sblutter Posted July 18, 2013 Share #21 Posted July 18, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Glad you asked. Of course I had to run a test right away - delighted! I pulled all the shades down ('light darkening') on cloudy day. My handheld meter reads EV 7, or f:2.0, 1/30 at ISO 640 I shot at 2.8, 1/90, camera set to ISO 160 - 5 stops from the meter (I don't think setting the camera ISO makes any difference to the capture, just the onboard meter). Summi 50mm, 2.0 Opened in Photoshop (latest ver) Raw, made some adjustment - voila - I've got a low light M9 - with plenty of room to spare for shutter speed 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/208876-m9-colors-at-night-%E2%80%94-best-way-to-shoot-high-iso/?do=findComment&comment=2377446'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 Hi sblutter, Take a look here M9 Colors at Night — Best Way to Shoot High ISO?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
sblutter Posted July 18, 2013 Share #22 Posted July 18, 2013 How do you guys insert larger sized files? TY! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 18, 2013 Share #23 Posted July 18, 2013 Max file size is 1024 wide (high), quality approx 10. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblutter Posted July 18, 2013 Share #24 Posted July 18, 2013 You asked about the results with 5DM5 at night, acceptable - but resolving power of even their best lenses is disappointing. Even in LV on a tripod. Have been shooting Leitz glass for 40 yrs - its a look that's in the blood - nothing else feels right. I print all finals on 22x17" paper and often go larger for exhibitions. That's all beside the point today - I feel like I have a brand new camera! I haven't walked around at night with an M since I moved and lost the darkroom just as digital became viable. Welcome back M's 3>6, couldn't chimp on them either! Sir, you have made an old shooter a very happy - I love M9 files. Better get a back up while I can still find a low use one! I'm happy for the 240 people - but I saw nothing compelling for stills and the video part appears to be comparatively primitive. The baby Sony Rx-100 does a great job for YouTube sorts of uses, even has rolling AE, focus & zoom. I assume I'll get the 241 when avail Used to soup Tri-X at 3200 / 6400 all the time. Was a look that served me well for years. Then I discovered color... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
michali Posted July 18, 2013 Share #25 Posted July 18, 2013 Mitch- Thank you for this very informative and helpful post! In the midst of some of the mindless drivel which so often pervades threads on this Forum, it is refreshing to read a thread which is of such value. It's a good reminder I'm sure, of why many of us joined this Forum in the first place. Thanks and best, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted July 18, 2013 Share #26 Posted July 18, 2013 ...I shot at 2.8, 1/90, camera set to ISO 160 - 5 stops from the meter...Sounds promising but, actually, JIm Kasson's technical article states that, according to his tests, the M9 produces better IQ results if the ISO is set in-camera up to ISO 640 — and from that ISO onward the results of pushing in post-processing are better. For, the Nikon D800E, his test show that pushing already from the base ISO is better than increasing the ISO in-camera. —Mitch/Bangkok Paris au rhythme de Basquiat and Other Poems [download link for book project] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblutter Posted July 18, 2013 Share #27 Posted July 18, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Sounds promising but, actually, JIm Kasson's technical article states that, according to his tests, the M9 produces better IQ results if the ISO is set in-camera up to ISO 640 — and from that ISO onward the results of pushing in post-processing are better. For, the Nikon D800E, his test show that pushing already from the base ISO is better than increasing the ISO in-camera.-- Thanks! Will run some side by sides to confirm - tho I must say, at ISO 160, I'm already happy. 5 stops push, minimal & easily ameliorated noise, with settings a professional Sekonic meter says are equivalent of ISO 3200 with a stop to go in Raw editor - wow! Will post again when I've got something I can be proud of Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblutter Posted July 18, 2013 Share #28 Posted July 18, 2013 Just ran unscientific tests at 160, 640 and 2500 160 & 640 are pretty close - sure there's some noise, that's expected in low light but will have little or no effect on the impact of a good night city shot of a decisive moment the 160 is oddly a little sharper but noise is slightly blotchier at the same appearance of brightness (pp exposure). I did not match Raw settings, went with the gut. As for chimping, you can at least see you made a capture & didn't leave the lens cap on in 640, virtually black in 160 - if anyone cares They're both significantly smoother than the 2500, espec. in the Bokah areas. This is obviously where the 9 earned its bad low light reputation. It'll take real world experimentation with various ISO's in the low range to lock in the feel I'm looking for - really close already - and as usual when printed, many flaws will disappear anyway Will be interesting to see how it goes in grey scale...(!) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted July 19, 2013 Share #29 Posted July 19, 2013 i also find that if you set the wb in the m9 rather than leave it at awb it helps the noise. there is also the point, which your photos underscore, of having night shots look like not shots. if you think about what you want to highlight, chances are 640iso is more than enough and then the rest of shot darkens the way it looks in real life. the need for infinity iso levels reflect, to me at least, a desire to make a night shot look like daytime -- and i neither a sports photographer or in the surveillance business Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted July 19, 2013 Share #30 Posted July 19, 2013 Steve, yes, night should look like night — and the last set of night shots was on a very dark night. BTW, what is the reason that setting the WB rather than using AWB reduces noise? —Mitch/Bangkok Paris au rhythme de Basquiat and Other Poems [download link for book project] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted July 19, 2013 Share #31 Posted July 19, 2013 thorsten set out a thread a while back showing the lower noise when the wb was set to say 3200K. i tried it and it worked. others have opined that this theory of his was debunked, but personally i think the results are much better. why should it be? perhaps with one less variable the software can do better. have to ask thorsten that. and btw, i really enjoyed your shots because they were good and, to me, correctly evoked the light in which you took them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jffielde Posted July 19, 2013 Share #32 Posted July 19, 2013 This thread is incredibly useful. I'm going to try these techniques this weekend. Thanks to everyone for your work. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblutter Posted July 19, 2013 Share #33 Posted July 19, 2013 Didn't get anything worthy of sharing last night but I'd like to confirm the techniques in this thread really work, even more so in print where noise becomes secondary to the image vs. pixel peeping 100% enlargements on screen. M9 ladies and gentlemen - get out there, you have a night shooter, ISO max's be darned! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guido Posted July 19, 2013 Share #34 Posted July 19, 2013 M9 ladies and gentlemen - get out there, you have a night shooter, ISO max's be darned! I didn't really buy the theory until I tried it myself tonight... and I'm still sitting here, trying to understand why I wasted 4 years of my life with the M9 either shooting half-hearted at ISO 2500 or leaving the M9 at home at night altogether! malland clearly deserves the Nobel Prize of Photography for starting this life-changing thread While ISO 640 plus 2 stops (instead of ISO 2500) indeed seems to be the sweet spot in terms of noise structure, ISO 160 plus 4 stops is amazingly close. Are there any Monochrom users around to see how far the MM can be pushed with this approach? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted July 20, 2013 Share #35 Posted July 20, 2013 I didn't really buy the theory until I tried it myself tonight... and I'm still sitting here, trying to understand why I wasted 4 years of my life with the M9 either shooting half-hearted at ISO 2500 or leaving the M9 at home at night altogether! malland clearly deserves the Nobel Prize of Photography for starting this life-changing thread While ISO 640 plus 2 stops (instead of ISO 2500) indeed seems to be the sweet spot in terms of noise structure, ISO 160 plus 4 stops is amazingly close. Are there any Monochrom users around to see how far the MM can be pushed with this approach? nightfire, thanks. Yes, when I started shooting high-ISO this way, I felt that I had a completely different camera in my hands when doing night photography. It seems to me that Leica should include a section in its M9 manual on how to maximize image quality at low-ISO using this method. In any case, I would like to see this method publicized here on LUF so that we'll get people who will run tests with the M-Monochrom and the M240. While the M-Monochrom has good low light performance, applying this method will mean that exposure for an effective ISO of 5000 or 10000 will no longer have to be accurate. And that is one of the other major benefits of this method: effectively the exposure is determined by pushing in post so that it does not have to be "correct" when shooting — and correct exposure at night can be difficult to determine because the lighting conditions can be so variable, certainly for the types of subjects that I've posted in this thread. —Mitch/Bangkok Bangkok Obvious [WIP] Eggleston said that he was "at war with the obvious"... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted July 20, 2013 Share #36 Posted July 20, 2013 These techniques are not unique to the M9; I've been more than content using the M8.2 at moderate ISO in the evening and using LR to positive effect. This is one of the reasons why I posted various times over the years about my enthusiasm for the continually improved iterations of LR. Camera upgrades are generally overrated IMO compared to continual improvements in the PP end of things, including software, printers, papers, inks, profiles, etc. That said, I am looking forward to testing the new M, but not because of any potential ISO improvement; rather it seems to be a much more refined machine, given the improved RF mechanism (a delightful surprise), quiet shutter, better processor, longer battery life, 2m and illuminated frame lines, weather sealing, etc. I find it unlikely that I'll be disappointed with IQ (including color) given all the ways one can use various pre and post-processing tools and techniques that have caused such enthusiasm in this thread; they aren't unique to night time work. But the proof will be in the testing. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted July 20, 2013 Share #37 Posted July 20, 2013 Jeff, of course these techniques are applicable to the M240, as they are to the D800E. Indeed, I would be interested to know the results by applying them to the M240; but this thread should not become a M9 vs M240 discussion, as its value is that it looks like these techniques transform the low-ISO performance of the M9. —Mitch/Bangkok Bangkok Obvious [WIP] Eggleston said that he was "at war with the obvious"... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted July 20, 2013 Share #38 Posted July 20, 2013 but this thread should not become a M9 vs M240 discussion... Indeed, which is why I first mentioned the M8.2 as well. My point is that your technique, which works well on the M9, is applicable to many cameras. It seems some folks here are surprised; they shouldn't be, and should be encouraged to experiment with the M9, or any other camera. Teach a man to fish... Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted July 20, 2013 Share #39 Posted July 20, 2013 thanks mitch, i too will give this a try .... and enjoy the results! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nggalai Posted July 21, 2013 Share #40 Posted July 21, 2013 Sounds promising but, actually, JIm Kasson's technical article states that, according to his tests, the M9 produces better IQ results if the ISO is set in-camera up to ISO 640 — and from that ISO onward the results of pushing in post-processing are better. For, the Nikon D800E, his test show that pushing already from the base ISO is better than increasing the ISO in-camera. —Mitch/Bangkok Paris au rhythme de Basquiat and Other Poems [download link for book project] I gave this a shot in January / February, after reading too many whitepapers on sensor technology, and the release of Capture One 7 and its improved engine. My findings were - Up to ISO 640 (incandescent / tungsten light) / 800 (full spectrum light), it’s more sensible to crank up ISO on the M9. - Beyond ISO 640/800, there’s a noticeable gain in dynamic range by pushing with current RAW developers. Depending on the image, of course. - Also, the lower noise floor allows for less artefacts when pushing compared to in-cam ISO raising – ISO 640, pushed by +3EV (“virtual ISO 5000”) seems to be, on average and with modern RAW developers, less noisy than ISO 1250 (incandescent) or ISO 2500 (full spectrum light) with greater dynamic range. - I couldn’t say the same about my Olympus EP-2 files; there, raising ISO in-camera resulted in better quality compared to pushing in PP every time. I suspect, as the rather old µ43 sensor has a higher noise floor, that Olympus invested far more time and effort in in-cam noise control than Leica did. I don’t think this is a CMOS/CCD issue. Cheers, -Sascha Edit: Just realised I uploaded an example image to the LUF gallery in April: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/members/100362-albums5031-picture12241.html ISO 800, pushed by +3EV in Capture One. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.