M8 low light performance.......

[cmogi10]

ISO 640
I didn't think it was too noisy.

 

[BigSteveG]

The pix posted by Jappv are certainly food for thought. I already push process much of my film. I suppose doing it digitally would be another tool to learn. Now I wonder how this technique avails itself to the print itself.

 

[gdi]

Very educational!

Now I see - the smaller the jpg, the lower the noise! 🙂

 

[Tuolumne]

I think this topic of pushing digital files has come up a number of times before. I do it with my R-D1 and Nikon D-200 as well. Heck, sometimes it's the only way to get the shot. Under expose at a speed you can hand hold and then boost in post processing. I never thought of it as "push processing", but that's what it is. Of course, some cameras will hold detail and and keep noise lower than others. The R-D1 is pretty good at this, although I've never compared it to an M-8 since I don't have one. Anyone out there able to compare the "pushabiility" of the two?

/T

 

[gdi]

I think this topic of pushing digital files has come up a number of times before. I do it with my R-D1 and Nikon D-200 as well. Heck, sometimes it's the only way to get the shot. Under expose at a speed you can hand hold and then boost in post processing. I never thought of it as "push processing", but that's what it is. Of course, some cameras will hold detail and and keep noise lower than others. The R-D1 is pretty good at this, although I've never compared it to an M-8 since I don't have one. Anyone out there able to compare the "pushabiility" of the two?

/T

I agree that it may make sense to underexpose to keep your SS up in a low light situation.

But I just did an AB test of an M8 320ISO -2EV and 1250 0EV. Same SS and there really is no advantage strictly from a noise perspective. If anything it really appears that the metered 1250 shot is slightly less noisy.

Then I tried the same with an R-D1 and it seem to be about the same - no improvement by underexposing and pushing in post. Of course, the RD-1 has less noise at 1600 than the M8 at 1250.

Then to really push it I tried to shoot a very low light, underexposed shot at the same shutter speed at 640 -2ev and 2500. In this situation the 2500 shot has a very dark, extremely noisy image out of the camera. However with the 640 shot, there was not enough signal captured to produce a recognizable image. IOW, a truly useless endeavor in very low light.

My caveat is that I used Lightroom on the DNGs/RAWs and only boosted the exposure slider to +2 for the pushed shots (no other processing). So if there is any other magic or other techniques, I am not aware of them (other than applying noise reduction as some samples above indicate - I don't see the point of doing that!).

 

[jaapv]

Don't forget ISO 1250 at the M8 must be rated at ISO 1600 equivalent.

 

[gdi]

Don't forget ISO 1250 at the M8 must be rated at ISO 1600 equivalent.

To nail exposure, yes. But to compare the pushing technique bat 320 (400) it shouldn't matter. I used the M8s meter.

 

[jaapv]

Yes of course, but I was reacting to your RD1 remark. What firmware are you running? There are reports that the newest makes quite a difference for high ISO noise.

 

[jaapv]

I have to confess that my experience of M8 is only a week. I shot my kids in indoors at 640 and import to Lightroom. I noticed there are noises that I can't accept.
Especially, WB and high ISO are major killer for good impression on M8.

And I found there is not many tips on M8 out there. This threads really interesting
and useful for me. I think I donot forget the basic concept of film. I just don't
realize what M8 is capable of. take a shot with a low DR and raise it in S/W.
Sounds a way it has to.

Speanut

Reading this I have a sneaking suspicion you are shooting Jpegs.
Otherwise you would have realized that the only function AWB has is setting the whitebalance on the chimping screen. If it bothers you, use the daylight setting in daylight. AWB is excellent in most circumstances, but exhibits disconcerting blue shifts when used in banal daylight. As I said, the point is moot when using DNG as one sets the whitebalance in RAW conversion and not in the camera in that case.
The M8 is conceived to be used for shooting DNG and unfortunately the Jpeg engine appears to be a bit of an auxilary thing. So it is quite possible to see artifacts when you are working your files in Lightroom.
I cannot emphasize enough. To get the most out of the M8 one must shoot DNG.

On AWB and regarding tips for use of the M8, you might consider reading the Leica user Forum as well:

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum

Use the search function and find hundreds of threads in the category you wish for.

 

[gdi]

Yes of course, but I was reacting to your RD1 remark. What firmware are you running? There are reports that the newest makes quite a difference for high ISO noise.

I have the latest firmware on the M8 and, though I was skeptical prior to upgrading, do feel that it helped (I did a comparison of the same shot immediately before and after upgrading). But the RD-1 is clearly lower in noise at 1600 than the M8 at 1250, but that wouldn't surpise anyone who has used both.

 

[carylwithay]

Noctilux, low light lens

Noctilux, low light lens

I am new to this forum. The M8 does really well in low light if you use a noctilux f/1 50mm lens. i used ISO320 with this one.
Caryl

 

[chrish]

this one.

is that the bay bridge?

 

[carylwithay]

I do not know the name of this bridge but it is in New Orleans.
Caryl

 

[BigSteveG]

something about the color of those lights......

 

[infocusf8@earthlink.]

Claims?

Claims?

But the RD-1 is clearly lower in noise at 1600 than the M8 at 1250, but that wouldn't surpise anyone who has used both.

I see some excellent M8 low light shots here but no RD-1 pics to back this claim up. I would e interested in seeing some.

 

[Tuolumne]

Here's a color R-D1 photo, shot at 1600. Processed from the RAW file, saved as jpg. Cropped, contrast adjusted.

/T

 

[Tuolumne]

This next is the same file, but after Noise Ninja.

/T

 

[jaapv]

something about the color of those lights......

Yes, a digital thing in general. Blue halos. If desired, ACR can clear that up to a certain extent.

 

[gdi]

But the RD-1 is clearly lower in noise at 1600 than the M8 at 1250, but that wouldn't surpise anyone who has used both.

I see some excellent M8 low light shots here but no RD-1 pics to back this claim up. I would e interested in seeing some.

Visit the RD-1 forum. There is a thread dedicated to 1600 shots.

 

[johnastovall]

If you pictures are so bad that all people are concerned about is the noise, you are just taking bac pictures. Noise and/or grain never ruined a picture with great content.

I could care less about noise. I only care about content and the reaction of viewers to that content. The M8 lets me capture content and who cares about the noise.