Jump to content

Leica M8 ISO 160


leicamr

Recommended Posts

Mark--

If the results are good at a given speed, why do you want slower?

 

Per Sean Reid (http://www.reidreviews.com), Leica chose 160 as a base level because noise levels were low at that level and could be kept relatively low at higher ISO settings.

 

And why settle for 50 or 100? Leica/Kodak could probably have set it at ISO 10 or ISO 25. But the lower the base level, the noisier the higher ISO ratings.

 

I hope that makes sense, though I'm sure you've got reasons to want lower ISOs. Maybe a stronger ND filter would help?

 

--HC

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand exactly why you want a slower ISO, and initially I was disappointed by 160 as the lowest. But I've become reconciled to 160.

 

Yes, Sean's review makes clear that Leica chose a 160 base so as to extend the ISO range to 2500 with tolerably low noise. Completely makes sense as a tradeoff... unless, like me, you have been most comfortable shooting your M7 using Velvia 50 or 100. The saturated colors... the reason we love our M lenses, etc.

 

But then I got to thinking... 10MP camera... can shoot in RAW, or if shooting JPEGs, can dial up the color saturation...and I have quickly become comforatble with it. The proof will be in the photos. But for now, I can see myself getting comfortable with the 160 ISO base even as I know that when I shoot film -- and I still will -- I'll be using Veliva. JB

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark--

If the results are good at a given speed, why do you want slower?

 

Per Sean Reid (http://www.reidreviews.com), Leica chose 160 as a base level because noise levels were low at that level and could be kept relatively low at higher ISO settings.

 

And why settle for 50 or 100? Leica/Kodak could probably have set it at ISO 10 or ISO 25. But the lower the base level, the noisier the higher ISO ratings.

 

I hope that makes sense, though I'm sure you've got reasons to want lower ISOs. Maybe a stronger ND filter would help?

 

--HC

 

My reason for requiring slow ISO of 50 or at least 100 to me is quite obvious. If the light is bright and I wish to maintain large apertures when using fill in flash. To date I have never used my DMR above ISO 800. Likewise I would probably never use an M8 at such a speed as I would use my 50 ASPH @ f1.4 or my Noctilux @ f1 instead. Really hope that they get the M8 working at ISO100. I am sure that using either of these lenses at ISO 2500 will provide some stunning and interesting results!

 

Regards Mark

Link to post
Share on other sites

Really hope that they get the M8 working at ISO100.

 

Much too late to change that now. ISO 160 is only half a stop faster than ISO 100 (roughly) so just a little bit faster on the shutter and you're back to where you want to be.

 

The M8 has a faster shutter than the M7, faster flash synch so you're not losing anything. What you're gaining is better range for a given flash, better high-end sensitivity and it also makes sense for the 28mm f2.8 to be a viable "standard" lens.

 

You'll get used to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My reason for requiring slow ISO of 50 or at least 100 to me is quite obvious. If the light is bright and I wish to maintain large apertures when using fill in flash. To date I have never used my DMR above ISO 800. Likewise I would probably never use an M8 at such a speed as I would use my 50 ASPH @ f1.4 or my Noctilux @ f1 instead. Really hope that they get the M8 working at ISO100. I am sure that using either of these lenses at ISO 2500 will provide some stunning and interesting results!

 

Regards Mark

 

Maybe you should be using medium format backs. The M8, like the previous M's, is more of an available light camera - fast sensor instead of fast film, fast lenses, hand-holdable....

Link to post
Share on other sites

If my calculations are correct, compared to nearly other cameras (as far as I can tell the only other camera with larger pixels is the Canon 5D) the size of the individual pixels on the M8 are ENORMOUS. Which means (I think) that with such increased light gathering capability per pixel the noise should be relatively low allowing Leica to create a camera that will have images at 160 with very little grain or digital artifacts circumventing the need to go as low as 100 or 80 as your base ISO. And when coupled with new lenses like the f4 Tri-Elmar (21-24-28mm equivalent lenses) specifically designed and calculated for this sensor size (so the f-rating is correct), wouldn't that be the equivalent having an f2 lens at 100 or an f1.8 lens at ISO 80? Very good for low light work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...