Post your ISO 2500 Photos

LeicaTom said:
I finaly got a chance to shoot some pix again at 2500 iso and they are horrible!


These are simply useless......and I wonder if Leica can correct this problem???

My camera is a very early one #3101xxx ~ any words of advice???

Tom
Click to expand...

Tom, bodies with S/N's under 3101600 needed to have the imager replaced. I just sent mine off (S/N 31012xx) because it showed some unpleasant artifacts under low lidht/high noise. When I told the lady at Leica NJ the symptoms, she immediately said send it and they'd fix it. Supposed to be a warranty fix even though I didn't buy it under warranty. We'll see how it comes out.
 
To paraphrase the Great Ballmer:

Processing, processing, processing!

Simple conversion, no post work:

5016330195_094190172d_b.jpg


More PP work ala menos' post ( I mention for validation, having read his post after I had come to similar conclusions through experimentation):

5016330283_63d55ac9fa_b.jpg


While the banding is still somewhat present in the last example, it can be reduced to a negligible level and frankly I could care less about shadow detail in the rafters.

And of course some things just can't be saved from improper exposure or light source/sensor edge issues etc...
 
Yeah, digital grain is fine.....but those NASTY LINES....I'm sending the camera to Leica NJ next week, I hope that they can resolve the issue, I also have "hot pixel" issues in the monitor and on photos sometimes, also some nasty dirt on the sensor (dust) that won't come off with a normal cleaning..........uggh hope it doesn't take 90 days to get the camera back :/

Tom
 
rodl said:
Tom, bodies with S/N's under 3101600 needed to have the imager replaced. I just sent mine off (S/N 31012xx) because it showed some unpleasant artifacts under low lidht/high noise. When I told the lady at Leica NJ the symptoms, she immediately said send it and they'd fix it. Supposed to be a warranty fix even though I didn't buy it under warranty. We'll see how it comes out.
Click to expand...
Do you remember the ladies name? I still have like 2 months left on my factory warranty and a 3 year MACK warranty on top of that 🙂 ~ so I have to get my a** in gear and get the camera sent off to them, it should be all free work I hope?

Tom
 
Last edited:
popeye said:
To paraphrase the Great Ballmer:

Processing, processing, processing!

Simple conversion, no post work:

5016330195_094190172d_b.jpg


More PP work ala menos' post ( I mention for validation, having read his post after I had come to similar conclusions through experimentation):

5016330283_63d55ac9fa_b.jpg


While the banding is still somewhat present in the last example, it can be reduced to a negligible level and frankly I could care less about shadow detail in the rafters.

And of course some things just can't be saved from improper exposure or light source/sensor edge issues etc...
Click to expand...

Hey Popeye, that's pretty kool what that LR can do....nice job!

Tom
 
Tom - give Lightroom 3 a try (load 30 day demo and process some of those nasty ISO 2500 files, while the M9 is off for service).
I hated the output from my M8.2 above ISO640.
When Lr3 came out, it instantly morphed the M8.2 into a completely different digital camera.

Without touching anything, the ugly banding (Leica M biggest issue) disappeared!

Popeye, great processing looks veeery clean ;-)
 
Thanks menos, Tom!

I concur with all the above comments about LR3. I bought the M8 used and it had the Phase One disc so I tried out C1. It had some nice aspects but file management was not among them in addition to the other features that LR3 has (export etc). It is the best piece of photo gear I've bought, analog or digital.

One other point, I can see the banding and other nastiness shown above at home on the iMac screen, but here at work on the Dell w/a Wacom and a stock Dell monitor I cannot (I wonder how it looks on the phone!).
 
popeye said:
Thanks menos, Tom!
…
One other point, I can see the banding and other nastiness shown above at home on the iMac screen, but here at work on the Dell w/a Wacom and a stock Dell monitor I cannot (I wonder how it looks on the phone!).
Click to expand...

This is a thing of monitor calibration of the black point.

It is a thing, many arguments in online forums can be had.
"Look at my beautiful night shots - see, no banding!"
"Nah - can't you see the nasty banding?"
"Never - these files are flawless, don't know, what you mean with bad high ISO of the M"
"Sure it's there - right in front of your nose!"
"But I can't see it! Not even in my prints!"
"Sure, as you set up your print profiles, to clip the blacks earlier, hiding the nasty banding - smart move ;-)!"

I have profiled my monitors with a very conversative black point, to be able, to see all artifacts, black clipping or banding, the monitors can display. This doesn't look nice in times, but it bewares me from uploading files, other monitors might display bad.
The printer is profiled accordingly, so grey levels and blacks are displayed the same on paper, as I develop them in software (I have profiled brightness rather low, to have it display more true to paper also).

Many people still believe, what they see on the internet is for real - it is not. I only trust my calibrated monitor as a reference. I don't even do PP on other computers, as I do not know, how what I would see, would print or display on the web.
 
menos said:
This is a thing of monitor calibration of the black point.
...

Many people still believe, what they see on the internet is for real - it is not. I only trust my calibrated monitor as a reference. I don't even do PP on other computers, as I do not know, how what I would see, would print or display on the web.
Click to expand...

Indeed... my work monitors are adjusted for 8 hours of toleration under fluorescent lighting working with documents of a non-photo nature.
 
popeye said:
Indeed... my work monitors are adjusted for 8 hours of toleration under fluorescent lighting working with documents of a non-photo nature.
Click to expand...

Another thing is the ability of the monitor, to differentiate in tones in the almost black level.
I see ugly artifacts with my cheap Samsung 26", where the 15" display of my old MacBook Pro displays them perfectly fine - both calibrated to the extreme of what they can display into the blacks (I use this German made calibration software, always forget the name, dug deep into my application folder 😛 ). As some color channels clip already on the cheap monitor, as it is not stable in the blacks, these artifacts mostly show up as dark greenish blobs - gaahhh!
 
This gallery of shots taken @ 1.4 @ 2500 in b/w mode at a local historic house has been shown a lot, the lighting was candlelight.

Some folks see some M8 artifacts in some of them, but I don't, though I haven't looked too hard, I wonder if taking them in b/w mode is less likely to heat up the CCD than color modes which might cause more noise/artifacts than b/w mode?

I think the M8's b/w mode is very special. Something about it is lost when captured in color and converted.

http://matsumura.smugmug.com/Art/cambell-house-35-lux-14-iso/10232274_7cwFu#705482069_QmUw7
 
Last edited:
Sometimes my M8 pumps out "OK" ISO 2500 shots.

As has been mentioned before, in nightclubs or in uneven lighting conditions, it really does struggle.

It doesn't mean I won't continue shooting it if necessary.

Unfortunately, I carried along my Olympus E-P2 and shot THAT side by side with the M8 at ISO 2500 and it flat-out spanked the M8 in the same setting. The same sensor Leica bad-mouthed as being low-quality when they said they wouldn't join the m4/3rd consortium, spanks their former flagship product.

I know - the Leica is 2006 technology and the E-P2 is 2009, but still, it really surprised me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom