drec
Rangeflounder
I just got an M9 with the new non-corroding sensor. Currently, I have the Zeiss c 35/2.8 and will be buying a Contax G 90/2.8 in M mount soon.
From what I've read, the M9, like all cameras, does best with full spectrum light: daylight or flash. But I've also read that, like the M8, files are passable if underexposed at lower ISO and then pushed in post... this is in regards to noise; is it in regard to colour reproduction as well?
Anyway, my question: what makes more sense for lowlight in the case of the the M9: resorting to flash and sticking with slower lenses, or getting lenses as fast as possible and working with the light you have? It's been a long time since I've used such a noisy sensor...
I don't want to get a 50/1.1 or 35/1.2 only to find that noise/colour reproduction is so bad after pushing in LR, that it is a waste of money to get a fast lens; I'd rather save the money, get smaller cheaper lenses and consign myself to flash indoors... a SF58 is on the way...
Thanks!
From what I've read, the M9, like all cameras, does best with full spectrum light: daylight or flash. But I've also read that, like the M8, files are passable if underexposed at lower ISO and then pushed in post... this is in regards to noise; is it in regard to colour reproduction as well?
Anyway, my question: what makes more sense for lowlight in the case of the the M9: resorting to flash and sticking with slower lenses, or getting lenses as fast as possible and working with the light you have? It's been a long time since I've used such a noisy sensor...
I don't want to get a 50/1.1 or 35/1.2 only to find that noise/colour reproduction is so bad after pushing in LR, that it is a waste of money to get a fast lens; I'd rather save the money, get smaller cheaper lenses and consign myself to flash indoors... a SF58 is on the way...
Thanks!
sepiareverb
genius and moron
The M9 can have issues with older camera batteries when using flash. Blank frames will result, so be sure to have a newer battery in the camera indoors.
aizan
Veteran
it depends on:
1) subject matter
2) the look you're going for
3) how patient you are
1) subject matter
2) the look you're going for
3) how patient you are
michaelwj
----------------
If you like the look of (or a competent at) using a flash, then go ahead. Otherwise, put up with the noise and/or shallow depth of field.
If you have a flash on the way then you are in the perfect position to tell us. Take a shot with the flash, and then take one underexposed and push it in post and post the results.
If you have a flash on the way then you are in the perfect position to tell us. Take a shot with the flash, and then take one underexposed and push it in post and post the results.
Luke_Miller
Established
I loved the colors I got with my M9 at lower ISOs, so I used flash a lot with it. In fact I still do with my M-240 despite its improved low light performance. In addition to ISO noise the dynamic range is reduced at higher ISOs and the colors are a bit muted.
I avoid direct flash whenever possible as I hate the shadows and "flash face" it produces. I bounce the flash off ceilings and get soft, even illumination. My best results come from using "Auto" (auto-thyrister) mode with the flash rather than TTL.
Here is a gallery of family snapshots taken with my M-240. All are ceiling bounced flash.
http://www.peppermill-multimedia.com/family_galleries/ollie-visitors/
In some you can see a light source in the frame. Using TTL would have produced seriously underexposed shots.
I avoid direct flash whenever possible as I hate the shadows and "flash face" it produces. I bounce the flash off ceilings and get soft, even illumination. My best results come from using "Auto" (auto-thyrister) mode with the flash rather than TTL.
Here is a gallery of family snapshots taken with my M-240. All are ceiling bounced flash.
http://www.peppermill-multimedia.com/family_galleries/ollie-visitors/
In some you can see a light source in the frame. Using TTL would have produced seriously underexposed shots.
drec
Rangeflounder
For sure, I'll post with/without flash. I got the 58 instead of 24d primarily for its bounce capabilities as well as doing good fill flash and TTL at the same time.
Thanks for the replies so far.
Thanks for the replies so far.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
If you click on my link to M-E blog, https://leicameandme.wordpress.com/2016/12/21/sf-26-flashlight-for-leica-m-system/ I just wrote about it yesterday.
Why I choose flash over large apertures lens for M-E and how flash works on M-E.
Why I choose flash over large apertures lens for M-E and how flash works on M-E.
drec
Rangeflounder
You're in Milton!? I'm in Whitby! Thanks for replying.
Yes, I agree on flash on that count too, that it'll be mostly people shots indoors and I would benefit from 1/180.
So I'm going to hold off on that fast 50 purchase for now!
Yes, I agree on flash on that count too, that it'll be mostly people shots indoors and I would benefit from 1/180.
So I'm going to hold off on that fast 50 purchase for now!
Ronald M
Veteran
Light quality is the essence of photography. Brightness, direction, how it illuminates the subject, and how bright it is.
The light that just happens to be there is almost never quality light that satisfies the above. This means you move the subject closer to the light, lamp or window, or out from under something if outside.
Other possibilities include a small fill flash to illuminate the subject and allow all else to go black. Full studio lighting with umbrellas and reflectors and the ability to shape the subjects features by the direction and quality of light.
Also shoot outside in slight overcast or diffuse direct sun with diffusers. This is what movie people do. Move people to sheltered areas such as a covered porch or under a tree and add a bit of your own light.
A fast lens is mostly useful for subject isolation, something a almost never do. If you try to use it to make up for "poor found light", you get rotten pictures.
If you perch a flash on top of a camera , you get rotten pictures, but better than those taken in poor light with wide apertures.
You next step is to learn lighting which should have been first before an expensive camera .
A quality tripod is most helpful, but slows you down perhaps too much.
The light that just happens to be there is almost never quality light that satisfies the above. This means you move the subject closer to the light, lamp or window, or out from under something if outside.
Other possibilities include a small fill flash to illuminate the subject and allow all else to go black. Full studio lighting with umbrellas and reflectors and the ability to shape the subjects features by the direction and quality of light.
Also shoot outside in slight overcast or diffuse direct sun with diffusers. This is what movie people do. Move people to sheltered areas such as a covered porch or under a tree and add a bit of your own light.
A fast lens is mostly useful for subject isolation, something a almost never do. If you try to use it to make up for "poor found light", you get rotten pictures.
If you perch a flash on top of a camera , you get rotten pictures, but better than those taken in poor light with wide apertures.
You next step is to learn lighting which should have been first before an expensive camera .
A quality tripod is most helpful, but slows you down perhaps too much.
uhoh7
Veteran
I go the other way and shoot m9 with fast lenses. 35/1.2 can go anywhere, basically. CV 50/1.1 my copy has very accurate focus.
Flash is fine, if it's expected. But you are not going to use it casually.
Contemplation by unoh7, on Flickr
Kate by unoh7, on Flickr
Milagros by unoh7, on Flickr
Garbo by unoh7, on Flickr
These are all CV 35/1.2: unlike most superspeed lenses, is very strong all the way down. It might have the best bokeh of any M 35.
Downsides: it's big and heavy, color signature is very distinct.
I have tried all the push techniques etc, but I usually just set it at 800 in low light, and with this lens it can really go in the dim, way past F/1.4. You can find these for 600USD. Either version is fine.
50/1.1 is stronger technically than .95 but the latter is an exceptionally sweet lens and faster of course. The 1.1 is fine WO, but stopped down it's not as strong as the best 50s, not at all bad though.
Zuck by unoh7, on Flickr
No Sweat by unoh7, on Flickr
Sonnetar 50/1.1 is tiny, but a serious handful. It can produce exceptional images, but is unpredictable.
Sonnetar Portrait by unoh7, on Flickr
Poodles by unoh7, on Flickr
If you have money there are other strong options.
Flash is fine, if it's expected. But you are not going to use it casually.
Contemplation by unoh7, on Flickr
Kate by unoh7, on Flickr
Milagros by unoh7, on Flickr
Garbo by unoh7, on Flickr
These are all CV 35/1.2: unlike most superspeed lenses, is very strong all the way down. It might have the best bokeh of any M 35.
Downsides: it's big and heavy, color signature is very distinct.
I have tried all the push techniques etc, but I usually just set it at 800 in low light, and with this lens it can really go in the dim, way past F/1.4. You can find these for 600USD. Either version is fine.
50/1.1 is stronger technically than .95 but the latter is an exceptionally sweet lens and faster of course. The 1.1 is fine WO, but stopped down it's not as strong as the best 50s, not at all bad though.
Zuck by unoh7, on Flickr
No Sweat by unoh7, on Flickr
Sonnetar 50/1.1 is tiny, but a serious handful. It can produce exceptional images, but is unpredictable.
Sonnetar Portrait by unoh7, on Flickr
Poodles by unoh7, on Flickr
If you have money there are other strong options.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
... strong options.
Just as with my Nokton 50 1.5 VM, options are too limited to be strong, IMO.
Basically all of examples above are single person, object in focus. And it is the only option with large appetites on close to medium distance. Even more, most of objects are centered, because with large aperture and single focus patch in the middle it is the only option to have focus on the object.
Personally, it sucks for me to have only one person in focus, I need to have more.
With flash.
willie_901
Veteran
Signal-to-noise ratio and color reproduction are completely entangled. The best technical IQ is achieved by maximizing exposure as exposure determines the signal-to-noise ratio when the shutter is open. Often this means moderately overexposing unimportant highlights (usually point-souce lights). This is not the same as ETTR (although the resulting histograms appear similar). The goal is to produce the best possible IQ in shadow regions. Regions with higher light levels take care of themselves. Using raw files provides the maximum flexibility in post-production.
Flash use can be extremely useful in some circumstances. But sometimes a flash is just inappropriate. I don't think one makes more sense than the other.
Fast lenses are wonderful. But DOF limitations are insurmountable... especially with RF focusing. Some photographers are very skilled at RF focusing in low light (where DOF is a challenge). Using existing light can limit where you can stand. Existing light can be an aesthetic nightmare. It is a challenge to avoid subjects in unflattering lighting. It is rewarding to figure out where to stand or pose your subject(s) to make the most out of existing light.
I would try using a flash with wireless radio triggers. Hold the camera with one hand and direct the flash light with the other. You can bounce the light. You can also experiment with light diffusers. Once again the laws of physics intervene. Light from small source areas produces harsh shadows compared to larger source areas. So bouncing light makes more pleasing lighting. It also reduces the effective flash power. Diffusers have a limited effect. So don't spend a great deal of money or time on different diffusers.
Another factor is color temperature. Trouble occurs when a scene is lit by two or more significant light sources with different color temperatures. Unfortunately bouncing flash light off of colored walls is another source of trouble. Selective color temperature parameter adjustments in post-production are tedious but useful. You can use flash-lens color gels... which is also tedious. Of course, in existing light similar color temperature issues are common as well.
raid
Dad Photographer
Many years ago, I used to use a flash with SLR cameras. Then I discovered the M3, and I stopped forever using a flash. I focused on window light whenever I could do so, and I don't miss using a flash. I use most of the times low ISO film or digital cameras that are set at a low ISO. Of course, such a set-up will not work well for night scenes or shooting inside building when the light is very dim.
Luke_Miller
Established
Exactly. No "one size fits all" solution.
When you need DOF additional light from a flash is often necessary. Also, when photographing a backlighted subject the use of flash eliminates the ugly blown out background.
When doing candid portraits wide apertures isolate the subject from distracting backgrounds. And flash can work against you if you prefer natural expressions over posed shots since it alerts everyone that you are taking photos.
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
( Not shooting Leica, but I'll comment anyway. )
For years, I shot indoors with flash and did pretty well. Generally, it took some tricks to get good images, things like bounce mixed with a little direct, reflectors, diffusers, some kind of soft box etc.
Then, with digital, I started shooting available light indoors. At restaurants, at the coffee table over drinks, or at the dinner table. In the kind of lighting that promotes for social interactions. I found I could shoot in most any lighting other than dark party light.
I love the results with available light. I don't know specifically about the M-9, but see sample below. Sony A6000, 1/90th at f/2.8, ISO 5000. Highly recommend trying available light.
For years, I shot indoors with flash and did pretty well. Generally, it took some tricks to get good images, things like bounce mixed with a little direct, reflectors, diffusers, some kind of soft box etc.
Then, with digital, I started shooting available light indoors. At restaurants, at the coffee table over drinks, or at the dinner table. In the kind of lighting that promotes for social interactions. I found I could shoot in most any lighting other than dark party light.
I love the results with available light. I don't know specifically about the M-9, but see sample below. Sony A6000, 1/90th at f/2.8, ISO 5000. Highly recommend trying available light.
drec
Rangeflounder
I suppose the better way of framing my question would have been, have you noticed a change in how you do lowlight photography given the M9's lowlight limitations? I am looking forward to finding these things out for myself!
In the meantime, another issue has come up... to be brought up in a new thread!
Thanks
In the meantime, another issue has come up... to be brought up in a new thread!
Thanks
willie_901
Veteran
I have not owned a M9. But techniques that maximize raw files' signal-to-noise ratios are the same for all digital cameras.
I have owned several digital cameras whose data streams performed similar to the M9's. That is, above ISO 800 read-noise levels in general became annoying and banding started to appear.
I used these techniques.
o I always used raw files
o I did some research and determined my cameras' read-noise dependence on ISO. I avoided used the ISO range(s) with lower relative signal-to-nose ratios. The M9 is approximately ISO invariant up to ISO 640 (i.e. increasing ISO does not significantly increase read noise). So limiting ISO to 640 and pushing global brightness in post-production should deliver better shadow regions than increasing ISO above 640.
o I avoided relying on selectively pushing shadow regions in post production. I just let shadows be shadows.
o I attempted to maximize exposure (via shutter time and aperture at the practical possible ISO) which meant purposely over exposing unimportant bright region. When possible I would auto-bracket exposures by 1/3 to 1/2 aperture stops and process the raw file with the appropriate level of intentional overexposure.
o I avoided using post-production cropping as a means to optimize composition.
o When higher ISOs could not be avoided, I rendered the raw file as a B&W image and never pushed shadow regions.
I purposely am not discussing post-productuon noise filtering (a.k.a. 'noise reduction) techniques. Prudent noise filtering parameters are useful. Different people prefer different software platforms for noise filtering. I was not impressed by any of those I tried. I decided less is more applied to noise filtering. Occasionally I selectively filtered shadow regions. However, I did not find any solution to that countered banding artifacts in a single exposure.
Before I switched to digital imaging I always exposed 35mm ISO 800 color film with the camera set to ISO 640. This generated slightly thinner negatives which improved the results I achieved by scanning. So an ISO 640-800 noise limit was easy to live with.
I have owned several digital cameras whose data streams performed similar to the M9's. That is, above ISO 800 read-noise levels in general became annoying and banding started to appear.
I used these techniques.
o I always used raw files
o I did some research and determined my cameras' read-noise dependence on ISO. I avoided used the ISO range(s) with lower relative signal-to-nose ratios. The M9 is approximately ISO invariant up to ISO 640 (i.e. increasing ISO does not significantly increase read noise). So limiting ISO to 640 and pushing global brightness in post-production should deliver better shadow regions than increasing ISO above 640.
o I avoided relying on selectively pushing shadow regions in post production. I just let shadows be shadows.
o I attempted to maximize exposure (via shutter time and aperture at the practical possible ISO) which meant purposely over exposing unimportant bright region. When possible I would auto-bracket exposures by 1/3 to 1/2 aperture stops and process the raw file with the appropriate level of intentional overexposure.
o I avoided using post-production cropping as a means to optimize composition.
o When higher ISOs could not be avoided, I rendered the raw file as a B&W image and never pushed shadow regions.
I purposely am not discussing post-productuon noise filtering (a.k.a. 'noise reduction) techniques. Prudent noise filtering parameters are useful. Different people prefer different software platforms for noise filtering. I was not impressed by any of those I tried. I decided less is more applied to noise filtering. Occasionally I selectively filtered shadow regions. However, I did not find any solution to that countered banding artifacts in a single exposure.
Before I switched to digital imaging I always exposed 35mm ISO 800 color film with the camera set to ISO 640. This generated slightly thinner negatives which improved the results I achieved by scanning. So an ISO 640-800 noise limit was easy to live with.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Without flash I have to use f1.5 and shutter speed still goes to 1/30 at ISO 1250.
ISO 1600 and 2500 are valid ISO as well, on screen, pictures looks fine if they were exposed to the shadows. But! Noise eating details if doing 100% zoom. I still don't see it as problem for 8x10 prints. It is only problem if picture viewed at 100% crop.
Also under lamps light white balance comes wierd sometimes. I can't correct it for skin tone. It has too much red, purple. But if I'm using flash, then skin color comes more normal and on low ISO if zoomed in the amount of details is incredible. Everything is crisp and natural. I could see every single hair on the skin!
ISO 1600 and 2500 are valid ISO as well, on screen, pictures looks fine if they were exposed to the shadows. But! Noise eating details if doing 100% zoom. I still don't see it as problem for 8x10 prints. It is only problem if picture viewed at 100% crop.
Also under lamps light white balance comes wierd sometimes. I can't correct it for skin tone. It has too much red, purple. But if I'm using flash, then skin color comes more normal and on low ISO if zoomed in the amount of details is incredible. Everything is crisp and natural. I could see every single hair on the skin!
Luke_Miller
Established
I would have to say yes. I shoot both Leica and Nikon. My Nikons perform well at astronomical ISOs, so in most low-light situations I can stop down to get enough DOF for group shots. With my M9 I needed more light so I use flash with it (started with the M8.2) and have continued to do so with my M-240 even though it is better at higher ISOs than the M9. I just prefer the look I get at or close to base ISO.
Interestingly (at least to me
) I am using flash more with my Nikons. With film and my early digital bodies I couldn't wait to get ISO performance that would allow me to leave my flash at home. Now I have that performance, but have found that often I prefer the results I get with (indirect) flash. While my D810 performs very well at ISO 6400 it is amazing at ISO 64. So is my M-240 at ISO 200.
willie_901
Veteran
I...
Interestingly (at least to me
...
Exactly.
Being able to control the light can be very helpful. When one looks at photographs of people in various environments with low light levels, it is rare to see a face that is not ill-affected (to some degree) by shadows.
At the same time, in often using a flash changes the atmosphere. This is unacceptable to me. And being aware of how to make the most of existing light can make a huge difference. It's both rewarding and frustrating to gain the experience to get the most out of existing light.