IR- the final thread I hope -poll

[POINT OF VIEW]

What About My Group

What About My Group

I can't find any problems with the M8, AT ALL. Attached photo was taken in low light with one incandescent table lamp, NO FILTER. in my opinion the M8 is the greatest piece of engineering Leica has ever pulled off. I do not use rangefinder cameras because they are the simplest, easy, automated programmed camera that thinks for me. I use it because It gives me the best results with the greatest challenge. The answer to the perceived IR problem for me is, learn how the camera works. Bill

 

[POINT OF VIEW]

I can't find any problems with the M8, AT ALL. Attached photo was taken in low light with one incandescent table lamp, NO FILTER. in my opinion the M8 is the greatest piece of engineering Leica has ever pulled off. I do not use rangefinder cameras because they are the simplest, easy, automated programmed camera that thinks for me. I use it because It gives me the best results with the greatest challenge. The answer to the perceived IR problem for me is, learn how the camera works. Bill

 

[sherm]

I can't find any problems with the M8, AT ALL. Attached photo was taken in low light with one incandescent table lamp, NO FILTER. in my opinion the M8 is the greatest piece of engineering Leica has ever pulled off. I do not use rangefinder cameras because they are the simplest, easy, automated programmed camera that thinks for me. I use it because It gives me the best results with the greatest challenge. The answer to the perceived IR problem for me is, learn how the camera works. Bill

Bill,

I don't think IR is your problem, but NOISE certainly is! Unless this is a result of file compression you definately have some issues. My Fuji F30 at ISO 800 has less noise, what gives?

Scott

 

[iml]

The domain name m8forum.com is available.

Just a thought

Ian

 

[jaapv]

Don't worry, I'll make it expire when we are all sick and tired of it

 

[iml]

Any time now would be fine

Ian

 

[jaapv]

On this forum- I already did -back and forth- about a year ago, remeber the fun and games we had back the?. No, if it goes sour I'll just delete it.

 

[fgianni]

Bill,

I don't think IR is your problem, but NOISE certainly is! Unless this is a result of file compression you definately have some issues. My Fuji F30 at ISO 800 has less noise, what gives?

Scott

Looks like a bad noise reduction algorithm more than a real noise problem to me, maybe a not too careful use of NR software like NeatImage or Noise Ninja?
I am sure had the image been taken in raw mode and noise reduction applied more carefully we wouldn't be seeing all those artifacts.

 

[Ben Z]

I can't find any problems with the M8, AT ALL. Attached photo was taken in low light with one incandescent table lamp, NO FILTER. in my opinion the M8 is the greatest piece of engineering Leica has ever pulled off. I do not use rangefinder cameras because they are the simplest, easy, automated programmed camera that thinks for me. I use it because It gives me the best results with the greatest challenge. The answer to the perceived IR problem for me is, learn how the camera works. Bill

The photo you attached is noisy, pixellated, lacks saturation and unless her dress really is deep purple, shows IR contamination too. If I were you I wouldn't show that photo to anyone if you're trying to prove what you said in words because if anything it proves just the opposite, which may actually be more due to poor post-processing than the faults of the camera.

 

[jaapv]

I think it has been (over) sharpening before noise reduction and then sharpening again. That brings out the worst...Plus underexposure.
To get a better idea of the high-iso possibilties of the M8 check out :http://www.leica-camera-user.com/digital-forum/13183-m8-higher-iso-levels.html#post137261
for instance.
Or this 1250 one (I've posted it before)

 

[Ben Z]

What are those vertical (sort of, they're not exactly vertical and not parallel to each other) streaks in the sky area of upper left? And why is it that those outdoor lights, which look to be the same type of lamp, have flare halos that some are magenta and some are cyan? BTW is it sharpened for print? It looks a tiny bit oversharpened for web display.


BTW, does anybody know if there would be any weird ill-effects (other than even more loss of contrast and increased chance of flare) if one were to put back his MRC UV filter over the IR filter? Since the IR coating is easily scratched and that's the one supposedly facing front (according to Schneider), I'm just wondering if doubling the UV blocking by putting an MRC-UV in front of the IR would cause some weird color shift.

 

[jaapv]

Just show me a 1600 ISO shot on film. And those streaks are called snowflakes.And those lamps were indeed different types of light.Italians are not very precise in that sort of thing Wonderful, isn't it, that a camera can actually record such things...Yes, it was sharpened for print, and turned out a bit too much I agree on the web, but-should that not have provoked horrible noise?

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Cyan? I see green. One's evidently a Mercury-vapor lamp and the others are Tungsten or Halogen (I'm not counting the candles)

 

[Ben Z]

Just show me a 1600 ISO shot on film.

I think you misunderstand my overall position so let me state it concisely. Considering the DMR, I (and most people as I recall) never honestly expected the M8 to come close to matching ISO 800 and above of any recent Canon DSLR. Still, I was ready to buy one, so you won't ever hear me gripe about its high-iso noise. The various lockups and blobs and bands, that was also expected with a new camera from a small company with little experience in digital and dependent upon outsourcing to several parties, rushing to get it to market by Photokina, and they will all be fixed over the next year with as many firmware upgrades or recalls as it takes, but eventually they will all be fixed. The IR oversensitivity and the front filter "solution" was a one-two sucker punch that caught everyone off guard and some have had more luck turning the other cheek than me.

 

[jaapv]

I hear you, Ben, I even understand you, though it may not always seem so. But what about my argument: the camera is bigger than the issue. Some stupid marketing guy did not see it. But the engineers were right: this is -for the moment- the optimum solution for a digital RF.Let me try again: 75/1.4, wide open, tungsten/candles, ISO 1250, 1/16th, hand-held.I cannot do this with any other digital camera.

 

[POINT OF VIEW]

M8 Noise Maker ?

M8 Noise Maker ?

Hi, thanks for your inquire. Let me start by saying I tend to be a little long winded when discussing photography, so I will try to keep it short, but I apologize up front if I go to long for any reader. As you can see I’ve already said more then necessary.
To the subject, noise, (dig.) / grain (film). The print made from the original file has some noise / grain. It in no way has the appearance of the photo you see. The noise in the print would only be noticeable to a person with a trained eye. The photo I am referring to, incase some one is reading this not knowing the reference. Is the M8 photo I attached to my reply in the M8 survey, dated - Jan. 7 .
Back to the subject, as a rangefinder shooter, I have 2 challenges, I try to always restrict myself to. In order of importance. #1 never use a flash, (IF YOU CAN SEE IT YOU CAN SHOOT IT). #2 Always hand hold the camera. (tripods are intrusive and dangers to my equipment). With that said I think I can explain why you see excessive noise.
There are 3 reasons, I think. First, the original file is 5.5MB, the file you see is 700KB. I am only a temporary member to the upload group ( I’m a newbie) therefore I’m only allowed small files. By the way while I’m on the newbie subject, I apologize for the 2, reply entries. I got a message on the first one that my entry was denied. Anyway, the second reason is the file is a JPEG, and I find most low-res have a JPEG artifacts. Lastly the M8 was set on ISO. 2500. The room was extremely dark and I was shooting at ½ a second. One last thing on M8s and ISO. I am very impressed with the little noise I get at high ISO settings. I shoot a lot of T Max 3200 stopped down to 1600 and although I haven’t done any comparative shooting I feel confident the M8 will do far better noise / grain wise, compared to T Max 3200. I hope my ramblings have given some understanding to the question you inquired of me. What’s up with the noise? The real purpose of the photo was to demonstrate the color the M8 is capable of in a very dark room and a black dress. Thank you Bill

Bill,

I don't think IR is your problem, but NOISE certainly is! Unless this is a result of file compression you definately have some issues. My Fuji F30 at ISO 800 has less noise, what gives?

Scott

 

[Athena]

Kodak Porta 160NC at speed with Nikon 28 autoflash - Nikon F5 with so-so Sigma (i.e. Quantary) zoom.

 

[jaapv]

Kodak Porta 160NC at speed with Nikon 28 autoflash - Nikon F5 with so-so Sigma (i.e. Quantary) zoom.

That is a nice example of all that I hate about flash pictures. Especially the OOF blown-out face that dominates the front, plus the underexposed background that still has the heavy shadowing. But no red eyes, I grant you that. A good argument to used a Rangefinder - fast film or high ISO and a good, fast lens.

 

[Ben Z]

That is a nice example of all that I hate about flash pictures. Especially the OOF blown-out face that dominates the front, plus the underexposed background that still has the heavy shadowing. But no red eyes, I grant you that. A good argument to used a Rangefinder - fast film or high ISO and a good, fast lens.

Jaap, we've both seen lots of flash pictures that look naturally-lit thanks to knowledgeable use of diffusion, bouncing, slaves and a host of other techniques, though that shot is more along the school of Speed-Graphic-#2-flashbulb-in-the-face popular 50 years ago (before we were born of course ) . Even the problem of sequential flash photography can be solved with specific batteries and <1-second recycle times. What remains a problem and always will, is the inability of any photographer to maintain a productive rapport with anyone but a professional model after repeated bombardment with strobes. Existing-light photography of people is my preference as well, however I happen to get better results with autofocus than a rangefinder and I haven't noticed the 20D's small mirror slapping causing me a problem (maybe the rubber-clad body also absorbs a lot of vibration). And of course in high-ISO performance Canon does have one up on the rest of the brands out there.

 

[rsl]

...the school of Speed-Graphic-#2-flashbulb-in-the-face popular 50 years ago (before we were born of course )

Not before all of us were born. I owned a Speed Graphic and I even used flash powder once, though it was a curiousity and I just wanted to see what it was like.

But I agree. Having to trash natural light with flash was the kind of thing that made me give up professional photography shortly after I started doing it.