Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
gIzzE

Can you post some darker iso1250 shots please?

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Now I am back towards the M8 again!!

 

This was meant to make it easier not harder!!

 

 

One last question, is it easy to focus in low light with the finder? I have only ever played with an M8 in store and it seemed extremely bright in there, it doesn't suddenly get really tricky in low light situations does it??

 

That probably seems like a really dumb question, but I will need to order online and won't get a chance to see one until money has changed hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to think that my M8 wasn't capable of good high ISO performance, but then again, i learned that it was up to me to properly expose and.... voilà: the camera makes his "dirty" job.

Here i post two shots with M8 + 35lux ASPH@f2 and ISO 2500!!

the first one is without Noise reduction, the second one has a slight Noise Ninja correction.

 

 

Best

 

Maurizio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as the ISO 1250 shots are flying I might as well sneak one of mine in.

 

This was taken in Melbourne (Oz) just after I got my M8 last April. Tweaked a bit in Lightroom, but no noise reduction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now I am back towards the M8 again!!

 

This was meant to make it easier not harder!!

 

 

One last question, is it easy to focus in low light with the finder? I have only ever played with an M8 in store and it seemed extremely bright in there, it doesn't suddenly get really tricky in low light situations does it??

 

That probably seems like a really dumb question, but I will need to order online and won't get a chance to see one until money has changed hands.

 

It is the easiest imaginable camera to focus in low light since it has no mirror to sap light between the subject and your eye, and the RF mechanism is perfectly suited to low light. A really good AF system will beat it of course, but possibly by emitting a beam and rarely by choosing the exact focus point you want. But in any event you'll 'see' the subject extremely well through the M8 finder.

 

Many of us above have commented on how good the 1250 ISO files are as long as they are exposed correctly, which means not underexposed at all, which means exposed 'to the right' as Jamie put it. Being cynical, another way of putting this is to say that ISO 1250 is great as long as you give it the same exposure you would normally give ISO 640. In other words, overexpose 1250 by a stop and the results are good but you just lost your apparent speed advantage. This is a bit of an exaggeration but there's some truth to it.

 

But in any event I don't think twice about it, and regularly (always, in fact) choose my M8 over my 5D for this sort of work. It's smaller, quieter, does not impose itself on the intimacy of low light situations and returns results that I always find usable. This is helped by the fact that my M glass is so much faster than my L glass that even without IS I have a stop or two of advantage, especially given the enormous advantage of the inherent low shake, low slap design of the M.

 

t

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's smaller, quieter, does not impose itself on the intimacy of low light situations and returns results that I always find usable.

 

t

 

Thanks Tim, I think that has really helped me make my mind up.

 

I bet I dream about bloody Leicas tonight, my head is spinning so much!

 

Night all, and thanks for helping me spend my money!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks Tim, I think that has really helped me make my mind up.

 

I bet I dream about bloody Leicas tonight, my head is spinning so much!

 

Night all, and thanks for helping me spend my money!

 

Also keep in mind that these are very small shots you see posted and one of the best noise reduction techniques is downsizing.

 

The 5D (or 20D, for that matter) is no doubt far better at higher ISOs for color, but, as Tim said, the M8 B&W at 1250 is really pretty nice. That said, high ISO is not everything, so I sold the 5D....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It is the easiest imaginable camera to focus in low light since it has no mirror to sap light between the subject and your eye, and the RF mechanism is perfectly suited to low light.

t

 

Tim:

 

Isn't the rangfinder mechanism a mirror that moves by the lens actuating the focusing cam lever

The focus patch image is from a mirror.

 

A Leica M8 will focus better in low light better than even the best AF camera as long as the AF camera is not using a focus assist light from the flash.

 

Robert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Help, I'm confused.

 

In this thread, the expert shooters strongly recommend that the secret of shooting at high iso (1250) is to be very careful not to under-expose. Their good results (and my own experience of noisy images when underexposing) demonstrate this wisdom.

 

In another thread, the recommendation (I think of some of the same experts) for shooting to get the equivalent of iso 1250 was to set the M8 at iso 640 and the exposure compensation at -1 stop or at 360 and exposure compensation at -2 stops and then push in post processing. Their results and my own experience demonstrate the value of this approach

 

How can both be true. What am I missing?

 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer to shoot at ISO640 and underexpose by 1-2 stops - I learnt this technique on this forum. I then adjust the exposure, and apply some colour noise reduction in raw conversion (Adobe).

 

f/1.4, 1/45 sec, ISO 640, -2 EV

/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2193/2179251474_8310c8a220_o.jpg&key=8bc7c2a952c9832f2c42b086d32c394a50e142b6478cb5df244c1431cc2e2bfd">

 

f/1.4, 1/30 sec, ISO 640, -2 EV

/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2216/2179251296_5b76efc89e_o.jpg&key=c2e4e12f427d6e17e9fa5e05ab31bff90ca736a020988999087d5349c084ceed">

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help, I'm confused.

 

In this thread, the expert shooters strongly recommend that the secret of shooting at high iso (1250) is to be very careful not to under-expose. Their good results (and my own experience of noisy images when underexposing) demonstrate this wisdom.

 

In another thread, the recommendation (I think of some of the same experts) for shooting to get the equivalent of iso 1250 was to set the M8 at iso 640 and the exposure compensation at -1 stop or at 360 and exposure compensation at -2 stops and then push in post processing. Their results and my own experience demonstrate the value of this approach

 

How can both be true. What am I missing?

 

Michael

 

 

Both the M lenses and M8's dng file are favor of capturing fine detail in the dark. So you can set the M8 at iso 640 and the exposure compensation at -1 stop or at 320 and exposure compensation at -2 stops ,then push in post processing and still get a very good result.

 

On the other hand, a proper exposure is critical in photography but the noisy level in ISO 1250 is very high.

 

So both techniques have it's pros and cons. I haven't compared the results but I think one method works better in certain circumstances and so does the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are 2 shots: the left one underexposed at 640 developped in Lightroom with +1.0 exposure and the right one at 1250 isos with no exposure correction in LR.

These are 100% crops.

I don't see the interest of the underexposed pic at 640 isos: same result!

 

François

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Brivadois

 

How did you get the numbering L120XXX ? Would you know ho to get L200XXX? Hence to use with second M8 body ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some great photos here. This one is not as good as most but what you can see is that even at 1250 and with a strong light source to the right (sunlight) the details in the shadows are quite good. Especially the details of the stack of buckets - when I took the picture I could barely see them in the shadows.

 

I know that is not what you always want in low light - sometimes the shadows and the natural "fogginess" of the low light situation are just what you want to capture - but this shot does have a lot of detail, from the spider webs to the closet. I was impressed with it when I took it. But then again I might just be easily impressed.

 

M8, Tri-Elmar at 50mm. f5.6, 1/90 sec.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some observations about noise levels with the M8 based on extensive low light use shooting weddings. These are my opinions, so please understand they're subjective. But, that said, they are based on the practicalities of shooting commercially and the need to satisfy clients. I use the word 'acceptable' in a few places. This is analagous to 'could show a client without being embarassed about the quality'. Of course, someone else's definition of acceptable may be different.

 

My findings:

 

1. In good light, 2500 and 1250 are very usable. But, if the light is good, shooting at a lower ISO will improve quality further.

 

2. In low light, 2500 is broadly unusable although still better than nothing in emergencies. It has extreme banding in low light so won't make satisfactory prints unless you spend a lot of time selectively blurring and applying noise filters. Out of the camera it's unacceptable, IMHO. Final image quality is better in b+w than colour, simply because b+w disguises noise better.

 

3. In low light 1250 looks fine if you convert to b+w. Better than high speed b+w film in the same circumstances. Vaguely reminiscent of Neopan 1600.

 

4. In low light 1250 in colour has minimal levels of noise in the highlights, but unacceptable levels of noise in shadow areas. Selecting filtering is needed in post-processing. A slight overexposure bias improves things.

 

5. 640 and below is acceptable in colour and b+w in all light levels. In fact, if you like the film look, 640 is pretty good as a default speed even in daylight. No particular exposure compensation needed; 640 has acceptable noise even in low light.

 

6. There is no benefit to underexposing at 1250 upwards to increase shadow detail in low light situations. In fact it makes the image much worse. The only time I'd deliberately compensate with a negative exposure is to preserve highlights, and even then not usually in low light. If ambient light is limited I prefer to expose normally (or even over-expose) and make multiple versions from the DNG file for highlights and shadow, and blend them in post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guy,

 

You might consider saving up for the 35 Summilux ASPH, or try to find one used. The extra stop of the 'lux vs. the 'Cron, might be just the ticket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see the interest of the underexposed pic at 640 isos: same result!

 

You get a strange conclusion IMHO, if I'm not wrong, using the "underxposed" technique, you should be able to get one extra stop in shutter speed (really important when shooting in extreme low-light and moving subjects too), this is the advantage, and then you should be able to correct noise with enhanced softwares eventually.

Tha same happened with film when "pulling" the iso.

 

Here i post two samples, 100%crop the first one is 1250 iso @ 1/24", the second one is 640 iso -1 E/V @ 1/45" pulled up in ACR 3.6

 

 

Best

 

Maurizio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was shot at ISO 2500.

 

"One last question, is it easy to focus in low light with the finder?"

Most definitely. Since you are not restricted to the amount of light coming through the lens, as you are in a DSLR, focusing with a rangefinder is much, much easier in dark sitiations. For me, it's one of the primary advantages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Robert Belasario

Are there any programs available, or add-ons in CS3 for instance that can turn this noise into "grain" .... I don't find the noise in the Dalai Lama guy image disturbing at all, enhanced, that is grainified if I might call it that it would possitively add to the image

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...