@bumac Posted October 20, 2006 Share #21 Posted October 20, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Do you remeber the noise of Digilux 2 at 400 Asa. It is quiet worther tahn M8 at 2500 Asa. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 20, 2006 Posted October 20, 2006 Hi @bumac, Take a look here M8 noise. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
sean_reid Posted October 20, 2006 Share #22 Posted October 20, 2006 My thoughts are the M8 and DMR will be so close image wise that you would not notice any difference . But the noise on the M8 will be 2 stops better and at 1250 will be extremely good and after that if i need more light i will just pack my bags or pull out the lights. I never been over ISO 800 on anything ever. LOL The noise ceiling has really gotten stupid with the marketing of it. I have shot kodachrome 64 for most of my career and it really comes down to just knowing how to shoot with the limitations brought forth. I feel the fire coming on now. I read so many threads about shooting at 3200 ISO that i just laugh anymore. Noise marketing at it's finest. Hi Guy, But you're forgetting that this varies tremendously depending upon the work. I shoot a lot at ISO 1600 and sometimes at 3200. For some of us, it's not a theoretical advantage although I realize that it may seem so to people who don't need that speed. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted October 20, 2006 Share #23 Posted October 20, 2006 I know Sean and i do agree there is a place no question but i am sort of talking for no other reason than let's just put it there if you know what i mean . It is just way overblown in the marketing of these camera's. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry Posted October 20, 2006 Share #24 Posted October 20, 2006 There's nothing wrong with having low-noise high ISO, it's just that it's icing on the cake for most users. For me, the most appealing aspect of the M8 is that it will (we hope) deliver extremely high-quality files, but without all the extraneous features that get in the way on many DSLRs and digicams. If the M8 can provide these high-speed files without compromising anything else, all the better. Guy's point that marketing hype often blinds people to their real needs rings true. Larry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted October 20, 2006 Share #25 Posted October 20, 2006 Thanks Larry and that is really what I am saying is it comes down to the final image if it is a great noise camera but the image lacks the quality than really what was the point. To me the M8 abd the high ISO will be a bonus but not the reason i am buying it but a added benefit. My reason is it will mix so well with my DMR i can pick and chose the best of each lens from the R or the M and work with that . Certainly as we all know there are some better M glass than R glass in the same focal length . I have already switched that around a little to take advantage of that. I know the M 35 and 50 1.4 lux are better than my R counterparts so sold both the R and got the M but put the Crons back on the R. It will give me different looks. this is the biggest lesson I have learned with Leica glass, if i need a certain look than leica gives me options to get that look . I can't get that in any other offering of camera's. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted October 20, 2006 Share #26 Posted October 20, 2006 I know Sean and i do agree there is a place no question but i am sort of talking for no other reason than let's just put it there if you know what i mean . It is just way overblown in the marketing of these camera's. Hey Guy--I'm with Sean on this one. Wedding photography has been *revolutionized* by good higher ISO work; there's a reason I hang onto the 1ds2, you know Let's hope for the M8 you *don't* have to "pull out the lights"--that's precisely what I don't want to do with a camera like this. With the DMR, ok--I do that now (because, honestly now, you can't really shoot with that thing above 800 with anything like decent quality the way it's current firmware does stuff)... ...but it's also in line with the R9/DMR way of shooting too. Everyone sees me coming anyway; I may as well have studio flash and pocket wizards wired up I'm hoping the M8 gives me something way more stealthy, and that means exceptional high ISO performance. Some of us, though we liked Kodachrome (and hell--Technical Pan) also grew up in the darkroom pushing TriX to relatively ridiculous ASA levels I guess if you have (and can focus) the Noctilux, you won't need anything above 800 anyway Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 20, 2006 Share #27 Posted October 20, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) I guess if you have (and can focus) the Noctilux, you won't need anything above 800 anyway Hi Jamie, Sure you will because paper thin DOF and a slow focus ratio is definitely not the ticket for every picture. Hi All, I agree with Guy that high ISO performance is not needed for every photographer but poll a group of wedding photographers, photojournalists, etc. and ask them if they'd mind losing their ISO 1600 (and, for Canon, ISO 3200) capabilities and see what you find out. It's *very* important for some of us. But don't despair, my low-light comrades, because the M8 is indeed better than the DMR at high ISO levels. I'm doing the ISO accuracy tests right now. <G> Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry Posted October 20, 2006 Share #28 Posted October 20, 2006 "But don't despair, my low-light comrades, because the M8 is indeed better than the DMR at high ISO levels. I'm doing the ISO accuracy tests right now. " Sean, Thanks, that's very good news, it might make me more serious about available-light shooting! I was already impressed by the shots I took last Saturday at the M8 demo. Larry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnll Posted October 20, 2006 Share #29 Posted October 20, 2006 ... What you haven't accounted for in your estimation is the M8's ISO sensitivity relative to it's nominal ISO. Indeed that's true: I don't know anything about that yet! But I'm looking forward to hearing from you, and very glad to hear you are on top of the issue. I have read so many reviews of so many cameras that I really can't remember who said what or when. Sorry! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted October 20, 2006 Share #30 Posted October 20, 2006 i truly hope it works out favourably you can bet there will be the jibes from the usual suspects those canon armed thread tourists, who seem to perpetually shoot in low lit bars and such Riley Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.