High ISO concerns

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It is now pretty well accepted fact that the M9 (and variants) performs well at base ISO 160, but image quality drops off pretty quickly above ISO 800. What I'm less clear on is why this is a bad thing.

 

Leica lenses are characterised by the quality of their images wide open, or just stopped down (Erwin Puts seems to say every lens is at its optimum at f/4). Similarly, what many call "Leica Pop" is achieved through control of depth of field and quality of out of focus areas. As I recall an article I read some time ago, Dr Karbe also advised selecting aperture for depth of field (advice I've tried to follow since).

 

I appreciate that light is famously harsh here, but I need ND filters more often than I do high ISO settings. I know many will say that taking pictures in poor light is useful, but how useful?

 

I find 1/4,000 second more of a limitation than ISO 800.

 

Cheers

John

[Advertisement]

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

[NZDavid]

Indeed, higher shutter speeds are useful if you want a wider aperture. Even in winter, our light is extremely bright. But faster ISO speeds are useful indoors and in low light. I found 1600 and even 3200 acceptable on the X1. M9 is good at 800. How fast would most people find acceptable? Of course, once upon a time, 800 was considered ultra-fast. I think the earliest M3 film reminder dial topped out at 200 ASA.

[kdriceman]

I appreciate that light is famously harsh here, but I need ND filters more often than I do high ISO settings. I know many will say that taking pictures in poor light is useful, but how useful?

 

I find 1/4,000 second more of a limitation than ISO 800.

 

Cheers

John

 

Different styles, different requirements. I find myself wanting higher ISO much more than I find myself reaching for ND filters. And on the M9, I often find I need more than ISO 800, so I don't stop there, but I do limit my ISO to 2500.

[NJH]

It doesn't help that the ISO number means very different things in terms of exposure when comparing across cameras. I got my first M camera, an M8 at the weekend and one of my first surprises was how often I could shoot practice shots in doors at 640. In comparison my Fuji X100 would always be up at 1600 or 3200 in similar circumstances. Well I have my answer, I compared both on a blank wall in my house and the X100 wants ISO 1600 when the M8 + 50 Planar wants ISO 640, both set to identical aperture and shutter speeds. I guess in a roundabout way I am saying I have been pleasantly surprised that the high ISO performance is nothing like as bad as I had thought it might be.

[NZDavid]

That doesn't sound right! There may be some variation but not that much. ISO is standard measurement system of light sensitivity. Either the X100 or the M8 is giving a false reading.

[01af]

ISO is standard measurement system of light sensitivity.

It is for film but not for digital.

[NZDavid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Really? Never heard that before. That means you can't use a separate meter.

[01af]

Really? Never heard that before. That means you can't use a separate meter.

You can but you'd need to test how to set up your meter for each digital camera—just as you'd do with film ...

[250swb]

Well I have my answer, I compared both on a blank wall in my house and the X100 wants ISO 1600 when the M8 + 50 Planar wants ISO 640, both set to identical aperture and shutter speeds.

 

Possibly more to do with the metering pattern of each rather than over a stop difference in the manufacturers interpretation of what ISO means. ISO is after all an international standard, not an opinion. But back to the question....

 

John, I sense you are more interested in making photographs than worrying about 'limits'

 

Anybody who still uses film will especially appreciate the 'limits' of the M9 (or M8) as being wonderful tools rather than something to complain about. I find ISO 2000 perfectly OK from my M9 with the right software, or even without if I want grit and grain. And over the years as ISO performance in digital cameras has gone up I can't say I have gone with it. For instance my photographs have not substantially changed from being outdoors landscape to indoors nighclubs, so improved ISO has passed me by in practical terms. The ISO has never dragged me into doing something that I didn't want to do either, so the best IQ from any camera is still its native base ISO, which means I'd still reach for a tripod even if I had a Nikon D800 and ultimate IQ was what I was after.

 

So it is generally speaking all nonsense wanting another stop extra of ISO because it will be needed. Only those already working on the very edge will find one stop (or even two) essential, or those wanting to go in another direction with their photography by moving from photographing outdoor chess to Formula 1. The rest, the vast majority, will still want to demonstrate their Leica lenses at optimum IQ levels of low ISO for most of the time.

 

But I can get caught in the headlights as well. Recently I have been trying to find the ulitmate compact digital camera to take out when I am using medium or large format, so I can shoot a colour picture if I see one and not carry colour film around when I hardly use it. It needs to be small and light, so as not to add to the weight of the backpack, so even my M9 and 50mm Elmar is out. I read the Sigma DP2-M has poor ISO over 400, the Sony RX100 is ground breaking and good ISO, the Panasonic LX5 has a fast Leica lens etc etc. But hang on a minute, I already have a tripod with me, so why did I think the DP2-M wouldn't be a good choice, thinking poor ISO would be a hindrance? Its reading reviews, not specifications, unconciously absorbing information from people who don't take my photographs.

 

Which I think brings me back to your point John. High ISO only matters if it really matters, and the world hasn't changed a lot, people still go to bed at nightime and photography is still done (mostly) in daylight, and that is a good reason not to worry about missing out in the ISO race.

 

Steve

[NZDavid]

You can but you'd need to test how to set up your meter for each digital camera—just as you'd do with film ...

 

Films do vary from stated ISOs, but only slightly. Usually I would shoot them at the stated ISO. That is the purpose of a standard measuring system. For example, Fuji Velvia is nominally rated at 50 ISO but many people find it better at 40 ISO (I always found it OTT anyway in our very bright light). Other films may vary slightly from their stated ISOs and can be rated according to individual preferences. The emphasis being on slight. A variation between 640 for one digital camera and 1600 ISO for another for the same shot, at same apertures and shutter speeds, as stated above, sounds crazy. Why even use ISO ratings if they are meaningless with digital?

[01af]

A variation between ISO 640/29° for one digital camera and ISO 1600/33° for another for the same shot, at same apertures and shutter speeds, as stated above, sounds crazy.

No, it doesn't. It's a difference of just a tad more than one f-stop. You get this kind of difference with film pretty often, too.

[NZDavid]

Oh yes it does, no you don't! If a film says 100 ISO that's what you believe and set your meter or camera for. You don't expect some 100 ISO films to really be 200 or 400. Otherwise, the ISO standard is completely meaningless.

[NJH]

This is actually a well known phenomenon with Fuji X cameras, it has been debated to death on various forums, dpreview in particular. This guy did some interesting comparison tests with the 5d mkIII.

Review of the Fujifilm X-E1

 

Personally I don't accuse them of cheating rather I would think of it as they have used the wider dynamic range available in the latest sensors to push the exposure to the right and hence produce such clean looking images by adjusting the tone curve to compensate.

 

Another point or possibility is a difference in lens transmission factor, I have no idea what that may be for the X100's built in lens.

[IkarusJohn]

John, I sense you are more interested in making photographs than worrying about 'limits'

 

Now, there's a novel idea!

 

My post was really to try to burst a little bit of a bubble over people's angst with high ISO performance. My film background was Kodachrome 25 & 64 and Velvia 50. I did no colour prints (couldn't see the point) and my black & white never went beyond Tri-X at 400. I recall playing with some early high speed films in the 1980s, and hated the results.

 

As I say, I need ND filters more often than high ISO. It may be just that the light is very bright and very harsh here, as David says. We are photographers of light, aren't we?

 

I don't mind having very good high ISO with my Monochrom, but I hardly use it and I do not see the ISO limitations of my M9 as a problem. Leica lenses are fantastic when used wide, and that rather militates against ISO limitations. If it's that dark, there's not much I want to photograph ...

 

Anybody who still uses film will especially appreciate the 'limits' of the M9 (or M8) as being wonderful tools rather than something to complain about. I find ISO 2000 perfectly OK from my M9 with the right software, or even without if I want grit and grain. And over the years as ISO performance in digital cameras has gone up I can't say I have gone with it. For instance my photographs have not substantially changed from being outdoors landscape to indoors nighclubs, so improved ISO has passed me by in practical terms. The ISO has never dragged me into doing something that I didn't want to do either, so the best IQ from any camera is still its native base ISO, which means I'd still reach for a tripod even if I had a Nikon D800 and ultimate IQ was what I was after.

 

Exactly.

 

So it is generally speaking all nonsense wanting another stop extra of ISO because it will be needed. Only those already working on the very edge will find one stop (or even two) essential, or those wanting to go in another direction with their photography by moving from photographing outdoor chess to Formula 1. The rest, the vast majority, will still want to demonstrate their Leica lenses at optimum IQ levels of low ISO for most of the time.

 

...

 

Which I think brings me back to your point John. High ISO only matters if it really matters, and the world hasn't changed a lot, people still go to bed at nightime and photography is still done (mostly) in daylight, and that is a good reason not to worry about missing out in the ISO race.

 

Thanks, Steve - couldn't have put it better myself.

 

David, you are right that ISO is an international standard measure of sensitivity. What Olaf is saying is that in practice, it doesn't work that way, and probably never has. With film, you will have got used to one type of film (I did), and you will have learned to expose it in a way which gave you the results you wanted, with the camera you used most often. I found that I tended to slightly under-expose Kodachrome 64 with my Nikon FM2.

 

With the variance in metering, ISO in film was only ever a guide, and with digital, it's an approximation. Leica has been pretty straight up about this, if I recall correctly.

 

Cheers

John

[NJH]

Yep, dpreview way back when they tested the M8 came out with a result saying the camera actually under-rates its ISO numbers i.e. ISO 640 is really ISO 800 etc.

Leica M8 Review: Digital Photography Review

 

They also measured a sizeable difference for the X-pro but going in the other direction.

Fujifilm X-Pro1 in-depth review: Digital Photography Review

[atournas]

This high ISO race looks like a conspicuous market trick. It reminds me of a similar race with the megapixels in the cellphone cameras; iPhones and some Nokia brands deliver better images with fewer MP's because of the larger pixel size they use.

 

Film-era or digital-era shooting, we all know that pro-level images require a tripod and great hand-held street and documentary photographs were taken with 400 ASA B&W films. When it comes to color, nothing could beat Kodachrome 25 (or Ektar 25); Velvia 50 is just an acceptable substitute.

 

I never use my digital Leica beyond its base ISO, but I do carry a lightweight Gitzo tripod--my "six-digit ISO setting." Anyway, this post of mine is practically unnecessary after Steve's analysis.

 

Paul

[thighslapper]

 

Which I think brings me back to your point John. High ISO only matters if it really matters, and the world hasn't changed a lot, people still go to bed at nightime and photography is still done (mostly) in daylight, and that is a good reason not to worry about missing out in the ISO race.

 

Steve

 

Couldn't agree more.

 

I use the lowest ISO I can get away with even if it means wedging myself up against a door to get down to 1/8 sec ... or my manfrotto pocket 'tripod' ....... and in fact keeping ISO low is the only good reason for using auto on an M......

 

The new M can do 3200 and produce great images .... but I will still only be using it because I have absolutely no choice.....

[rramesh]

ISO is a measure of the film's sensitivity to light and it applies well to film cameras.

 

Unfortunately for electronic cameras, it's an approximation as previous posters have pointed out. In an electronic camera there is a layer of electronics and processing on top of the sensor in the camera that blurs the true measure of sensitivity. Manufacturers seem to be using this to promote their cameras as being better in different ways.

 

Kind of like horsepower ratings in cars, I guess. ;-)

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Jeff S]

Oh yes it does, no you don't! If a film says 100 ISO that's what you believe and set your meter or camera for. You don't expect some 100 ISO films to really be 200 or 400. Otherwise, the ISO standard is completely meaningless.

 

The issue, in practical use, isn't just the film, but rather the interaction of the film with the camera and the meter. Meters vary; real shutter speeds vary; film iterations change, etc. Film development tests introduce even more variables requiring tests: developer, water temp, agitation technique, etc, etc.

 

I used Tri-X for decades, and almost never shot it at the rated 400 ASA; rather typically from 200 to 320, depending on camera, meter and tests. The result, however, was consistent, i.e., the speed that would provide for proper shadow (black) exposure.

 

There are ratings...then there is real world use.

 

Jeff

[Dan Bachmann]

I was surprised at how bad the high ISO noise was at first. Then I found that while noisy, it is not as ugly as the noise from the other digital cameras I have. When converting to monochrome, it is closer to film grain than digital grain and I've not had a problem with banding on the Leica.