M8 Noise: How bad, Really?

[jvan01]

You can also handhold the M8 to a slower shutter speed because of lack of mirror slap. so, ISO 320 f2 1/15 sec doesn't look bad at all.

 

[Roger Hicks]

1-stop increments.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Keith]

If you keep your exposure in check, I find that 1250 can give excellent results. Two random samples:

Of those two images you posted the shot of the cross has exactly what I find ugly in the M8's high ISO files ... there's a lot of noise in the shadows that looks nothing like grain.

I've noticed with my own M8 experience that there's a huge difference between 320 and 640 files ... I can pull a lot of detail from shadows at 320 without too much of a problem. 640 is a whole different situation ... it gets ugly very easily!

I use my M8 professionally in predominantly gloomy environments and I would rather have a little motion blur than risk using 640 let alone 1250 ISO. I love the camera for it's very discrete profile (aside from the 'staple gun' shutter 😛) in these situations but the high ISO performance drives me nuts!

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Looking at the example photo's, the noise at ISO 1250 does not look as bad as the grain in shadow areas of Kodacolor 800. I end up using photoshop to clip the shadows to get "black" and not green grain.

Kodacolor 800 is about the fastest that i would shoot, with an F1.2 lens. I see the examples shown as nothing lost when compared to color film. Black and white film, there are tricks that can be played to pre-sensitize the film.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I've found that a vast majority of time, the people who complain about the M8's noise at ISO 640 do not know how to use the noise reduction and sharpening parameters available to them via Lightroom, ACR or CaptureOne.

They'd be shocked further when they also use raw files from their Nikon or Canon files at comparable ISO settings are obscenely noisy, but they don't notice it because they mainly shoot JPEGs straight out of the camera, where their internal processing card (for which those SLRs have room) has already taken care of it.

When I shoot ISO 2500 I shoot in JPEG mode. When in ISO 1250, it depends on the scene. 640 or lower, it's always DNG.

And I process with Lightroom and/or ACR 99.99% of the time.

 

[Keith]

I've found that a vast majority of time, the people who complain about the M8's noise at ISO 640 do not know how to use the noise reduction and sharpening parameters available to them via Lightroom, ACR or CaptureOne.

They'd be shocked further when they also use raw files from their Nikon or Canon files at comparable ISO settings are obscenely noisy, but they don't notice it because they mainly shoot JPEGs straight out of the camera, where their internal processing card (for which those SLRs have room) has already taken care of it.

When I shoot ISO 2500 I shoot in JPEG mode. When in ISO 1250, it depends on the scene. 640 or lower, it's always DNG.

And I process with Lightroom and/or ACR 99.99% of the time.

Gabriel I'm curious about your methods ... when you shoot an image at say 1250 and need to work on it in post, do you convert it to a tif to do this or work on it as a jpeg?

 

[myM8yogi]

160 and 320 are beyond reproach. 640 is my limit for colour. 1250 is almost always for BW conversion only - but the M8 does do fantastic BW images, probably due to the infra red sensitivity opening up the shadows slightly in portraits. 2500 is pretty much a waste of time - in my hands anyway - at least until someone can show me a nice Lightroom2 preset that helps? Anyone???

Generally I shoot at two stops slower than the 1/ focal length rule of thumb for SLRs. I think most RF users manage this kind of hand holding ability without SLR mirror-slap. Couple this with an f/1.4 prime, and I would expect better performance than a dSLR with a slow f/4 image stabilised (vibration reduction) lens or an f/2.8 zoom lens without IS/VR. In fact, the only thing that can top the M8 is a fast prime lens on a full format sensor dSLR. Compare sizes of these two rigs. If you want the very best low light performance, that is what you have to carry around. Personally, I would have to be paid to carry that kind of weight 🙂O) but even then it's not always the most appropriate for the circumstances. Remember that with a modern SLR viewfinder you will also be reliant on the autofocus working perfectly in low light, and this may force you to project red grid focus-assist patterns on people's faces - SLR manufacturers offer these accessories for a good reason!

So, yeh, the M8 sensor is certainly not the best at high ISO performance, but in my non-pro experience it is certainly "good enough" for most situations, and it has a lot of other features that actually make it more functional in low light.

Can you say "Noctilux"? I can't, but I'm sure f/095 makes a big difference too...

 

[Keith]

160 and 320 are beyond reproach. 640 is my limit for colour. 1250 is almost always for BW conversion only - but the M8 does do fantastic BW images, probably due to the infra red sensitivity opening up the shadows slightly in portraits. 2500 is pretty much a waste of time - in my hands anyway - at least until someone can show me a nice Lightroom2 preset that helps? Anyone???

Generally I shoot at two stops slower than the 1/ focal length rule of thumb for SLRs. I think most RF users manage this kind of hand holding ability without SLR mirror-slap. Couple this with an f/1.4 prime, and I would expect better performance than a dSLR with a slow f/4 image stabilised (vibration reduction) lens or an f/2.8 zoom lens without IS/VR. In fact, the only thing that can top the M8 is a fast prime lens on a full format sensor dSLR. Compare sizes of these two rigs. If you want the very best low light performance, that is what you have to carry around. Personally, I would have to be paid to carry that kind of weight 🙂O) but even then it's not always the most appropriate for the circumstances. Remember that with a modern SLR viewfinder you will also be reliant on the autofocus working perfectly in low light, and this may force you to project red grid focus-assist patterns on people's faces - SLR manufacturers offer these accessories for a good reason!

So, yeh, the M8 sensor is certainly not the best at high ISO performance, but in my non-pro experience it is certainly "good enough" for most situations, and it has a lot of other features that actually make it more functional in low light.

Can you say "Noctilux"? I can't, but I'm sure f/095 makes a big difference too...

Unfortunately I'm about ten grand short! 😀

I wouldn't mind the new 24mm f1.4 Summilux! Realistically the only two lenses I can use on my M8 in low light are my 35mm 1.2 Nokton and my Canon 50mm 1.2 ... sometimes I long for something wider than the 35mm Nokton but at $6000.00 for the Summilux 😱 no thanks! 😛

 

[tmfabian]

I'm going to ressurect an old beast and say, have a look at all these 2500 ISO shots.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=62047

 

[jaapv]

Maybe "because you can" is a good enough reason for some to shoot @ high ISO more often with digital than we did with film, but it leaves me scratching my head. I don't crank up my M8 past 160 all that often...and then I marvel how even @ 1250 and 2500 the noise is still less intrusive than the grain of comparable-speed film I shot previously. I have a 5D which has less noise @ high ISO's than the M8, but then the problems of focusing an SLR in dim light, and the comparatively lower performance of the lenses @ wide apertures introduces another form of image degradation. Personally the noise in 640+ files from the M8 hasn't upset me thus far. Watching the exposure, and not over-cooking the files with NR, are two tips I've taken to heart that have helped.

If the rumored M9 has much-improved high-ISO noise, I hope it will be because of an inherently less-noisy sensor, and not just more-aggressive NR algorithms.

I would expect about 1 stop from the sensor (which would translate into DR as well) and one stop from more powerful in-camera processing, which seems to be to me the limit of being "invisible" So two stops in all - a guess.

 

[Ben Z]

I would expect about 1 stop from the sensor (which would translate into DR as well) and one stop from more powerful in-camera processing, which seems to be to me the limit of being "invisible" So two stops in all - a guess.

That would interest me if it means as a result we'll have ISO 5000 and 10,000 with the same noise characteristics as we now get with 1250 and 2500. The increased DR is more of an interest to me since I shoot @ 160 most of the time. But really, the M8's IQ and DR is already as good as I need.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Gabriel I'm curious about your methods ... when you shoot an image at say 1250 and need to work on it in post, do you convert it to a tif to do this or work on it as a jpeg?

No, I set the basic processing via Lightroom, including the Luminance and Color noise reduction, fine-tune the shadows and highlights settings (but almost always using the Linear Contrast curve), choose between the Adobe Standard or Camera Standard color profile (as appropriate for the scene), and if it's an indoors shot (which most of the time it is), adjust the profile's Green channel; you'd be surprised how much noise and/or WB issues are solved by taking care of this one.

I then save the Metadata to the original file (to some, that's spelled h-o-r-r-o-r-!), so that I can then open it in PS CS4, where I import it in 16-bit using the ColorPro (or whatever is called, I'm not good with names) colorspace.

*THEN* is when I start deciding the real important details (like contrast), sometimes switching from RGB to LAB -and forth.

Definitely not for the "Who Cares!" Idontcareati. 😉

 

[jreid]

The M8's high ISO's used to frighten me but I'm beginning to learn how to deal with them. While reading this thread I ran out and took a couple of quick shots out my front door. It was 8pm Eastern, about five minutes past sunset, facing west into clear skies but I'm under heavy tree cover. The camera was set at ISO 2500, f 1.4 (the Voigtlander 1.4). The first shot was at 1/20 of a second. The second was 1/45. I adjusted contrast and exposure so that each image looks about the same in those respects (the 1/20 straight out of the camera looks like intensely bright daylight).
The first jpg here is the overall scene. Next, a 100% crop of the speckled leaf (paint spatter in case you're wondering) at 1/20, no noise reduction, then a 100% crop from the 1/45 shot, no noise reduction (I'll upload the 1/20 again with some noise reduction in a separate post).

What's clear to me (after seeing the 1/20 version with noise reduction) is that underexposure is disastrous but the noise in a well-exposed shot can be managed.

 

[jreid]

Here's the 100% crop of the 1/20 shot with some noise reduction. I'm hoping jpg compression doesn't interfere too much with the noise illustration.

 

[leicashot]

Even at 400 ISO, I dare someone to show me a full frame shot then a 100% crop of their sharpest file shot on colour film. I'll then post mine and we'll see if the M8 is really that bad compared to film......

Sure the D3 is king, bu the M8 ain't bad until over 800 ISO.

Who's up for the challenge?

 

[adrianzg]

two shots at 1250:

underexposed by 0.5 to 1 stop and brought back up in photoshop:

NR done in photoshop, chroma noise only, did not correct for lumi noise.


1250 manually exposed for the couple.

pretty acceptable in terms of noise, to me at least.