Shutter-speed, fast lenses and high iso.

U

ulrikft

Established
Local time
9:26 PM
Joined
May 22, 2009
Messages
137
Hey!

The ones of you with a M8, how well do you feel that you can compensate for less-good-iso with using slower shutterspeed and exotic 0.95-1.1-1.2-lenses, compared to modern slr-iso? If you say that you lose 2-2.5 stops of light compared to a d700, can you earn 1-1.5 stops on shutterspeed and 1 stop on fancy lens-usage?
 
Just consider this:
I can handhold the M8 consistently down to 1/8th with a 35 mm lens, and do not hesistate to use 1/2 with a 50% success rate (provided I lean to a wall or something).
1/8th gains two ISO speeds (from 640(=800) to 3200)
Then I tend to use Summiluxes, f 1.4 instead of 4.0 for the average zoom, that is another four stops. That gets us into the range of 25600 ISO, which happens to be the fastest ISO one can get nowadays, but the M8 640 is far superior.
Now you will only need some Superglue to stick your subject to the floor at such a slow speed...:p
 
Hehe, superglue it is!

Right now, my "weapon of choice" is a nikon d700 with a 35 1.4 or 58 1.2/50 1.4.

So I'm thinking that the 1/35, f/1.4 and iso 3200 i get at 35mm, can be countered with 1/8 (two stops?), f/1.2 (CV 35 1.2?, one stop over my sigmalux 50 1.4), can save me three stops from 3200, 1600, 800 and all the way down to 400...

I'm trying to justify using money on an used M8 you see :)
 
The Summilux 24 does not do too badly at low light.... F1.4, ISO 640, 1/16th

hessenpark.jpg
 
Last edited:
Let's turn the question around.

SLR users: do you think you can compensate for having an unwieldy and oversize camera that looks like a half-melted plastic ashtray, fitted with very big and not very good lenses, by switching to a higher ISO?

Horses for courses: use what you prefer, to get the pictures you like. I know which I prefer. Also, I can get sharp pics with much longer shutter speeds on a Leica. Of course YMMV.

Tashi delek
 
I'm starting to be more aggressive with ISO. Working with a sharp image and purposeful DOF is a necessary starting point. From there, if there's any doubt at all, I'll run Noise Ninja. Often, fading NN to as little as 10% of the automatic setting takes just enough edge off the 640 IS0--if I found it to be a problem to start with.
 
:D :D ashtrays LOL, the ones with the extra grip do eh! i knew they reminded me of something, could never quite put my finger on it. i might not be able to get the image out of my head now! sheeze ..thanks!
 
Two tips:
1.Switch off all sharpening in RAW conversion.
2.Considerably tune down the default noise reduction in RAW conversion.
It is much easier and better to handle noise, if you want to, at the end of your postprocessing, just before the final sharpening.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Let's turn the question around.

SLR users: do you think you can compensate for having an unwieldy and oversize camera that looks like a half-melted plastic ashtray, fitted with very big and not very good lenses, by switching to a higher ISO?

Horses for courses: use what you prefer, to get the pictures you like. I know which I prefer. Also, I can get sharp pics with much longer shutter speeds on a Leica. Of course YMMV.

Tashi delek
Click to expand...

Ok. I have an oversized camera (Canon 40D) that may look like a half-melted plastic ashtray fitted with a big lens(2.8/17-55 IS). But this lens is really good in contrast to your opinion. Then I have my M8 with a CV 1.4/35

My comparison:

M8: ISO 640 - 40D: ISO 1250. That's the highest ISO where I consider the quality good.
M8: f2.0 - 40D: f2.8. I don't like the quality of the CV at 1.4 at all. 2.8 of my DSLR lens is perfectly usable.
M8: 1/30 - 40D: 1/15. These are the lowest speeds I am able to produce consistently sharp photos with (doing pixel peeping on the monitor at 100% view). The DSLR is so good because of the Image Stabilizer. Without the stabilizer it would be 1/50.

Looks like a 1 stop win for the DSLR. If I had a Summilux I could use it at 1.4 and it would be a draw.
Other aspects: colours at nigt look better with the DSLR, but pictures with the M8 are slightly sharper. Colours can be tweaked with photoshop, but you can't generate more sharpness. Conclusion: I like both very much and especially at night I prefer to carry the smaller package.
 
If you can only get down to 1/30th on the M8 there is something wrong with your technique. Every user I know can do 1/8th, 1/16th at worst and most 1/4. And the CV 1.4is indeed not the optimum lens wide open. I suggest you look at the Nokton 35/1.2 That one is amazing.
I do not understand your remark about colour. IMO the M8 runs rings around Canon in that respect with low light shots and is at a draw with Nikon. Matter of taste I suppose.
 
Last edited:
jaapv said:
If you can only get down to 1/30th on the M8 there is something wrong with your technique. Every user I know can do 1/8th, 1/16th at worst and most 1/4.
Click to expand...

Maybe something is wrong with my technique or we have a different opionions about sharpness. Of course I can use 1/15 or 1/8 and at 900x600 pictures on the monitor look Ok but not at 100% view. You may ask if the 100% view is relevant. Don't know. For me it's just a valid way for comparing the output of two different cameras.
 
Lean against something and I get a decent percentage (one out of three at worst) of sharp enough shots at a full second , 1/4 second free standing. There's often some motion blurred person walking in the background to add interest.
 
jaapv said:
I do not understand your remark about colour. IMO the M8 runs rings around Canon in that respect with low light shots and is at a draw with Nikon. Matter of taste I suppose.
Click to expand...

Normally I like the M8 + Capture One colours very much. The Canon produces more technical / punchy colours. Especially at night I like this look. But as you mentioned it's a matter of taste.
 
tom.w.bn said:
Maybe something is wrong with my technique or we have a different opionions about sharpness. Of course I can use 1/15 or 1/8 and at 900x600 pictures on the monitor look Ok but not at 100% view. You may ask if the 100% view is relevant. Don't know. For me it's just a valid way for comparing the output of two different cameras.
Click to expand...
In my hands 1/8 is sharp at any magnification you care to use, I can get acceptable results up to 1/2.
I am talking about prints up to A3 of course, what we see on our monitors, as you say, is not much use anyway.
 
I think a fairer comparison than the 40d + some is zoom, is:

40d + 24 1.4 L

vs.

m8 + 35 1.2 CV

And in that competition, I think the M8 wins on size, weight, heft, image quality from base iso to 640.

the 40d wins on af (doh..), fps, tele-capability and above 800 iso.
 
Roger Hicks said:
SLR users: do you think you can compensate for having an unwieldy and oversize camera that looks like a half-melted plastic ashtray, fitted with very big and not very good lenses, by switching to a higher ISO?
Click to expand...

Which camera are you talking about? My Nikon D700 is a beautiful, well-made camera that accepts hundreds of very sharp, exotic, extremely good lenses.

Are you talking about a microwaved disposable camera that was crazy-glued to a brick?

If you really want a dinky little camera, get a Canon SD1000. Half the size of a pack of cigarettes and a lens as good as a Summilux if you don't shoot it wide open. Oops, the Summilux ain't too sharp wide open either!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom