noise @ 640

[misha]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

i've had an m8 for almost a month now with a first generation tri-elmar 28-35-50. everything is fine at iso 160 & 320, yet almost unbearable amount of noise at 640 (not to mention 1250), especially indoors with artificial lights. Any thoughts, recomendations? i dont know anyone with the same camera, so its difficult to compare, and sending it back feels a bit premature.

 

thanks

misha

[Advertisement]

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

[Venkman]

An example picture might help.

 

Properly exposed I experience none to few noise @ 640 and very bearable nose @ 1250.

[Shootist]

Have you updated the firmware to 1.92? If not do it as the noise is better with this firmware.

Also try taking some shots with ISO400 film and push it a little to the 640 ISO. I bet you will see more noise in those shots then in the M8 digital files. Then take those ISO640 film shot and scan them into a computer and view them at 100%. You will think the M8 files are the cleanest thing you have ever looked at.

 

The real way to look at digital files on a PC screen is to zoom them so they are what the dimension say they are. In other words a M8 file @ 300DPI is roughly 13"x 8.75". Make the image on your screen fit those dimensions. When you view any image file on a PC monitor you are looking at it at 72DPI/PPI.

On my monitor that is about a 33.5% zoom.

[atufte]

Any samples...?

 

I think my M8 looks good at 640, so either something is wrong, or you are

a Canon 5D convert, but i still prefer the bit more noiser files from my M8...

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Sounds like your underexposing but samples are the key to figure it out

[misha]

thanks for a quick reply guys.

 

i am a panasonic LC1 (three years at iso 100) convert so this is a very different world for me..

you might be right about underexposure, as it mainly occurs in low light indoor situations where i try to keep it at 640 instead of (probably 1250 or 2500), and shutter speeds of about 1/30..

 

thanks

m

[egibaud]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have noticed than the noise varies a lot according to the lighting type. Yellowish lights show a lot more noice.

[wparsonsgisnet]

Michael,

 

After you post a shot, the monsters here can advise you on exposure.

 

For my part, I always use noise reduction software on digital images. I happen to use Neat Image; others here use Noise NInja and other software. It is also possible to reduce noise in Photoshop.

 

I regularly shoot at 2500 (!) and find it acceptable with noise reduction.

 

You did not mention it, but are you shooting raw files (DNG)? If not, it is to be considered.

[rosuna]

Red light brings more noise, just because the camera takes more information from the blue channel for compensating the slant. The blue channel is the noisiest, because, among other things, the quantum efficiency is the lowest for the blue light. Maybe the IR contamination makes this worse (I would like to know how much).

 

In low light conditions you should try to add more light for avoiding underexposure. The noise is like a constant, but the signal varies. Therefore, the signal/noise ratio depends on the signal (this is, of course, an oversimplification). The more signal you get, the better is the final "noise" result. The "noise" hasn't a disagreeable look in the M8, compared to other cameras (although it hasn't the "organic" and "random" look of the film).

 

Under acceptable light and/or properly exposed I get very good pictures at 640, and even at 1250. No problem. If the light conditions are too hard (red light ambient in a concert, for instance) the 1250 can be difficult to use... and we want to employ high ISOs in difficult conditions, isn't? In those cases the best option is to reduce the noise during post-processing (carefully, only the amount needed for the print).

 

A few days ago I attended a presentation of the Canon 1D Mark III camera. The noise performance at ISO 3200 was stunning. However, I saw a picture taken under difficult light (a portrait of the ex soccer player Mijatovich) –red lights, darkness–, and the luminance and chroma noise were too evident, not far from the Leica at 1250. The camera retained a lot of detail in any case (like the Leica). Canon used to sacrifice performance at low ISOs (dynamic range, tonal range) in order to get better performance at high ISOs (that's my impression), but they are improving their sensors fast. The new 1D Mark III incorporates a 14-bit A/D converter (it was 12-bit before). The sensors of the 5D and the 1D Mark III are a big jump ahead of the previous generation of Canon's CMOS sensors.

[charlesphoto99]

Noise, noise, noise. Don't worry about it and take some pictures! Some of the best work done with Leicas has been with film grain the size of golf balls. If you need fine grain quality in low light then a tripod and medium format is your thing. The nice thing about the M8 noise is that it look more filmic than some other digital cameras.

 

One of the best shows i've seen recentlywas work by young Magnum photographer Jonas Bendiksen. I believe he uses slide film (and maybe Leicas) that is pushed to the max thereby creating huge chunky grain and deep shadows. Amazing unique look that sets his pictures apart. It becomes an asset, not a detraction. And, yes, it's all about exposure and what you do with it after the fact.

[misha]

Michael,

 

After you post a shot, the monsters here can advise you on exposure.

 

For my part, I always use noise reduction software on digital images. I happen to use Neat Image; others here use Noise NInja and other software. It is also possible to reduce noise in Photoshop.

 

I regularly shoot at 2500 (!) and find it acceptable with noise reduction.

 

You did not mention it, but are you shooting raw files (DNG)? If not, it is to be considered.

 

 

thanks bill. indeed i am shooting in raw and somewhat familiar with noise reduction software. for the sake of simplicity, i was merely commenting on what i saw on M8's screen, before doing anything with files. naturally, after some tweaking and b/w conversion, images began to make more sense.

perhaps i wasnt clear enough in the original post, i only wanted to highlight a drastic change in noise in artificial light (remember i am shooting at f4 with tri-elmar) situations between 320 and 640.

 

thanks

m

[robertwright]

The last two comments are very true to me-

 

I would add, judge noise from the print, not from the monitor. Squeezing the file through the Epson or HP or whatever print driver "black box" completely alters it, what you see at 100% on screen is not what a print would look like.

 

I find the noise on 640 to be variable, depending on the value and color of the image it is either completely gone or heavy. Since we often use 640 in dim light, I like to imagine what the film would look like had I shot it, and when I print, I don't try to exceed what I used to get by too much, for example in shadows. I think digital has altered our expectations of tone mapping in representing reality on a print, and I think not for the better. I see a lot of unnatural representation. you can't put back what wasn't there in the first place, and so sensible exposure is always the key.

 

Pixel for pixel the 5D does have lower noise, but overall, on a print, the M8 is a match easily. I am sure the new mkIII will be groundbreaking however, too bad about the canon glass..

[gwelland]

Are you actually printing images or just pixel peeping on screen?

 

You will very often find what looks noisey on screen prints well and the noise essentially either disappears or blends to improve colour.

 

A quick light session with NoiseNinja, NoiseWare, NeatImage etc will pretty much irradicate any nasty noise artifacts yet keep the detail required for good prints. The secret is to be somewhat conservative.

[j. borger]

I use iso 640 standard for my B&W, even i f i have enough light for iso 160, because i LIKE that tiny amount of noise: it makes the files look less sterile!

Hard to spot in print BTW!

[adan]

1. Here are two samples shot at 640 (.dng) - one under shop fluorescents (not daylight type), one under arena lights (Halogen or some such). 100% pixels plus details of the full frame for reference. I tried to crop to cover a full range from shadows to highlights, and sharp vs. OOF areas.

 

It doesn't look unbearable to me, but there it is.

 

2. "you might be right about underexposure, as it mainly occurs in low light indoor situations where i try to keep it at 640 instead of (probably 1250 or 2500), and shutter speeds of about 1/30.."

 

Digital sensors basically have ONE speed - that is, put X amount of light on them, and they will put out Y voltage. A basic equation of photons in...electrons out.

 

The higher ISOs are achieved more or less by "pushing" that base speed by amplification of the "natural" voltage - which also amplifies incipient noise, thus the images get "noisier".

 

So there is no real noise difference between shooting at 2500, and shooting at 640 underexposed two stops - in either case you or the camera has to boost the signal (and noise) to get an overall "good" exposure in the final image.

 

Exception: jpegs get extra in-camera processing, (sharpening and noise reduction) which may change with the ISO setting, making noise look different at different ISOs, whereas shooting RAW one sees more or less the straight-line progression of the amplification without side-effects.

 

As mentioned elsewhere - shooting under light weak in blue wavelengths (tungsten bulbs) can throw another monkey into the wrench. The blue channel ends up essentially non-existent, and by the time you got the white balance correct, the blue may be getting a 5-stop "push" (i.e., it's at "ISO 10000" or so in terms of amplification, with extra noise to match).

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!