Product Watch: EOS-1D Mark III dSLR

[deltoid1]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Carmen--I've been shooting the 1d2, 1ds2 and 5d since they came out and believe me, the easy way to make your M8 look like the 5d at ISO 1250 is to shoot RAW at 640 and push the thing a couple of stops in post.

 

I can push the 640 M8 ISO this way in C1 "two" stops so about ISO 2500, with nice results. Of course, you have to do this manually; if you properly expose for ISO 640 you will blow out the results at 1250.

 

Perhaps someone here can explain why this happens; to me it shouldn't be possible to underexpose that much then recover in post without a lot of artifacts.

 

I know you can push the 5d / 1ds2 even higher in post, but then you *are* generating mush in the shadows. I have 10k plus shots that prove it in very dark venues Without exceptional exposure skills, using a Canon at 3200 isn't all that easy either (though it's well-nigh impossible with other digicams, I admit).

 

Anyway, if you've got an M8 (and I just don't remember if you do), try pushing those files around. I'm going to say this again: I know it sounds nuts, but it definitely works for me. In my brief testing, pushing the M8 in post at 640 gives me better / less noisy results than shooting at ISO 1250, too (though I think Leica is still tweaking this, personally).

 

FWIW, the Canon sample 1d3 shots I've seen so far on the Canon site *are* soft (and awful in other ways, but this, as others have mentioned, is evidently typical Canon and probably early shots too). If you own the 35 1.4L Canon you know what I'm talking about here.

 

YMMV

 

I'll give that push procesing a whirl Jamie. As far as the Canon samples, I was looking at the studio shots, the greycharts. But if the camera is as good as my 5D, and I suspect it will be, then the high ISO performance will kill what I am getting from the M8. Color? What good is color when the shadows are loaded with blue speckles? Fortunately I did not buy the M8 for its high ISO performance. I do like to do available light portraiture, but I reasoned that the excellent wide open results of the 50 Lux would help. The amazing thing about this lens is the contrast wide open. Sharpness is good, but so clear and contrasty, nothing likie my EF 50 1.4 dreamboat.

 

I just sprung for a 28 Nokton today. Almost got the 28 cron, but I can't justify that lens at this time.

 

Edit. The Ultron, not the Nokton. I bought the 28 1.9

[Advertisement]

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

[marknorton]

Leica just needs to clean up the bugs in the current design, get the R line back on the road, and then focus on the next generation of M.

 

LOL and all before lunch. That reminds me of one of those car maintenance manuals... "Step 1: Remove the Engine."

[Jamie Roberts]

@ Carmen--you'll like the M8 pushed. Trust me on this!

 

As for color noise in the very high ISO shots, I think that will be tweaked anyway. Chroma noise is easy to get rid of.

 

But, again, the uncanny thing is also how good the color is in an M8 640 shot pushed a couple of stops. I don't need anything faster than that!

 

Heck--even the JPEGs are that malleable. Here's an ISO 640 shot I took and inadvertently underexposed by at least two stops. This is the JPEG, mind you, the RAW is well-nigh perfect.

 

This shot is pushed in PS, then processed for black and white (grain added). But the detail is astounding on a shot that underexposed.

 

Someone was saying shadows are 14bpp uncompressed in the M8 scheme? Dunno--but I do know I can't do this with the 1ds2...

 

(oh, by the way, I added the vignette here and darkened the shadows on purpose. Sorry I don't have a better, and colour, example handy, but you'll see what I mean when you try it)...

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[bradreiman]

well since i didnt shoot much iso 6400 film with my m6. mostly velvia 50, apx 100, and tri-x, i guess none of this drivel applies to me. by the way-i shoot mostly in the dark as im a nocturnal creature. this is why i use fast leica primes. i like leica because its a little better. that 5% makes a big difference to me. i also like the size...b

[barjohn]

Jamie,

 

Do I understand correctly that the camera was set to ISO 640 and if it called for 1/30 sec you shot it at 1/125 then pushed it in C1 to bring up the light level or did you use the EV compensation?

[Jamie Roberts]

@ John,

 

I feel silly admitting this, but I don't even know where the EV compensation for the M8 is. When I need to compensate, I meter and shoot manual, or chimp

 

Perfect digital technique would usually tell you to push the exposure as close to overexposed as possible, then fix your look in post. This way, you have all the shadows and highlight detail available.

 

I'm pretty careful about usually exposing that way. For example, if you're shooting high ISO with any digicam, you have to be ruthless about pushing the exposure "to the right."

 

But a series of accidents with the M8 made me literally stop and check EXIF, etc... The camera is exceptionally forgiving at low ISOs, much more like shooting film. This is probably related to the wide exposure latitude I see in other shots, too.

 

This shot was one of the mistakes.

 

The particular shot was inadvertently underexposed (using manual) by just about 2 stops off my incident meter. In this case the shutter speed was way off; 1/120 instead of 1/45 or even 1/30--exactly as you said.

 

The histogram in the camera ended about mid-way into the shot... no more. Since this was an engagement session, I just kept shooting, and I've been experimenting with shooting RAW+JPEG.

 

So I looked at the RAW and thought "holy heck" so yes, I pushed the camera JPEG in PS; the RAW file is even more malleable!

 

Now--with the JPEG, the only caveat here is that I'm dealing with it like pushed film, and keeping the midtones and highlights intact at the expense of the extreme shadows, which are pretty clipped here anyway. But even with the clipping, I'm surprised at how much detail was captured. And don't be fooled; there's still printable shadow detail in the original (and the vignette I added is for purely aesthetic reasons--the 35 lux ASPH doesn't vignette much )

 

And the contrast of this particular shot, and others like it, isn't particularly high either; you don't have shadows a dozen stops lower than the midtones, though the blackpoint is actually pretty low.

 

Does this help? Try it and see what you think; after about 5 years shooting the Canon dSLRs I was pretty amazed, I must say.

[sparkie]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Jamie, the image looks great. Pushed 2 stops and it looks so clean, and you even added grain? I know, I know, its been resized for web so some loss of grain, but the capture, tonality is fab. Did you shoot this yourself using the 35/1.4 stopped down? what was your technique for 'burning' the edges? I like a bit of vignetting now and then – adds to the character of the picture. looks like the M8 crop really clips out most of the vig. you might need to try an old lens like the 1st version 35/1.4 pre (ollus hood type) to get some 'natural' vignetting

[AlanG]

The reason this underexposed portrait worked is that it is a very low contrast subject in flat lighting. So even though you underexposed, there were enough tones captured for it to be possible to redistribute them as a range of light skin tones to black tones. Maybe only three stops or so of capture was needed. I think almost any camera would do this. It just comes down to how much noise is acceptable. Pushing film or digital alters the characteristic curve so that it no longer meets the ISO standard description. That is why when film is pushed we say it has an EV rating and not an ISO rating.

 

The difference with actually having a true ISO is that to meet the description of an ISO tone curve, the response has to be a specific characteristic curve that captures a greater range of tones in their correct values.

[Jamie Roberts]

@ Sparkie--

 

That's the 35 Lux at f 3.2ish... and the vignette is just a feathered selection and the "levels" adjustment in PS.

 

@ Alan--

 

I noted that the contrast was low, and I understand how that affects the range (though I know, because I metered it, that it's more than three stops!) I lowered the contrast for the "print" because I like that look.

 

And I'd believe any other camera could do this too except I haven't been able to push the 1ds2 or 5d, for that matter, in this fashion, though they are better (less noisy) than the M8 at true high ISO.

 

But I've also seen this effect in very harsh light, including direct sun. Yes, that changes things a bit, but not that much; I can actuall squeeze three separate RAW converts from a high contrast RAW file. I'm always amazed at the detail that is actually in the shot.

 

When I have a free couple of moments (heh!) I will post some comparison shots.

[AlanG]

And I'd believe any other camera could do this too except I haven't been able to push the 1ds2 or 5d, for that matter, in this fashion, though they are better (less noisy) than the M8 at true high ISO.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think it is great if you can get good results "pushing" the M8 files in low light. It's just that I have been doing this kind of work with the Canons for some time. For me, a good reason to underexpose and then push the exposure in processing is to get the maximum dynamic range out of the files. I have found that DXO is exceptionally good at this because it has a feature called "DXO Lighting" that helps put back contrast and detail in the shadows. As an architectural photographer, I have been testing this to see if I can get away with using less lighting.

 

See this example shot with existing (contrasty) lighting:

 

http://goldsteinphoto.com/agpexposure2.jpg

 

By the way, I normally would have added a little more sharpening, but I didn't want to risk accentuating the noise in either example.

 

Note that the pushed image picks up a little more noise than the reference image (very bottom) which was itself a bit underexposed.

 

I really think the best test of the M8 or any other camera would be to take a series of shots at various steps of underexposure and then compare them with the same "correctly" exposed images made at higher ISO settings. Then you could see what you lose and what you gain. I think the converter used, one's technique and skill, and the end goal will be factors in how satisfied one would be with the results.

 

When I work with C-1 and still occasionally now with DXO, I will shoot often several images at various exposures to combine them, or lacking that, sometimes I do multiple conversions from one file to get the maximum dynamic range. I find the 5D really holds shadow and highlight detail quite well.

 

Here is another example. (I apologize for the really lousy picture but I don't have many saved images that are underexposed so much. ) So this is one I could find quickly.

 

http://goldsteinphoto.com/agpexposure.jpg

 

I converted to b/w simply by desaturating it and then added a little yellow and red to be similar to the tone of the posted portrait. I don't know what the M8 image looks like at 100% but you can see what this file looks like.

[AlanG]

I noted that the contrast was low, and I understand how that affects the range (though I know, because I metered it, that it's more than three stops!) I lowered the contrast for the "print" because I like that look.

 

Yeah I probably was wrong about the 3 stops or so. I just threw that out there without calculating. But I'm not talking about the metered subject range or final output. I just meant that if you underexposed as much as you say and it was an in camera jpeg, then you didn't have many stops left to record the information. This was ok as the subject fit within this range. Of course the output range was then expanded when you pushed it.

 

I think your picture looks fine. I like that look. I used to shoot nothing but tri-x when I was young and this is similar.

[Jamie Roberts]

Hey Alan--

 

Don't get me wrong; I've been working the 1ds2 / 5d and other Canons for years, and you're absolutely right--they hold up with underexposure and subsequent adjustment very well indeed.

 

The 1ds2 shot under moonlight then adjusted to get a print blew me away the first time I processed them in C1.

 

But--and here's what I'm saying--the M8 blows me away as much again. It could be because the AD converter is actually working at a greater bit depth than the 5d / 1ds2; there are literally thousands more levels to "see" on the M8 (and DMR) in the shadows, given that the noise level is low enough (which is why I only see this effect at low ISOs on the M8).

 

Does that make sense? As I said, I will get around to really testing this one day soon.

 

Thanks for saying the shot looks like a bit like TriX I was going for that in post; the actual "unworked" shot is really quite "noiseless" and uninteresting (well, except for the fact it's noiseless and uninteresting--oh, you see what I mean!)

[macusque]

Jamie,

 

that image is great, I really like the tonality you got.

Apart from the underexposing&recovering technique (which is intriguing indeed), did you use any specific program/plug-in to get that Tri-X look (grain and contrast) ?

Exposure by AlienSkin maybe ?

[35mmSummicron]

as a digital Canon shooter of several years, and current owner of a 5D and M8 i would have to agree with Jamie. while the 5D is extremely good and versitile overall, Canon's weakness has always been in the lack of information in the shadows (i think this is why many current Canon shooters are looking to the 1DMKIII as the next evolution with the intro of 14bit files). when you underexpose with canons you are risking the loss of A LOT of detail and the introduction of larger, more noticable noise. i haven't yet had the opportunity to push the M8 as often and in as many situations as i have the 5D because i've only had mine for about 2 weeks, but it is looking VERY VERY promising.

 

admittingly, AlanG, your examples are quite good!

 

very interesting development to hear pushing 640 and 1250 ISO on M8 as an alternative to the fairly useless 2500 ISO setting.

[eronald]

Globally, my impression is the Leica is "slower" than my Canons. Needs more light at the same settings.

 

Edmund

[carstenw]

Canons are apparently often 1/3 stop faster than the ISO setting.

[Riley]

that would dodge some noise

going under adds noise

[Jamie Roberts]

@ Marco--Thanks for the kind words on the image! Yes, I did play with the Alien Skin exposure plug-in on that one. But for it to work, I find you need to prep the colour file too.

 

@ Andy--yes, I'm actually in conversation with a bunch of people on the 1d3 (which is why this is on-topic)--and they're seeing the same things I've been seeing with the Leicas, which is at first, pretty weird...when you underexpose at low ISOs (low noise) you actually have much more tonal range left than you would with a 12bpp AD converter.

 

This explains why from an M8 low-ISO raw I can get three separate develops from most shots--one for highlights, one for midtones, one for shadows--without the image breaking up at all.

 

To me--and to the folks that have been playing with 1d3 files (not to mention DMR files)--this is really quite a step forward!

[fotografr]

I take it that you have never tried to shoot highschool athletics in an indoor setting then. The poor lighting is compounded by multiple aged sources that make WB a nightmare, let alone bright enough to keep shutter speeds high enough to freeze any action without a flash (sometimes not allowed, as with girls volleyball). Being able to crank up the ISO one more stop can make a huge difference, especially since the 200 f1.8L is no longer made, and shooting in RAW at least gives you a chance to recover color balance over JPEGs.

 

But if you do not ever need to do this kind of shooting, then this tool may not be what you need. Fair enough.

 

LJ

Actually, I cut my teeth on that stuff, long before I had autofocus lenses and motor drives. These were among my first shots right after I got a photography job with a small daily paper in 1978. They were taken in a high school gym with horrid lighting, using Tri-X pushed to 1600. Even remembering those days, I'd stick with my statement that I can't remember the last time I felt the need for ISO 6400. But that's just me. If others think this and the ability to shoot a burst of 30 raw files is important, they'll buy this new Canon and be happy with it. What I was reacting to primarily was that the big camera companies keep coming up with this stuff and are very adept at convincing the consumers that these features are so critical they won't be able to get along without them.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Jamie Roberts]

Hey Brent--actually, I agree with you; with fast glass, I've never really needed anything like a true 6400 ISO (but I've done my share of pushing to 3200).

 

But it also seems true that companies like Canon are keeping lens costs down and profits high by making them slower; I have some of the IS lenses and while IS is very good, it's still not the best for handholding a lens.

 

If you're shooting, say, a 24-105 f4 IS you could probably use the extra couple of stops.