Just a simple question about M8.2 ISO capabilities

R

rpavich

Established
Local time
6:22 PM
Joined
Aug 2, 2013
Messages
150
I've been pouring through the archives concerning the ISO of the M8 (.2 also) and there is so much info, and conflicting info, that I'd like to just ask a simple question:

If my expectation was to just have ISO 1600 be useable, if it were properly exposed and all, is it fair to say that I could normally expect that the files would be pretty good?

I'm not asking for super quality like a Fuji X100T at 1600...I know it's not gonna happen. I currently shoot an Epson R-D1x and 1600 is as high as it can e set in camera and I can push a stop or two without being too upset over the files; generally above 1600 I have to make them B&W to hide the issues.

So would it be fair to say that the M8 is basically the same? That 1600 is useable and sometimes B&W is going to be used due to necessity?

I'm not interested in pushing to ISO 5000 and stuff, I can live with a solid 1600 and once in a while a B&W 3200.

PS: I'm also not interested in shooting at ISO 160 and boosting 5 stops in post. I'd like to shoot at the real ISO if I can.
 
It is very grainy at 1250 and 2500. Useable if you nail exposure and have LR 3 or later, but definitely you will lose definition. I've used it in clubs and been fine. Just don't expect to get any shadow detail back. It looks very nice in B&W.
 
I shot my M8 in dark clubs and small music venues, at iso 1250-1600, and found the files usable. Some files benefitted from noise reduction in post and some I'd just resort to B&W conversion, which I like in the first place from the M8. In those days I would try to expose to the right, these days I would try shooting at iso 640-800 and pushing and see what I get (not being argumentative - it's just that underexposing and pushing 1-2 stops in post worked for me with an M9 on some files).

My recollection is that the M8's iso ratings are conservative by about a half-stop, btw. I did shoot occasionally at iso 2500-3200. Usable depending on the subject but pretty rough, needing more NR than I like.

I think the answer is subject- and style-dependent. Generally, if you're okay with resorting to B&W, I think you'll be okay with the M8's higher iso output.
 
MCTuomey said:
I shot my M8 in dark clubs and small music venues, at iso 1250-1600, and found the files usable. Some files benefitted from noise reduction in post and some I'd just resort to B&W conversion, which I like in the first place from the M8. In those days I would try to expose to the right, these days I would try shooting at iso 640-800 and pushing and see what I get (not being argumentative - it's just that underexposing and pushing 1-2 stops in post worked for me with an M9 on some files).

My recollection is that the M8's iso ratings are conservative by about a half-stop, btw. I did shoot occasionally at iso 2500-3200. Usable depending on the subject but pretty rough, needing more NR than I like.

I think the answer is subject- and style-dependent. Generally, if you're okay with resorting to B&W, I think you'll be okay with the M8's higher iso output.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I understand pushing a stop or two, I get what you're saying, I do that now on the R-D1x because 800 pushed looks a lot better than 1600 to my eye.
 
Mudman said:
It is very grainy at 1250 and 2500. Useable if you nail exposure and have LR 3 or later, but definitely you will lose definition. I've used it in clubs and been fine. Just don't expect to get any shadow detail back. It looks very nice in B&W.
Click to expand...

Thanks...appreciate it.
 
rpavich said:
If my expectation was to just have ISO 1600 be useable, if it were properly exposed and all, is it fair to say that I could normally expect that the files would be pretty good?
Click to expand...

I would think you may be disappointed more often than pleased.
 
Data exists that indicates the M9 at ISO 640 and lower produced better signal-to-noise ratios than above 640 (link... summary in the last paragraph). This link contains photos so you can judge the SNR vs. ISO performance yourself.

Apparently it is counter productive to use ISO 2500 with the M9.

Using DNG output and pushing ISO 640 results in post-production will produce the best IQ in very low light.

I would be surprised if the M 8.2 behaved differently than the M9 as far as SNR vs ISO goes. I speculate the non-lineariy in SNR vs ISO is similar for both cameras. Obviously the M9's absolute SNR is higher since the sensor area is higher. But the shoot DNG at ISO 640 and push brightness in post advice should apply to the M 8.2.

I would be grateful if someone has access to data that shows my speculation is wrong.
 
My experience with the M8 agrees with Ned. Anything above 400 is grainy but will only look good converted to B&W.
 
My short answer is that it is usable for ISO 1600, and it is generally comparable to the Epson R-D1. However, this technology is from a decade ago. That's a reality.

Going through the ISO settings with respect to noise, I would say that noise starts to creep in at 640, is usually quite visible at 1250, and gets bad at 2500. I don't like the ISO 2500 setting as it is so hit and miss and therefore never use it, but I routinely use 1250 for convenience (better noise performance can be gained by pushing lower settings). I generally don't use noise filtering, since I like my details unfiltered.

I think a lot of digital camera owners simply dislike noise. Often they rather lose detail than get any visible noise. While there is no doubt the M8 is noisier than my Sony RX1-R, I use these cameras alongside each other all the time.
 
Lots of color noise reduction, then do luminosity noise.

Use a luminosity mask to confine NR to dark tones.

Edge masking to sharpen edges only.
 
I keep my M8 which I believe has the same sensor and software to at or below ISO 640. I would say that even when these cameras were first sold they seemed to have sensors that were at least a generation behind the leading cameras. Even at ISO 640 getting exposure correct is an absolute necessity otherwise image quality suffers badly.
 
I find my M8.2 usable at ISO 1250. I'm sure I'm not being as critical as some, but if the picture does not have any important dark areas, I may not even notice any noise. If there are significant dark areas, then noise will likely be noticed there. At ISO 2500, few pictures will be free of noise. I regard 2500 as an "emergency" setting.
 
You will be happier with the 1600 jpegs out of your RD1x.

The M8 is a kick ass little camera but not at all for low light from my experience.
I had a pair running during my biggest year for Portraits to date (2010).
Great cameras for that job. Avaialble light had to be actually available.
There was no cheating with that camera. Exposures that were not generous (correct) were punished!

I ditched those Leica cameras for Fuji.
Still prefer the M8 workflow and Manual RF focus.
Cheers
 
Like with M9 and film, for low light, best to have fast glass. The CV 35/1.2 is a wonder weapon for this application, as it will give you some DOF at F/1.2 I think it might be very impressive on the M8.2, as the falloff in sharpness towards the edges will be masked by the mild crop.

I've tried F/1.4 but the superspeeds are so much nicer, Sonnetar or CV 50/1.1 really helps. Nocti if ya got da bucks ;)
 
The main problem is that people tend to underexpose in low light conditions. Which is made worse by the fact that specular highlights will push the exposure meter even further into underexposing. That is something that the M8 does not like at all.
Expose generously and you will find that the camera gives very good results in print up to ISO 1250 and will be usable up to ISO 2000.

Having said that, we are looking at the differences between CCD and CMOS here. Whilst CMOS will render (much) more smoothly at high ISO, CCD will retain detail and colour fidelity better.
 
ISO 640:

p895403535-5.jpg


ISO 1250:

p261191689-5.jpg


ISO 2500:

p1985499362-5.jpg


The key is to nail the exposure, and not to try and push the image any more towards the light side of things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom