Upload & Sell: Off
Thanks Doug. I agree that image held up pretty well, though much of it is light areas where grain normally wouldn't be much issue. Of note, the group of people to the left of the tank were dodged another stop, so some areas have been pushed 4 stops. I did apply some negative shadow to some areas that were beginning to look a bit too washed out. In terms of grain, I don't think it's any worse than shooting at ISO 1250.
I thought I read somewhere that the degree of edge correction applied by the M9 is ISO dependent,...Show more →
Howdy, Ron. To follow up on this post about vignetting correction, you are correct. I believe it was the first firmware fix that decreases the vignetting correction as the ISO goes up. Of course, if one stays at ISO 160 in all types of light, like I've been doing, there may be issues when pushing 4 or 5 stops, because, due to the vignetting compensation, the vignetted areas may be pushed more like 5-6 stops, and things get ugly and blotchy around the edges sometimes. On the flipside, if you use CornerFix, it may be advantageous to use a single ISO, because the variable vignetting correction makes profiling difficult, so it's technically necessary to use a different CornerFix profile for each ISO if you code your lens.
Like Edward mentioned, I was considering just not using any coding at all with my 50 Summicron collapsible, but, after doing that for a few days, I've come to realize that there is a noticeable (to me) amount of color shift, even though it is a 50mm lens.
Since I don't want to mess with CornerFix, I think I'm going to use coding with the 50 collapsible. I think I'm still going to shoot ISO 160 most of the time, when I only need to push anywhere from zero to a few stops, but, when I go into obviously dark environments, I'll raise the ISO to something like 1250 (haven't decided exactly which ISO to use) and keep it there.
p.s. it just hit me that Lightroom has that new flat field plug-in, so I may consider turning off coding and just use that. hmmm...