mwilliamsphotography Posted June 9, 2007 Share #21 Posted June 9, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Here's one of the best Leica M8 shots done that day by Irakly ( I can show it because he was under contract to me ). It was ISO 640 using his old chrome 90/2.8 FAT ( so much for "modern" Leica Lenses : -). I made a 22" wide print for the B&G ... no noise. All of our M8 work was processed in Adobe Lightroom. 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/26119-new-leica-m8-noise-at-iso-640/?do=findComment&comment=276738'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 9, 2007 Posted June 9, 2007 Hi mwilliamsphotography, Take a look here New Leica M8 noise at ISO 640?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
tofsla Posted June 9, 2007 Author Share #22 Posted June 9, 2007 Jamie. Thank you. Thats perfect. I been looking for something like this: straight out of camera JPEG with all standard settings. will use your shot as example and see if I can reproduce it. If I can - I will be very happy! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tofsla Posted June 9, 2007 Author Share #23 Posted June 9, 2007 Marc, thanks its nice but doesn't help me at all. But nice anyway Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alberti Posted June 9, 2007 Share #24 Posted June 9, 2007 And finally news paper test with 100% crop. Leica doesn't look sharp at all. Again. D200 first, Leica M8 second. both jpegs, no processing. What I am doing wrong? oh-oh... Is my camera broken? My suggestion is first that you do not use AWB when comparing photo 's. A colour difference shows up in both series (shoes & paper). Then the M8 looks a bit shlow (overexposed) so use bracketing. Then I agree that 640 is nice to use but is best in amply lit and not too contrasty light. I often just select a default white balance, mostly daylight. As soon as 640 is used in a tungsten mode then (aparently) the shadow depth decreases and grain starts to come. But even then, I find it slightly below the order of magnitude of standard colour negatives. Maybe increasing contrast would help. I must try that. Those working a lot on the RAW files with C1 of course can use all tricks afterwards. albert Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted June 9, 2007 Share #25 Posted June 9, 2007 Jamie / Irakly - really beautiful work - and a real testament to what the tool can do. Tofsla - looks like there are some issues you've got to come to terms with working with RF. 1/ metering - the Leica is centre-weighted - the habit of selecting the area you want to meter for and locking (1st pressure), selecting focus and then finalising composition can take a bit of time. You have to do it, the camera won't. 2/ shooting RAW - unless you're really familiar with digital RF you really do need to accept the value of RAW and then invest time in getting workflow sorted out with your preferred package (in my experience, you can get pretty good results with all of the mainstream packages - we've all got our preferences). I do hope you make it, because there's clear evidence from so many sources that the M8 is capable of producing beautiful images at anywhere from 160 through to 2400. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted June 9, 2007 Share #26 Posted June 9, 2007 " ...really beautiful work - and a real testament to what the tool can do." Tofsla - looks like there are some issues you've got to come to terms with working with RF. 1/ metering - the Leica is centre-weighted - the habit of selecting the area you want to meter for and locking (1st pressure), selecting focus and then finalising composition can take a bit of time. You have to do it, the camera won't. 2/ shooting RAW - unless you're really familiar with digital RF you really do need to accept the value of RAW and then invest time in getting workflow sorted out with your preferred package (in my experience, you can get pretty good results with all of the mainstream packages - we've all got our preferences). I do hope you make it, because there's clear evidence from so many sources that the M8 is capable of producing beautiful images ... " That was the point of going through the trouble of posting images @ ISO 640 from 3 different M8 cameras that were properly exposed despite poor lighting, and processed as RAW files in Lightroom. Each different camera system has to be optimized for what it does best how it does it best. If you want to shoot jpgs with the M8, you have to experiment with how to optimize both the camera settings and how you process the files afterwards. Blaming the camera can be done only after that process has taken place. It's a photographic tool, and all photographic tools are idiosyncratic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted June 9, 2007 Share #27 Posted June 9, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) I could not agree more ..... it's my standard setting! For my first experience, I tend to agree too: personally, I was surprised by the small differences between 160 and 640 in 20x30 prints Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tofsla Posted June 9, 2007 Author Share #28 Posted June 9, 2007 Marc, I got the point. Thank you. Will try again. Everyone thanks for the help. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted June 9, 2007 Share #29 Posted June 9, 2007 Being all anew to Digital photo, I used my M8 for two weeks shooting only jpgs, just for the reason that I wanted to underastand Hardware before than Software; well, when I finally installed on my PC Lightroom and made my first RAWs, I was astonished : did not have idea of SUCH a significant difference. Go to RAW quickly ! Today I made a pair of simple comparisions 160/640 with RAW : in practical results, found NO difference: playing a lot with enlarging on the screen, I finally noticed some small aliasing at SOME borders in the 640 pictures, but it was at absurd enlargment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.