chrisnl Posted October 25, 2006 Share #1 Posted October 25, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi folks! My name is Christiaan, I am a professional musician and a hobby Photographer. I live in Holland (Europe) and do available light Photography only. (people, portraits, nature, atmosphere's,). I am not really new on this Forum since I have been reading pretty much everything anybody wrote regarding the the M8 during the last couple of months. I have been enormously eager to see part 2 of the M8 Test from Sean. A big thanks and applause from Holland as well! This Leica makes wonderful pictures and it is the only camera that does not look like a weapon. I just cannot imagine anybody having a relaxed expression on his/her face with a 5D or a D200 pointed at their direction. But as a matter of fact, just like some other photographers on this forum i also got a bit dissapointed about the noise in the higher ISO range. I wonder if there might be a theorethical posiblility, that that may improve somewhere in the near future. Would anybody like to comment that? Thanks and read from you guys soon! Cheers, Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 25, 2006 Posted October 25, 2006 Hi chrisnl, Take a look here M8 - Will high iso performance improve in Future?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
innerimager Posted October 25, 2006 Share #2 Posted October 25, 2006 Chris- In my experience with many DSLR's, the noise inherent to a camera's sensor and firmware rarely changes significantly as the camera develops, unless a new sensor is offered as Kodak did for the 14N. So I wouldn't get the M8 hoping for it to improve in this regard. On the other hand, there are excellent post processing programs, especially noise ninja, available as a Photoshop plug in, that do a great job. The trade off is always noise vs better detail. Ninja is excellent at preserving detail and adjusting to taste. The M8 seems to have excellent detail preserved at high Iso to start with. I suspect, and hope, that the final results will be quite good. As an example, when the Canon 20D first came out with it's excellent (and now surpassed by 5D) high Iso noise, I did a comparison with a D2H at 1600 (very noisy camera) using noise ninja and the 20D out of camera and the D2H was equal despite being a lower MP camera, as it has great acuity. If I'm shooting a wedding, I don't want to have to process 100-1000s of files, I want better in camera high Iso. But for the more careful, lower volume work I see using the M8 for, even at a wedding not for huge #s of files, I don't mind processing at all. My thoughts....Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisnl Posted October 25, 2006 Author Share #3 Posted October 25, 2006 Thanks Peter for your profound and accurate answer with usefull information! Greetings, Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterb Posted October 25, 2006 Share #4 Posted October 25, 2006 Peter is correct. In the old days of analogue you invested in a superb camera (like an M6, for example) whose mechanics and optics were as superlative as possible knowing that whatever film was put into that camera it would produces images on the film that were as best as possible for years. The reality was the results were ultimately up to the film manufacturers. Kodak, for example introduced their uniform T-grain emulsions which allowed for an incredibly fine grained 25 ISO film that permitted stupendously huge enlargements. (In the pre-renovated Grand Central Station they had a huge display and when the 25 iso film was advertised and it was nothing short of spectacular.) I used to jokingly say people bought a Leica in the early part of the century because film was so bad. Then people would buy a Leica (or a camera with a Zeiss lens) because film was so good! In either case, the optics would get the best out of the film. Today however the investment is a little weirder. In that when you invest in a camera like an M8 with its continued superb construction and optics you are investing in the 'film' at the same time. An investment you're going to have to live with. And locked into. True there may be firmware tweaks from time to time, but the pixels remain the same. And if you want to upgrade or swap out a sensor, it's either going to be impossible or, prohibitively expensive. (Ironically, Kodak is still improving on the 'film'!) The good news is the investment in any Leitz optics, as it was with any Leitz film cameras, will remain a good value for many years. Physics will hold true. The investment in the body, however, will be another matter. And will be subject to re-evaluation from time to time. The good news is, as Sean Reid's terrific second part of his well-written M8 tryptic has suggested, is that at the lowest ISO (of which ISO 160 is not too shabby) the M8 creates images with the detail and precision of a medium format camera. As far as higher ISOs are concerned however, post production software will always be a way to go. And from what I can tell, the noise ninjas of the world do a pretty decent job. The RAW data, from what I can tell, is also quite impressive and quite workable so that whatever is shot will, after some post camera processing, produce highly strikingly good images that will have the grainlike quality that one would find aesthetically pleasing. That said, even if you are capable of resisting the siren call of any future evolutions of the M8, any photographer investing in and holding onto today's M8 should be a very happy camper. As before with the M6. Regards, P Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic vic Posted October 25, 2006 Share #5 Posted October 25, 2006 noise (and as i found out - the dynamic range) is a very complex question. i believe that when u buy some high quality device (and i concider leica m8 should be in this category) then... what is most important to me is the performance of the device and not of the softwares. in other words.. capabilities of the sensor... i dont have m8 and never touched it so i will not speack about it. but a few days ago i had a first examination of highest quality digital photography - the leaf aptus digi back. i have made the xaminations in uncontroled situations (outside of the studio or any other controled conditions in location)... a couple of days play with the files bring me to some initial conclusions which will be further examined in real photography (not scientific) latter on... here are the images from the leaf aptus( 22mpix).. mamiya camera has been used with 80mm lens. iso = 400 photo made in shadowed lighting (it is extrimly important to note it as i will explain later). the first image is the final image slightly edited in silverfast hdr48 studio. primerly the .mos file (leaf RAW data) was converted in leaf capture software without any sharpenings and anything.. just a raw that was saved as 16bit tiff, and brought into the silverfast for editing and color management. about the same could be done in leaf capture generic software itslef, but i prefered to examine it in silverfast cause silverfast is most truth-full editing software in my opinion that shows all along exactly what the device has to offer without generic software optimizations. photos: 1. the overall edited photo from silverfast.. color managed, leveling, gradation curves adjustemnt, slight colour adjustment. minimal sharpening and no noise reduction at all. 2. the actual size view.... if u have apple monitor (set on its natural resolution) u will see the real physical size of what should be the final high quality photo print. 3. section of RAW data converted at pixel size level. 4. the same section at pixel levle of edited photograph. next - the temporary conclusions and analyzes about dynamic range and NOISE from this file and other files... my excuses for big pics,, it is internet but it is essensial to understand the stuff 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/7857-m8-will-high-iso-performance-improve-in-future/?do=findComment&comment=77379'>More sharing options...
albertwang Posted October 25, 2006 Share #6 Posted October 25, 2006 Interesting pictures. I really do think that the sensor engineering will improve the iso performance. I would be happy with whatever we have now. I doubt that the M8 will be obseleted anytime soon however... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
georg Posted October 25, 2006 Share #7 Posted October 25, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) It is nearly noise free up to 320ASA - every camera I know (also the big Canons) have visible noise >400ASA. 640ASA is pretty nice with a little work in C1, 1250ASA usable and 2500ASA (as already mentioned) only for "emergency situations". When I compare this noise to other top-DSLRs, I don't see any improvement. Low Isos are worse, 640ASA (compared with 800ASA) is pretty close to MarkII or 5D, 3200ASA is always very noisy. Maybe it's the "Puts-phenomenon" ? ;-) Comparing with Canon-JPGs (which are usually really well) which are already noise-filtered? The technical data of the KAF-10500-sensor (dynamic range, sensitivity) is first-rate - so are the pictures. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevme Posted October 25, 2006 Share #8 Posted October 25, 2006 Hi folks! But as a matter of fact, just like some other photographers on this forum i also got a bit dissapointed about the noise in the higher ISO range. I wonder if there might be a theorethical posiblility, that that may improve somewhere in the near future. I'd like to repeat what I said in another thread in response to this line of thought. It strikes me that there is another way to look at the reviews of the M8, this by Mr. Reid, and those by others that are to follow. Suppose he had reported high ISO performance equal to the 5D, not somewhat less, as he actually reported. Where would that leave photographers thinking about the M8 purchase? I think the answer is that some would still say they would not purchase the M8, citing the strenghts of SLR photography -- auto focus (albeit with its known problems), zoom and telephoto lenses -- ideal for nature or sports photography. In other words, the decision would be made not on the basis of "noise" but on the basis of the uses to which the camera would be put. Now return to the real world. The M8 has excellent to acceptable performance, without any tweaking by graphics programs, up to 1600 ISO (actual). Considered at this level and below, the M8 offers the strengths of rangefinder photography -- photo composition that is not through the lens, immediacy of response, an instrument less intimidating to the subject, and lighter weight and compactness -- which SLR photography cannot rival. So the choice boils down to type of photography one undertakes and the instrument most suited to it, not the technical issue of "noise" at high ISO levels. It would be better, of course, had the M8 equalled the 5D in this respect. But even had it done so, the choice would still be made on a more fundamental basis -- the suitability of the camera for the work to be done. The digital aspect of the M8 should introduce a whole new cadre of photographers to the strengths of rangefinder photography. In the process, it will win over those photographers who need those strengths in their work. This is the real significance of the digital M. Those newly introduced photographers will also have, as a bonus, some of the most marvelous lenses ever made. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rfleica Posted October 25, 2006 Share #9 Posted October 25, 2006 there have already been many good contributions to this thread. i would like to relay my own experience with another camera, the Contax N Digital. It has an ISO range of 25-400. A low end iso is rather useful, btw;) . for a long time its noise performance - despite its full frame dalsa chip pedigree - was v poor above iso160 using the native raw developer (no other options at the time). since its launch, however, new raw developers (Adobe, Iridient) have transormed the higher iso performance. my camera can now be used at considerably higher iso with better results purely because of the strides in raw development. looking back, at the time many were puzzled by why the sensor delivered bad noise despite better performance in other (MF back) applications. it now looks like the Kyocera/Contax rush job on the raw development was the culprit. moral of tale: higher iso performance for the same camera was improved subsequently by development of better raw conversion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Maio Posted October 25, 2006 Share #10 Posted October 25, 2006 Hi folks! This Leica makes wonderful pictures and it is the only camera that does not look like a weapon. I just cannot imagine anybody having a relaxed expression on his/her face with a 5D or a D200 pointed at their direction. Chris Actually, the 5D with the 85mm f/1.8 prime isn't bad. But the 1D series with the 70-200 f/2.8 looks absolutely frightening and intimidating when its pointed at you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
engel001 Posted October 25, 2006 Share #11 Posted October 25, 2006 I wonder if Leica will offer a hardware upgrade path in the future. Perhaps in about 3-5 years, one can send in the camera to the Leica service center for a fee and have the imaging chip and other components exchanged. Given he steep initial investment, and Leica's commmitment to customer service and loyalty, I am hopeful... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlesphoto99 Posted October 25, 2006 Share #12 Posted October 25, 2006 I think this whole "noise" issue has been a bit overblown in my opinion. To my eye, the high iso shots that have sneaked out with the M8 look perfectly acceptable (actually quite exciting). I currently shoot digital with a nikon D200 which doesn't have the best noise performance at higher iso's, but what I do like about it is the noise, to me at least, is more "filmic" than the Canons. And, lest one has forgotten (or in this day and age may never have actually experienced), since when did we shoot grainless film at 1600 or 3200? In sum, to me it's most important the noise is most like film grain. I like film grain. One of the reasons I shoot with Leicas is it allows me to go places and get images I couldn't otherwise. And that involves fast lenses and high speed film. Otherwise I much prefer medium format. So best to keep things in perspective I think - noise or grain is inherent, depending on one's medium of choice, and to think otherwise is just being unrealistic. And once it's printed not such a big deal as pixel peeping on a computer screen. And the reason I'll buy an M8 is for the same reasons I have an M7 - unobtrusiveness, small fast lenses (I can carry six focal lengths compared to two fast Canon/Nikon primes) and the wide dynamic range those lenses give compared to the competition. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 25, 2006 Share #13 Posted October 25, 2006 Hi folks! My name is Christiaan, I am a professional musician and a hobby Photographer. I live in Holland (Europe) and do available light Photography only. (people, portraits, nature, atmosphere's,). I am not really new on this Forum since I have been reading pretty much everything anybody wrote regarding the the M8 during the last couple of months. I have been enormously eager to see part 2 of the M8 Test from Sean. A big thanks and applause from Holland as well! This Leica makes wonderful pictures and it is the only camera that does not look like a weapon. I just cannot imagine anybody having a relaxed expression on his/her face with a 5D or a D200 pointed at their direction. But as a matter of fact, just like some other photographers on this forum i also got a bit dissapointed about the noise in the higher ISO range. I wonder if there might be a theorethical posiblility, that that may improve somewhere in the near future. Would anybody like to comment that? Thanks and read from you guys soon! Cheers, Chris Hi Chris, Thank you for the review comments. As I tried to stress in the review, at an actual ISO 1600 the M8 performs as well as many digital SLRs. I find results at that speed to be quite acceptable using no post-processing whatsover (just conversion in C1 at default settings for the color noise filter). Many will want to massage the ISO 2500 (true 3200) files but that's also true for most digital cameras. The comparison test I did was tough. The light used was the type that places a heavy load on the blue channel for color correction. The camera chose for comparison was the 5D, the best performing digital camera (at high ISO) in the world. The M8 is the equal of the R-D1 (with S firmware) at ISO 1600 and many have been very happy working at that speed with the Epson. I really believe that the M8's performance at that speed is very competent and, I believe, better than the Nikon D200. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted October 26, 2006 Share #14 Posted October 26, 2006 But as a matter of fact, just like some other photographers on this forum i also got a bit dissapointed about the noise in the higher ISO range. Actually, as I mentioned in another thread some time ago, my concern is whether the M8 photos look too much like medium format. I like the "35mm aesthetic": for example, some time ago a friend shot two B&W landscapes with water in them with a Leica-M and a medium format camera — we both likes the 35mm shot much better because of the "bite" from the grain, particularly on the water. Although Irealize that, particularly for color, commercial photographers need grainlessness, it is interesting that even color grainy pictures can be quite beautiful as you can see on the following Magnum site: Magnum Photos :: Magnum Ad It'll take a few seconds for the page to load. Under photographers, click on Harry Gruyaert. Click on Portfolio and you'll be able to see his "Rivages" series. They're beautiful grainy seascape images. —MItch/Bangkok Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 26, 2006 Share #15 Posted October 26, 2006 Actually, as I mentioned in another thread some time ago, my concern is whether the M8 photos look too much like medium format. I like the "35mm aesthetic": for example, some time ago a friend shot two B&W landscapes with water in them with a Leica-M and a medium format camera — we both likes the 35mm shot much better because of the "bite" from the grain, particularly on the water. Although Irealize that, particularly for color, commercial photographers need grainlessness, it is interesting that even color grainy pictures can be quite beautiful as you can see on the following Magnum site: Magnum Photos :: Magnum Ad It'll take a few seconds for the page to load. Under photographers, click on Harry Gruyaert. Click on Portfolio and you'll be able to see his "Rivages" series. They're beautiful grainy seascape images. —MItch/Bangkok Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland Hi Mitch, I was thinking of your earlier post about this subject when I wrote my conclusion to Part II. In essence, just pick the amount of luminance noise (digital "grain") that you want and shoot at that ISO with the M8. Use ND filters if needed (although with 1/8000 shutter speed that might often not be needed). The great thing about the M8 is one can have both kinds of cameras in one body: at lower ISO levels, a MF camera: at higher ISO levels a 135 mm camera with fast film. The magic M8 ISO for you is likely to be 1250 I'm guessing. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrgeoffrion Posted October 26, 2006 Share #16 Posted October 26, 2006 In essence, just pick the amount of luminance noise (digital "grain") that you want and shoot at that ISO with the M8. Use ND filters if needed (although with 1/8000 shutter speed that might often not be needed). The great thing about the M8 is one can have both kinds of cameras in one body: at lower ISO levels, a MF camera: at higher ISO levels a 135 mm camera with fast film. The magic M8 ISO for you is likely to be 1250 I'm guessing. If I understand correctly, it is recommended that Mitch shoot at 1250 given his "taste" for grain (luminance noise in the digital world). If my understanding, it correct, I disagree and recommend to Mitch to shoot as look as an ISO as he can (everything else considered). This will produce the best tonalities and capture the most information. From there, Mitch can easily add the noise in post processing with the noise filter in PS. This way, the noise will also be more flexible and "sharper" (should you want to) as it will not be resized when creating the final print (provided it is done at the last step of the post processing). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 26, 2006 Share #17 Posted October 26, 2006 If I understand correctly, it is recommended that Mitch shoot at 1250 given his "taste" for grain (luminance noise in the digital world). If my understanding, it correct, I disagree and recommend to Mitch to shoot as look as an ISO as he can (everything else considered). This will produce the best tonalities and capture the most information. From there, Mitch can easily add the noise in post processing with the noise filter in PS. This way, the noise will also be more flexible and "sharper" (should you want to) as it will not be resized when creating the final print (provided it is done at the last step of the post processing). Sometimes a photographer is not looking for the "best" tonalities and the most information. Sometimes he or she wants something much closer to the sketch which, for example, is what the GR digital provides. Only Mitch can decide what he wants but the pretty and technically "perfect" file is sometimes exactly what a photographer doesn't need. Sometimes one wants the file to be rougher and grittier right from the start, sometimes the highlights need to blow out and the shadows go to black. This is an expressive medium, technically "correct" reproduction is just the tip of the iceberg. This is closely related to what I was talking about in the "On Small Sensor Cameras" and "Myths" articles. Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrgeoffrion Posted October 26, 2006 Share #18 Posted October 26, 2006 Sometimes a photographer is not looking for the "best" tonalities and the most information. Sometimes he or she wants something much closer to the sketch which, for example, is what the GR digital provides. Only Mitch can decide what he wants but the pretty and technically "perfect" file is sometimes exactly what a photographer doesn't need. Sometimes one wants the file to be rougher and grittier right from the start, sometimes the highlights need to blow out and the shadows go to black. This is an expressive medium, technically "correct reproduction" is just the tip of the iceberg. This is closely related to what I was talking about in the "On Small Sensor Cameras" and "Myths" articles. Sean Although it is true that Mitch may not be looking for the best tonalities (in the final image he had envisioned), I'm from the school that it is easier to remove information than "adding" some (especially when facing uncertainty). By capturing more information, Mitch has the option to move, push around, degrade, or remove this information as he wishes or envisions. Yes, it is more work in post-processing but, should the final "interpretation" or "vision" that Mitch had in mind not turn out to his liking (or that of a client), he would be able to take his image in a different direction without any compromise and with more possibilities. Just my $0.02. Please note that I'm using Mitch as an example just because he posted above and "Mitch" really is just a generalization for "photographers". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted October 26, 2006 Share #19 Posted October 26, 2006 Although it is true that Mitch may not be looking for the best tonalities (in the final image he had envisioned), I'm from the school that it is easier to remove information than "adding" some (especially when facing uncertainty). By capturing more information, Mitch has the option to move, push around, degrade, or remove this information as he wishes or envisions. Yes, it is more work in post-processing but, should the final "interpretation" or "vision" that Mitch had in mind not turn out to his liking (or that of a client), he would be able to take his image in a different direction without any compromise and with more possibilities. ...Mitch can easily add the noise in post processing with the noise filter in PS. This way, the noise will also be more flexible and "sharper" (should you want to) as it will not be resized when creating the final print (provided it is done at the last step of the post processing).[/i] First, I'm not trying to get away with avoiding or minizing post-processing, as I do a lot of it in terms of adjusting the gradation and dodging and burning. As Sean states, "Sometimes one wants the file to be rougher and grittier right from the start, sometimes the highlights need to blow out and the shadows go to black." For this reason, one may sometimes want a camera like the GR-D that draws in the way of a sketch, as Sean suggests, rather than a camera that provides the exquisite effect of medium format. Second, while I have a few times added grain in post-processing, there is a lot to be said for working with the nature of the materials or the medium itself. I don't mind changing contrast to highlight grain, or digital noise, but would like to avoid having to add it. Sean is probably right: I would often use the M8 at ISO 1250 or even 2500. But now, do I have to worry that the M9 will make even these speeds grainless? <Joke> —Mitch/Bangkok http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rvaubel Posted October 26, 2006 Share #20 Posted October 26, 2006 The M8 is the equal of the R-D1 (with S firmware) at ISO 1600 and many have been very happy working at that speed with the Epson. I really believe that the M8's performance at that speed is very competent and, I believe, better than the Nikon D200. Cheers, Sean I'll be honest, I was hoping the M8 would have a one stop advantage on my RD1. The Kodak sensor specs would indicate that this would be so. While I didn't expect the noise performance of the 5D (pixel size rules when it comes to noise) still I was hoping for a bit more. It will be interesting to see what your results will be with regards dynamic range. Rex Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.