M8.2 Hi-ISO: Hey! It's not so bad!

[Rob-F]

I finally picked up a used M8.2. I was scared to try it above 640, after reading all the negative talk. I bravely switched it up to 2500 and took a couple of my wife. Not so bad after all! So far I only looked at the DNG file on my 13" IMac, but I didn't notice any noise.

I would put it on the iMac, but for some reason the iMac isn't accepting the DNG files (although it will accept the JPEGS). I have Aperture 3 on both.

Well, more about all this later.

 

[noimmunity]

For me, the dreaded problem with high ISO on the M8 is banding, not noise. I've discovered that I generally have to expose for the shadows in that case (which really means overexposing the shot as a whole).

Perhaps I could get similar results with an iPhone? But still, there is something about even these kinds of unsharp images that is attractive and has a unique signature...

Congrats on the M8.2 ... means you won't have to change your "preserving old technology" moniker!

 

[tmfabian]

old thread regarding the high iso shindig.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=62047

 

[noimmunity]

The master of M8 high ISO appears...

 

[filmtwit]

Doesn't that defeat the purpose of using high ISO?

For me, the dreaded problem with high ISO on the M8 is banding, not noise. I've discovered that I generally have to expose for the shadows in that case (which really means overexposing the shot as a whole).

ZM C Sonnar Hand held UTI at 0.25 seconds, at ISO2500 on the M8, exposed for shadows (blown highlights) and processed with Capture One Six and Alien Skin

Bernice et Chloë by areality4all, on Flickr

Perhaps I could get similar results with an iPhone? But still, there is something about even these kinds of unsharp images that is attractive and has a unique signature...

Congrats on the M8.2 ... means you won't have to change your "preserving old technology" moniker!

 

[noimmunity]

Doesn't that defeat the purpose of using high ISO?

For me it certainly does, so I always try to stay at ISO640 or below. I can't approach the results that other people get with the M8 in high ISO, and use it only to get the shot.

 

[Fraser]

The way I look at it is all my canon Eos lenses are f2.8, as my most used lens on the M8 is 28 summicron so I'm gaining a stop on the Leica so 640 iso is equivalent to shooting at 1280 on the canons which is good enough for 99% of the time for me anyway.

 

[tmfabian]

The master of M8 high ISO appears...

I like to make an appearance every now and then. 🙂
Also, on topic...grab yourself lightroom 3, the new noise reduction tweaks they put in that little shindig makes most incamera noise reduction look like child's play.

 

[noimmunity]

grab yourself lightroom 3

Thanks for the suggestion.

I'm partial to using C1P6: color control is superb, and I prefer the folder-based system. I am still on a learning curve with it. The little experience I've had makes me think LR3 produces better results in NR with less work, but C1P6 can produce a more satisfying final image.

Plus, I already have C1P6. LR3 is a considerable chunk of cash, unless I'm missing something.

 

[user237428934]

LR3 is no cure for the high Iso banding it helps only when you get the exposure right and then get rid of some noise.

 

[tmfabian]

Plus, I already have C1P6. LR3 is a considerable chunk of cash, unless I'm missing something.

you can always download the trial of LR3...it's a full on version, but you only get 30 days before you have to pop in a serial number.

 

[250swb]

LR3 is no cure for the high Iso banding it helps only when you get the exposure right and then get rid of some noise.

So LR3 can't help you get the exposure right. Now thats a good reason to say its 'no cure....' 🙄

And yet with a good exposure (which won't cause banding) LR3 and CS5 are able to give another couple of stops of acceptable noise reduced exposure compared to the software available when the M8 was released. Good reason to use RAW/dng when the possible improvements of future software can have a big effect on old files.


Steve

 

[tmfabian]

LR3 is no cure for the high Iso banding it helps only when you get the exposure right and then get rid of some noise.

not trying to anger anyone here...but at high ISO...exposure accuracy is no more or less important than it is at any other ISO. I just walked out into my living room and snapped a shot of my dog...set the ev to -2 stops and then brought it back up in lightroom just to push the extreme a little bit. If you look very very closely...you can notice some banding in the upper right corner, but if anyone is constantly underexposing by 2 stops, banding is not the biggest problem you're having.

-edit-2 minutes...forgot to make a 100% crop
-edit2-100% crop

 

[MCTuomey]

And yet with a good exposure (which won't cause banding) LR3 and CS5 are able to give another couple of stops of acceptable noise reduced exposure compared to the software available when the M8 was released. Good reason to use RAW/dng when the possible improvements of future software can have a big effect on old files.

Steve

Good to be reminded of both points. For those who are willing to learn (as opposed to be willing to complain repeatedly about the M8's higher iso limitations) LR3's noise reduction capability is strikingly good. Re future file processing advances, LR3 can import files in non-DNG formats as DNG ("copy as DNG") for those that take the DNG open format seriously.

 

[tmfabian]

also...i am really looking forward to the OP posting his results.

 

[LCT]

also...i am really looking forward to the OP posting his results.

Would be interesting to see a 100% crop of a sharp detail of your picture to check the amount of smearing applied in PP.

 

[tmfabian]

Would be interesting to see a 100% crop of a sharp detail of your picture to check the amount of smearing applied in PP.

Dont judge too much...i had a whiskey or 2 in me when i read this post and decided to run out to my living room and snap off a quick example. The accuracy of focus in this image along with the accuracy of actually holding still is pretty poor.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I finally picked up a used M8.2. I was scared to try it above 640, after reading all the negative talk.

In the Leica world, there's far more negative talk than positive, and most of it comes from people who don't own the thing they're bashing.

Then if you go on praising or debunking the myths, you're an "apologist".

Glad you tried it: I've used ISO 2500 since the very beginning and have found that immediately after the first firmware upgrades the noise had come down considerably, and if you shoot in DNG mode and know how to post-process it, the noise can be just as reasonable as that found in Canon 5D raw shots at the same ISO setting(s).

Take all Internet negative posts with a handful of grains of salt.

 

[tmfabian]

In the Leica world, there's far more negative talk than positive, and most of it comes from people who don't own the thing they're bashing.

Then if you go on praising or debunking the myths, you're an "apologist".

Glad you tried it: I've used ISO 2500 since the very beginning and have found that immediately after the first firmware upgrades the noise had come down considerably, and if you shoot in DNG mode and know how to post-process it, the noise can be just as reasonable as that found in Canon 5D raw shots at the same ISO setting(s).

Take all Internet negative posts with a handful of grains of salt.
__________________

you should always listen to gabriel...no lies...the man knows what he's talking about.

 

[LCT]

...The accuracy of focus in this image along with the accuracy of actually holding still is pretty poor.

Mainly smearing effect i guess. Even 640 iso is noisy with my M8.2, at least with my raw converters. More so than with my 5D1 at 800 iso i'm afraid. I don't use LR3 though.