rscheffler wrote:
Edward - great Distagon sets! I don't mind the quantity at all.
Great find Werner.
Cool cars, Charlie!
Joakim - congrats on the Canon 50/1.4! I agree, you can never have enough 50mm lenses in the collection. I should get mine out in the rotation too.
Richard - remind me, you're shooting with the M9? I generally only had such severe banding with it when shooting sequences and/or reviewing images while the camera was still clearing the buffer to the card. Choice of card may also influence banding. My finding was that it was more common with 'high speed' cards with a UHS classification. I tried to stick with plain old SDHC Class 10 cards.
recordproduction - congrats! Is it the ASPH version? Looks like a 'quaint' photo shop. Love the store fixtures - at first I thought it was a cafe with an enlarger in the middle! Looks like they also have a nice selection of Canon EF lenses.
clmusic - welcome to the thread! The M9 DNG files will definitely feel foreign at first, but give it time. The files can be quite malleable and produce pleasing colors. Perhaps the M9's weakness is precisely what you experienced shooting at the aquarium - mixed artificial light, likely at a higher ISO. In these situations, particularly with lights that are not full spectrum, it can be challenging to get pleasing skin tones, with a tendency for yellow/magenta splotchiness. Something to also keep in mind, based on experimentation over the past couple years by many here and on other Leica forums, as well as quantifiable results by Jim Kasson, concluded that there is no image quality benefit to increasing the ISO setting in the camera beyond 640. You will get equal, if not better results by pushing ISO 640 or lower DNGs in post with Lightroom, Capture One, etc. Another benefit to doing so, is that you can push each file by exactly how much it needs after the fact, rather than possibly selecting too high an ISO while shooting. It will also help with highlight preservation in more difficult low light scenes because the intentional underexposure will keep them from blowing and you can protect them in post when boosting shadow values. But of course there is no free lunch here. Pushed images will still be noisier than if correctly exposed at a lower ISO. With it being a CCD sensor, it's not going to hold highlights well. If highlights are important, you'll want to keep them from clipping and if necessary, boost mid and shadow values later in post. M9 files tend to allow fairly aggressive shadow boosts, but again, within reason. Ideally, the M9 is happiest at ISO 160, but of course that isn't always possible. I generally tried to stick to 640 or lower, though also found 1250 to be OK with quality, fuller spectrum light sources.
Something else to keep in mind is that the M9 can be finicky about how it's treated. Experience indicates it doesn't like to be pushed aggressively. For example, it's not a good idea to review images while it's still writing them to the card. This can potentially result in lock-ups, though the lesser consequence tends to be random image banding, particularly those towards the end of a sequence. Choice of memory card can also apparently induce image banding. As I mentioned in my comment to Richard above, my experience was not good with some of the UHS rated SDHC cards I tried, and tended to favor plain old SDHC Class 10, which may be getting more difficult to find now. IIRC, some preferred using regular old SD cards, which I think were limited to 2GB and are probably impossible to find now.
As for uncompressed vs. compressed M9 DNGs... the compression is lossy, but I found for some situations where I needed faster buffer clearing, like when shooting weddings, that compressed DNG was fine. I can't say I could ever see any telltale degradation in the final image quality. I'm sure it may be quantifiable, but whether it's visually noticeable is another matter. FWIW, the M240's compressed DNGs are lossless.
I hope this helps somewhat... Just be sure to give yourself sufficient time with it.
uhoh7 wrote:
Welcome to the thread Clmusic. Very nice set I like the blues. Which lenses are you shooting?
recordproducti: the 50Lux (and maybe ZM35/1.4) is the last lens I really crave. Please post up some more
Joakim. I really like #2 where rider is set for winter conditions. Canon is fine lens.
Ron your reds are great.
Richard, I find banding often jumps with editing, so as soon as I see it, I start over. Funny, I see it mostly in bright blue skies. I shoot my M9 in low light all the time. In my opinion it is easily the equal of the A7. But others disagree, of course
These all uncompressed, which is all I bother with on the M9. But my point: no banding that jumps out at me....Show more →
rscheffler wrote:
recordproduction - congrats! Is it the ASPH version? Looks like a 'quaint' photo shop. Love the store fixtures - at first I thought it was a cafe with an enlarger in the middle! Looks like they also have a nice selection of Canon EF lenses.
You're right, it's the ASPH version, got it in silver (used but can't be much more than a year old) so looks a bit funny on the black body but the kids think it's cool! The shop, Aperture, in London, is both a cafe and camera shop, it's lovely, a dangerous place to visit
Now to try and get some great photos, I can't blame the equipment any more!
rscheffler wrote:
Richard - remind me, you're shooting with the M9? I generally only had such severe banding with it when shooting sequences and/or reviewing images while the camera was still clearing the buffer to the card. Choice of card may also influence banding. My finding was that it was more common with 'high speed' cards with a UHS classification. I tried to stick with plain old SDHC Class 10 cards.
Thanks for your thoughts Ron. This is the 240 @ iso6400. Wide open. Slow shutter. So the full extent of its available light ability. I don't think the card has any impact on banding with the 240?? I am just using the recommended card, off the top of my head I think it's the extreme pro 3 64gb? The one that is supposed to 'play' well anyway. It can be mitigated by dropping th shadows a little more. I just assumed this is normal due to the lowlight conditions, no?
Just to expand: I have chosen horrible lighting here, and pushed +1.2 exposure in post. So I guess it just is what it is - the creation of my less than ideal application!
I've finally managed to pick up an M9 to pair with the M glass I've acquired.
I love the RF experience already, and now know I'm 'left eye dominant'! I'm experimenting with my right eye, but left does feel (and see) much more natural(ly) .
Here's a first shot with the 50 Lux ASPH, something cheeky from the seaside for you.
rscheffler wrote:
Richard - remind me, you're shooting with the M9? I generally only had such severe banding with it when shooting sequences and/or reviewing images while the camera was still clearing the buffer to the card. Choice of card may also influence banding. My finding was that it was more common with 'high speed' cards with a UHS classification. I tried to stick with plain old SDHC Class 10 cards.
ricardovaste wrote:
Thanks for your thoughts Ron. This is the 240 @ iso6400. Wide open. Slow shutter. So the full extent of its available light ability. I don't think the card has any impact on banding with the 240?? I am just using the recommended card, off the top of my head I think it's the extreme pro 3 64gb? The one that is supposed to 'play' well anyway. It can be mitigated by dropping th shadows a little more. I just assumed this is normal due to the lowlight conditions, no?
Just to expand: I have chosen horrible lighting here, and pushed +1.2 exposure in post. So I guess it just is what it is - the creation of my less than ideal application! ...Show more →
Wow, ok. I haven't shot the M240 at 6400 and the banding looks like bad M9 banding in your examples. I guess the combination of 6400 and push in post just makes it more obvious. The highest I've gone is 3200 where banding becomes noticeable when pushing files. And I think you're right that with the M240 this shouldn't be card related. I can't think of any situations where I've had random banding problems with the M240 at 'normal' ISOs (up to 1600), compared to my M9 experiences.
coogee - congrats on the M9!
recordproduction - cool - the Lux ASPH is a beautifully rendering lens. I'm sure you'll love it.
René - great ZM50 rendering in the first one.
Allen - I agree, a really interesting set. Both the abstracts and the people.
Gary - great Distagon showcase! It's interesting to see these images, and Edward's. Sometimes the lens feels longer than 35mm, other times it seems a bit wider.
Werner - interesting rendering. I've been wondering about the flare/ghosting in some of your images. Is this something you're provoking or introducing to images?
Thanks Ron. I guess I've gone a little lax because I know how my other cameras react at that setting. For example the RX1 is perfectly happy as you'd expect. And although my a900 is ancient and gets ugly there, I don't get any banding, so do use it occasionally. Lesson learned! I'd been using it up to 5000 previously and then had a go at 6400 and didn't see much difference, so I've left it there now.
Side note: I have a couple printed and framed at iso5000 and with my very basic editing, they had a big punch in the print still, which surprised me. It might be related to the images being at f8 but it's still good to know how well they print at higher ISO.
Allan, wonderful set
Gary, what a cool bridge!!
Welcome, Cogee. You now have the best camera in the world. rscheffler wrote:
Thanks Charlie. What is your M9 shooting technique? Single shot? What memory card do you use?
Hi Ron, I use Pretec 32GB 433x which i found for 11USD. I learned never to format in camera, only erase. I single shoot with the M9, and now event the Sony, which is new for me, and I used to spray and pray back in the nex-5 days.
While the M9 patch is dim in lowlight, it is still alot faster than the Sony evf for me, where the Mag is a goose chase and the peaking is often misleading for really fast shots.
For those who think the newer Zeiss lenses don't flare much: Payette Bend by unoh7, ZM 18
What do you call that wild diamond in the circle?
And I had to take the 135/3.4 APO up the other day:
I was trying to figure out when infinity was really safe, as my calibration in this lens is a bit off: L1029046 by unoh7, on Flickr
At 5.6 I think it's about 50 meters.