M8 street photography at ISO-2500 with the M8

[coup de foudre]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Shooting the M8 at ISO 2500 was the first step of this experiement; and shooting at ISO 1250, which I did yesterday, was the second; and the third will be to shoot with Auto-ISO with a minumum ahutter speed of 1/125, which is the fastest minumum speed that you can use for Auto-ISO on the M8.

 

Mitch,

 

i appreciate you sharing your experimentation as that's exactly what i've been doing so it's nice to see somebody else's results. the minimum shutter speed of f/125 for Auto-ISO is still not really fast enough if both of parties are moving, IMO. what the magic speed is, i haven't figured out yet....

 

isn't it possible to have the camera on Auto-ISO *and* manually set the shutter speed?

 

also, as far as getting the large range of DOF, i think you were more successful with the wider lens -- in this case, the 18mm Zeiss. i don't have a 28mm, but have noticed a huge difference between the 21/3.4 SA and either of my 35's. the focus on the M8 is much less forgiving than any camera i've used thus far and i find it distracting when the focus isn't close to spot on, even when stopped down -- especially when using anything but wide/super wide lenses.

 

-- cam

[coup de foudre]

after playing around with manually setting the shutter speed whilst using Auto-ISO, i think i would still prefer it Leica would change the minimum to at least 250th....

 

curious to see if you find 125 acceptably fast. i look forward to your results. i may just need to learn to walk slower

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Guest malland]

Cam, I'll have to try it but it would be good to have the option of 1/250th sec for Auto-ISO.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Flickr: Mitch Alland's Photostream

[nhabedi]

isn't it possible to have the camera on Auto-ISO *and* manually set the shutter speed?

 

Why don't you try?

 

[Hint: It is. Set the camera to "Auto ISO", manually set it to the right aperture and shutter speed for ISO 160, then deliberately underexpose one or more stops. The camera will vary the ISO sensitivity depending on what it was allowed to do in the menu. It obviously can't vary anything else in manual mode.]

[coup de foudre]

Why don't you try?

 

i have and it works fine (bear in mind that i've had the M8 for less than a week and am still finding my way around it). the only problem is the ease of over-exposing in varied lighting conditions -- which is exactly where the Auto-ISO comes in handy. that's why i expressed a wish for a faster minimum speed to 250 and, even better, 500.

 

the Discreet Advance function is allowing me to take shots i had given up on with my Epson (an amazingly loud shutter). i like to shoot whilst walking and, often, the subject is moving too. a faster shutter speed is a must or the image is marred by movement.

 

again, i have no trouble adjusting to full manual, but would prefer to take advantage of the Auto-ISO function for quickly changing conditions. it seems a pity that the shut off is at 125.

[Guest malland]

As I mentioned above the ISO 2500 caper was an experiment to see how this speed worked in broad daylight. All these pictures referred to above could have been taken at ISO 1250 or even ISO 640: at ISO 1250 the M8 files are much more robust and easier to deal with in processing — as a result I wouldn't go to ISO 2500 unless I had to.

 

Here's a picture that I shot yesterday at ISO 1250:

 

 

 

Leica M8.2 | ISO 1250 | Zeiss ZM18 Distagon | Paris

 

 

 

BTW, I really the ZM18 lens and would like to thank Charles Petersen for putting me on to it.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Flickr: Mitch Alland's Photostream

[mikelc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

hi

 

..i shoot street at iso 160 or 320 (on not so sunny days) at 5.6 and up and 125 is fast enough hand held to not get blur and have lots of sharp dof..check some out http://www.mikecetta.com...the pp is stylistic but you can see the depth and sharp clarity

 

mike

mikecettadotcom

Edited April 6, 2009 by mikelc
spell eror

[jsrockit]

All I know is that the M8's noise seems to be a lot more appealing than other cameras I've seen.

[jbgeach]

Mitch, I agree with you on the great noise vs. grain debate. They just look different. Some people like grain. Personally, I don't. I can't say I am huge fan of noise, but it does look very different than grain.

However, if you want to make images that are your own and do not look like everyone else, use a high ISO.

 

Art is so subjective. When I go to a museum I find myself drawn to images that are different. Personally, I like the idea of getting the effect out of the camera instead of adding "grain" in post, but that is just my humble opinion

[K I]

Malland,

 

Great shot period! This is uniquely M8 IQ not Tri X or any other sort of film or simulation... I love to shoot my M8 at high ISO sometimes as well for exactly the same effect, how you print from that point on is subjective. I have experimented with SilverEfx, Alienskin's Exposure e.t.c. I will only use this tools on my Nikon images, M8 as is, straight out of the camera and nothing else except for very basic minor adjustments such as straightening, exposure and so on in Aperture, Lightroom or Capture One.

 

Thanks for sharing Malland, once again great shot from M8

 

KI

KI Photography Blog

main

[wstotler]

In my experience, the M8 at 2500 looks more like T-max 3200 pushed to 6400.

 

+1. Especially when the exposure isn't nailed *exactly*. I've really tried to use 2500, heeding all cautions and warnings about exposure. Not had any real luck with it. 1250 is about as high as I'll go, even if I'll be doing B&W conversions later. Kudos to those who have been having success with it in this thread!

[pklein]

I feel much the same. The noise at 640 doesn't bother me much, unless I've underexposed. 1250 is iffy, but it can be OK in B&W *if* properly exposed. That often means letting highlights blow so that midtones are at the sweet spot. 2500, I can't really stomach.

 

The M8's noise is much less unpleasant that some other cameras, and it responds well to Neat Image, Noiseware, Noise Ninja, etc. But there are three major problems with noise as opposed to grain:

 

1. It looks different than grain. (the M8's noise is somewhat more film-like than others)

2. It's in the shadows and dark midtones primarily, the opposite of how well-exposed film looks.

3. Noise is superimposed on the image, whereas a film image is actually made of grain.

 

It's a price we pay for the convenience of digital. We get other things in return.

[Angelos Viskadourakis]

my small contribution in Leica M8 2500 iso subject.

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!

[wolfloid]

"I have to say that digital noise doesn't look anything like film grain to my eye. It looks like digital noise. The digital noise texture on the darker skinned woman's face in the first shot in this thread is horrible, IMHO, and looks nothing like film grain.

 

Well, I have to agree. I think the skin textures look awful - just like the worst sort of digital noise.

 

I'm a long time M6 & Tri-x user and I sit here with 16x20's on the wall, none of which have grain anywhere near that big, even with my eye close to them, and certainly nothing like that character on the skin.

 

I understand that you are looking for an aesthetic, but it's not something I would want to look at - it seems more amateurish than considered.

 

When I tried the M8 out at 2500, I could see that there was something of this tendency in skin shadow and it has made me choose the lumpy, clumpy 5dII for digital.

[kalina]

I don't agree that ISO 2500 is usable. ISO 1250 in the same context, yes, but 2500 gets to that point where it's too grainy-looking... and the grain isn't exactly good. A lot of people familiar with digital will see that it's an image that's taxing the sensor.

[jrgoldman]

In low light with my M8, I regard 1250 as marginal and 2500 as horrible. As mentioned high ISO in good light is better than low light, both with correct exposure.

 

In your picture the shadow part of the face screams chroma noise even though it is in B&W.

 

I tested the ep-1 w. kit zoom in a camera store and COLOR jpegs at ISO 2500 and 6400 and, although 6400 has plenty of chroma noise, 8.5 x 11 prints look much better than the M8 at 2500.

 

I wanted the M8 to be my low light camera but that will not be. The files at lower ISO are fantastic.

 

Jay

[kalina]

One thing to note is there is no camera available that will take a really good image at ISO 2500. We can try to make excuses for why an image is grainy by comparing it to some famous film type out there, but the sad truth is digital is not quite there yet. Magnify your favorite film and then do the same with an ISO 2500 image. It looks like night and day. Film will have grain of all sizes. Pixels are pixels. In certain cluster formations, they can look good, but mostly they will look quite bad when an image is captured in suboptimal conditions.

 

There are certain ways to hide the "grain" in digital in high ISO images, but on the whole it's best to avoid using high ISO if possible.

[norm_snyder]

Late to this party....

The question seems to be whether iso 2500 [or 1250] is viable on the M8, particularly in daylight, but also there is the question of the type of rendering that we have come to expect over the years The attached shots are not in daylight, but I thought they might illustrate something. The first is scanned Tri-X, shot with M6 and 35mm Summicron wide open in about 2006, rated at 1600 and processed in T-Max, then scanned on Imacon , and the second, the same sax player, in fairly similar light levels, shot two weeks ago, M8 + 35mm Summicron V4 @ f2, cropped from the original frame. I don''t know, the sax player feels they carry a similar sense of his playing, and the evening, and I think they both have a similar feel.

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!

[Angelos Viskadourakis]

I don't agree that ISO 2500 is usable. ISO 1250 in the same context, yes, but 2500 gets to that point where it's too grainy-looking... and the grain isn't exactly good. A lot of people familiar with digital will see that it's an image that's taxing the sensor.

 

My feeling is that photography is capturing the effect of light on a material object-among many others-when the available light is much lower than the average human vision is becoming another kind of photography much more technical and abstract and is not exactly in the context of street photography.Clear from noise images at extremely low light levels-for human vision-for my taste they look more artificial than a grainy/noisy image.I very rarely use 1250 iso anywhere in my cinematography or photography light.Using my latest CANONS at 3200-6400 range i find myself having the need to add film grain to make it more believable as grain emulates the lower resolution of the human visual experience in dark places.Surely would be nice to have higher iso in good quality in order to degrade it in the post as much as needed.Remember very few years ago our quality limitation was ending in 400-800 iso using film ,now we can do 1250 iso,not bad so far.I can see a lot of improvement in the close future ,technology is there,i use 500 iso motion picture film that captures light in a logarithmic way and when is printed in positive and projected unveils a dynamic range of 12+ stops that means that a viewer can see 6 stops in the underexpose area-like we are using 32000 iso (thirty-two thousands) film.But digital as gets more current amplification in the dark is bringing the noise up -for the moment with the current applied technology,thats why fellow forum members see a better DR in TRIX film because is logarithmic compression but in M8/M9 is more linear which means either noise like hell or compressed Dynamic Range.

But dark images somehow they have to have something of lower definition in order to replicate the actual feeling a human experience in low light levels.

Is the light-existing or created -that give us a better image,no light no quality decided and forced by Mother Nature.I like to respect the elements.

PS :very nice images Norm_Snyder both of them lovely,i like TRIX a little better.

Edited October 23, 2009 by Angelos Viskadourakis

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[norm_snyder]

Thank you Angelos. I agree, I still prefer the look of Tri-X over the digital emulation of high speed film. I think there are still better transitions tonally. On the other hand, the M8 is so convenient, that "good enough" becomes very tempting. Next week I'll be shooting some photos of another musician that I last saw [and heard] in 2006, pianist Edward Simon. When I shot photos of him in 2006, I also used Tri-X and some HP5+. It will be interesting to compare the results with digital, as he will be performing in the same venue, under similar lighting and, as before, I will be shooting rehearsal, light check, etc.