Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
tashley

It's the glass, stupid....

Recommended Posts

Guest Bernd Banken

Advertisement (gone after registration)

That, Bernd, is an excellent shot.

 

Thanks Jaap,

 

it's from the Café Chantant in Luik, old quarter near the Maas.

 

Regards

Bernd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Tim's pictures but don't they show us where the M8 is letting us down? Available light should be the M8's stock-in-trade but what we get is noise and banding. What lens were you using, Tim? A Nocti opportunity obviously but a 50mm lens on an M8 might have been tight in this situation in terms of coverage.

 

The "underwhelming" Nikon D3 has its detractors but it would have done much better in this situation, aside from the shutter noise. At least 3 stops image noise advantage. That's why I very much want an FF M camera with a D3 style sensor - "enough" pixels but larger, lower noise pixels instead of more pixels compared to the M8 to excel in available light. An 18 - 22MP M would be a mistake IMHO.

 

My "dream-team" is a D3 for low noise and high frame rate, a D3x for higher resolution and a D3-style FF M9.

 

For your project, for higher resolution (what will you do, get the negatives scanned?), I think reverting to film makes perfect sense. Right now, digital cannot deliver at sensible cost, though I think a D3x will appear lilliputian compared to what you've just acquired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A note -- I was in the local pro camera shop here in Minneapolis on Saturday, and they were trying to sell new Mamiya equipment at 45-70% off. Gave me kind of a bad feeling; I think I would hold off on Mamiya purchases for a bit. Of course, that could just be a local store getting out...I did like the look of that little Mamiya 645.

 

Like Mark, I've got the D3, and it is making me feel a bit unsatisfied with the performance of the M8. On the other hand, it's a large beast...when I was at the pro shop Saturday, it was to look at the D300, and I'm afraid that might be an answer. It's relatively small (without the additional battery pack), performs well up to at least 1600, and with Zeiss glass...I've still got a 12-24 from my D2x days, and that, with a couple of pieces of Zeiss ZF in the mid-ranges, and then the excellent 70-200 constant f2.8 to take you out to an image-stabilized effective FOV of 300mm ... I'm trying *really* hard to resist it, but I don't know why.

 

JC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.... but would be utterly frustrated at the carry on that everyone is having with their M8 and assorted lenses.....

Good luck

Charlie

 

Not everyone.

 

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Tim,

 

first off, congrats on your new camera. May you make tons of beautiful 'photographs' with it!

 

As for the kind of photo's you posted, made in low light like in the pub, why not use your MP and a fast black and white film for that kind of work?

 

Cheers,

 

Peter

 

Peter, you are bang-on right. A slice of Neopan at 1600 and I would have been laughing. What a good idea!

 

T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like Tim's pictures but don't they show us where the M8 is letting us down? Available light should be the M8's stock-in-trade but what we get is noise and banding. What lens were you using, Tim? A Nocti opportunity obviously but a 50mm lens on an M8 might have been tight in this situation in terms of coverage.

 

The "underwhelming" Nikon D3 has its detractors but it would have done much better in this situation, aside from the shutter noise. At least 3 stops image noise advantage. That's why I very much want an FF M camera with a D3 style sensor - "enough" pixels but larger, lower noise pixels instead of more pixels compared to the M8 to excel in available light. An 18 - 22MP M would be a mistake IMHO.

 

My "dream-team" is a D3 for low noise and high frame rate, a D3x for higher resolution and a D3-style FF M9.

 

For your project, for higher resolution (what will you do, get the negatives scanned?), I think reverting to film makes perfect sense. Right now, digital cannot deliver at sensible cost, though I think a D3x will appear lilliputian compared to what you've just acquired.

 

 

Thanks Mark...

 

I do think I've made a logical-ish choice and I agree with you: two different Nikons would be great unless they can get the high ISO noise performance of the 3 into the 3x.

 

Peter has suggested elsewhere in this thread that I use film in my MP for pub shots and he's right. The grain will be chunky but nice and won't come in stripes!

 

BTW I used a 50 lux for those shots: it's less intrusive and the Nocti at F1 has so little DOF that with my lost magnifier I thought it better not to take the chance - I knew I was after one shot focussed on the mike and with everything else out, but with wire on it, it had to be bang on.

 

I will make my own low-res scans of the negs from the 45 for proofing, then get the ones I want to use large drum scanned at 40 quid a pop. Ouch! And of course, the first thirty I take will be OOF or streaked or whatever. Sigh. But the wood and leather smell nice...

 

best

 

t

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I like Tim's pictures but don't they show us where the M8 is letting us down? Available light should be the M8's stock-in-trade but what we get is noise and banding. What lens were you using, Tim? A Nocti opportunity obviously but a 50mm lens on an M8 might have been tight in this situation in terms of coverage.

 

The "underwhelming" Nikon D3 has its detractors but it would have done much better in this situation, aside from the shutter noise. At least 3 stops image noise advantage. That's why I very much want an FF M camera with a D3 style sensor - "enough" pixels but larger, lower noise pixels instead of more pixels compared to the M8 to excel in available light. An 18 - 22MP M would be a mistake IMHO.

 

My "dream-team" is a D3 for low noise and high frame rate, a D3x for higher resolution and a D3-style FF M9.

 

For your project, for higher resolution (what will you do, get the negatives scanned?), I think reverting to film makes perfect sense. Right now, digital cannot deliver at sensible cost, though I think a D3x will appear lilliputian compared to what you've just acquired.

 

Mark, no doubt the D3 has less noise, but I don't think that necessarily would make the image better. The banding is caused by underexposure combined with compensation in processing and oversharpening.

 

Advanced metering systems in modern DSLR's reduce the need for exposure compensation, but that's not the forte of the M8. Treat the M8 like a film camera full of negative film and you can get clean, evenly grained images. TURN OFF THE SHARPENING AND LUMINANCE NOICE REDUCTION!!! PLEASE!!!

 

This is a quicky test shot at 1250 run through C1 V4.

 

Best wishes

Dan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bernd Banken

Tim,

 

the above shot from the singer was done with my D200/85mm f1,8 at ISO 1000.

 

The pic of the shack is from my new D300 at ISO 3200, lens 17-55 f2,8.

The D300 is less obrtusive for my style of streetphotography, but the maximum weight i want to carry a full day. Together with a Zeiss 25mm it's much smaller and has less weight.

 

The new sensor makes it easy to try shots in completely different light with results close to film grain without using Alien Skin etc.

 

The second shot is ISO 2000 and heavy crop due to the bad framing........

 

After 45 years of photography: go the second-oldest bajonnett-way - go Nikon:)

 

Bernd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The banding that Tashely got at 1250 I also get. I had a long thread on the topic and it developed(pun intended) much as it will here. There will be people who claim you havent exposed properly or have screwed things in post production. Maybe. But I think the banding(griding in my case) is in an even enough pattern that it should be handled in the firmware.

link to discussion

I think what people are missing is that the banding is worse at slow shutter speeds. The in-camera noise reduction is causing the banding. 1250 and 2500 iso shots faster than 1/60th sec tend to not have bands. Try it for yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tim - Glad you found a solution for the short term. A 5x4 negative contains an immense amount of information, and I think you will be amazed at how good scan files can be from an inexpensive scanner, yet alone a 'wet' drum scan. If you can tolerate a little waist deep effort, Ken Rockwell does make that point:

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm

 

You might find that you can achieve your ends by in-house scanning - particularly if you put in the extra effort to 'wet' scan. Or try an Imacon scan from someone who actually knows their stuff, that should be cheaper than drum scanning, and less likely to have your negative damaged - but don't let them 'clip' or retouch your file. Hope it works out.

 

 

............. Chris

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...