M8 ISO 2500 images

ampguy

ampguy

Veteran
Local time
10:43 AM
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
6,946
JPGs, taken with close focus shimmed J3 (shimmed to focus to .60m):

994872210_LtuSy-L.jpg


gallery here:

http://matsumura.smugmug.com/Photog...se-focus-6m-bw/13632881_ykPMe#994870970_g4Grb
 
Last edited:
Looks good to me, at least looking at them this small. I shot a couple shots with my new M8, though in color, and I was surprised to see how icky the chroma noise was. In fact I was surprised to see so much chroma noise at 320. Seems this camera doesnt do any better than my old Ricoh GRD, but I am enjoying it none the less. Have not had a chance to play with any photos in Capture One yet so we will see how it comes out.
 
Avotius said:
Looks good to me, at least looking at them this small. I shot a couple shots with my new M8, though in color, and I was surprised to see how icky the chroma noise was. In fact I was surprised to see so much chroma noise at 320. Seems this camera doesnt do any better than my old Ricoh GRD, but I am enjoying it none the less. Have not had a chance to play with any photos in Capture One yet so we will see how it comes out.
Click to expand...


Yep Colin ... chroma noise is pretty god awful even at 320. Black and white makes it look more like grain luckily.

I reckon the results from my D700 at 3200 are very similar to the M8's 320 output ... I miss the little black Leica though and I hope she's being good to you! :D
 
JPGs?

JPGs?

Colin, are you talking JPGs, and viewing on web images? I can't tell the difference between 640 and 2500 for web images if not underexposed.

Are you sure you're not seeing diffraction artifacts? Are you wide open or close to?

Here's color 2500, looks just like my 640 image:

956717088_9Te5x-L.jpg


Avotius said:
Looks good to me, at least looking at them this small. I shot a couple shots with my new M8, though in color, and I was surprised to see how icky the chroma noise was. In fact I was surprised to see so much chroma noise at 320. Seems this camera doesnt do any better than my old Ricoh GRD, but I am enjoying it none the less. Have not had a chance to play with any photos in Capture One yet so we will see how it comes out.
Click to expand...
 
I've had nothing but positive experiences with my M8, even at high ISO. Mine is a late-run camera. Being a new sensor, made for the M8, I suspect Kodak had some growing pains and yield issues. Later runs of the sensor seem to be better than the early ones, judging from the experiences of RFF'rs.

Or I just got really lucky and my sensor was from the center of the wafer.
 
same here

same here

if you're viewing JPGs, you might want to try sRGB, check your data here:

http://regex.info/exif.cgi?url=http://matsumura.smugmug.com/photos/956717088_9Te5x-L.jpg


Brian Sweeney said:
I've had nothing but positive experiences with my M8, even at high ISO. Mine is a late-run camera. Being a new sensor, made for the M8, I suspect Kodak had some growing pains and yield issues. Later runs of the sensor seem to be better than the early ones, judging from the experiences of RFF'rs.

Or I just got really lucky and my sensor was from the center of the wafer.
Click to expand...
 
Ted- yours looks good to me. I do not see the banding that has been in other M8 images shot at ISO 2500.

Keith's high-ISO experience has been awful. I wonder how much of a "luck of the draw" or "early adopter" issue this is. Leica seems to be very good about replacing CCD's.
 
Hi Brian

Hi Brian

One viewer of my gallery below, all at ISO 2500 and underexposed, (ambient light was pure dark to candlelight) can see some banding in 1/3 or 1/4 of the photos, probably pixel peeping, even though I can't, at least without peeping. My M8 is early, but later than the range for needing a new CCD, per the posts on the l-camera forum.

I'm very pleased with the M8's low light behavior, at least for b/w. For color, I usually stay below 640 unless I really need to to go higher.

http://matsumura.smugmug.com/Art/cambell-house-35-lux-14-iso/10232274_7cwFu#705482069_QmUw7

Brian Sweeney said:
Ted- yours looks good to me. I do not see the banding that has been in other M8 images shot at ISO 2500.

Keith's high-ISO experience has been awful. I wonder how much of a "luck of the draw" or "early adopter" issue this is. Leica seems to be very good about replacing CCD's.
Click to expand...
 
looks overall Good Ted / in particular the B&W

BUT
the Dark Cat 'LOOKS' Greenish......:eek:
 
Last edited:
good EyEs Helen!

good EyEs Helen!

Yes, I see the green too, as well as chroma noise in the corners of the blankets.

The reason I have both a 2500 image, and a 640 image of this is I first shot it without checking settings, and it was set at 2500 from a previous b/w excursion in the dark ... was then corrected to 640 ...

helenhill said:
looks overall Good Ted
BUT the Dark Cat 'LOOKS' Green Tinged ...:eek:
Click to expand...
 
haha

haha

Actually yours may not be that bad Rob. It's just that those breaks in the people mover, unless you've been on one, you may think it's supposed to be continuous.

But then there is that Yoda green light thingy there too :D

robklurfield said:
or, maybe, they can swap my sensor for a new one already residing in an M9???
Click to expand...
 
I don't think Ted's cat shot is a good representation of where the problems actually are in the 2500 ISO files from the M8 .... it's a very flat even subject with little or no shadow areas and is well exposed ... that's not stressing the M8's sensor at all IMO!

I was able to get similar results to Ted's example with my M8 depending on conditions but subject material with real depth and larger shadow areas paints a very different picture ... so to speak! :D
 
I get better results with my M8 at ISO 2500 than I do with Kodacolor 800. The shadow detail on the Kodacolor 800 was awful.
 
Some of those high speed colour films render shadow areas absolutely horribly!

Even Fuji Pro 800z which is the best around IMO can get a bit ugly in deep shadows!
 
no, you were almost right the first time. there are some awful artifacts there which were brought out by increasing the exposure during pp.

here's one that's not so bad, also at 2500, though I there's some strange flaring (all of these were shot with a 28 elmarit asph)...

3448593837_4b14e8ac9b_b.jpg


ampguy said:
Actually yours may not be that bad Rob. It's just that those breaks in the people mover, unless you've been on one, you may think it's supposed to be continuous.

But then there is that Yoda green light thingy there too :D
Click to expand...
 
Hi Rob

Hi Rob

My color 2500 images would be about the same, that's why I usually go right to b/w after 640.

Could some of your flare be from a filter? Also, I use lower contrast lenses than yours, old pre-asph luxes work good, and the J3 for b/w.

If you converted those ISO 2500 color images to b/w, upped the shadows, added some film grain, you'd be a cool kid with tri-x like images! ;)

robklurfield said:
no, you were almost right the first time. there are some awful artifacts there which were brought out by increasing the exposure during pp.

here's one that's not so bad, also at 2500, though I there's some strange flaring (all of these were shot with a 28 elmarit asph)...

3448593837_4b14e8ac9b_b.jpg
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom