Jump to content
lct

Clean CL at 3200 iso?

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Bit noisy at 3200 iso. Looks like my "old" M240 at 3200 iso, let alone my A7s mod at 12800 iso more or less. Could be worse but sounds a bit disappointing from a modern camera. I did not underexpose so it comes perhaps from my poor skills with LR i don't know well.

Have you got cleaner results with LR or other raw converters at 3200 iso folks?
Merry Christmas BTW .
(CL, ZM 35/2.8, f/4, 19MB file)
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno what to think... that's plenty clean enough for me. It's not the best image to judge noise on because of its complexity. I only rarely use much over 1600 ISO anyway.

Edited by ramarren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find 3200 great. A bit of noise yes but very organic and film like noise. I’d say it’s on par with my M10.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Bit noisy at 3200 iso. Looks like my "old" M240 at 3200 iso, let alone my A7s mod at 12800 iso more or less. Could be worse but sounds a bit disappointing from a modern camera. I did not underexpose so it comes perhaps from my poor skills with LR i don't know well.

Have you got cleaner results with LR or other raw converters at 3200 iso folks?
Merry Christmas BTW .
<snip>

 

Are you comparing JPGs or RAWs? Every camera has a different way to do noise elimination in JPGs. AFAIK, most comments about noise on CL were in regards to the RAW files.

Even though designed mainly for video, A7S, a full frame 12Mp camera, is extraordinary good for low light photography (probably due to very low pixel density).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't use jpegs but i'm not good at handling LR so i wonder if i missed something. Now if you say that the M10 doesn't do better... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the CL better than the M240: my AutoISO limit on the CL and SL is 12500, while on the M240 it is 3200. Yes, I can see the noise on your linked file; whether this is acceptable or not is a personal thing.

 

If noise is an issue in an image that could otherwise be valuable, I will use Nik Define to tidy it up - it is more selective and controllable than LR. OTOH, the new local adjustment masking tool in LR (in the latest upgrade) may have brought the balance of usefulness back towards Adobe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My auto iso limit is 12800 on Sony A7s mod but only 3200 on both M240 and Fuji X-E2. I hoped to raise it to 6400 on CL but it won't do it for me i'm afraid. I must be spoilt by Sony i guess... Thanks for sharing anyway

.

Edited by lct

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nik define 2.   Program samples different areas and applies correct NR to each area automatically.  free .    Manual selection may also be used.   Did I say free from Google, entire Nik collection.

 

LR can do "brush" on certain areas and you can apply edge masking so as not to soften edges.  

 

Move all photos to ps edit and use action to run them all through define 2 automatically.

 

All said,  high iso is never as good as low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a lot of people may not realize it, but the current generation of sensors, including the (likely) Sony APSC sensor in the CL are getting to the point that the noise characteristics at moderate ISO’s like 3200 are inherent in the light itself. We’re not going to see noise getting a heck of a lot better over time. Pretty much anything with 4 micron pixels with an APSC format is going to provide similar performance. Shot noise is likely dominating over read noise at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Bit noisy at 3200 iso. Looks like my "old" M240 at 3200 iso, let alone my A7s mod at 12800 iso more or less. Could be worse but sounds a bit disappointing from a modern camera. I did not underexpose so it comes perhaps from my poor skills with LR i don't know well.

Have you got cleaner results with LR or other raw converters at 3200 iso folks?

Merry Christmas BTW

.

Full size: https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-TpD5BbZ/0/51518c3c/O/i-TpD5BbZ.jpg

(CL, ZM 35/2.8, f/4, 19MB file)

 

C1000569_lisi_web.jpg

Can you upload DNG someplace. Although I won't be surprised that it is similar to M240. A generation ahead but APS-C will even out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a lot of people may not realize it, but the current generation of sensors, including the (likely) Sony APSC sensor in the CL are getting to the point that the noise characteristics at moderate ISO’s like 3200 are inherent in the light itself. We’re not going to see noise getting a heck of a lot better over time. Pretty much anything with 4 micron pixels with an APSC format is going to provide similar performance. Shot noise is likely dominating over read noise at this point.

Any reference to what you are explaining for further reading? It is interesting that there is an inherent limit to clean files at this pixel pitch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ll see if I can dig up a good, general reference that isn’t too technical. In the meanwhile here is a brief description.

 

There are several sources of noise in any image. The first is read noise—the ability of the camera to accurately read out the contents of the CMOS chip at each pixel. It is typically fixed at somewhere between 2 and 20 electrons depending on ISO. If you are trying to read out 20,000 electrons of signal (plenty of light) even 20 electrons is immaterial. As the light gets dimmer, though, 20 electrons are more relevant. If your signal was 100 electrons, that read noise matters—a lot. This was the situation we were in, say, ten years ago. Since then, read noise levels have been dropping. Now it’s not at all unusual to see less than 2 electrons of read noise. Even with very low light, 2 electrons is usually pretty minor.

 

The next source of noise is thermal noise. This really only affects long exposures. I’ll ignore this for now.

 

The interesting one for this discussion is shot noise. Light itself is quantized, and the flow of photons from your subject into the camera is not perfectly even. This is shot noise and is inherent in the light. Google Poisson distribution if you want to read about this. Basically, it’s the random distribution of counts that are bounded at zero. Like a bell curve for measuring light. Even a theoretically perfect detector can’t do anything about this. There just isn’t enough light at each pixel. It’s an upper wall for all detectors.

 

So why did I mention “pixel pitch” and “sensor size?” If you have a larger sensor or larger pixels (or both), you get more light hitting each pixel so the “wall” moves up. This is why the Sony A7s does so well, for example, compared to other full frame chips. Only 12 megapixels, so many more photons per pixel vs a higher resolution camera. Better signal-to-noise in the light itself.

 

We are literally getting to the point where sensors won’t be able to improve any more. Quantum efficiency on many back side illuminated sensors is approaching 80%, so there is no more light to grab. Read noise is already down around 2 electrons. Thermal noise is all but irrelevant for exposures up to several seconds. What’s left is the physics of light itself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Similar shot at 6400 iso with the A7s mod. I used C1 then but compare the leaves. I know the A7s is a special camera and i did not expect the CL to compete with it. I'm just a bit disappointed by the performance of the latter but i do keep in mind that 800 ASA was my limit in the film days and that 1250 iso was too noisy for colour works with my M8.2. At least the CL doesn't seem to produce banding at 6400 iso contrary to the M240. 

(A7s mod, Elmar 50/2.8 v2, f/2.8 or f/4, 9MB file)
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was pondering on this today whilst taking some snaps in low light at my parents house for xmas......

 

To be honest extended high ISO performance just encourages bad habits and poor photography. 

 

Previously I would have put in some effort ...... wedged against a door so I can use 1/15 sec and keep ISO as low as possible....... now it's just set auto iso at 6400 and blast away. 

 

Low contrast subjects and large areas of uniform texture always fare badly no matter what you do in LR.

 

Despite the better performance I think I will set ISO to 800 max and employ other tactics to take images when it gets difficult .... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Similar shot at 6400 iso with the A7s mod. I used C1 then but compare the leaves. I know the A7s is a special camera and i did not expect the CL to compete with it. I'm just a bit disappointed by the performance of the latter but i do keep in mind that 800 ASA was my limit in the film days and that 1250 iso was too noisy for colour works with my M8.2. At least the CL doesn't seem to produce banding at 6400 iso contrary to the M240. 

(A7s mod, Elmar 50/2.8 v2, f/2.8 or f/4, 9MB file)
 
DSC00358_c1si_web.jpg

 

 

I tried putting both of your examples up side by side, but you took them at different overall exposures (Sony example has darker foliage) and of different parts of the tree, so they aren't really comparable.  Anyway an A7S with 6 or 6.8 micron pixels against an APS-C sensor with 4micron (or so) pixels, is always going to be an uneven contest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Bit noisy at 3200 iso. Looks like my "old" M240 at 3200 iso, let alone my A7s mod at 12800 iso more or less. Could be worse but sounds a bit disappointing from a modern camera. I did not underexpose so it comes perhaps from my poor skills with LR i don't know well.

Have you got cleaner results with LR or other raw converters at 3200 iso folks?
Merry Christmas BTW .
(CL, ZM 35/2.8, f/4, 19MB file)
 
C1000569_lisi_web.jpg

 

Yes, ACR can do a bit better, but you need to adjust the controls away from the standard settings. However, an APS-C sensor is likely to be behind a FF sensor by about one stop in noise performance, for the simple reason that the image is enlarged twice, doubling the noise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No camera maker can overrule the laws of physics and mathematics.

 

24 Mpixels on an APS-C sensor area means each pixel is catching half as many photons (half the surface area) as the pixels on a 24Mpixel full-frame sensor (M240) and only one-fifth (almost) as many photons as with the 12-Mpixel Sony A7s. At the same gross exposure (aperture, shutter speed, and ISO).

 

Area of an A7s pixel (approximately) = 0.000072 mm2 -----that's 24mm x 36mm overall sensor dimensions = 872 mm2, divided by 12000000 pixels = 0.000072 mm2 per pixel

Area of an M240 pixel = 0.000036 mm2

Area of a Leica CL pixel = 0.000015 mm2

 

Small pixels produce a smaller signal, and thus S/N ratio is lower, and thus they are noisier, especially pushed to higher ISOs. If the CL is not 4.8 times as noisy as the Sony - it is doing very well.

 

This why I am no fan of ever-inflating megapixel counts without a corresponding increase in sensor size/area. I'll buy a 48-Mpixel Leica when the Leica sensor size is 36 x 54mm.

Edited by adan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit noisier than the M10 but still very good. My issue is more color sensitivity as ISO increases. The M10 is exceptional the way it captures the tones all the way up to ISO 10000 (compared it to the Sony α7R II and posted the link here). Below the usual suspect.

 

Uncompressed files here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-9X3ZVp/

 

 

CL + 35 Summilux-TL WB adjusted to try to match M10, Exposure +1.50, LR default sharpening, NR +25

ISO 3200 f/2.8 @1/60 sec.

 

 

M10 + Noctilux adjusted to try to reduce tint, Exposure +1.50, LR default sharpening, NR +25

ISO 3200 f/2.8 @1/60 sec.

Edited by Chaemono

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...