RD1 in low light

[chrisso]

Hi everyone,
I'm about to tour, playing music in clubs across America.
Last time I did this, I made a great record of it using my M6.
I rated my Tri X at 800 and took a lot of the best shots at f2, 30 & 60 on the shutter.
How would the RD1 perform in those circumstances?
Or should I stick with what I know?

 

[Gid]

You'll have no problem with the RD-1. I have a few low light shots in my gallery - ISO800 and 1600. The new firmware has, by all accounts, improved the high ISO performance of the RD-1, but I was happy with it before the update (in B&W). Just make sure you shoot raw.

 

[Gid]

First shot ISO 800, second ISO 1600. BTW, both of these were pushed about a stop in Epson photo raw, so you're really looking at 1600 and 3200.

 

[rvaubel]

Low light

Low light

Chrisso
I'm a low light kind of guy myself. The RD-1 was good before the upgrade, but its great since the upgrade. I can now shoot color @ 1600 where before 800 was about the limit except for B&W. In fact 1600 B&W looks better than Tri-X @ 800. Couple this with a couple of fast lenses and you are in for a real low light treat. I picked up a 1956 Canon 50mm F1.2, what a combination! With my 40mm F1.4 Nokton and 28mm F1.9 Ultron, I'm a low life, bar swilling machine. Too bad I gave up drinking.

Rex
Bezerkeley, Ca

 

[Geo]

The R-D1 is great with low light, handheld and high ISO.
The Metro shot in My Gallery, was taken at ISO1600 (after the upgrade) in the Paris Metro.
Geo

 

[Jim Watts]

The R-D1 is a great camera for low light work. I prefer working with it in these situattions than with my M4 and pushed Tri-X.

Attached are with my Cron used wide open at f2.0 and like Gid's these were shot at ISO 1600, but under exposed by about a stop and then 'pushed' in Photoshop so they are closer to ISO 3,200. No noise reduction used. They were though all shot as jpegs as I needed a quick turn around and the results would be better if they had been shot as Raw.

 

[Gid]

Good shots Jim. Love the atmosphere - just need some cigarette smoke to make them look like early sixties stuff.

 

[Gid]

Geo,

Great colour/tones in your shot. The upgrade really has made a big difference to colour noise.

 

[chrisso]

Thanks everyone.
I thought I read somewhere there was a lot of noise at the higher 'film' speeds.
Maybe that was a different camera.
Anyway, thanks for adding those images. They all look great!

 

[akptc]

Awesome images, thanks for sharing them.

 

[rvaubel]

Thanks everyone.
I thought I read somewhere there was a lot of noise at the higher 'film' speeds.
Maybe that was a different camera.

It was sort of a different camera before the firmware upgrade. I have done some preliminary tests against one of the noise gold standards (canon's 20D, actually the 20Da a $2300 body only astronomical special order low noise model) and am quite impressed. I need to do more test but suffice it to say the RD is up there with the best.

Rex

 

[pfogle]

Geo... great shots in your gallery - where can we see more?

 

[chrisso]

Yeah, I love the metallic sheen in that Metro shot.
Thanks people, I may pick up an RD1 or RD1s at Robert White, as I'll be in the UK in a couple of weeks.

 

[RML]

The R-D1 handles low-light situations wonderfully, as the many examples show. One thing I found, though, is that my Carl Zeiss Planar T* 50/2 doesn't give the most pleasing results when used in low light and longish shutter times. I prefer to use my Jupiter-8 50/2 for low light situations now. Anyone else have such experience?

 

[Jim Watts]

It was sort of a different camera before the firmware upgrade. I have done some preliminary tests against one of the noise gold standards (canon's 20D, actually the 20Da a $2300 body only astronomical special order low noise model) and am quite impressed. I need to do more test but suffice it to say the RD is up there with the best.

Rex

I prefer the noise performance of my R-D1 to my (standard) 20D. Although there may be slightly less noise with a comparison at 1600 on the 20D the R-D1 IMHO is more like film grain (and therefore preferable to me) and the R-D1 has no tendancy to the 'noise banding', especially when you pull up the shadows, that afflicts my 20D.

 

[Jim Watts]

Good shots Jim. Love the atmosphere - just need some cigarette smoke to make them look like early sixties stuff.

Well in this case it should be 1959 really as Gary Crosby's 'Nu Troop' were doing a reconstruction of the recording of Miles Davis's 'Kind of Blue'.

These 'Nu' Jazzer's are all clean living lads that know smoking is bad for you, but unfortunately I'm old enough to remember the 'smog' in Jazz clubs back in the early 60's. It did give great photographic atmosphere, as long as you could see the stage through it that was. 😀

 

[sreidvt]

Jim,

Nice pics.

Chrisso,

Not only will the R-D1 match Tri-X at 800 but you'll gain a stop with it's ability to work well at 1600. I shoot at both of those ISO levels a lot with my R-D1.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[pfogle]

I prefer the noise performance of my R-D1 to my (standard) 20D. Although there may be slightly less noise with a comparison at 1600 on the 20D the R-D1 IMHO is more like film grain (and therefore preferable to me) and the R-D1 has no tendancy to the 'noise banding', especially when you pull up the shadows, that afflicts my 20D.

Jim, I find I'm using EPR for b/w conversions and RSE for colour, and also for the Canon files. My question; is the nice grain you speak of a product of EPR? It seems the Epson software has less noise reduction. What's your usage?

Phil

 

[furcafe]

I don't own a 20D, but have seen plenty of shots taken w/them, as well as the other Canon dSLRs that bracket it (Rebel & 5D) & the Nikon D70s & D200. As may be expected, the R-D1's files @ ISO 1600 look more like the Nikon files--definitely more noise than the 5D, somewhere above the Rebel (perhaps the D70s, too) & just below the 20D, but more film-like & thus better for B&W conversion as you can see in the posted pix. Personally, if I know I want B&W output, I prefer to stick w/B&W film (Neopan 1600 @ 1600 being my low-light favorite--I recommend trying that instead of pushed Tri-X to see if you like the look). I've been using my R-D1 mainly as a substitute for ISO 800 & 1600 C41 film. Here are my shots, most of which have been taken @ 800 or 1600:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/furcafe/tags/seikoepsonrd1/

FWIW, I've only used Adobe Camera Raw (to my taste, Epson Photo Raw tends to oversharpen) & filter the noisiest files w/Noise Ninja (still learning how to use that program, however).

I prefer the noise performance of my R-D1 to my (standard) 20D. Although there may be slightly less noise with a comparison at 1600 on the 20D the R-D1 IMHO is more like film grain (and therefore preferable to me) and the R-D1 has no tendancy to the 'noise banding', especially when you pull up the shadows, that afflicts my 20D.

 

[Ted Witcher]

Alot of you guys seem to be getting excellent results in low light from the RD-1, judging from the attachments. Has anybody printed any of their shots to a reasonable wall-hanging size? Possibly comment on the results?