ESG
Newbie
Hello all -
I'm considering a R-D1 which I would want to use for some low-light indoor photography of dance.
Can someone post a sample pic taken at ISO1600 - under artificial light, maybe underexposed a stop as well and corrected in say photoshop? I'd be very interested to see what the noise level is like.
Many thanks
I'm considering a R-D1 which I would want to use for some low-light indoor photography of dance.
Can someone post a sample pic taken at ISO1600 - under artificial light, maybe underexposed a stop as well and corrected in say photoshop? I'd be very interested to see what the noise level is like.
Many thanks
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
This picture in my gallery was taken with an R-D 1 at EI 1600 under artificial light, although it wasn't underexposed:
Also, I'm attaching a worst-case-scenario image: This one WAS underexposed, as well as being shot in a rehearsal, under contrasty lighting, with dark clothing and a dark background. I processed the attached JPEGs in Adobe Lightroom beta 3. I cranked up the exposure level 1 stop in post-production to get decently bright highlight areas. I used the "de-noise" setting to get rid of chroma noise (color dots), but didn't apply the "smoothing" setting because it softens image details more than I'd like.
The downsampled full-area image doesn't look too bad, but if you look at the cropped section, you can see that some of the shadow areas look a bit "chunky" (although the amount of JPEG compression I had to apply to get them down to downloadable size makes it look worse than it does in the original image.) I still don't think the result is too bad, although of course it would have been better if I had exposed correctly in the first place!
Both the gallery picture and the attachment were shot in raw format, by the way. I wouldn't want to try shooting in difficult lighting on JPEG format, because it gives you much less latitude for post-exposure correction.
Also, I'm attaching a worst-case-scenario image: This one WAS underexposed, as well as being shot in a rehearsal, under contrasty lighting, with dark clothing and a dark background. I processed the attached JPEGs in Adobe Lightroom beta 3. I cranked up the exposure level 1 stop in post-production to get decently bright highlight areas. I used the "de-noise" setting to get rid of chroma noise (color dots), but didn't apply the "smoothing" setting because it softens image details more than I'd like.
The downsampled full-area image doesn't look too bad, but if you look at the cropped section, you can see that some of the shadow areas look a bit "chunky" (although the amount of JPEG compression I had to apply to get them down to downloadable size makes it look worse than it does in the original image.) I still don't think the result is too bad, although of course it would have been better if I had exposed correctly in the first place!
Both the gallery picture and the attachment were shot in raw format, by the way. I wouldn't want to try shooting in difficult lighting on JPEG format, because it gives you much less latitude for post-exposure correction.
Attachments
Last edited:
Geo
Established
ESG said:
This shot is in my regular portfolio as well.
Was taken in the Paris subway with atificial light @ ISO1600.
Geo
ESG
Newbie
Thank you both - the noise seems to be sufficiently under control to make it worth considering.
Toby
On the alert
Just for comparison here is a photo from my Eos 20d @ 1600. It's not such a contrasty situation so it's not a totally fair comparison and I haven't used any type of noise reduction. I think it displays noticably less noise, and I bought a 50/1.4 for the camera because the low light performance was so much better than any of my film cameras.
Attachments
Aurelius
Well-known
furcafe
Veteran
The most recent example I have:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/furcafe/208694510/
I cropped out about 50% of the original file for this shot.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/furcafe/208694510/
I cropped out about 50% of the original file for this shot.
vinwong
Newbie
nickmeertens
Established
Here is another one.
Here is another one.
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4777611&size=lg
Epson R-D1s with 35mm F2.5 voigtlander PII at F2.5 and iso1600
Here is another one.
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4777611&size=lg
Epson R-D1s with 35mm F2.5 voigtlander PII at F2.5 and iso1600
Happy Snapper
Newbie
Has anyone tried the voigtlander 35mm 1.2 with the RD1? What is sharpness like wide open. Having bad experiences with canon 5D and 50mm 1.4 (not very sharp til at least f2.5). Would a Leica 35mm summicron be pretty good wide open?
nickmeertens
Established
Have a look here to learn more about fast lenses for the Epson Rangefinder
Have a look here to learn more about fast lenses for the Epson Rangefinder
Have a look here to learn more about fast lenses for the Epson Rangefinder:
luminous-landscape
Good Luck, hope you like what you read!
Have a look here to learn more about fast lenses for the Epson Rangefinder
Have a look here to learn more about fast lenses for the Epson Rangefinder:
luminous-landscape
Good Luck, hope you like what you read!
ampguy
Veteran
I haven't yet seen any digicam/dslr or film match the low noise of an ist at 1600/3200, with just out of the camera jpegs, no manipulation, but i'm happy to look, the 20d photo is closer than many.
I would guess that what would get close would be a digicam with built-in noise reduction and a very long exposure, but then you have that option in the ist as well.
btw, this is the istDL not the older ones with more noise in the JPEGs.
I would guess that what would get close would be a digicam with built-in noise reduction and a very long exposure, but then you have that option in the ist as well.
btw, this is the istDL not the older ones with more noise in the JPEGs.
furcafe
Veteran
The files I've seen from the full-frame Canons, e.g., 5D, are the best I've seen as far as being noise-free.
ampguy said:
ampguy
Veteran
not noise free to me
not noise free to me
even raw, modified in PS CS2 shows visible noise to my eyes:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3774768
not noise free to me
even raw, modified in PS CS2 shows visible noise to my eyes:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3774768
furcafe said: