M8 Noise: How bad, Really?

Rob-F

Rob-F

Likes Leicas
Local time
7:36 AM
Joined
Mar 22, 2007
Messages
7,555
I've seen a number of posts saying that the highest "usable" ISO on the M8 is 320. This has discouraged me from buying a used one. But I don't know whether I would consider the M8's performance at higher ISO speeds of 800, 1000, or 1600 usable, or if I would agree with those who say it's too noisy. As a reference point, I find that my D-Lux 3, for instance, is pretty bad at 1600. I get blotchy skies. If not shooting the D-Lux 3 at 1600 means not getting a picture, I will still use 1600. But I would expect much better performance if were to own an M8.

So let's try it this way: how would it compare to my Nikon D200 for noise? The D200 at ISO 1600 has a definitely grainy look, but I would call it usable. For anyone who has used both, is the M8 as good at 1600 as the D200? How would they compare at 640, 800, 1000?
 
Personally ... and I know there are others who will differ ... I find 640 ISO about it for me.

A lot of people compare the M8's noise to film grain at high ISO's ... to me though they're chalk and cheese and I find nothing attractive in the Leica's files at 1250.

320 is perfect and IMO it's the camera's sweet spot ... if it wasn't a rangefinder with inherent excellent hand held slow shutter capability it would be far less capable than it already is in low light!
 
I don't have a D200 but a Canon 40D. The noise level of both cameras is said to be almost the same.
This is my experience (and my personal taste): I use the 40D up to 1600 but this is already a compromise because many details are lost. When it's possible I stop at 1000.
With my M8 the upper level of my auto-iso is 640. This is an ISO setting that is very usable, because the noise is not the typical "digital noise".
Going from 640 to 1250 with the M8 is worse than going from 1000 to 1600 with the 40D. M8 at 1250 is in my eyes only usable when doing bw conversion.
 
I find that 640 is my limit of noise. This image was from a wedding I went to, where inside the church it was almost impossible to shoot. Upon leaving the church I forgot to switch the ISO back, but the results are still great.

L1000751-1.jpg


100%crop
12.jpg
 
This post came at a good time.

I just reviewed the pictures in my library and find:
1.) 640 is very useable indeed
2.) 1250 is kind of ugly

By way of comparison, I just spend the afternoon scanning some Kodak Ultramax 800. On the whole, I find the Ultramax 800 grainier than the M8's 1250. Nonetheless, it still looks better to me.

I'd post some pictures, but I always have problems posting on this forum....

Cheers, JP
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Noise is much like grain. Either it bothers you or it doesn't -- though it looks better in some shots ('available darkness') than in others (formal portraits, maybe). I have to say that I shoot mostly at 160 and 320 when I can, but that I have 1250 and 2500 shots I'm perfectly happy with.

Cheers,

R.
 
It is about the same as my Nikon D200 where I feel 400 is tops unless I am doing night pics where I use 800 and don`t care.

My D700 at 400 for night on a tripod is beautiful. If you don`t like noise, this is the machine to get. Do not for get 50 1.4 Lux makes Nikons 1.4 look like it was from the middle ages, so you gain a stop to 1.5 stops there before the lenses even out sharpness wise. Also do not forget the M8 files are much sharper than Nikons right out of the camera can look awful if you try to apply the same amout of sharpening.

A full frame M9 will be a killer if there are no bugs, a big if.
 
Not above ISO 640

Not above ISO 640

well, in good low light conditions, ISO 1250 can be ok if a decent quality of low light is cast upon your subject/area of focus.

Now as much as people complain about the M8's ability to go highrer than a decent ISO 640, I have never known many M users to shoot over ISO 800. Now before I get flamed, I understand there are exceptions to the rule, but probably 90% of M users I've ever know have never gone over ISO 800, so really the M8 does what (IMHO) 90% of Leica M users will need.

Users who come from a Nikon D3 background will probably be dissapointed with the ISO performance above ISO 640.
 
The ASA 160 High Speed Ektachrome daylight and the 125 Type B tungsten were extremely grainy by today's standards but they were color! For pro use keep in mind that newspapers had some pretty bad reproduction and the photos aren't run very big. Magazines had better quality printing but still it's rare to print full page.
 
Al Kaplan said:
The ASA 160 High Speed Ektachrome daylight and the 125 Type B tungsten were extremely grainy by today's standards but they were color! For pro use keep in mind that newspapers had some pretty bad reproduction and the photos aren't run very big. Magazines had better quality printing but still it's rare to print full page.
Click to expand...

Dear Al,

Be fair! They were also ROTTEN colour! And High Speed Ektachome was only available in 20-exposure rolls. But as you say, who cared?

Cheers,

R.
 
It depends on what you want to do. If you want a low-light champ, go for the Nikon D3. It is the first camera I have owned that bests film consistently in terms of what you can do with the camera at low light levels. However, if you did not find yourself particularly constrained in the world of Tri-X/Neopan, then the M8 will do fine. ISO-160 on the M8 delivers image quality close to medium format. Keep in mind when peeping at the pixels posted by benmacphoto above that the snapshot would have to be printed out at 16x20 to have viewable "grain" at the level posted. What are you planning to do with the pictures?

Ben Marks
 
in general, 640 is the max for color, though I have lucked out and while quickly going from 1250 (b/w) which is fine, to color, the 1250 color ones are useable. 2500 shows the noise/grain effect in either color or bw modes, it would never simulate a good film, but is evenly distributed noise/grain, unlike the blocky type noise on the Panasonic/Canon small sensor p&s cameras.
 
Anyone who's scared of grain or thinks the M8 offers poor performance on higher ISOs needs to buy a roll or two of current ISO 1600 C41 film and take it to an indoor track meet or baseketball game. Yes, a D3 or D700 will be better but the current performance of high ISO film probably should be kept in mind.
 
640 is my max. 1250 only in good light which is kind of useless unless you want to stop down and keep high speeds.
 
640 is "not bad", but comparing the high ISOs with Nikon is useless. At the higher ranges, the Nikons are clearer better. But, the best photos are taken with the camera that you have with you, and it is here that Leica excels. It is a joy to shoot with the M8. DR
 
The noise bothers me far less when shooting for B&W. And since I primarily shoot for B&W, my camera is generally left on ISO 640 - I'm usually doing a lot of available light stuff in poorly lit areas.
I'll go to 1250 in an emergency, but generally avoid it.
 
I think I may have wrongly assumed that the M8's ISO is selectable in 1/3 stop increments, like on my D200; hence my question about intermediate ISOs like 800 and 1000. I was wondering how the noise looks if you fudge the ISO a little over 640; say, to 800 or 1000. Reading these posts, it looks like it actually goes in one-stop steps, 160-320-640-1250-2500. Is that the case?

@Ben: I would probably want to print high ISO shots at around 8 x 12 or so.

Great discussion, so far! Thanks!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom