[Leica] M8, Macro 90 and nature photography

[imagist3 at mac.com (Lottermoser George)]

Thus far I've found the auto white balance to perform poorly under  
indoor lighting conditions. However, the manual white balance  
performs almost too well. By that I mean that it seems to neutralize  
to point of perfection, at times losing the illusion of warmth  
(easily recovered in processing). I carry a 4x4 inch piece of  
flexible translucent material (which I use for softening light in the  
studio), place it in front of the lens, and perform the manual white  
point task once in a room upon entering a new condition. Takes me  
back to my old video days.

If you need 2500 ISO - you may be disappointed. 1250 is quite  
useable. And 640 works quite well, 320 performs as good as or better  
than film. If folks want to compare M8 noise with Canon (or other  
chip) noise I think they should also consider rendering of fine  
detail at related speeds. For me this is an ongoing balancing act  
with the results in print as the only real judge.

Bottom line: if, as you say, you're happy with what you're using, why  
change?

In my case. I found myself no longer happy with the work flow of film  
processing and scanning; while at the same time wishing for the M  
form factor. The M8 brings the form factor in line with my work flow  
beautifully - so far.

Have a look at:
<http://www.imagist.com/m8/iso640_manual_wb.jpg>
for sample of manual white balance
<http://www.imagist.com/m8/iso640_auto_wb.jpg>
for sample of auto white balance
<http://www.imagist.com/m8/iso640_noise.jpg>
for sample of noise at 640
<http://www.imagist.com/m8/iso1250_noise0_noise.jpg>
for sample of noise at 1250

Samples hand held, 1/15 sec, f:4, with 35 lux asph.

For me - the M8 replaces the M6's and their mostly Black and White  
film chores. When the 1250 color noise is eliminated by processing as  
a black and white image - the 1250 looks as good as or better, in  
print, than films at that ISO.

Regards,
George Lottermoser
george@imagist.com



On Jan 25, 2007, at 12:55 PM, Tom Pastorello wrote:

> I understand that under tungsten
> light I would see poor WB compensation, bad noise
> above ISO 640 (apparently, high ISO noise is worse in
> tungsten light than outdoor light) and IR sensitivity
> color casts.  (IR filters would not be a solution for
> me since I need speed under available light and a
> filter factor of 20-40 won't do.)
>    Do I overstate the limitations of the M8 under
> tungsten light?  I'm otherwise happy with the M6, film
> and digital processing of the film.  Thank you for any
> information, insights, advice ...