bobbyrab
Well-known
The 5d is much more capable in low light than the M8 without a doubt, but if I'm doing corporate work and someone is making a presentation with a projected screen image, invariably you won't be able to bridge both light levels in one exposure, 5d, M8, or d700, if I expose for the speaker I can recover some of the blown highlights from the projection in lightroom shooting raw, but if the gulf is greater than 3 stops which it generally is, I'll take few key shots exposing for the display and cut and paste onto the other images, it's the simplest most straight forward way to do it and you get the clarity and saturation you need. I usually only need a few of these establishing shots, so it doesn't require a great deal of ps. That said I sold my M8 after a month as the iso capability is just too important to me.
bobbyrab
Well-known
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I would suggest that the Nokton 35/1.2 is not the optimum lens for this work either. I really like it and am happy to use it, but blown highlights and blocked shadows seem to occur much more easily than on other fast lenses. I would suggest that one of the short Summiluxes would do quite a lot better.
P. Lynn Miller
Well-known
OK... I hate to be the smart-ass in bunch... and say I told you so...
Scanned on a Epson V500 scanner at 6400dpi in 48bitRGB as a raw file, opened in Photoshop CS3, converted to positive with Color-Neg, resized to 4500px on the long side, dust-spotted, apply some curves, color-correction and saturation, brightness and contrast, then resized to 1000px on the long side, ran high pass filter and unsharp mask, converted to 8bit and saved as .jpeg with a quality of 10.
The scans and post-processing is still pretty quick and dirty. And do not forget, this film was sitting my Nikon F for almost six months between the first and last frames. I shot these without a meter, just took a guess and then had the film push-processed 2 stops for an effective ISO6400. So this is far from when can really be done with this film.
So I reckon that Keith's problem is as easily fixed as a trip to his local purveyor of film and picking a few rolls of $8 film... Can a D700/D3/5D deliver better results... I would hope so!
As for the point of focus, well, I got slightly distracted there for abit...
Scanned on a Epson V500 scanner at 6400dpi in 48bitRGB as a raw file, opened in Photoshop CS3, converted to positive with Color-Neg, resized to 4500px on the long side, dust-spotted, apply some curves, color-correction and saturation, brightness and contrast, then resized to 1000px on the long side, ran high pass filter and unsharp mask, converted to 8bit and saved as .jpeg with a quality of 10.
The scans and post-processing is still pretty quick and dirty. And do not forget, this film was sitting my Nikon F for almost six months between the first and last frames. I shot these without a meter, just took a guess and then had the film push-processed 2 stops for an effective ISO6400. So this is far from when can really be done with this film.
So I reckon that Keith's problem is as easily fixed as a trip to his local purveyor of film and picking a few rolls of $8 film... Can a D700/D3/5D deliver better results... I would hope so!
As for the point of focus, well, I got slightly distracted there for abit...
italy74
Well-known
Another vote for D700 if you can:
iso 3200 -1 EV ( = 6400 iso) - 1/180s - F/4.8
Another one, same iso (3200 - 1 EV) - F/2.8 - 1/90s
here's the whole gallery, most of it shot at 3200 -1 EV
http://italy74.smugmug.com/gallery/7545913_5Nvst
To reply to another earlier question from Keith:
when I can I use matrix metering, but in this case, due to the few light and the extreme contrast between light and dark and to get the most favourable times to shoot, I used also spot (ex. aiming at the "priest" face in the second shot or center weighted metering elsewhere, when it was large at least as the central metering area of D700)
iso 3200 -1 EV ( = 6400 iso) - 1/180s - F/4.8
Another one, same iso (3200 - 1 EV) - F/2.8 - 1/90s
here's the whole gallery, most of it shot at 3200 -1 EV
http://italy74.smugmug.com/gallery/7545913_5Nvst
To reply to another earlier question from Keith:
when I can I use matrix metering, but in this case, due to the few light and the extreme contrast between light and dark and to get the most favourable times to shoot, I used also spot (ex. aiming at the "priest" face in the second shot or center weighted metering elsewhere, when it was large at least as the central metering area of D700)
Last edited:
HenningW
Well-known
I shoot mostly digital now, with M8's and 5D MkI and II. Each excels in certain areas, and not always where you'd expect but for this type of shooting I'd go with film. Preferably 800 colour negative as that has a longer tonal range than 1600, but in any case not pushed. The problem here is dynamic range, everything else can easily be dealt with. Then do multiple scans and use HDR for negatives with something like Photomatix or DIY in Photoshop. You won't get the detail and colour balance benefits of digital, but you will get better dynamic range.
Henning
Henning
mackigator
Well-known
Film can't touch the full frame digi's at high ISO. Just in case anyone was afraid to say it.
I still push film and love to play with low light, funky colors, and all that. But just for fun.
With a D700 or 5D you won't even really need expensive glass - a simple 50mm AF prime will give you more usable shots than it sounds like you are getting from the M8.
I still push film and love to play with low light, funky colors, and all that. But just for fun.
With a D700 or 5D you won't even really need expensive glass - a simple 50mm AF prime will give you more usable shots than it sounds like you are getting from the M8.
samoksner
Who stole my light?
Let me say that i haven't used an m8 but that a Canon 5D at ISO 1600 is pretty damn clean. And with a 28mm f1.8 and a 50mm f1.4, you're set, either that or you can go all out or get a 24mm f1.4 or a 35mm f1.4. I know someone has posted images from a 5D at 3200 and as you can see, it's quite clean. More then that though, the 5D is known to take post processing particularly well, I'm sure you can rent one and a 35mm f1.4 for a night for not too much and get an idea of what you can expect.
What you're trying to shoot is a real pain, and without spending way too much for a 5D MkII or a D700, this is your best option.
What you're trying to shoot is a real pain, and without spending way too much for a 5D MkII or a D700, this is your best option.
pphuang
brain drain...
Yes, that's true, although its DR still remains a few stops better than the 5D at higher ISOs. But definitely more noise...
italy74
Well-known
mine was a D700 and a 3200 working AS 6400 
Prosaic
Well-known
Wait a minute... You worry about noise with the M8 at ISO 640 and then consider switching to ISO 1600 color film? Actually it was the poor performance of faster color films that made me finally move to a digital camera.
Portra at ISO 400 is like ISO 25600 on my D700. Really a great camera. Get some older manual Nikkors and you have a state of the art - full frame - digital kit.
bobkonos
Well-known
Keith,
Hold up your middle finger as if you were flipping someone the bird. At this point in my life at age 55, that is the only "digital" of interest or necessary. Scrap that M8, pick of a mechanical camera, and get on with it, mate.
Hold up your middle finger as if you were flipping someone the bird. At this point in my life at age 55, that is the only "digital" of interest or necessary. Scrap that M8, pick of a mechanical camera, and get on with it, mate.
cjm
Well-known
To the OP, not sure if you have seen this WANT TO TRADE ad but it might be what your looking for.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Using the technique listed earlier, I have come up with this:
Getting to the right colors is a bit tricky (near impossible) when starting out with an internet JPEG, but there certainly is more detail to be had with the Lightroom-Photoshop approach. Especially with the right hand picture, where there is even the portraits background recorded in the shot, using the appropriate technique brings it back out again.
Keith, you can send me a DNG if you like, I'll love to have a go at it!
CLE-RF... if you PM me your email I'll send you a challenging DNG when I get home tonight!
Cheers.
P. Lynn Miller
Well-known
Many of you need to read Keith's original post... yes, he is complaining about ISO noise... but he is struggling because of the limited dynamic range of the M8... when he exposes for the screens... he has to deal excess noise in the shadows when he tries to push the shadows to open them up abit... if he tries to expose with an allowance for the shadows, then he has to deal with blown highlights... this is about dynamic range, not high ISO performance.
There is no question or doubt that the new generation full-frame sensors perform better at high-ISO than film, with the advent of the D3, film was convincingly relegated to second place. No one is disputing this fact.
But to be honest, while all the digital images posted this thread have been proof of the superiority of the D700/D3/5D at high ISO with clean and well-controlled noise, none of the images show a greater amount of dynamic range than my crappy old, over-pushed, badly scanned color negative film. And definitely not the latitude of fresh box-rated Portra 400NC. Can the D700/D3/5D match the dynamic range of color negative film... I don't know as I have not used any of these cameras enough to make a personal statement.
The crux of my argument for film has been that Keith stated he was only using his M8 to shoot 'dimly lit gallery openings occasionally' and was looking for an affordable alternate that would deliver a better image for this occasional task. Since Keith has a cupboard full of fast glass for both his Leica M's and OM system, then switching to color negative film is the clearly the most economical alternative.
Now if Keith is going to be doing this type of shooting on a regular basis and is willing to spend the money, then by all means head to the nearest Nikon/Canon dealer and purchase a D700/5D with appropriate lenses which will give him a working kit with more dynamic range than the M8 can deliver.
There is no question or doubt that the new generation full-frame sensors perform better at high-ISO than film, with the advent of the D3, film was convincingly relegated to second place. No one is disputing this fact.
But to be honest, while all the digital images posted this thread have been proof of the superiority of the D700/D3/5D at high ISO with clean and well-controlled noise, none of the images show a greater amount of dynamic range than my crappy old, over-pushed, badly scanned color negative film. And definitely not the latitude of fresh box-rated Portra 400NC. Can the D700/D3/5D match the dynamic range of color negative film... I don't know as I have not used any of these cameras enough to make a personal statement.
The crux of my argument for film has been that Keith stated he was only using his M8 to shoot 'dimly lit gallery openings occasionally' and was looking for an affordable alternate that would deliver a better image for this occasional task. Since Keith has a cupboard full of fast glass for both his Leica M's and OM system, then switching to color negative film is the clearly the most economical alternative.
Now if Keith is going to be doing this type of shooting on a regular basis and is willing to spend the money, then by all means head to the nearest Nikon/Canon dealer and purchase a D700/5D with appropriate lenses which will give him a working kit with more dynamic range than the M8 can deliver.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Thanks heaps for all the input and suggestions ... my head is spinning and I have to go to work here (morning).
I'll get back into this when I get home tonight and deal with and think about the options.
And thanks for the couple of PM's I've received regarding this.
I didn't think this thread would get as interesting as it has!!!
I'll get back into this when I get home tonight and deal with and think about the options.
And thanks for the couple of PM's I've received regarding this.
I didn't think this thread would get as interesting as it has!!!
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Well summed up ... thanks P Lynn ... I indeed don't have the money to output for a new system to deal with a problem that is occasional at the moment.
FrankS
Registered User
Maybe just decline those jobs and your problems go away.
Keith,
Clearly you need a Canon 7 with 50/0.95.
Kodacolor 400, 1/15th wide-open.
The only other camera working without a flash in this room was a Thermal Imager.
Imagine what you get get pushing the film a little...
Economical, about 1/10th the cost of a Noctilux.
Clearly you need a Canon 7 with 50/0.95.
Kodacolor 400, 1/15th wide-open.
The only other camera working without a flash in this room was a Thermal Imager.
Imagine what you get get pushing the film a little...
Economical, about 1/10th the cost of a Noctilux.
ferider
Veteran
Hey Keith,
with your 35/1.2, M2 and Neopan 1600 you should be able to shoot in the dark. And make the grain part of your signature.
Really been impressed at the B+W pictures you have shown us recently, amazing processing quality (and photos, too, of course).
Cheers,
Roland.
with your 35/1.2, M2 and Neopan 1600 you should be able to shoot in the dark. And make the grain part of your signature.
Really been impressed at the B+W pictures you have shown us recently, amazing processing quality (and photos, too, of course).
Cheers,
Roland.