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!

Highest ISO for M8?

durrIII

New member
OK, guys and gals, I am ready to get a M8. Can't afford a M9 just yet. What is the highest ISO useable on the M8 for printing? Any advice? Thanks
 
M

matmcdermott

Guest
I've printed up to 2500 in color, though they were smallish prints with lots of black area (club interior). Unless really pushed by the light, I don't go above 640 and 95% of the time am on 320 -- which I've printed up to 24x36" just fine with some uprezzing. I've found 1250 underexposed one stop and fixed in post better than 2500 though.
 
I've printed up to 2500 in color, though they were smallish prints with lots of black area (club interior). Unless really pushed by the light, I don't go above 640 and 95% of the time am on 320 -- which I've printed up to 24x36" just fine with some uprezzing. I've found 1250 underexposed one stop and fixed in post better than 2500 though.
I'm curious whether shooting at 640 vs. 1250 (which if it is underexposing by a stop is essentially 640 also) shows any difference.
 
M

matmcdermott

Guest
Do I have it backwards in words? 1250 given +1 exposure in post = same shutter speed as 2500 with 'correct' exposure, right? Sometimes I get that backwards -- and I know it goes against the conventional wisdom with the M8 which is to give it enough light at high ISOs and then bringing down the exposure, but the few times I shoot it that high it works out. And if you're already at the bottom range of freezing motion or having acceptable levels of motion blur, what can you do?

The one time I tested it, doing the same procedure only really yielded a benefit shooting 1250 instead of 2500. You could notice a different pushing 320 to 640 and 640 to 1250, but it wasn't as much.
 

Mike Hatam

Senior Subscriber Member
Depending on print size, 1250 is usable if you don't mind losing some dynamic range and fine detail. 640 is quite good even at large print sizes.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
My take ist that ISO 640 is excellent and you do not have to worry that anything could go wrong.
1250 might be usable when you get things right (exposure etc.)
Personally I would use 640 all the time, but try to avoid 1250 and higher if possible.
 

stevem8

New member
On the M8 you can go up to 1250 if the exposure is right on, but 640 would be safer. I have many acceptable 1250 shots that could be printed and look great. With that said, I have printed some recent M9 ISO 2500 shots with no visible noise in the print.

Steve
 

hdrmd

New member
It depends on what you compare it to. 640 is almost good enough for big prints. Higher ASA gets worse quickly. DR
 

cookedart

Member
ISO 640 is definitely the last worry-free noise option... you start risking grain interfering with the image, especially with slight underexposure, at 1250 or above, at least in my limited experience.

That being said I've always found the ISO settings on the m8 to be 1/3 stop more sensitive than indicated compared to, say, Canon's readings... I find ISO 640 to expose similar to Canon's 800.
 

cam

Active member
even 2500 on the M8 is acceptable if you absolutely nail the exposure. a little PP with noise reduction and the like is a plus... there really aren't any limits! i tend to try and have 1250 be my max but sometimes you can't avoid 2500. with a little care, it can be quite beautiful.
 

kevinparis

Member
nobody has asked what kind of photograph you want to take... decisions on acceptable noise and dynamic range or whatever are entirely based on the picture you take and what you want to do with it.

A war correspondants photo is not the same as a landscape at sunrise is not the same as a scientifically accurate record of a rare moth is not the same as a wedding portrait.

define the need before giving your answers

K
 

cam

Active member
OK, guys and gals, I am ready to get a M8. Can't afford a M9 just yet. What is the highest ISO useable on the M8 for printing? Any advice? Thanks
what are you shooting? what are you printing? what size? colour? b/w?

because regardless of these 640 remarks and the like, and all this crowing about the M9 being better at high ISO (mind you, if i'd just shelled out $7,000, i'm sure i'd be saying the same thing), it's all bollocks.

if you're not a pixel peeper, you can print at as high an ISO as the camera can give you -- if you truly need to go that high. and it's true of just about any camera out there.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
what are you shooting? what are you printing? what size? colour? b/w?

because regardless of these 640 remarks and the like, and all this crowing about the M9 being better at high ISO (mind you, if i'd just shelled out $7,000, i'm sure i'd be saying the same thing), it's all bollocks.

if you're not a pixel peeper, you can print at as high an ISO as the camera can give you -- if you truly need to go that high. and it's true of just about any camera out there.
:ROTFL:

Right.

:ROTFL:
 

carstenw

Active member
what are you shooting? what are you printing? what size? colour? b/w?

because regardless of these 640 remarks and the like, and all this crowing about the M9 being better at high ISO (mind you, if i'd just shelled out $7,000, i'm sure i'd be saying the same thing), it's all bollocks.
Well, not quite. The M9 *is* better at high ISO. Not only is there less noise, it also appears to have less colour noise and more luminance noise in proportion.

True about printing sizes and so on.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Well, not quite. The M9 *is* better at high ISO. Not only is there less noise, it also appears to have less colour noise and more luminance noise in proportion.

True about printing sizes and so on.
Yes, and yes.

First off, it's just math. 18 meg verses 10, full frame verses a 1.33X crop factor.

Then there is the ability to select a broader and more incremental range of ISOs so you don't have to jump from 320 to 640 or 640 to 1250. With the M9 you also have 400, 500, 800 and 1000 to select from ... (for me that was an irritating lack of refined control with the M8).

Relatively speaking, I've found ISO 800 and 1000 on the M9 to be similar to 640 on the M8.

That said, the M8 is a fine instrument depending on what the light's like, and the final cropped size for printing. In general, ISO 640 is seen as a sort of sweet spot for the M8 ... where noise isn't a huge issue ... and while 1250 could be used, there has to be a clear separation of tones already apparent in the scene ... if the tonal separation is getting pretty subtile, it becomes more difficult to enhance or hold them in post without blocking up and/or an uneven gain in noise and/or banding in the shadow areas ... whether shooting a candid low light portrait or some journalistic work ... it can show up in most any sized print.

Just my opinion, YMMV

-Marc
 

cam

Active member
i will not get into pissing matches with you over this, especially whether more megapixels equal better high ISO as i thoroughly disagree with that premise. my 6mp Epson R-D1 looks better than either of the digital M's at high ISO. IMHO, of course.

it's all moot, though, as the OP asked the question and hasn't bothered to clarify his criteria so...
 

helenhill

Senior Member
my FAV iso on the m8 was 160...even in Low light indoor shots
a 160 JUNKIE was I
I did not go beyond 640 though ...couldn't get the results I wanted to see....
I suppose If I had been more ADEPT at pp 1250 & beyond might have worked /hit or miss

To my EYE
I certainly agree with Cam
the RD1 /s was GRAND @1600 ...Just Fantastic
 

Paratom

Well-known member
ISO 1000 works very fine for me. Havent tested any higher before.
[email protected], 1/20 Sec. 1000 ISO.
Just converted in C1 - no special post processing
This was outside and the light was quite dimm.

 
Top