The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
M8 and high ISO with the new firmware
- Thread starter Jack
- Start date
woodyspedden
New member
Not too surprising IMHO. The D700 (and of course the D3) just kick ass in terms of low light high ISO performance. I don't shoot weddings (thank God as my fragile state of mind could probably not deal with it LOL!) but if I did I would thank the Lord for the D700. What a great machine.
Best to all
Woody
etrigan63
Active member
Yes, I am eagerly awaiting to get my upgrade. Here is that ISO 1250 sample I promised from the Open House.
Kicks ass is relative. IMO the D3/D700 at 3200 renders about 8MP of net image data after all the smearing NR is applied. Talk about plastic looking files... But I agree, at least it is a usable file for available darkness shooting. I also agree that at 1600 it is better than the M8 at 1250... My point is I am seeing a significant improvement in noise to the point I feel I can use it at 2500 now and get a usable file.
Carlos, that 1250 looks very good.
Carlos, that 1250 looks very good.
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
That does look good . Bob and I you can actually see details very well on us. Okay ugly details but details without smearing
JimCollum
Member
processed in Capture one with the default noise settings.. didn't process it in any other Noise app.
handheld.. about f2.8, 1/60 in a pretty dark forest (sun either down or just going down .. there was a hill and trees between us and the sun).
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
I still think C1 is the best for the M8.
In Capture One, the defaults are different when using the new firmware.
Sharpening went up about 40 points, and the color noise reduction value jumped up by double. When you slide them back to what everything was with the last version of firmware, I'm not really seeing a big difference.
Double check your settings also on new files vs. old files.
Ray
Sharpening went up about 40 points, and the color noise reduction value jumped up by double. When you slide them back to what everything was with the last version of firmware, I'm not really seeing a big difference.
Double check your settings also on new files vs. old files.
Ray
Use of C1 may well be the difference Jack. I know many, including you, have refined the settings in C1 to get the very most out of the M8 files.My C1 settings did not change at all, and I still see cleaner ISO 1250 and 2500 files... Don't know what else to say except it is working for me.
,
Unfortunately, C1 is not an option for my applications as I use 2 or 3 different cameras when shooting weddings and dump them all into one file sorted by time shot ... then use LightRoom to process for a number of reasons related to my work flow. As a result I have never become proficient with C1. My M8 files are excellent using LR, except the higher ISO processing.
Marc:
It ABSOLUTELY requires C1 to get this difference I'm talking about. I know Jim has seen it and Bob too, and they both use C1. I totally understand your issue with using it -- it bites to have two different workflow softwares -- but by comparison to C1 with this new firmware, the LR conversions pretty much suck, especially 640 and up and even on skintones at all ISO's...
You should at least try it to see what we're talking about -- you have the freebie, just be sure to DL the latest rev. Note I only crank up the C1 NR from standard on the ISO 2500 files. You might find it valuable enough to justify a slight workflow change: taking the extra time to dump your M8 wedding files into a subfolder inside the main folder
The other thing I'd like to point out re C1: IF you convert M8 or PhaseOne files with it (doesn't work with Canon files), and get the sharpening settings optimized for your files (like around 98/0.4/2 for the M8), I am finding ZERO need to sharpen additionally in post. IOW the file is coming in already optimally sharpened and looking "organic", and additional CS sharpening only adds artifacts.
It ABSOLUTELY requires C1 to get this difference I'm talking about. I know Jim has seen it and Bob too, and they both use C1. I totally understand your issue with using it -- it bites to have two different workflow softwares -- but by comparison to C1 with this new firmware, the LR conversions pretty much suck, especially 640 and up and even on skintones at all ISO's...
You should at least try it to see what we're talking about -- you have the freebie, just be sure to DL the latest rev. Note I only crank up the C1 NR from standard on the ISO 2500 files. You might find it valuable enough to justify a slight workflow change: taking the extra time to dump your M8 wedding files into a subfolder inside the main folder
The other thing I'd like to point out re C1: IF you convert M8 or PhaseOne files with it (doesn't work with Canon files), and get the sharpening settings optimized for your files (like around 98/0.4/2 for the M8), I am finding ZERO need to sharpen additionally in post. IOW the file is coming in already optimally sharpened and looking "organic", and additional CS sharpening only adds artifacts.
Jack said he was using nik dfine, with capture 1 for the m8 for high iso's. Jack have you tried any other noise reduction software. I already have neatimage, am considering buying the nik system, now that is on sale, have always liked their sharpner. wondering if niks dfine is the only way to go for the m8 noise reduction. Thanks David
Hi David:
First I only use DFine occasionally on M8 ISO 2500 files, not all the time. Most of the time if I'm shooting the M8 at 2500, the lighting is very low, and I find the current lower level of noise I'm seeing as acceptable to the mood/setting in that situation.
As for tools, I tested both Noise Ninja and DFine on the M8 ISO 2500 files and found I preferred DFIne as it seemed to eliminate the noise with less detail smearing --- AND it works very well on my Phase back high ISO files. Please note I did not spend a lot of time tweaking NN, and I suspect it is as good a product as DFine if you learn how to optimize it for the specific file.
First I only use DFine occasionally on M8 ISO 2500 files, not all the time. Most of the time if I'm shooting the M8 at 2500, the lighting is very low, and I find the current lower level of noise I'm seeing as acceptable to the mood/setting in that situation.
As for tools, I tested both Noise Ninja and DFine on the M8 ISO 2500 files and found I preferred DFIne as it seemed to eliminate the noise with less detail smearing --- AND it works very well on my Phase back high ISO files. Please note I did not spend a lot of time tweaking NN, and I suspect it is as good a product as DFine if you learn how to optimize it for the specific file.
FWIW, I asked Steffan Daniel at Photokina if the new v2.0 fw offered any noise improvement. Surprisingly, he said no. According to him, the only chages were the Auto ISO and SDHC support. I pressed further, asking if he was sure there was no work done to high ISO files. He again said there was absolutely no improvements done. Crazy. Straight from the source.
Perhaps the latest version of C1 is offering better noise reduction algorithms.
David
Perhaps the latest version of C1 is offering better noise reduction algorithms.
David
Arne Hvaring
Well-known member
I just reread this thread, but couldn't find any reference to which version of C1 we're discussing, i.e. the 3,7x that Leica originally recommended for the M8, or the newer v4,x.
Again not to take away from what others are seeing, but I shot a couple of photos at 1250 & 2500 on the old firmware right before updating in dim light. I then shot the same shots with the new firmware, and no saw no difference when using the same C1 settings.
Just my experience.
David may have a point, that the improvement others are seeing are based on something C1 has done in the last releases of version 4 vs. how we processed previously in the earlier releases. So the comparison is based on an old file processed in a previous version of C1 vs. a new file processed in the latest version.
Ray
IMO it is mostly a better raw conversion in C1 than in ACR.
I went back and re-processed some old files from pre-update firmware and can see the difference between ACR and C1 4.1. Sometime if I have the time (at home) I will compare these along with the 3.7 version of C1.
-bob
I went back and re-processed some old files from pre-update firmware and can see the difference between ACR and C1 4.1. Sometime if I have the time (at home) I will compare these along with the 3.7 version of C1.
-bob