jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
As always, it's the Dutch that keep their heads cool and think for themselves! Always a pleasure to read your factual and down-to-earth comments Jaap, thank you. Keep lining them up!
This tip, I'll try right away. Although I can shoot ISO 320 / 1/8th / f1.2 from hand, it might be nice to have a little more latitude with ISO 640, possibly more.
jbf
||||||
Im sorry, but no matter what kind of "noise reduction" software or tricks available, it will never replace having a camera with good high iso ability.
Last edited:
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Errr... Where do you think that performance comes from? I'll tell you - tricks in the camera electronics and, in the case of CMos, tricks on the sensor. The original sensor dump is as noisy on the newest Nikon as it is on the M8 (assuming the same pixel size, btw), same basics of any CCD, you know. Then the camera electronics work their magic, or cook the file if one wants to be unkind... Or do the same in the computer and have control. So it is just the location of the tricks in the pipeline we are talking about.
Last edited:
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
There was no suggestion in jbf's post that the wizardry of great high ISO imaging wasn't within the sophisticated electronics of the camera ... he was just making a point that can't really be disputed jaapv. (respectfully)
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
No Keith,there is a widespread misapprehension that camera X or Y has a "sensor that is less noisy" Apart from the fact that the S/N ratio of a sensor is related to the pixel size (which is not the same as the pixel density btw), there is no significant difference between sensors of the same type. The differences lie in the way that or degree that noisereduction is applied in the camera. The M8 sensor is a relatively quiet one, as the output is quite high, hence ISO 160. But the camera is of necessity built up from discrete electronic components, as the series was too small to warrant a dedicated processor chip, so the computing power is limited, which limits the processing of the file in-camera. This is assuming Leica would deem the quality of the processed file good enough in the first place. So it falls to the user to make these corrections. I think the M9, which will use the new Maestro chip developed for the S2, but destined for the R10 and M9 etc., which wil not just multiply the processing capability of the camera, but enlarge it by magnitudes, will profit by having far more sophisticated noise-reduction programs built in. But the sensor itself will be just as noisy, or even noisier, if Leica ups the pixel-count, which seems likely.
For the time being, with the M8 and many medium format backs as well, for instance, we are stuck with learning to use our powerful PCs and Macs to get the results we want. What I tried to point out is that I do not see any philosophical difference between doing this at the beginning of the process in the camera or halfway in the computer.
For the time being, with the M8 and many medium format backs as well, for instance, we are stuck with learning to use our powerful PCs and Macs to get the results we want. What I tried to point out is that I do not see any philosophical difference between doing this at the beginning of the process in the camera or halfway in the computer.
Last edited:
swoop
Well-known
M8 image noise is terrible. But since I've started using Apple Aperture I really don't care. The built in noise reduction in Aperture which is turned on by default works absolute wonders on M8 images.
