Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
nerve

not impressed,,

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

as a Leica and Canon user, i cannot say i am impressed with the high isos in M8,

when it comes to low light, nothing can beat my 5D + 35 1.4L combi. imo, which is superb..

 

I dont want to bash my M8 at all, such a great camera in every aspect, light and compact, but looks like i wont be able to give up 5d in low light yet which is one of my favourite areas..I wish i would be confident with my M under low light, but i am not, 1.600 Iso (and 3.200 ISO) is way better in 5D.. looks like i will still have to carry my heavy dslr in my journeys..

)

 

few examples with M8 and 35 Summilux wide open at 640 and 1.250 ISO respectively..

 

the last one (Tibetans) is from Canon (5D + 35L) (iso 3200)

 

Ps: wouldnt be life beautiful with a ff 5d sensor in my M8??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest stnami

...... there is a difference between low light and darkness, people are expecting way too much from cameras these days............. the 5D looks smeared.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

evren......

 

not sure i know 5d (this is the smaller full frame canon rite?) but talking about 1mk2cannon and m8....

basically, the m8 is noisier indeed, but from the other hand, i think m8 files are much stronger than canon files at least in 320-640 range of "high-iso"......... the canon (even when processed with silverfast hdr48 not to mention adobe) are a bit more plastic usually than what can be done with the m8. (of course i ignore at the moemnt the big colour problems of m8 and the canons better work in this terms)..... i only mean that the m8 sensor has more in common with medium format backs richness and substance on the print and a bit closer to the film qualities than canon sensor chracteristics.....

if you really want to fully enjoy high iso, then take fuji provia400x and in b/w ilford hp5 or even push more and take fuji neopan1600.......

)

 

i agree with imants..... people expecting from cameras too much........ reading too much marketing slogans.......... and then dispointed in the better case or usually simply convince themselve that what they see is what the slogans say........

)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clean waxy high iso files.... yes that's the Canon marketing trap...... people tend to like these files these days, so Canon did his job very well ... i cant help it but i find them ugly and unnatural!

BTW ... i shoot my M8 at iso 640 standard because i think the iso 160 files lack texture and are too clean to my taste!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazing how much more photographic those M8 files look, more pleasing to my eye, - but I admit, the Canon files are very good - digital- images. Running Noise Ninja over the M8 pictures might get them very close to the Canon look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
as a Leica and Canon user, i cannot say i am impressed with the high isos in M8,

when it comes to low light, nothing can beat my 5D + 35 1.4L combi. imo, which is superb..

 

I dont want to bash my M8 at all, such a great camera in every aspect, light and compact, but looks like i wont be able to give up 5d in low light yet which is one of my favourite areas..I wish i would be confident with my M under low light, but i am not, 1.600 Iso (and 3.200 ISO) is way better in 5D.. looks like i will still have to carry my heavy dslr in my journeys..

)

 

few examples with M8 and 35 Summilux wide open at 640 and 1.250 ISO respectively..

 

the last one (Tibetans) is from Canon (5D + 35L) (iso 3200)

 

Ps: wouldnt be life beautiful with a ff 5d sensor in my M8??

 

 

I agree that the Canon 5D seems to have the market on high-ISO image chips. I would love to see that chip in the M8, were it altered to prevent aliasing and be as capable as the kodak pixel lenses to correct for vignetting. Each camera has strengths and weaknesses, the M8's Kodak chip is as capable as any below ISO 800 it seems. Above that the noise- still low- is not as noise free as the 5D. However the Canon SLR system, even with its great chip, is saddled with its SLR lenses which are not as sharp as Leica glass nor even Leica-wannabee lenses (Zeiss, Voigtlander)- even though they are fine lenses. My family-used Kodak P880 ZLR with its Scheider 24-140mm lens is sharper than many Canon "L" lenses (no canon user wants to admit that; comparisons of pix from my professional wedding photog brother taken with both Canon "L" lenses and his own Kodak P880 show that buying an "L" lens does not buy a superlative lens better than the Kodak) yet the Kodak P880 chip is worthless above ISO 100. It just depends on you accepting the overall strengths of any camera. All in all, the M8, to me, is the best combination of image making ability. The loss of some high ISO ability with the M8 compared to the 5D is weighed against the better Leica lenses. I am an advanced amateur photographer so I rarely uses ISO above 640 anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The loss of some high ISO ability with the M8 compared to the 5D is weighed against the better Leica lenses. I am an advanced amateur photographer so I rarely uses ISO above 640 anyway.

 

yes, maybe.. but it seems to me that nothing can beat a 35 1.4L and a 5d combination.

Canon 351.4L is a world class lens even if its wide open imho..

 

my honest low light experience: i wish i wasnt true; but i prefer 5d+351.4L to my M8 + 35 Summilux anytime,

 

cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try setting ISO at 640 and underexposing a stop (have to use RAW mode). That will give a real ISO of about 1600 (as 640 is really more like 800) with very good results. You can even underexpose 2 stops for 3200 equivalent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...... there is a difference between low light and darkness,QUOTE]

 

sorry, couldnt get your point; i think i do have quite a good idea about the difference between 'black' or 'low light' (or having both...-- so???)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Try setting ISO at 640 and underexposing a stop (have to use RAW mode). That will give a real ISO of about 1600 (as 640 is really more like 800) with very good results. You can even underexpose 2 stops for 3200 equivalent.

 

Hank, thanks for your contribution.. but underexposing a stop or two doesnt really work too much either.. i tried all that,noise comes out.. in low isos underexposing works in m8 for sure, but not if its 640 and over..

 

i get better results with 1.250 iso with no compensation than 640 with (-1) or (-2)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hank, thanks for your contribution.. but underexposing a stop or two doesnt really work too much either.. i tried all that,noise comes out.. in low isos underexposing works in m8 for sure, but not if its 640 and over..

 

i get better results with 1.250 iso with no compensation than 640 with (-1) or (-2)

 

you don't want to set exposure compensation, you want to just shoot 'dark' so to speak-only use half of the histogram.

 

As the other posters said, set 640 and then pull the exposure up in C1. Lr has improved since the update, it's a little better but not as good as C1 in this respect. Another thing about Lr is don't accept the defaults in the raw settings if this is what you are using. Lr has a pretty aggressive amount of black clipping set (+5blacks and +25 contrast), and when you are underexposing like this you are using a different part of the tone curve to record the image, these settings will compact all that information, so begin by zeroing them out. C1 is a little less aggressive in this respect.

Working with the 5D one "feels" better looking at the lcd, the midtone is very open, the image looks bright. The M8 will record with a lower midtone, but no blown highlights, similarly to slide film. I believe a good print can be made from either camera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guy_mancuso

Personally i love the M8 at 640 and i rarely ever go over that but when i saw the first tests by Sean with the 5d and the M8 in the high ISO's i immediately saw the smearing of the 5d . Sure it has less noise than the M8 but the M8 has more detail in the files. Frankly i am after the detail, the noise I can fix if i really need to. I just don't like the smearing that Victor and Imants mentioned it just melts the image to me. I guess if you really need to be that high in ISO's which frankly i never needed to be that high in any situation than the 5d will win that battle but much rather have the detail the M8 gives me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi folks!

 

in my opinion there's a point that no one seems to think about since the "digital era":

i had a M4 for such a long time that i can't remember, but i am sure just of this thing:

i never used a film with iso higher then 800 to shot.

So i'm sure, by knowing leica user all around the world, and frequenting my photographers group, that i'm not the only one.How many of you did always had a body with a 1200 or higher iso film with him?...

... be sincere....

I agree with the sensational clean images that 5D+L lenses can produce, but i think it's not such a need to shot...

and here is the second point:

is a 1200iso film as clean as a 1200iso file from our cameras?.....mmm.... dunno...

i like a little grain(really little), and most of the time i shot with 320iso on my M8, i like low light situations, and i think that 640iso is more than i need, because in lower light situations, the tripod is still the only way...

Canon is able to make really "clean" files at higher iso, but it's not really a discover to say that in making "street-life" shots (as you attached) we need anyway a certain speed...

maybe the last shot could have been made with a tripod and a M8 with 320/640 iso (summilux or nocti included), i.e. it's not such a moving scene...

The force of the of the Canon grows up in these situations, but i think (and hope) that this is not a usual condition to be in!

 

...not to mention the differences between RF and DSLR... the ability to shot at a lower speed with RF than DSLR... the viewfinder lightness...can you really shot (as someone showed up in this forum with the M8) with a 35mm lens on a DSLR @ 1/15 or 1/8?....

 

it's not correct i suppose to make such a comparison... maybe due to camera prices than other things...

 

I really like the 5D... but i'm always off with my M8!

they are both delcious cameras, but not comparable with each other i think...

 

regards

Maurizio

 

MAURIZIO BEUCCI.com - Official web site

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guy_mancuso

Just a quick example of a shot in a restaurant in Germany lit by a BD cake . Now i had the wrong lens on and was not expecting the cake to come but this is ISO 640 with a WATE f4 lens at 1/8 of a second handheld. Now if i had the 28 cron on I could have shot faster but for what it is at that slow of a speed the detail is there

 

Both here at ISO 640 handheld first one at 18mm and the second at 16mm and both at 1/8 of a second. Not sure how much more ISO than this that you may ever need. Faster lens than F4 no doubt but ISO i start to wonder about that. Just my opinion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

Here are a couple of low light pics i took with my new (2weeks old) M8 and 50mm noctolux, both handheld. Both pics are straight out of the camera on standard settings.

Might not take loads to impress me as i hav never had a rangefinder camera before and and returning to photography after a 10year 'break', but i like them anyway

 

Ali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi people...

Here is what i try to say:

1) iso 640 / 35 summicron (actual version) at f2 and 1/60 handheld

2) iso 640 / 50 elmarit (actual version) af f2.8 and 1/60 handheld

3) iso 160 / 28 summicron (actual version) at f2.8 and 1/8 handhels

 

MAURIZIO BEUCCI.com - Official web site

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that many DSLR images appear "smeared" when compared to the M8's -- BUT I personally feel much of it is in how the file is processed... Here is a silver statue shot from inside a church, shot hand-held at about 1/15th, to compliment Guy's silver shurch shot above. Do you think it is smeared or not? Can you tell what camera this image is from? Which lens?

 

/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=http://jack.cameraphile.org/albums/album07/silver_staue_strip.jpg&key=2f2fa5302bef796d165d0895f6ff73c7d1639bedf4ca29eabc4b8c262129d9ec">

 

Let's have some fun!

 

,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guy_mancuso

Jack you don't count , you can raw process better than anyone. LOL

 

Seriously Jack is a genius at Raw processing . Now go put that Canon away and grab your new M8 my dear friend. ROTFLMAO

 

Jack no doubt the 5D is better at the noise but i think when it gets into the 1250 and above is were we start seeing the smearing and i have noticed the lost detail up there , now the M8 kind of sucks way up at the top for noise but it does hold the detail better. Personally you know me if i have to go above ISO 640 i'm reaching for the strobes but I think way to many push the crap out of the ISO because they can't handhold a camera and i agree we are expecting much to much on pushing these sensors at the high ISO's. I never shot film this high up and since i been shooting digital i keep decreasing power on my strobes. I just read to many hobbyists on those canon forums shooting for no better reason the high ISO's than because they can not because of lost light values.

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...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...