What is useable ISO for 262?
Old 10-15-2016   #1
Frontline
Registered User
 
Frontline is offline
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 2
What is useable ISO for 262?

I am looking to upgrade from my m8 to the new 262 and am curious what the usable ISO is. On the m8 I never go beyond ISO 320. But would love to get to at last 3200 as I tend to shoot in low light environments.

Thanks


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-16-2016   #2
a.noctilux
Registered User
 
a.noctilux is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Montpellier, Occitanie
Posts: 148
As usual, the "usable ISO" is quite individual.

The reference to film day is to begin with.
In my own case, M (type 262) DNG file is "less-grainer" than Kodak T-Max 3200 for same ISO.
At ISO 6400, I only use for experimentation or when I have no choise, that's rare.

As side note, using ISO 400 or 800 then "push it" in PP can be a way to go.

an example in link :
http://summilux.net/forums/viewtopic...75620&start=75
at end of page, inside dark church south of France
M (type 262) with MATE, ISO 400 pushed in PP

Arnaud
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-16-2016   #3
ajramirez
Registered User
 
ajramirez's Avatar
 
ajramirez is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 173
Assuming the sensor is the same as in the M240, 3200 is as high as I go. Cleans up very nicely in ACR if needed. Watch for underexposure, though, as you may see banding if the shadows need to be opened up significantly.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-16-2016   #4
rscheffler
Registered User
 
rscheffler is offline
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 459
I'm shooting the M240, so believe the performance will be very similar. I generally prefer to keep it at 1600 or lower. At 3200 I start to see banding in some images, but have heard the 262 might be slightly better here...
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-16-2016   #5
neonart
Registered User
 
neonart is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 90
ISO 4000 is my personal limit. You will find grain, but exposed ok and it's not too bad. I find I rather get a steady shot that's useable than not.
Here's an example:


I'll find another with less light that shows some banding, but was still worth shooting at 4000 later...
__________________
M240 | Ultron 21/1.8 | Summilux 50/1.4 | SF26
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-16-2016   #6
neonart
Registered User
 
neonart is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 90
Here are a couple at 4000 with some grain and banding:



__________________
M240 | Ultron 21/1.8 | Summilux 50/1.4 | SF26
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-16-2016   #7
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,601
Here's some data for the M 240. Would the M 262 be identical?

You can see how many stops of underexposure (a.k.a. increase in ISO above 200) affects the signal to noise ratio(DR data) and the read noise.


Read Noise vs ISO

Shadow Region Improvement vs ISO

Dynamic Range When The Shutter Is Open

All three metrics depend on the signal-to-noise ratio when the shutter is open. The signal depends upon the exposure which we obviously control. The noise estimates in this data depend on camera's data-stream electronics.

This information is generated via statistical analysis of un-rendered raw file numbers (RN). So post-production manipulations are irrelevant.

As mentioned by others, the maximum acceptable ISO is a subjective issue. Assuming the exposure (shutter time/aperture) is optimized, based on my experience ISO 1600 would be useable for color work and a stop higher would be fine for B&W. The DR (or SNR) drops by only ~ 3 stops from ISO 200 to 1600. A three stop push in post rendering is not extreme.
__________________
“To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.” George Orwell

williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-16-2016   #8
Fraser
Registered User
 
Fraser is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 1,519
If you do a lot of low light stuff why not keep the m8 and get a Nikon df with a 50mm 1.4 or 1.8 then it doesn't really matter within reason what ISO your using, secondhand a df and a 50mm is cheaper than a 35mm summicron.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-16-2016   #9
neonart
Registered User
 
neonart is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fraser View Post
If you do a lot of low light stuff why not keep the m8 and get a Nikon df with a 50mm 1.4 or 1.8 then it doesn't really matter within reason what ISO your using, secondhand a df and a 50mm is cheaper than a 35mm summicron.
My only counter to that, having done a 2 camera setup before (RD-1 & RX1) is that you don't get the rangefinder experience all the time and at times you have to choose "which one will I take". Having one camera you really love that can do it all is liberating.

I have found the M240 to do a great job most of the time and paired with a f1.4 or 1.5 lens I've never wanted anything more. However, as I've said, I'm not against a little noise or grain if I can get a good shot.

Heres a color photo at ISO4000. You can see you lose some dynamic range as willie_901 stated, but I've learned to overlook some of that in favor of shooting all the time with the M240 in any lighting.

__________________
M240 | Ultron 21/1.8 | Summilux 50/1.4 | SF26
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-16-2016   #10
Gregm61
Registered User
 
Gregm61 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 261
There's definite banding at ISO 6400. I'll take the results I've seen at ISO 3200 with my M262 every day, knowing how little I ever actually have to go there.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-18-2016   #11
airfrogusmc
Registered User
 
airfrogusmc is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 4,724
I have gotten good results from 3200 and if I don't underexpose and try and pull the exposure back pretty usable at 6400 but it's not always consistent. So I try and not go above 3200.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-18-2016   #12
SaveKodak
Registered User
 
SaveKodak is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 513
If you're going to shoot above ISO 800 the rule should be to nail your exposure with the current M sensor. You can get decent results but there is NO room for shadow recovery. I saw banding at 1600.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-18-2016   #13
Pioneer
Registered User
 
Pioneer's Avatar
 
Pioneer is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Age: 63
Posts: 2,758
I set it at ISO800 and can usually get really good photographs with the ZM Sonnar or MS Optical Sonnetar well over 90%.

If I need to stop action in low light, as in high school basketball, then there is nothing like flash!
__________________
You gotta love a fast lens;

It is almost as good as a fast horse!
Dan
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-19-2016   #14
tom.w.bn
Registered User
 
tom.w.bn is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaveKodak View Post
If you're going to shoot above ISO 800 the rule should be to nail your exposure with the current M sensor. You can get decent results but there is NO room for shadow recovery. I saw banding at 1600.
I think this is not exactly true. My experience is that the higher you set ISO the less room you have for working with the shadows. ISO 1600 and 3200 is perfectly usable for a lot of situations but you have to nail exposure. If you increase exposure 0.5EV or more in post processing on a ISO3200 file you can already see lots of banding. I have more room on a ISO 1600 file.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-20-2016   #15
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,601
The appearance of banding depends on the signal-to-noise ratio. The signal determines the ADC voltage maximum threshold while the noise and artifact levels determine the ADC voltage minimum threshold.

The nose artifact levels remain constant and as ISO increases they increase due to DC amplification. The signal levels depend on the shutter time and aperture.

It is completely normal for different photographers to see banding at slightly different ISO levels because different photographers use different shutter times and apertures in similar lighting circumstance.
__________________
“To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.” George Orwell

williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-20-2016   #16
MCTuomey
Registered User
 
MCTuomey's Avatar
 
MCTuomey is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: U.S.
Age: 63
Posts: 3,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by neonart View Post
Here are a couple at 4000 with some grain and banding:



lovely work!
__________________
--Mike (confirmed midget imagist on stilts)

The photographer chances upon a scene that fascinates him. He longs to be a part of it ... recording the scene and including within it his vicarious representative, the participating observer. --- Geoff Dyer

Gear: more than enough, film and digital

My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-20-2016   #17
Godfrey
somewhat colored
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 7,851
As ISO goes up, dynamic range goes down. At high ISOs, expose for highlights and midrange values, let the shadows go by pulling up the black point.

I find the entire typ 262 ISO range quite usable if I adhere to the above rule. I never get any banding.

If your question is "what is the usable ISO range with dynamic range held constant", then ISO 1600 is the limit where DR starts to be noticeably smaller than at base ISO.

G
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-20-2016   #18
Pete B
Registered User
 
Pete B's Avatar
 
Pete B is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by rscheffler View Post
I'm shooting the M240, so believe the performance will be very similar. I generally prefer to keep it at 1600 or lower. At 3200 I start to see banding in some images, ..
+1
I'm very impressed by 1600 on M240. Occasional banding on 3200
Pete
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-20-2016   #19
tom.w.bn
Registered User
 
tom.w.bn is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,683
What I like about the Leica sensors is, that under the noise you always have sharp image information, no smearing of details.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-20-2016   #20
airfrogusmc
Registered User
 
airfrogusmc is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 4,724
I posted this in another thread. 262 at 3200.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...36&postcount=5
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-20-2016   #21
Pete B
Registered User
 
Pete B's Avatar
 
Pete B is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,097
This is a 100% crop from the M-P 240 at 1600 in Lightroom. I didn't add extra noise reduction above whatever is automatically applied. Full test image (I was comparing two cameras) also shown. I didn't make any attempt to expose to the right to reduce noise and it seems to have done very well.
Pete

L1002274 crop.jpg

L1002274.jpg
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-20-2016   #22
neonart
Registered User
 
neonart is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by MCTuomey View Post
lovely work!
Thank you.

My philosophy on the whole ISO thing is if you can get good shots at high ISOs, why worry so much, limit when to shoot, or worry about how many stops you can push?

The vast majority of the people who see our photos wouldn't know what high ISO banding is if it bit them in the face.
__________________
M240 | Ultron 21/1.8 | Summilux 50/1.4 | SF26
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-20-2016   #23
Bill Clark
Registered User
 
Bill Clark's Avatar
 
Bill Clark is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Minnetonka, Minnesota
Age: 69
Posts: 1,949
ISO DNG (RAW) will give you more wiggle room (latitude) to work with a file than camera saved JPEG.

Some of the ISO settings I read here are pretty pathetic for an expensive Leica camera. My Canon 20D from 2004 does better than what I read here.

Come on Leica, can't live on your past or the lenses you make.
__________________
I use my real name. How about you?
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-20-2016   #24
Pioneer
Registered User
 
Pioneer's Avatar
 
Pioneer is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Age: 63
Posts: 2,758
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Clark View Post
ISO DNG (RAW) will give you more wiggle room (latitude) to work with a file than camera saved JPEG.

Some of the ISO settings I read here are pretty pathetic for an expensive Leica camera. My Canon 20D from 2004 does better than what I read here.

Come on Leica, can't live on your past or the lenses you make.
I think that people have become a bit spoiled so any minor discrepancy on digital is treated with horror.

With film on the other hand, if we pushed our TriX to 3200 we knew that grain was part of the package. Now a shot in the dark has to be perfect.

For 99% of my photography ISO 400 was perfect, and with digital it still is. If I absolutely need a higher ISO then I use it and the results are about what I expect from film. This is the primary advantage of digital, I can change ISO on the fly anytime I need.

I get slide like quality at EI3200 and a bit of PP with a digital Leica. You may also get the same with the Canon at a higher ISO which is just fine. I have never found a Canon that I prefer to a Leica.
__________________
You gotta love a fast lens;

It is almost as good as a fast horse!
Dan
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-20-2016   #25
Duane Pandorf
Registered User
 
Duane Pandorf's Avatar
 
Duane Pandorf is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: I'm currently in Brevard, North Carolina.
Posts: 431
A friend asked me to help out with a photo shoot today. I knew the venue would be challenging for my Leica M-E (CCD) so I rented a 262 and 28 Summicron. I also brought along my 35 Lux, 50 Lux, 75 Cron and 90 Elmarit.

Here's a quick edit off my iPad Pro and Lightroom Mobile:



Leica M (262), 28 Cron, f/2.0, 1600 ISO
__________________
Duane Pandorf
--------------------
Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-20-2016   #26
froyd
Registered User
 
froyd's Avatar
 
froyd is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,951
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duane Pandorf View Post
A friend asked me to help out with a photo shoot today. I knew the venue would be challenging for my Leica M-E (CCD) so I rented a 262 and 28 Summicron. I also brought along my 35 Lux, 50 Lux, 75 Cron and 90 Elmarit.

Here's a quick edit off my iPad Pro and Lightroom Mobile:



Leica M (262), 28 Cron, f/2.0, 1600 ISO

Good shot, but I'm surprised by the noise in the dark tones and overall softness. I'd be curious to hear whether the file looks better on your desktop after you get home and develop it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-20-2016   #27
airfrogusmc
Registered User
 
airfrogusmc is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 4,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Clark View Post
ISO DNG (RAW) will give you more wiggle room (latitude) to work with a file than camera saved JPEG.

Some of the ISO settings I read here are pretty pathetic for an expensive Leica camera. My Canon 20D from 2004 does better than what I read here.

Come on Leica, can't live on your past or the lenses you make.
My 262 is about what my 5DII was when talking low light performance.

Check the link I posted earlier at 262 at 3200. post #20
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2017   #28
james.liam
Registered User
 
james.liam is online now
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by airfrogusmc View Post
My 262 is about what my 5DII was when talking low light performance.

Check the link I posted earlier at 262 at 3200. post #20
My MM v.1 still produces pleasantly grained images at 6400.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2017   #29
uhoh7
Registered User
 
uhoh7 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,806
This is where Leica is lagging. The sony 42mp r2 sensor is much better with the high ISOs. Fujis also fall apart. But that Sony BSI sensor can be used at 6400, which shocked me. My original 24mp A7 sensor is also not great. I hate to go over 1k honestly.

here 4000 with RX1r2:

DSC00739 by unoh7, on Flickr
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 20:17.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.