Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/09/25

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Leica Digilux 2 @ 1600 :-)
From: DouglasMSharp at (Douglas M. Sharp)
Date: Sat Sep 25 19:26:27 2004
References: <> <> <000401c4917a$9c3fa1b0$87d86c18@ted>

Guten Tag Ted,
That IS an interesting discovery, I tried something similar with my
EOS300D/Digital Rebel at the weekend, I suppose it must work in the same
I was shooting in a very dim chapel of remembrance in Berlin and was
getting shutter speeds
too slow for hand holding and didn't have a tripod with me. Shooting in
RAW mode at 400 ASA I deliberately underexposed in manual metering mode
and then corrected the image
in Canons File viewer Facility (which allows the pre-processing of RAW
images) to get
back to the shutter speed I would have had to use according to the
automatic mode.
The shot turned out IMO better than I expected (within limits)

I also read in a German photo publication that the ASA/ISO setting of
100 is not necessarily better than
at 200, though I didn't quite understand why, they even suggest avoiding
the lowest value.
In addition, shooting with higher ASA values, at least with the Canon,
seems to make the files larger - any ideas/explanations on this count?
greetings from sunny Northern Germany.

Ted Grant schrieb:

>Howdy gang,
>Here's a Leica Digilux 2 ASA "film ?" rating discovery. oh well OK,
>sensitivity surprise! :-)
>As many of you know on the Digilux 2 it's highest ASA is shown as 400. Well
>that's true. However, if you set it at 400 and set the EV button to 2 stops
>under exposed producing theoretically 1600, the camera along with PS after
>down loading the memory card to computer produces some quite acceptable
>I was quite impressed after shooting at an indoor CFL football game in the
>Vancouver Sky Dome stadium. Yep the image on the camera screen certainly
>appears under-exposed. But when you put it up on the computer screen and
>using PhotoShop with a few tweaks of levels and curves and by golly it comes
>back just like it looked in the stadium and prints out quite well.
>The whites are white and the face colours are quite acceptable. Noise? Well
>I didn't hear any from the camera. Oh you want to no about the "grain
>effect?" Forget it, it's basically non-existant certainly on 8.5 X 11 size
>prints. I suppose if one wanted to get niggilly and wanted to make a big
>fuss over it, you might see some "grain" in the turf areas and it was hard
>for me to accept it was there when my son pointed out... "Yeah it kind of
>looks like some "noise" effect on the turf."
>Well I wish 1600 film came out with the little amount of "grain" look as
>appeared from this manipulation of the Digilux 2's film sensitivity.
>So maybe there's hope for the Digilux 2 yet as an available light kind of
>camera after all, of course with a little help from PhotoShop! ;-)
>Now I'm intrigued to see where I can go with this in B&W!  Will let you know
>after the weekend.
>Leica Users Group.
>See for more information

Ihre bevorzugten Shops, hilfreiche Einkaufs-Hilfen und gro?artige
Geschenk Ideen. Erleben Sie das Vergn?gen online einzukaufen mit

Replies: Reply from henningw at (Henning Wulff) ([Leica] Leica Digilux 2 @ 1600 :-))
Reply from tedgrant at (Ted Grant) ([Leica] Leica Digilux 2 @ 1600 :-))