M8 as good or better than film in terms of noise?

[bussta]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So with the advent of the M9 being released with higher iso etc, it has left me thinking, how far do we actually want to go with clean images.

 

In your opinions, is the M8 up there in terms of surpassing the resolution of 35mm film?, I mean 800 iso colour film is going to be as grainy as 800iso on the M8 right? (I know grain is different to noise, but the M8 does show more of a film grain like noise, if that makes sense)

 

The M9's iso range helps with less noise in low light situations over the M8, but are we at a point when the M8 looks so horrible and is way off what one could achieve with film in low light situations, that it should be discarded just because the M9 is out and can do low light noise a little bit better?

 

I personally don't see much of a point to upgrade to the M9 (discounting the true focal length you can achive with the lenses) when the M8 is pretty good and possibly as good as you would get with a range of 35mm film?

[Advertisement]

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

[rhow]

In my experience you are about one stop better than film (minimum). Depending on the post-processing of the DNG the noise can look similar to the film grains.

 

I shoot up to ISO 640 (ISO 800 equiv.) without concerns about picture quality.

[bussta]

Thanks rhow, I'm soon to finally get my hands in a M8.2 an 35 lux, I could possibly get a M9 but I can't justify the price to be honest, I won't be dong a lot of wide shooting either so to me I don't think I would benefit from it. Print wise I would only print up to 20" max and by what people say the M8 under right circumstances can deal with this easily. As long as I am getting quality equal to or surpassing film, then I think I will be more than happy

[don_panko]

The bigger issue is the lack of image stabilization which most other digital camera manufacturers provide just for the purpose of keeping things sharp at lower ISO and slower shutter speeds. I use lower ISO range on my M8 to minimize noise and that is when slow shutter speeds can be a problem. It also explains why my screen is covered in nose prints.

[lxlim]

The bigger issue is the lack of image stabilization which most other digital camera manufacturers provide just for the purpose of keeping things sharp at lower ISO and slower shutter speeds. I use lower ISO range on my M8 to minimize noise and that is when slow shutter speeds can be a problem. It also explains why my screen is covered in nose prints.

 

I can't disagree with you that slow shutter speeds are a problem but image stabilization while helpful would bring about some unwelcome changes. First is a considerable increase in weight and size. Second is that you can only stabilise in two axis for the sensor.

 

You might want to do a little research on this forum's thread. Lars, one of the forum members has a great "sniper" technique.

[lxlim]

So with the advent of the M9 being released with higher iso etc, it has left me thinking, how far do we actually want to go with clean images.

 

In your opinions, is the M8 up there in terms of surpassing the resolution of 35mm film?, I mean 800 iso colour film is going to be as grainy as 800iso on the M8 right? (I know grain is different to noise, but the M8 does show more of a film grain like noise, if that makes sense)

 

The M9's iso range helps with less noise in low light situations over the M8, but are we at a point when the M8 looks so horrible and is way off what one could achieve with film in low light situations, that it should be discarded just because the M9 is out and can do low light noise a little bit better?

 

I personally don't see much of a point to upgrade to the M9 (discounting the true focal length you can achive with the lenses) when the M8 is pretty good and possibly as good as you would get with a range of 35mm film?

 

Its really a personal preference here. Some like clean grainlessness some like the grittiness and one's taste could even defer with different subjects and colour.

 

I tend to lean towards rich tones and details but shoot at ISO 640 and 1250 because of job conditions, conditions more favorable to Nikons and Canons.

[BerndReini]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The M8 exceeds film by far in terms of noise. There is no 400 speed (exposed at 320) that can keep up with the clean image of the M8 at ISO 320. Now latitude is a whole different story unfortunately. For high ISO color work, the M8 has long replaced my film Ms.