Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
nugat

M8 with 2.0 firmware high ISO better noise performance?

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Nice shots Erl. What's important is to nail the exposure. Any underexposure and the noise can be obvious.

 

Here's one of mine at 1250. Not as good as Erl's - either technically or visually - but not too bad. The colour's crap, I realise that. But I only spent a few seconds on the image.

 

[ATTACH]103899[/ATTACH]

 

Steve, the big difference between yours and mine is the lighting. In your pic the lighting is relatively flat and poor quality, which also accounts for the 'crap' colour. I doubt I could have done any better in that situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Art that may not be his choice. There are some programs that strip all metadata when converting images for web posting. I think Lightroom does this if you use the Save for or Send to Web option. And maybe even Photoshop.

 

I like erl's photography, especially some pictures you can find under the "THEATRICAL & EVENTS" section on his web site.

 

Sometimes, I like to check metadata because you can learn things out of it and, also, about the light (and lighting conditions) you had when you took the picture. For instance, there's a picture of a girl palying violin taken with a con 75 @ 1/500 and ISO 640. When you see this picture, you get the impression is taken under low light conditions.

 

As, on his web site, Erl's pictures have the metadata information, I wonder why these three pictures didn't have it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ArtZ, Not aware of any removal. Files were processed in C1 and prep'd for the web in PS3. If you have an interest in the metadata I can provide it for you. I really don't know which part of my processing removed it.

 

No worries, erl!

 

I've just explained shootist the reason why I like sometimes to check metadata.

 

These three pictures are very good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand this, but what about really low light? This is where you want Leica optics in, they have tremendous separation ability. I can underexpose....or rather properly expose for the highlights with the D700 / D3 and get simply spectacular results.

 

I am not saying that your technique is not viable, but in all of these latest shots, the light is really good, not low light.

 

This to me, is medium low light, 1/30th at 1.4 at ISO 1250. It is usable to me in a reportage situation. It appeared one stop brighter than this so understand that I pushed it down a bit, added more black in the raw conversion slider. So bear that in mind as it is a technique I use to get rid of shadow noise with the M8. I think that ISO 160-640 is perfectly fine with this camera.

 

I guess for now, I am happy with what I am getting out of the M8. I never shoot above ISO 200 in my film M's so I can't complain too much..

 

KM-5. Love that cat. I think it is my 'Jessy cat' re-incarnated. She was the 'runt' of the litter, but lived to 21!

 

Regarding the lighting thing. I believe it is not so much 'low' light performance that is critical but 'poor' light performance. By poor I mean flat, mixed light, especially fluorescent. Low light, if applied creatively, will render exceptional image quality.

 

The two images below venture into that domain. Both low light, but not particularly creatively applied, but not flat either.

This image of the lighting panel crew was shot at 1250iso @ 1/15 on a 24mm Elmarit set to f2.8.

 

 

This pic of the choreographer was shot at 1250iso using 1/25 on a 75mm Cron @ f2.0

Notice that that in the walls in the background which are flatly lit, noise is quite visible, as in the flatly lit seat backs.

 

 

Any noise is masked by the light modelling (ie. not flat) coupled with reasonably good exposure. I consider both of these shots 'low light' and I think it shows the M8 + good glass can do a reasonable job of 1250 iso in low light. I should add that when I get my settings wrong, the noise screams at me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Roel

What a nonsense this whole thread is. No, there is no difference, like some already mentioned. What do you think? That Leica would not have said a word about an issue that has been so criticized? Of course they would have published an improvement. With pride.-Roel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like erl's photography, especially some pictures you can find under the "THEATRICAL & EVENTS" section on his web site.

 

Sometimes, I like to check metadata because you can learn things out of it and, also, about the light (and lighting conditions) you had when you took the picture. For instance, there's a picture of a girl palying violin taken with a con 75 @ 1/500 and ISO 640. When you see this picture, you get the impression is taken under low light conditions.

 

As, on his web site, Erl's pictures have the metadata information, I wonder why these three pictures didn't have it.

Art when I save something for posting to my image site it is of a different size, pixels, dimensions and quality, then what I use to post to these forums.

Some people use the built in Save for Web feature of PS to post to the forums and I think that feature strips the metadata to make the file just a little smaller in KB's. I use a action I made for that so none of that data is stripped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

ArtZ, I think I have reasoned out why the metadata is stripped. It is because I use the 'save foe web' funtion when posting to the Forum. Just reading you comment above gave me the clue. When posting to my own website, I scale the image to size in PS3, but do not use 'save for web'. Obviously that is where the data goes! Another mystery solved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What a nonsense this whole thread is. No, there is no difference, like some already mentioned. What do you think? That Leica would not have said a word about an issue that has been so criticized? Of course they would have published an improvement. With pride.-Roel.

 

Roel, I think you are missing the point. Clearly Leica have not said anything about 'improved performance' at high iso, but they have been known to do things without announcing the fact. However, it is clear this is not one of them.

 

The devoped discussion leading to further investigation of the M8 performance at high iso in general has, it would seem to me, led to an interesting investigation and discussion on what influences noise at high iso. A critical area of knowledge for M8 user's i wouild have thought. Dismissing it as 'a nonsense' is in itself, a nonsense, IMV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is the 1250iso shot.

 

I made some ful rez crops to get an idea of what the full file looks like. I chose an area of shadow under the table and it looks pretty good.

 

I will try some shots in very low light, but I don't know if I can get my son to sit still enough

BTW, I found Capture One is better at the 2500iso files. It filters out some of the yellow blobs you can get in the shadows on skin tones. The images here were done in Lightroom.

 

Robert

 

I wondered where I'd find the world famous Robert again!

 

Thanks for posting images, hopefully the next M8/M9 whatever will have improved high iso. Still can't compete with the D3 sensor, but then Canon can't either

 

Still waiting to see if any M8's go down in the used market though.

 

Chris Williams

New Orleans Wedding Photographer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ArtZ, Not aware of any removal. Files were processed in C1 and prep'd for the web in PS3. If you have an interest in the metadata I can provide it for you. I really don't know which part of my processing removed it.

 

Save for web removes the Exif data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something was telling me to compare Epson RD1s in the same lighting situation with Leica M8 (v2.0) and Canon 350D Digital Rebel. Epson was released in 2004 and had a 6MP APS-C CCD from Sony. I tried to recreate the same situation as yesterday. I put the same lens on Epson (Ultron 28mm) and set it to 1600 ASA. Canon is with kit cheapo lens. Look at the pictures (ca 1/3 crops of the original frames) , explanation is below the pictures. You can click properties to confirm source: Leica has file designation "L" , Canon "IMG", Epson "EPSN". All pictures at the "same" ISO (L1250/EPSN&IMG1600). Same parameters in LR2. Sharpening to 0. Color noise 25.

 

1

/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u175/nugat63/IMG_0005.jpg&key=e35d6a875d36b23eb854d6d4ea3777e8a4b089ce097f30481938027c9689fced">

2

/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u175/nugat63/L1000030.jpg&key=00a6bd569f54defa278a24156aeb983aebe4fa845d0f5a3a9719523aa8402d33">

3

/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u175/nugat63/EPSN1372.jpg&key=b56e29920d9fa30eff5d295fe715f4d94118004526ee81a61b3dfc9bbe813d55">

4

/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u175/nugat63/L1000061.jpg&key=adacb3d23772787d94c70c32b682d60d7da0010bd540c61a0c2a5179ad5c1fad">

 

 

The pictures are from top to bottom:

1. Canon 1600 ISO

2. Leica 1250 ISO

3. Epson 1600 ISO

4. Leica 320 ISO

 

 

No, it's not a mistake. Epson at 1600 ISO (nr 2) is waaaay better than Leica at 1250 (3) and almost as good with noise as Leica at 320 ISO (5). The latter comes as a real surprise. To tell the truth I am shocked.

 

Leica M8: 10MP, bigger sensor (1.3 crop), 2006

Epson RD1: 6MP, smaller sensor (1.6 crop), 2004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since there is a limit of 4 images per post : Epson at 400 ISO nr 5 top, and again Leica at 320 ISO nr 4 bottom.

 

5

/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u175/nugat63/EPSN1370.jpg&key=fce92aa6fcf8a87a822ee1562ce79fe6e70d95d99083a829d0804ae8d2a705bd">

 

4

/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u175/nugat63/L1000061.jpg&key=adacb3d23772787d94c70c32b682d60d7da0010bd540c61a0c2a5179ad5c1fad">

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am with all the testing, all the shots I did yesterday have been deleted. I just did my normal thing and see a difference in high ISO noise, looks good to me, I am keeping my M8. Time to get back to shooting.

 

But honestly: Where is Sean Reid now that this is going on? What does he think?

 

I bet he is testing like crazy to see if we all are..

 

I've been leading a motorcycle tour for a group of people from Israel.

 

I doubt there's any difference in ISO performance with the new firmware. I haven't tested that, and may not, but nothing in my communications with Leica has suggested any change at all in this area. And, of course, there's only so much firmware could do anyway (mostly smoothing). Down the road, what I'd like to see from Leica is a higher S/N ratio from the sensor/processing engine, etc.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it's not a mistake. Epson at 1600 ISO (nr 2) is waaaay better than Leica at 1250 (3) and almost as good with noise as Leica at 320 ISO (5). The latter comes as a real surprise. To tell the truth I am shocked.

 

I compared noise levels from those two cameras in 2006, for my 2nd or 3rd M8 review, and my results differ from your own. I worked from RAW and did controlled testing with controlled WB, controlled lighting, etc. At high ISO levels, the noise from the M8 was slightly higher than that from the Epson. But once the M8 files are resized to match those from the Epson the noise differences between the two are minor.

 

Also, the M8 delivers about 1/3 stop more sensitivity than its rated ISO. The Epson is dead on (1600 is 1600, etc.). So, one can reasonably compare Epson 1600 to Leica 1250, etc.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sean - as you're around, don't know if you have any thoughts on the dead pixel row problem that's emerged on this thread: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/64077-oh-darn-line-2.html#post662320 ... Grateful for any thoughts!

 

Hi Chris,

 

I'll take a look in the next couple of days. I just got back and have to finish post work for a big shoot and also a camera review and a bunch of lens reviews. I'm back on the road again on 9/28.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I compared noise levels from those two cameras in 2006, for my 2nd or 3rd M8 review, and my results differ from your own. I worked from RAW and did controlled testing with controlled WB, controlled lighting, etc. At high ISO levels, the noise from the M8 was slightly higher than that from the Epson. But once the M8 files are resized to match those from the Epson the noise differences between the two are minor.

 

Also, the M8 delivers about 1/3 stop more sensitivity than its rated ISO. The Epson is dead on (1600 is 1600, etc.). So, one can reasonably compare Epson 1600 to Leica 1250, etc.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

Sean,

Of course my tests were quick&dirty and in no way can compare to yours. I also did not resize the files. Unfortunately I had no opporunity to read your tests. Can you point me there?

But I can safely assume, knowing and respecting your writings, that they have the correct results.

So Epson is equal to M8 in noise performance. Given the year of design/manufacture (2004 vs 2006) and the fact that the M8 Kodak sensor is custom built, it's quite an achievement. For Epson. And the price difference.

One other noise that I definitely prefer on Epson is that of shutter and recocking.

The manual recocking is quieter and can be performed any time after the picture.

This Leica toy engine noise is horrible. What a shame recocking was not addressed in the fw 2.0 upgrade.

 

Cheers.

Piotr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The manual recocking is quieter and can be performed any time after the picture.

This Leica toy engine noise is horrible. What a shame recocking was not addressed in the fw 2.0 upgrade.

If you don't care about body cosmetics what incentive would there have been left for you to buy a new M8.2 rather than upgrade your existing camera with the features you consider important for your work?

 

 

Bob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Chris,

 

I'll take a look in the next couple of days. I just got back and have to finish post work for a big shoot and also a camera review and a bunch of lens reviews. I'm back on the road again on 9/28.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

Sean - understood! We respect the fact that you have to earn a living and have a life too!

 

Best

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...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue., Read more about our Privacy Policy