[Leica] More RD-1 Samples

[bdcolen at earthlink.net (B. D. Colen)]

There's no question, Ted, that we expect different "grain" at different
isos = the higher the iso, the more grain we expect. The
problem/difference with digital, however, is that the grain/noise is
much higher/worse in the shadows. So an image shot at 400 iso with a
typical 5mgp digicam with small sensor may be fine in the bright areas
of the image, but look like hell in the shadows. The 5 mgp digis are
generally 'okay' at 400, and can certainly be cleaned up with noise
reduction software. And the larger the sensor, the less this is a
problem - my E-1 DSLR is just fine at 400 and even 800, and with noise
reduction software looks as good at 1600 and 3200 as does film shot at
those speeds. Same with Nikon and Canon DSLRs. But the digicams all use
the smaller sensors, and the smaller the sensor, the more noise. That's
the BIG problem  with the new crop of 8mgp digicams. They have the same
small sensors, but more mgp crammed in. And at 400 they are AWFUL,
although at low isos they are absolutely gorgeous. I just came back from
a couple of days shooting on St Johns in the Virgin Islands, and used
both the E1 and the C8080 8 mgp digicam. I used the C8080 at 50 -64 -
and 100 iso, and the images look like slides. But I simply don't shoot
that camera at 400.

B. D.


-----Original Message-----
From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org
[mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of
Ted Grant
Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 10:50 AM
To: Leica Users Group
Subject: Re: [Leica] More RD-1 Samples


B. D. Colen said:
Subject: RE: [Leica] More RD-1 Samples


> When are people going to get this - The digicams ALL, I don't care 
> what brand, produce noisy images at 400 iso because of the tiny sensor

> size, while the DSLRs, whether Canon, Nikon, or Olympus, produce much,

> much better images at that sensitivity. Period.<<<<

Hi B. D.,
No argument from me on this, because under some situations Digilux 2 400
material shot under tough light situations do not look like the same
scene attempted at 100.

But I don't expect them to look identical or similar no differently than
if I were using film.

I'm one of those who when shooting film at 800 - 1600 or 3200 on a big
push, do not expect to see a similar fine grain looking print when
shooting 100 film, regardless of cameras used. So to my eye shooting
digi at 400 ____
under some light conditions ___   one sees a different "grain pattern,"
isn't that reasonable to expect and accept?

It's just a form of grain pattern, nothing more. In similar fashion 100
to 400 look in film.

I can't get on with this electronic word "noise" which to any long time
film using photographer it's nothing more than a type of "grain look"
one unto the other. So I don't see it as such a big deal because if we
all accept 100 film doesn't look like 400 film, then the so called, I
hate using this word "noise!" Damn it, it's a grain look! it's, 100 vs.
400! The image will look different.

And yes I understand the bigger the chip produces a better looking
print. So does shooting 4X5 film compared to 35mm or APS! ;-) Seems to
me the technical computer digi cam people are playing mental games with
us using new jargon. When in reality if they used photographic
terminology in reference, we'd not have these forms of "noisy word
wasting times" trying to understand what the hell all the fuss is about.
:-)

100 is fine grained... 400 isn't! On every day small sized digi cameras,
and no it isn't a damn noise, I can hear that. Grain type pattern...
that I can see! And obviously bigger is better!;-) ted
















_______________________________________________
Leica Users Group.
See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information