Epson R-D1 @ iso 6400

[aldobonnard]

Hi All,
I recently dug out my R-D1 for some pics of a gig in Oxford (UK, obviously).
Taken at iso 6400, which means: ISO 1600 and EV -2, or usually using my handheld meter based on ISO 6400.
All right, this is not a Nikon D3-class noise in low light, but I think this is not too bad 🙂 . Especially when you consider that I used a Leica Summarit 50/1.5 wide open, which is a quite old design lens.
Please feel free to comment and add your own pics to this thread.

PS: Sorry I have no f-lickr account hence the pics are small thumbnails which you can click on and enlarge.

 

[Aurelius]

Indeed, very good. Some larger files would be nice to look at.

I miss my RD so very very much

 

[aldobonnard]

Indeed, very good. Some larger files would be nice to look at.

I miss my RD so very very much

Thanks, Aurelius. ISO 6400 is a bit the edge.
Sorry I am a bit of a luddite regarding internet publishing. I shall subscribe to a f-lickr account, really, and provide larger pics... one day !
To answer you about photo size, the 6Mpix pic are very grainy, in par with colour iso 1600 film pushed two stops (I refer to Natura 1600 which I know).

 

[umcelinho]

I think +2 push on an underexposed shot at 1600 is maybe too much, it won't handle shadows well. I've been using 800 as my top iso as it will give me a more workable file, but always exposing at nominal iso. I've never thought of underexposing to push on post, though, like with film. What I usually do is shoot at nominal speed, just using EV compensation due to lighting (against light, strong light source in the center etc. but you still managed to get good results! what is really bad about 1600 and underexposing is that it's too easy to get a bad case of banding on shots with strong lights and shadows.

 

[Nokton48]

Looks good! Whatever you're doing, keep doing it!

 

[yoni]

Better than film but I too find that 1600 is about as high as I can go and even then I am often disappointed by the noise level.

 

[Mr_Flibble]

Same as Yoni, though sometimes I underexpose by up to 2/3rds of a stop to at least get a usable shutterspeed to capture those fast-strummin' musicians on stage 😉

And ofcourse focussing in low light can be a right pain.

Jupiter-3 50mm f/1.5 wide-open.

That said, Nice shots Aldobonnard.

 

[aldobonnard]

Same as Yoni, though sometimes I underexpose by up to 2/3rds of a stop to at least get a usable shutterspeed to capture those fast-strummin' musicians on stage 😉

And ofcourse focussing in low light can be a right pain.

Jupiter-3 50mm f/1.5 wide-open.

That said, Nice shots Aldobonnard.

thanks. Sure, most ISO1600 underexposed 2 stops shots look...well...seriously underexposed, with inevitable banding in the shadows. But digital helps by allowing many consecutive shots, and out of the number taken, some shots can survive. As you point at, focusing is a challenge too.
That one shot above from yours looks good enough to me (and very clear, not noisy at all).

 

[Mr_Flibble]

Oh I got plenty of noisy pictures at that show too. And yes, I took a lot of them, but only a handfull survived my scrutiny.

At -2/3rd of a stop the under-exposure is not that bad and I think the AE gave me about 1/125th to 1/250th of a second in the stage lighting.


Here's one from a week before the one in the previous post.

Same setup, 1600 ISO, -2/3rds of a stop @ f1.5 I recall at 1/60th or so.

 

[aldobonnard]

your setup looks much noise-friendly than mine! Great stuff, this last photo.

I forgot to tell that the first pic was taken with a canon P 28mm @ f/2.8, which forced me to use this extreme setup. Perhaps for the others, I should have remained with ISO 1600 EV-1, not EV-2.
That being said, the Metal gigs (at least here in Oxford) are usually in very very dark places and stages are very dimly lit too (otherwise that's not pure Metal, that's Glastonbury-like ;-)

 

[jsrockit]

6400 from a camera from many many years ago? Looks great to me. Try this on a M8 and see how it looks like shat.