Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
nerve

not impressed,,

Recommended Posts

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 don't count???

 

Guy, I TOTALLY agree with you on this, and IMO ISO is the bigger issue. Just because there is low noise, doesn't mean it is going to generate a good file...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guy_mancuso

LOL you count no doubt , just teasing.

 

i do agree just like film you still are better off working with the lowest ISO you can get away with. My film days are stuck in my head forever and i am so glad i am in the generation that shot film first because we learned so much from that experience but that is a whole different topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amen! However, there were those occasions where we felt we needed Konica 1000 -- remember that crap? ROTFLMAO!

 

Anyway, there are times I use higher ISO's, but I use them sparingly. Here is a shot I felt I needed the higher ISO -- hand-held, 1/8th at f4, ISO 1600. And yes, it looks a tad smeared, but at least I got the shot

. It might have been better had I sacrificed some DoF and used f2 at ISO 400 though...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fast lens - Summilux 75 - Handhold at 1/22nd and ISO 1250. I don't feel I want more, whatever the darkness...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guy_mancuso

No question there are times you really have to push something but i use that very sparingly. But did we not buy the fastest wide open lenses made. i know I did. LOL

 

Okay 2 weeks were the heck is my Nocti. Man do i have a long wait for that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow wow wow............ leica shooter will not use higher iso films (or digi settings)........ ??????

 

the legend of leica was its fexibility in any condition........ any..... to make images that are as truthful to the atmospher and documentary or stylistic value as possible..........

 

but again.......... we confuse here real photographers with leica that made it a legend in the art culture , with the equipemnt-oriented photographers...........

 

sending and posting tests on the interent ?????????????? wow wow......... u use leica with such a proud and then evaluate its qualities on iterent files ????????????????

 

hahahha guy ..... smeared

) as though disolved with water - the digital plastic

 

but again.......... be brave enough to try the film - the provia 400x (since we talk about high iso colour here i assume)......... push it to 800 and even 1600.... process it properly with real e-6 chemicals (or give it to serious lab)........ put it on light table....... make creo/imacon archival scan or even far better - amke a real darkroom ilfochrome print from it .............. it will cut into pieces cannons and even a more pleasing m8 ...... leave it in dust behind

)))))))))))

wanna know how b/w darkoom high iso film print looks like with 800/1600/3200 settings ?? it simply dances in the eyes ...... magnetic dance .........

) try it.......... just get out of this digital "box of thoughts" ...... be brave and try .........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jaap, that is a good shot for 1/22 of a second.

 

My experience from shooting Canon 1D-II for several years and M8 since January:

 

- High ISO is 1600 or say 1250; 640 is really not that high and much easier to deal with.

- You want such a high ISO for example to stop motion (dance etc.).

 

1) For color images at ISO 1600, you can't beat the combo of a Canon camera (using Digic-II) and a fast lens like a 35mm/f1.4L or 85/f1.2L or 50mm/f1.4.

Or you use one of the slower lenses with IS.

 

2) For **b/w** you can use the M8 at 1250 or even 2500 with solid results.

640 and lower works fine on the M8.

 

If you use the M8 for color images, you run into very ugly color noise.

Smeary images on the Canon side... if you use NoiseNinja etc. to get rid of the most ugly color noise on the M8 side, your fine detail is gone too!

 

And: You deal in most situation with lighting of low Kelvin temperature (incandescent etc.) with some chance to bring back the M8 color issues due to IR.

 

Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest localplayer

jack

 

 

i thought you advised me to stay away from the m8--do you have one again?

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...

Maurizio

 

MAURIZIO BEUCCI.com - Official web site

 

I constantly use 1600 speed film and above, even on occasions pushing to 9600 plus. But I never expected a "clean" image from high speed b&w film, (or pushed slide film) so why should I expect the same from digital? It is what it is and one uses it for a reason. Learn to embrace the grain folks! Not everything inlife needs to be squeaky clean. And Leicas are much more associated with high speed film than tripods! I'd rather stick in some TMZ/shoot high iso than carry around a bleeding tripod - kinda defeats the whole idea of the M compactness and portability! (though just for the record I do own a nice carbon Gitzo and do use it for certain jobs).

 

I'm not totally impressed by the M8's high speed capability, but neither am I disappointed. I'll take a film like grain look anyday over the plasticky digital look of the Canons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jack

 

 

i thought you advised me to stay away from the m8--do you have one again?

 

Hi Bob:

 

I probably did right after I sold my original one back in December, but I also mentioned I thought it would make a great dedicated B&W camera. And I have just purchased another... I am currently interested in it as a dedicated B&W camera (and for it's specific quality of IR bleed) AND the ability to use some special glass I found for it

 

But the night shot above was done with my Canon 5D and a Canon zoom, not a Leica. Not telling about the Silver statue shot yet until we see a few more guesses. Currently we have one guess at M8 and Guy guessing Canon.

 

I will add the silver statue was shot with a lens that cost me just over $300...

 

,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm only going to mention one or two things here, because they're important to understand...

 

If you're shooting JPEG in low light, then you're shooting yourself in the head, because usually invariably, the blue channel gets messed. This is particularly bad under tungsten light, where in general to white balance you will rely on the blue channel more.

 

So if you start with a noisier blue channel, then JPEG it, it will be filled with artifacts that are not pleasant to get rid of. The M8's current JPEG compression doesn't help this.

 

On the other hand, if you're shooting RAW, there will be less distortion in general in the blue channel.

 

This is true both for the 5d and the M8.

 

Under low tungsten, even in RAW, the 5d shots regularly turn to mush.

 

Also, in digital, you want to shoot as high an ISO as you need for a good exposure, and no higher. That sounds "duh," but a lot of people don't do this; if it's dark they up the ISO without thinking that they will bury most of the shadows in a print anyway, or that they have some post-process options.

 

Having said all that, above ISO 800, I like the 5d too, but there is a tradeoff between detail and noise there.

 

But here's where the consequence of my first point kicks in....

 

Though it's true on the M8 you have a lot of push latitude in lower ISOs in RAW (you really do, due to extra shadow information there), if you're more than a stop or two under where you want your upper-midtone detail, then you either need to open up or up the ISO. Plain and simple.

 

Sometimes, the 5d is the only tool I've got that can do that. But those times are very rare.

 

(PS--print film has what? 5 stops latitude when printing? That's way more than either of these cameras

)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
{snipped}.

 

Not telling about the Silver statue shot yet until we see a few more guesses. Currently we have one guess at M8 and Guy guessing Canon.

 

I will add the silver statue was shot with a lens that cost me just over $300...

 

,

 

Hey Jack--I'll play, but I'm going to be wrong

 

Full-frame-Canon digicam and, oh, let's say a 28-ish mm EF lens?

 

It's a hard subject to guess on, mostly because silver has lots of speculars (and the upper midtones go fast into speculars, don't they?). It has lots of inherent contrast too, so with the right sharpening, it's not going to look smeary anyway. I'm assuming it's only high-ISO because you needed it to balance the daylight; it doesn't look particularly wide-open to me, either...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sirvine

The correct comparison, as others point out, would be 5D vs. M8 with color noise reduction in post-processing. This is the only fair way to do it, since the 5D images look noise-reduced (i.e., detail deprived) and sharpened (yuck). I don't mean to bash the 5D at all, since the camera has its own merits.

 

Also, prints from the M8 look vastly better than on-screen pixel peeping. I am often seeing noise on the monitor and then forgetting about it in print.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

btw, i use 3.200 iso in my 5D a lot with good results, and its mostly under tungsten lighting.. and example:

 

 

btw, i will appreciate if some one can just show me the 'smeary' ness in this image, personally cant see any thing wrong. it seems to me another hype for sure for Canon, everything is a matter of PP skills at the end i am afraid..

 

".. Smeary images on the Canon side... if you use NoiseNinja etc. to get rid of the most ugly color noise on the M8 side, your fine detail is gone too!.."

 

 

i definitely agree with Peter btw, i can get away with my Ninja on 5D at least, LOL!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
btw, i use 3.200 iso in my 5D a lot with good results, and its mostly under tungsten lighting.. and example:

 

 

btw, i will appreciate if some one can just show me the 'smeary' ness in this image, personally cant see any thing wrong. it seems to me another hype for sure for Canon, everything is a matter of PP skills at the end i am afraid..

{snipped}

 

Evren--that doesn't look like tungsten only to me. Is it? At least the cooking fire isn't tungsten, that's for sure!

 

That's not an easy-bake oven, right?

 

And what we're saying is when things are underexposed the Canon goes smeary / noisy. It does; I have two

 

That doesn't mean you can't deal with it in post. You can deal with the M8 too, but you have to know what you're doing. For instance, I can get rid of colour noise entirely without affecting detail. But a lot of people can't, noise ninja or not...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Evren--that doesn't look like tungsten only to me. Is it? At least the cooking fire isn't tungsten, that's for sure!

 

That's not an easy-bake oven, right?

 

And what we're saying is when things are underexposed the Canon goes smeary / noisy. It does; I have two

 

That doesn't mean you can't deal with it in post. You can deal with the M8 too, but you have to know what you're doing. For instance, I can get rid of colour noise entirely without affecting detail. But a lot of people can't, noise ninja or not...

 

Yes Jamie i admit, thats a oven flame plus two lamps on the ceiling i would say!!!

so if they are not tungsten i wonder what they are..??

 

well, i simply cannot manage with my M8 images in my posts, even if i try get rid of color noise, my images just dissolve and loose details somehow whereas 5d files just look ok..

 

 

any secret that you would like to share with us -amateurs- to get rid of this awful colour noise in M8 if its not your job secret??

 

thanks and cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evren,

 

let me start first of all by saying that your pictures are beautiful. The middle one of the first batch with the motorcycle silhouetted in frame is incredible.

 

I used to own the 5D 35mm 1.4 combination and this was my bread and butter lens. It is a great lens, but my first version aspherical summilux blows it out of the water: sharper corner to corner, less purple fringing, and fringing in general. With my 5D, strong contrast borders such as horizonlines sometimes looked blocky and digital. This may have been the fault of Aperture, which was my raw converter at the time.

 

I agree with you that the high ISO performance of the 5D is great, and I took great pictures with this camera. My usual low light ISO was 1000 with the 5D. With the M8, I like to shoot at ISO 640 instead, sometimes 1250, but only when the assignment asks for a bit more grain and grittiness and less detail (such as a recent reportage on martial artists.)

 

I my opinion though, the grain in your M8 pictures is more than acceptable, and does not justify you dragging around a backpack full of 5D body and lenses for your style of photography.

 

Embrace the look of the M8, pack an Oscar Day Bag with the M8, a 35lux, and a 50lux, save your back, and keep shooting these beautiful images.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey Jack--I'll play, but I'm going to be wrong

 

Full-frame-Canon digicam and, oh, let's say a 28-ish mm EF lens?

 

Well Jamie and Guy have HUGE advantages to most of you because they know every piece of gear I own -- so at least their guesses were with something they know I use a lot

 

Bingo Jamie -- 5D, but only at ISO 400, with the 'crappy' (though I like it!) 28/1.8 EF lens at f2.8 @ 1/15th.

 

Cheers,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×