rpo Posted October 22, 2006 Share #1 Posted October 22, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) 1) Leica M8 - Summicron 35 asph - 160 ISO 2) Leica M8 - Summicron 35 asph - 320 ISO 3) Leica M8 - Summicron 35 asph - 640 ISO 4) Leica M8 - Summicron 35 asph - 1250 ISO 5) Leica M8 - Summicron 35 asph - 2500 ISO Ciao Roberto piero Ottavi from Italy Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/7661-rpo-m8-test-part-two-from-160-to-2500-iso/?do=findComment&comment=75333'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 22, 2006 Posted October 22, 2006 Hi rpo, Take a look here RPO M8 Test - Part two - From 160 to 2500 ISO. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest guy_mancuso Posted October 22, 2006 Share #2 Posted October 22, 2006 HMM. If you look in the windows this is were you can see the noise looks very impressive to 1250 and than i see the noise at 2500. Just what I was thinking all along 1250 looks like the perfect top ISO. So this beats the DMR at 400 i would bet. Something I will test when I get the M8 is the DMR /M8 noise difference . But this again is looking very good. Thanks Roberto Might have to get 2 of these. LOL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kamilsukun Posted October 22, 2006 Share #3 Posted October 22, 2006 What may be the cause of tonal difference of #2 from the rest. Thanks for sharing. Regards, Kamil Sukun Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted October 22, 2006 Share #4 Posted October 22, 2006 Kamil sometimes the DMR will do that also , just the AWB see's things differently sometimes and you get a slightly different reading Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted October 22, 2006 Share #5 Posted October 22, 2006 Kamil sometimes the DMR will do that also , just the AWB see's things differently sometimes and you get a slightly different reading I agree, Guy ... all these pictures are demonstrating a strange blue tint (and inconsistent at various ISOs). Thanks a lot for sharing, Roberto ... is there any indication that your camera is running at a production level firmware? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted October 22, 2006 Share #6 Posted October 22, 2006 Yes, the white (presumably) bar at the left is not very white... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted October 22, 2006 Share #7 Posted October 22, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) This really is a simply case on how you should be working in the field . What i do many times is have a Whit-bal card and take a shot with it in my left hand in front of the lens . Than in C1 select all the images white balance to the card and apply that to all images. I also downloaded the image of the girl to my computer and it came up a a slightly different color , so some of this can be if Roberto is doing a convert to srgb than doing a save for web. There are variables that do come into play. So i would put too much weight on that until you are working with the raws. Not that Roberto has done anything wrong here just we all have different ways of working but with the camera sometimes it will see the same surroundings with a slight color change, actually it is fairly normal with many camra's. Just ask any DMR owner on this one. Our troubles come with shooting continous and reason some are waiting for the 1.3 version of the firmware. Also that blue tinge you maybe seeing is he is in the shade which always tend to get cooler looking. As you see many variables reason why WB is important in the digital world Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterv Posted October 22, 2006 Share #8 Posted October 22, 2006 Thanks Roberto! Looks really OK to me at 1250. While we are on the ISO-subject; what do you guys prefer, Noise Ninja or Neat Image? What would be best for these files? Cheers, Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
billh Posted October 22, 2006 Share #9 Posted October 22, 2006 Hi Roberto, Thank you for taking the time to post these photos. When I convert from a full size high ISO tif to a web size jpeg, i see considerably less noise, to no noise in the jpeg, while in the original tif file there can be a fair amount of noise. Your high ISO jpegs look very clean - are they an accurate reflection of what you see in the full size Tif, or do the jpegs appear cleaner (with less noise) to your eye? Thanks, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidigital Posted October 22, 2006 Share #10 Posted October 22, 2006 Great explanation Guy. I would concur. This also gives the user quite a bit of flexibility in how he wants to see/interpret the color of the shot. For those who haven't done a lot of work in post-processing an image, you pull up the shot in something as simple as Photoshop Elements. Then just go to adjust color and remove color cast and you can put the eyedropper on a few different points of white in the image and adjust as you see fit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted October 22, 2006 Share #11 Posted October 22, 2006 Thanks Kurt. Also a word of caution also as we start seeing images come to life on the web from the M8 and really this is for folks that are sort of new to it. There is a lot to learn in the color dept. so what you see really may not be accurate . The most important is having a calibrated monitor, than knowing how to shoot digitally and than raw processing and than loading those images to the web. So i would say don't completely judge the book by it's color( pun not indeded although it does work here) when you start seeing images from the M8. there just are variables that need to be controlled and maybe seeing a face that looks magenta truly may not be. But what we see on the web can give you a good idea on how the camera performs but don't always take what you see as Gospel either when it comes to color. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted October 22, 2006 Share #12 Posted October 22, 2006 FWIW, auto white balance hasn't been a problem for many point and shoot digicam nowadays, so why there should be such a hassle with a 5K "pro" model"? I admit that I'm an amateur who only does happy snaps, and have no time to waste on the "professional" PS stuff ... given your point is valid, then I shouldn't buy a M8? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnastovall Posted October 22, 2006 Share #13 Posted October 22, 2006 Thanks Roberto! Looks really OK to me at 1250. While we are on the ISO-subject; what do you guys prefer, Noise Ninja or Neat Image? What would be best for these files? Cheers, Peter Noise Ninja and profile the image rather than use a camera profile. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted October 22, 2006 Share #14 Posted October 22, 2006 I guess my question is, if all he did was change the ISO and reshoot and treat all the images the same, why is the WB (apparently) different for the second shot? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted October 22, 2006 Share #15 Posted October 22, 2006 Mark really AWB on any camera if you think about how they work is a crap shoot. It basically reads a scene and figures out what is best with any camera. now if i set the Balance on a Sun setting or a shade setting, every image would be the same because the camera will always read it at a certain kelvin temp, tint and hue. now changing the ISO could also have somewhat the same effect becuase it wants to read it differently for each ISO level. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted October 22, 2006 Share #16 Posted October 22, 2006 Certainly, AWB is a best guess approximation from analysing the image data but I think the AWB should give the same result at each ISO level. We don't know if this camera is production level firmware though... Does illustrate that for any shot, there are three options we're potentially interested in seeing - the completely unmodified raw, the poster's efforts at processing the image and the camera's efforts at doing the same. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted October 22, 2006 Share #17 Posted October 22, 2006 Certainly, AWB is a best guess approximation from analysing the image data but I think the AWB should give the same result at each ISO level. We don't know if this camera is production level firmware though... Does illustrate that for any shot, there are three options we're potentially interested in seeing - the completely unmodified raw, the poster's efforts at processing the image and the camera's efforts at doing the same. Very true and we don't exactly know what we are looking at also. Like I said the DMR has this varying issue on the continous setting but is fine in single mode, one of the bugs in the current firmware and what leica is supposed to fix in 1.3. The M8 here may not be the final version which really from all reports was just loaded a couple days ago. So i would really not worry about this , the images are looking very nice though and the more we see the more we can judge also. If i had the money i would buy 2 . LOL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rpo Posted October 22, 2006 Author Share #18 Posted October 22, 2006 I have sended some DNG file to some frends. If you want I can send other shots: who have a large mailbox ? Just email me at robertoottavi@virgilio.it and I'm happy to send all the 160/2500 ISO DG files Bye Roberto Piero Ottavi Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemeng Posted October 22, 2006 Share #19 Posted October 22, 2006 I have sended some DNG file to some frends.If you want I can send other shots: who have a large mailbox ? Please don't do this. Upload them onto a server somewhere, post the URL, and then we can all download them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ross Posted October 22, 2006 Share #20 Posted October 22, 2006 Yes, the white (presumably) bar at the left is not very white... Hi Mark, Only Roberto knows which one is the most accurate. A hint for testors would be to take Guy's tip of including a white card in the picture on repeat shots, to check the AWB and to level the overall WB. Contrary to what Simon says about other cameras being more consistant, only those with hybrid AWB can make that claim and they are top end units. In all the talk about ISO & EV changing, custom WB didn't get the usual press & grumbles. AWB + RAW will usually do the trick, if automated. The real test of AWB is JPEG, where presumably the camera is processing the images consistantly. Since we don't have a one button custom WB, this may be a camera that will do best with a preset Kelvin number, if the WB is going to drift about. As Guy pointed out the variation in these pictures could simpley be Roberto changing position or someone walking behind him. Bob Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.