a need at professional level to shoot every image at 1/4000th or 1/8000th of a second? Why on earth there are films with ISO 20? I almost never feel the need to shoot at ISOs above 320 but would love to see the same performance of digital as analog films at ISO 20. This especially applies to Leica lenses with their great performance wide open.

 

Regards

Steve

[SeanMPuckett]

Steve, the pro photography world is in many ways like olympic sprinting where very small things can make a difference between a world record and a forgettable performance. Commercial shoots are particularly bad for this, where retouch-time factors into callbacks. If your shots take more time to retouch, the job costs the client more, and they don't like that -- even if they really like your style. We're not plug-in replacable, but you still want to make sure that your own shots are as technically perfect as possible... or someone else will do it better.

[chris_tribble]

So long as you're in control of post-process, I see no reason not to feel safe with the M9 up to 1250 SO LONG AS YOU DON'T UNDEREXPOSE. My experience with the M8 and M9 is that so long as you really do keep the histogram to the right, the high ISO results can be wonderful. I'd also recommend processing in Lightroom 3 Beta - for well exposed high ISO it produces very good results.

 

If you don't have control over post, I'd feel inclined to walk away from the job unless you REALLY trust the people working with the files...

[adan]

ISO 800-1000 should look good, provided that (and I suspect you already know these):

 

a) the light is full-spectrum = daylight or flash. Yellowish artificial light is always going to bump up the noise because the blue pixels (1/4 of the image) end up with almost no exposure and the blue-channel amplification ("push") needed to white-balance the image can amount to 2-4 stops more noise.

 

Even in this day and age I use an 80A (or similar) filter under non-daylight lighting to give the blue channel a fighting chance to capture something other than noise, by holding back the red + green (= yellow) light. Which of course cuts back your "real" ISO by the filter factor - but such is life.

 

the exposures are correct - not thrown off by light backgrounds or anything else that fools the meter into underexposing even a small amount. It can be very frustrating to meter the scene and see a shutter speed of 1/60, and then meter a gray card and get a reading of 1/15 - but if that's the case 1/15 will give you "real" ISO 800 performance, whereas 1/60 will just mean "push-processing" in the RAW deveoper to an effective 3200.

 

c) You have, or create, a good profile, using your Macbeth, for the specific lighting spectrum you're shooting under.

____________________________

 

"Why on earth there are films with ISO 20?" I've always wondered that, myself.

 

More seriously, Steve, the "requirements" at the professional level are that the client is happy with the results, willing to give you more work, and give you "buzz" with other potential clients as someone who can deliver.

 

If you're shooting tractors for John Deere, for example - the "John Deere" corporate green paint had better reproduce right on the RGB money. Even if shot at a promotional event under stage lights with some weird spectrum. http://www.art-paints.com/Paints/Spray/Orr-Lac/Heavy-Duty-Auto/John-Deere-Green/John-Deere-Green.html

 

And yes, it was very tricky to get it right in film days - Kodak used to measure exact color variations from batch to batch of the same film (using a Macbeth or their own color targets, and a color densitometer), and print separate instruction sheets for every batch listing the color compensating (CC) filtration needed for THAT batch (in big red type). And pros carried "wallets" of gelatin CC filters, and got to know their clients' "colors" and lighting, and still often bracketed their shots +/- CC05 and CC10 and if possible, shots tests, got them processed, and then reshot with a changed filter pack if needed.

[geesbert]

For me it is a real evolution in my work not having to do the postprocessing. me as a photographer I have to deliver a file which is as managable as possible, with the least problems for PP, having a Macbeth chart shot means, they can calibrate every shooting to a common value, wherefrom any PP style can be much easier implemented.

 

As a commercial photographer I have to fulfill a brief which usually ends with me delivering raw files or DNGs, with the AD being in charge of the whole process. Why should I try to do PP, if all I want to do is photography, especially as this is where the revenue is the highest? And I know I am a better photographer than a Postproducer.

 

The thing is, any PP person will know what to do with Canon or Nikon files, with Leica M9 files they are probably not used to. I am trying to deliver a good file to them, but I am not shure what noise levels are acceptable.

[wparsonsgisnet]

I am happy up to 1600. If you go to this thread, you can see shots at 1250 and 1600. All are crops to less than half the sensor on the M9.

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/people/109150-gave-myself-test-m9-75-lux.html

[noah_addis]

Franky, if I didn't have time to run tests for myself I probably would stick to the Canons.

 

Having said that, I'd feel mostly confident up to 800 for super-critical color work where I was handing off the RAW files. That's a big improvement over the M8, where my answer would have been 320.

 

If I were processing the files myself and/or if the client really wanted a reportage look in my normal style, I may go to 1600 with good exposures, but only if necessary.

[xtoph]

the work will be reportage style shooting to accompany my food-setups, mostly indoor with mixed light, usually no space to get the strobes up, with a lot of fluoresence light, has to be shot in color (doesn't that sound like a nightmare?). the Canons usually do allright, wtih the skin tones suffering a bit.

yup, that sounds like a nightmare. i don't do this kind of commercial work myself so i can't really help you, but i would like to hear back what you decide and how it turns out. do you usually deliver the raw files, or can you hand over 16bit tiffs? if i were the designer i'd want the raws, but as a photographer i would have to really trust someone before i want to let them have that freedom of interpretation with work i shot with my own workflow in mind.

 

so far my experience with the high iso of the m9 has been pretty good (using lr3 beta or aperture). i think i am getting better color and probably finer detail at iso 1250 than with my 5d2 at 1600, though it depends on the quality of light and i don't think the comparison is quite fair, since the 'correct' exposure with the m9 takes more light than with the 5d2 even at the same iso (i think).

 

is that similar to your experience comparing the canon and m9 files? that industrial kitchen lighting is hell (i've done documentary work in them) and it seems like the 5d2 is really strained by that color spectrum. with the right lens/es, i would probably try to use the leica.

[padraigm]

hmmm a debate if a $7000 camera can be used for professional work....and the general consensus is go with a canon to be sure.

 

Let's think about that.

[noah_addis]

hmmm a debate if a $7000 camera can be used for professional work....and the general consensus is go with a canon to be sure.

 

Let's think about that.

 

Let's not misrepresent the advice presented here.

 

I said I would stick to the Canons if I hadn't enough time to do proper testing before the job. If the OP had just bought a new Canon or Nikon camera, my advice would have been the same--use gear you're familiar with until you get to know the new tool well enough to do the job.

 

We all have our own standards of what is acceptable in terms of look and quality, and so testing for yourself is really the only way to know how a piece of kit will work for you.

 

I use two M9s for all of my professional work.

[Pophoto]

Okay, I'm not a professional photog, no not yet at least ;p

I am a professional artist, not the point I am making here either!

 

Unless you are shooting in the dark and using fast lenses, mostly shooting at up to ISO 800 has looked great for both the Nikon D700 and M9. I rarely go up higher and if I did, with D700 "I" am happy upto 1600 and the M9 perhaps 1000 or 1200.

 

 

Now about post-processing, to minimize the amount, i can understand! However, if you shot film, will you not develope it etc. I mean with digital, if there is noise, PP is a luxury we have for those that we can minimize the noise. The rest, is simple, it looks good, it is good! No news to you, I'm sure!

 

The rules I follow are simple, do I like what I see?, and almost always, outdoors in a sunny day I am shooting 200, indoors lit well in the day 400 and evening 800, and then whatever gets me the shot! Okay I am not saying anything useful and maybe even sounding a little patronizing, but my point is looking back when photography was shot on film, even in those famous magazines, the photos were grainy (even noisy), but it was more important that the images were captured. Today, I find the expectation is little or no different. I had an experience where I shot the M9 and various lenses and I handed my friend a D700 (ISO800)and the 70-200 VR2 lens. His came out blurry and mine came out mostly fine But I was trying hard to succeed and when the pictures came back to Lightroom, I was astonished, thinking the back of the D700 lcd looked good, they weren't and I won with the M9 for the evening

No amount of lightroom could correct those that came from the D700 this night. Don't get me wrong, there are days I choose the D700 and others the M9. Just that I had a very nice surprise that night!

 

I guessing you maybe asking the Question " Can you feel confident shooting with the M9 over using your Canon?"

 

So after being so long winded, as long as you're confident, I don't see why not. You know the pictures taken with the M9 are beautiful, but if you're shooting sports or fighter jets... well you know, goodluck!

 

Be brave my friend!

[geesbert]

So yesterday I shot an assignment with the M9 in very mixed lighting conditions, my assistant with the Canon set at hand. I beefed the light up with two dedolight HMIs bounced into the corners, which gave just enough power to get 1/60 @f2 @400ISO, sometimes I had to go to 640, once to 800. My first viewing of the files is very positive, the 800iso shots taking its toll, but I'd say very usable. Every setup got a few Dozens of Canon shots as insurance, but I prefer the Leica ones.

 

What really stroke me was that the battery after about 1000 shots was still on 1/4 of its power, with LCD instant review on most of the times to give that AD a chance to glimpse over my sholder. with regular daily use I hardly get more than 300 out of one battery charge. so in constant use battery performance is great and really nothing to worry about.

 

the camera worked flawlessly, though from time to time a 1/60 would feel like a 1/2 s, a bit like a stuck shutter, when I shot really fast, close to buffer limit. the exposure was fine though. I hit the buffer 3 or 4 times, which isn't too bad, but could be improved.

 

one problem is that those files can't be easily previewed on set. they have to be imported to Lightroom which take time. with canon files, if I am not shooting tethered, I ingest and preview with photomechanics, which gives me nearly instant 100% preview, but with Leicas DNGs there is only a 320px preview build into the file, so they have to be rendered, which takes time. I guess shooting jpgs+raw could be a solution, does that impact on battery life and buffer.

 

the best thing is I am feeling much less exhausted lugging the m9 for five hours compared to the 1dsmk3 with its huge glass.

 

so if Leica or anyone else manages to get tethered shooting implemented the M platform really would work for me as a professional tool.Then I'll glue my 1ds to the tripod and enlist for a second M9.

Leica just accepted me for their professional service, I have to see whether that works out.

 

Sorry, I can't post pictures of this shooting, as it won't be published for a while

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[35mmSummicron]

I shoot fashion work. I ditched my Canon gear in favour for an M8 setup, and now own an M9. I echo many of your sentiments. Buffer needs to be better, and tether is a MUST.

 

Few firmware tweaks are needed for sure, but the M9 is definitely providing REALLY good files.

 

 

andy

[wparsonsgisnet]

... one problem is that those files can't be easily previewed on set....

 

G, What I do when shooting in studio is to save both the dng and the jpg. Even tho this slows down the camera, the jpg's are viewable on a portable computer without any other requirement.

 

Congratulations on your great shoot and your guts at trying the new camera out.

 

Looking forward to seeing some pix.