SnapperJ
Established
I am very encouraged after seeing Sean Reid’s review of the M8. In particular the grain/noise the camera produces at high ISO settings. I have always enjoyed grain in some photographs and I will now have a camera that will produce grain without softening the image detail. This will be a great help to me when producing lith printing effects.
I know a lot of people will want a camera that has no noise at high ISO settings, but I thing that there is sufficiently low noise at all but the highest values.
I know a lot of people will want a camera that has no noise at high ISO settings, but I thing that there is sufficiently low noise at all but the highest values.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
While I haven't read Sean's review, the noise issue sometimes gets too overated. I agree, a little noise is not such a bad thing. I have always been happy with my Panasonic LX1, which some people find too noisey.
rschneider
FKA rolopix
It's not a defect, it's a feature!
Artt
Newbie
Noise is not all
Noise is not all
The world of digital seems all to often to be a contest of who can have the lesser noise or greater bell and whistle. I am impressed with the M8 performance (as shown by Sean Reid's analysis) and and reminded that a photograph requires both equipment and a photographer to control what is achieved. Use the camera's performance to your composition advantage, do'nt become over focused on "noise". Still anxiously awaiting delivery of my pre-ordered M8.
Noise is not all
The world of digital seems all to often to be a contest of who can have the lesser noise or greater bell and whistle. I am impressed with the M8 performance (as shown by Sean Reid's analysis) and and reminded that a photograph requires both equipment and a photographer to control what is achieved. Use the camera's performance to your composition advantage, do'nt become over focused on "noise". Still anxiously awaiting delivery of my pre-ordered M8.
Ben Z
Veteran
I've shot 95% of my travel pics for the past 40-odd years with ASA/ISO 25 to 100 speed slide film. In recent years, 400-speed film has gotten very good, and 800-speed is still ok, so I've used it occasionally when I absolutely had to. So I'm not really that concerned about how the M8 does at 1250 and 2500. If I have a specific occasion where I need noiseless shots at those speeds I have my $800 Canon 20D. It plus its lenses are too big for me to comfortably travel with, so no matter how good the 5D does at ISO 3200 it doesn't matter if the camera is at home 
Plus, the fast lenses I have for the Canon don't perform as well wide open as my Leica lenses, so there's another tradeoff.
Plus, the fast lenses I have for the Canon don't perform as well wide open as my Leica lenses, so there's another tradeoff.MarcoS
R9/DMR . M8 . R-D1
Agreed about the "noise about noise"
As you can see in Sean's review, the M8 at high ISOs doesn't have the usual digital-noise which smears details.
It has a well defined grain, which especially once converted in B&W gives a very nice look.
I take it as a feature, rather than a shortcoming.
If you always need to shoot at 2500 ISO maybe you'd be disappointed, as the Eos-5D shows much less noise at that setting, but giving I usually shoot up to 640 ISO with some 1250 ISO when needed, I see the high ISOs setting more like a "grain filter"
And if needed I could always manually apply Noise Ninja/Neat Image without any automatic noise reduction.
As you can see in Sean's review, the M8 at high ISOs doesn't have the usual digital-noise which smears details.
It has a well defined grain, which especially once converted in B&W gives a very nice look.
I take it as a feature, rather than a shortcoming.
If you always need to shoot at 2500 ISO maybe you'd be disappointed, as the Eos-5D shows much less noise at that setting, but giving I usually shoot up to 640 ISO with some 1250 ISO when needed, I see the high ISOs setting more like a "grain filter"
And if needed I could always manually apply Noise Ninja/Neat Image without any automatic noise reduction.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Since the world went digital, and a certain Japanese company decided to make "noise" a suitable subject for marketing, everybody seems to have forgotten what film was like and how nice grain can be. Vaseline is not a quality parameter!!!
IGMeanwell
Well-known
I have never have a problem with digital noise unless the noise reduction starts to make the details smear ... then I have a problem
One of the major reasons I got the D50 from Nikon was due to its ISO1600 performance compared to its siblings. ISO 1600 on my D50 reminds me of Fuji Press 800
One of the major reasons I got the D50 from Nikon was due to its ISO1600 performance compared to its siblings. ISO 1600 on my D50 reminds me of Fuji Press 800
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
What are you talking about? At a certain Pnut gallery the most popular photos tend to have the Vaseline parameter on "Spread Me For Scoring"jaapv said:
truando
Member
try to take good pictures, forget about the noise. cartier-bresson's photos are noisy too...
since digital everybody gets so obsessed with noise...
since digital everybody gets so obsessed with noise...
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
gabrielma said:What are you talking about? At a certain Pnut gallery the most popular photos tend to have the Vaseline parameter on "Spread Me For Scoring"
That isn't vaseline, that is p-nut butter
(sorry,couldn't resist )
Last edited:
jano
Evil Bokeh
truando said:
Because color noise on digitals is not a pretty thing... and like Pete said, it's a problem when the reduction starts to smear the image. Yuck.
truando
Member
jano said:
you're right about that, I must say... but still, one must remember that ISO 640 is a luxury and at 640 the results are great.
especially when you can have 1.4 lenses and a system that is perfect for long exposures.
grantray
Established
I have to say, I wish Sean would put up some more high ISO examples. Perhaps that's selfish, but I would really like to get a better idea of what the sensor is capable of at higher speeds. Okay, so maybe I'm just impatient...
-grant
-grant
Peter Klein
Well-known
The noise issue is really interesting. I think we have two major things going on here.
One is marketing. Partly Canon's but also partly just the industry. Everybody "knows" that digital is smoother than film. Therefore, digital is superior. This paradigm has been adapted by people as a way to differentiate the New and Cool from the Old and Outmoded. Canon and its acolytes benefit. It's a great way to sell Canon as The Best. Canon is the smooooooth digital. Smooth goooood. Noise baaaaad. (1)
The other issue is generational. You know how most people always prefer the music that was in vogue when they were in their teens? I think the same thing goes for visual styles. I grew up on Tri-X in D-76 1:1, so to me that "look" is beautiful. I dislike compression artifacts, oversharpening, and lack of detail.
To younger people who grew up on JPGs, grain and noise are ugly. But compression artifacts and oversharpening are (to many) perfectly OK. Just part of what photos are supposed to look like. (This is not my original thought, I read it somewhere, perhaps here, perhaps the LUG).
C*non's marketing genius is that they have "aligned" their biggest technical achievement--on-chip noise reduction--with the visual Zeitgeist. And they've gotten people to overlook the price you pay for that noise reduction: The plastic Barbie-doll flesh tones and the smeared fine detail.
I have an Olympus E-1, which I bought because I liked the iewfinder and because I have some old OM Zuiko lenses. It's a great camera, except for noise.
ISO 400 is OK, though noisier than some. AT ISO 800, we're beyond Tri-X grain, and the unaltered files are almost unusable at 1600. But I can run the files through Neat Image, using very sparing noise reduction, and I can get very nice images. I remove chrominanced noise, but only about 25% of luminance noise. I end up with files that have a bit of noise, but retain the detail. You won't mistake them for Canon files, but they are quite usable.
Now, if only I could dial in such correction in the camera, instead of having to do so much in post-processing. Still, choice is better than no choice.
--Peter
(1) Apologies to Boris Karloff and whoever played the old blind man in the original "Frankenstein."
One is marketing. Partly Canon's but also partly just the industry. Everybody "knows" that digital is smoother than film. Therefore, digital is superior. This paradigm has been adapted by people as a way to differentiate the New and Cool from the Old and Outmoded. Canon and its acolytes benefit. It's a great way to sell Canon as The Best. Canon is the smooooooth digital. Smooth goooood. Noise baaaaad. (1)
The other issue is generational. You know how most people always prefer the music that was in vogue when they were in their teens? I think the same thing goes for visual styles. I grew up on Tri-X in D-76 1:1, so to me that "look" is beautiful. I dislike compression artifacts, oversharpening, and lack of detail.
To younger people who grew up on JPGs, grain and noise are ugly. But compression artifacts and oversharpening are (to many) perfectly OK. Just part of what photos are supposed to look like. (This is not my original thought, I read it somewhere, perhaps here, perhaps the LUG).
C*non's marketing genius is that they have "aligned" their biggest technical achievement--on-chip noise reduction--with the visual Zeitgeist. And they've gotten people to overlook the price you pay for that noise reduction: The plastic Barbie-doll flesh tones and the smeared fine detail.
I have an Olympus E-1, which I bought because I liked the iewfinder and because I have some old OM Zuiko lenses. It's a great camera, except for noise.
ISO 400 is OK, though noisier than some. AT ISO 800, we're beyond Tri-X grain, and the unaltered files are almost unusable at 1600. But I can run the files through Neat Image, using very sparing noise reduction, and I can get very nice images. I remove chrominanced noise, but only about 25% of luminance noise. I end up with files that have a bit of noise, but retain the detail. You won't mistake them for Canon files, but they are quite usable.
Now, if only I could dial in such correction in the camera, instead of having to do so much in post-processing. Still, choice is better than no choice.
--Peter
(1) Apologies to Boris Karloff and whoever played the old blind man in the original "Frankenstein."
Last edited:
truando
Member
Peter is absolutely right.
I grew up with film (HP5) and grain is absolutely fine, although I must say that eventually I moved up to MF and even LF, which, as an photographic experience is still the most fastinating.
But I'm getting used to digital, and as CD's and DVD's were taking over LP's and cassette tapes, film will be a niche product soon, I'm afraid.
I grew up with film (HP5) and grain is absolutely fine, although I must say that eventually I moved up to MF and even LF, which, as an photographic experience is still the most fastinating.
But I'm getting used to digital, and as CD's and DVD's were taking over LP's and cassette tapes, film will be a niche product soon, I'm afraid.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
But color noise can be desaturated in PS to reduce it to B&W noise, which is a lot more pleasing. Or Neat Image/Noise Ninja. Pretty subtle programs.jano said:
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Snapperj, I don't know what effect you used in your first post, but in the Aquasoft layout it is just a blank field until I highlight it....
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I agree with you, Peter, but now OT (unusual), if people always prefer the music that was in vogue when they were in their teens, I must have been in my teens in the late 18th Century, mid-19th Century, early 20th, and, of course, late 20th. I most very certainly was *NOT* in the 1970s. That music just purely sucked. Hard. Not that I have an opinion about itPeter Klein said:
grantray
Established
*NOT* in the 1970s. That music just purely sucked. Hard.
Part did some of his best work in the seventies. And that Glenn Gould guy did some pretty neat stuff too, if I remember correctly.
As for noise, I need to see more images before I come to any conclusions on the M8. I'd like to see a more complete gallery showcasing the camera's abilities.
-grant
Part did some of his best work in the seventies. And that Glenn Gould guy did some pretty neat stuff too, if I remember correctly.
As for noise, I need to see more images before I come to any conclusions on the M8. I'd like to see a more complete gallery showcasing the camera's abilities.
-grant