Faintandfuzzy
Well-known
Of course they didn't... it's the internet!
Well, I would assume the OP is trying to post good results with ththe camera as opposed to poor. The mushy banding is there. Simply chiming in that "it's the internet" is truly ridiculous. Instead of making excuses, feel free to share your thoughts on the banding. As to using one....when I see results like this, I wouldn't bother picking it up at all. No offense to the OP as I really do like the shots...but on a decent sized print, the banding is horrible and what I would expect from a 5 year old Canon body.
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
What, has RFF turned into DPR? Not the level of civility I've come to expect from years spent here.
Well, I'm of the opinion that if you are going to take a random person's output from a camera as the be all end all of a camera's capabilities, then that is ridiculous. You have no idea of the person's capabilities or skills (no offense to the OP). Perhaps some different post processing and these shots will be fine? I see horrible output (a lot worse than this) from many great cameras all over the internet. I think the thing that Klaus is trying to say is that you probably need to try it for yourself before jumping to conclusions.
pechelman
resu deretsiger
really dont understand the somewhat harsh discussion here either.
only thing I'll mention, is that it appears many of the shots were shot near maximum aperture and perhaps with the use of a UV filter (or other filter in front of the lens). I see what looks like reflections from a filter, especially in the ferris wheel shot.
Regardless, i think it's important to realize some of the issues discussed here could be due to the wide aperture or filter. Leica white balance has never impressed me, except on the Monochrom which always gets it right Unsure about the banding. Some could be due to the export settings, some is also likely present in the dng. I know I've experienced severe banding on export to certain types of jpg on occasion. Noise seems pretty well controlled, but 50% NR was applied. Wondering how much of that post might have had other effects (color, detail, etc) on the final interweb image. Really, too many unknowns and variables here to classify this as any sort of legitimate high iso test of the camera.
I also remember when ISO ~400-800 was it for "high quality images" taken with film.
only thing I'll mention, is that it appears many of the shots were shot near maximum aperture and perhaps with the use of a UV filter (or other filter in front of the lens). I see what looks like reflections from a filter, especially in the ferris wheel shot.
Regardless, i think it's important to realize some of the issues discussed here could be due to the wide aperture or filter. Leica white balance has never impressed me, except on the Monochrom which always gets it right
Unsure about the banding. Some could be due to the export settings, some is also likely present in the dng. I know I've experienced severe banding on export to certain types of jpg on occasion. Noise seems pretty well controlled, but 50% NR was applied. Wondering how much of that post might have had other effects (color, detail, etc) on the final interweb image. Really, too many unknowns and variables here to classify this as any sort of legitimate high iso test of the camera.I also remember when ISO ~400-800 was it for "high quality images" taken with film.
The curve of the banding is interesting. Clearly, it would have been captured as straight by the sensor... The upward sweep of the curve reveals how much lens barrel distortion was corrected by the camera's internal processing; quite a lot.
pechelman
resu deretsiger
based on the banding issues I mentioned in the past, I think that curved banding may be an issue with the final or an intermediate jpg conversion. I've shot things with lenses that are known to have very little distortion, have applied no lens correction or distortion corrections, and still have seen this type of curved banding (even at base iso). Generally I have seen this in featureless areas (e.g. sky) and tends to occur along areas of similar tonal value as you move lighter to darker. Sort of like a topographic map. That isnt to say that this could also be a result of distortion correction or lens adjustments, as has been documented on the m246, but there are other explanations as well. I'm sure there are even others. Point being, no need to jump to any conclusions here based off these images.
x-ray
Mentor
The things that disturb me the most aren't things that post processing will take care of. The dock shot with the lights on the poles exhibit flare or coma around the lights. In the ferris wheel there's secondary images of the lights above the lights on the top of the wheel. A camera costing $4250 should have a much better lens. This is what you expect from a cheap P&S.
x-ray
Mentor
Please understand I'm not trying to bash anyone or put anyone down.
I really don't think most people know a good image from a bad both aesthetically or technically. There's so much more mediocre and downright poor photography posted vs fine photography that people don't know what truly excellent photography is now. If you see poor work that's constantly praised as great then you start to accept that as the gold standard.
I really don't think most people know a good image from a bad both aesthetically or technically. There's so much more mediocre and downright poor photography posted vs fine photography that people don't know what truly excellent photography is now. If you see poor work that's constantly praised as great then you start to accept that as the gold standard.
Well, I do have to admit that I'm not that bothered by flare and coma...and wasn't necessarily speaking to that, but coma and flare that can be exascerbated by exposure choices and post processing techniques in digital. I was referring more to the banding, etc.
Lss
Well-known
My M8 has been a much more reliable product than any of the several Canon bodies I have owned. I have bought new Canon cameras despite their continued failures. In other words, I have honestly accepted much worse from another camera maker.
The photos in this thread, btw, look good on the iPhone. There is flare that may be due to the lens, sensor reflections, or a filter. There is no indication of this being particularly representative of this camera's performance.
jcrutcher
Mentor
Thank you for the kind comments and the critics.
Honestly I don't shoot many color high ISO evening photos, my skills are below average. This was the first and last time I did with this camera and it was right after I purchased it. I prefer to shoot with my M-246 and 50mm APO Cron. I found the 28mm of the Q is just too wide for varied light of evening. 50mm is my favorite evening lens sometimes like in a city I'll shoot a 35.
My post processing skills are fair, not perfect but not horrible.
I did not use a UV filter.
I shot most of these at F2.0 EV of -1.5 stops, then adjusted in Lightroom.
I don't believe I used PS on any of them
White Balance adjustment is not my greatest skill
If I shot the same scene today I would be better at it
I love my Q! like I do all the Leica cameras I own.
I left Canon to go to Leica and never have looked back.
I'm not a pro, just like to shoot as a hobby.
For those of you who are critics either because of Leica, the Q or my work I would welcome you to give me solid advice to improve these photos. A blanket comparison to a $100 camera tells me nothing. If you like I will send you the original DNG file if you think processing is the main issue that you don't like. No I will not get rid of my Q based on your feedback.
Best Regards,
Jim
Honestly I don't shoot many color high ISO evening photos, my skills are below average. This was the first and last time I did with this camera and it was right after I purchased it. I prefer to shoot with my M-246 and 50mm APO Cron. I found the 28mm of the Q is just too wide for varied light of evening. 50mm is my favorite evening lens sometimes like in a city I'll shoot a 35.
My post processing skills are fair, not perfect but not horrible.
I did not use a UV filter.
I shot most of these at F2.0 EV of -1.5 stops, then adjusted in Lightroom.
I don't believe I used PS on any of them
White Balance adjustment is not my greatest skill
If I shot the same scene today I would be better at it
I love my Q! like I do all the Leica cameras I own.
I left Canon to go to Leica and never have looked back.
I'm not a pro, just like to shoot as a hobby.
For those of you who are critics either because of Leica, the Q or my work I would welcome you to give me solid advice to improve these photos. A blanket comparison to a $100 camera tells me nothing. If you like I will send you the original DNG file if you think processing is the main issue that you don't like. No I will not get rid of my Q based on your feedback.
Best Regards,
Jim
airfrogusmc
Mentor
Looks good to me Jim. I would never make serous analysis of technical things from 80KB compressed JPGs from a host site that further hurts IQ and then post on a web site. They look good to me. To me the proof is always in print.
I am a full time pro and have completely switched to Leica M. I love my Leica Ms. This Q looks very nice Jim and you images look good to me.
I am a full time pro and have completely switched to Leica M. I love my Leica Ms. This Q looks very nice Jim and you images look good to me.
iridium7777
Established
i'm not sure how you can dismiss the obvious sensor performance and lens reflections as simply "things from 80KB compressed JPGs"... those are there all the time, in the master image, they're not an artifact of a JPG conversion or scaling down for this forum post.
BLKRCAT
75% Film
This explains a lot. A lot of the samples look underexposed. In extreme situations like this it's very difficult to pull out that shadow detail without degrading the image. Especially if overall the image is underexposed.
I shoot night on film frequently and most of the time end up shooting 800 iso with my 50mm F1.1 and find it perfectly adequate. But depending on your scene you can get away with an F2 lens.
In these situations with the Q I would be shooting wide open with shutter speeds in around 1/60th or 1/30th with the possibility of 1/15th. You should be trying to expose for the light illuminating your subject. Keep in mind with light sources such as streetlights or there will be falloff and the resulting image should reflect this. Highlights within light sources will be overexposed, this is just the nature of the beast.
Keeping within the 800-1600 iso range you should have no issue exposing at night.
I feel like it's easy for people to want to see things at night with full perfect exposure as if it were daylight. This isn't the way night stuff looks.
If you do need to dodge and burn then do it selectively to tone your image rather than globally. This way you don't run the risk of fixing one mistake but highlighting 4 more.
I apologize if my criticism came across harsh. I hope this advice helps your night shooting.
DPreview's Q Review:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/leica-q-typ116/12
Pros
Compact, solid, well-built body
24MP CMOS sensor with excellent detail and ISO performance
Fast, razor-sharp, stabilized 28mm lens
Well thought-out controls
Speedy 10 fps burst mode
Fast, accurate autofocus system in Single AF
Excellent feedback from buttons and dials
Overall snappy performance
Good battery life
High-res viewfinder with good refresh rate
Good Wi-Fi integration
Cons
Body can be slippery - wear a strap
Dynamic range lacking compared to rivals
Noise 'banding' can be an issue in pushed shadows
JPEG engine and JPEG customization lacking
Severe lack of customization options
Card write times are slow if you shoot both Raw and JPEG
Continuous autofocus can be unreliable
Autofocus modes are poorly organized and may not behave as you expect
Touchscreen is poorly implemented and can't be fully disabled
Video mode is uncompetitive
No weather sealing
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/leica-q-typ116/12
Pros
Compact, solid, well-built body
24MP CMOS sensor with excellent detail and ISO performance
Fast, razor-sharp, stabilized 28mm lens
Well thought-out controls
Speedy 10 fps burst mode
Fast, accurate autofocus system in Single AF
Excellent feedback from buttons and dials
Overall snappy performance
Good battery life
High-res viewfinder with good refresh rate
Good Wi-Fi integration
Cons
Body can be slippery - wear a strap
Dynamic range lacking compared to rivals
Noise 'banding' can be an issue in pushed shadows
JPEG engine and JPEG customization lacking
Severe lack of customization options
Card write times are slow if you shoot both Raw and JPEG
Continuous autofocus can be unreliable
Autofocus modes are poorly organized and may not behave as you expect
Touchscreen is poorly implemented and can't be fully disabled
Video mode is uncompetitive
No weather sealing
Manuel Patino
Established
Hmmm... I just made a purchase of a Q. I was looking forward to shooting with it and seeing how well it captures images. The harsh criticism in this thread makes me wonder what I've missed. I shoot with a M240 and b=various lenses, I also shot a lot with my Epson RD1. I've also shot a lot with the EM-5, EP-5, EM-1 and the Panasonic GX7.
Granted, I'm no authority on photography or a professional photographer or art critic. However, to my eye, I have seen much worse performance from many cameras that I've personally used than what I see here... Marginal performance in low light is not rare in my experience. Why the fulminating attacks?
I think I might refrain from posting any images I capture with the Q. Just not worth the hassle.
Granted, I'm no authority on photography or a professional photographer or art critic. However, to my eye, I have seen much worse performance from many cameras that I've personally used than what I see here... Marginal performance in low light is not rare in my experience. Why the fulminating attacks?
I think I might refrain from posting any images I capture with the Q. Just not worth the hassle.
jcrutcher
Mentor
Hmmm... I just made a purchase of a Q. I was looking forward to shooting with it and seeing how well it captures images. The harsh criticism in this thread makes me wonder what I've missed. I shoot with a M240 and b=various lenses, I also shot a lot with my Epson RD1. I've also shot a lot with the EM-5, EP-5, EM-1 and the Panasonic GX7.
Granted, I'm no authority on photography or a professional photographer or art critic. However, to my eye, I have seen much worse performance from many cameras that I've personally used than what I see here... Marginal performance in low light is not rare in my experience. Why the fulminating attacks?
I think I might refrain from posting any images I capture with the Q. Just not worth the hassle.
Congrats to your purchase. Enjoy the camera it's a wonderful tool. Don't listen to the negative on this thread...
Jim
jcrutcher
Mentor
willie_901
Mentor
Noise banding is present in very single raw file from all digital camera brands.
The issue is whether or not the banding artifacts end up being digitized by the analog-to-digital converter. When the signal levels (light amplitudes) are high the banding artifacts are below the detection limit of the ADC.
The lower analog signal-to-noise ratio, the more likely the banding artifacts levels will be similar to the lowest signal levels (i.e. the shadow regions). At some point the ADC digitizes the banding artifacts.
People sometimes dismiss on-going, data-stream improvements that decrease data-stream read-noise levels as being relevant only to geeks, and pixel peepers. This is not the whole story. As the signal levels decrease (i.e.when light levels are low) the SNR does matter. Superior data stream technologies do make a practical difference.
The issue is whether or not the banding artifacts end up being digitized by the analog-to-digital converter. When the signal levels (light amplitudes) are high the banding artifacts are below the detection limit of the ADC.
The lower analog signal-to-noise ratio, the more likely the banding artifacts levels will be similar to the lowest signal levels (i.e. the shadow regions). At some point the ADC digitizes the banding artifacts.
People sometimes dismiss on-going, data-stream improvements that decrease data-stream read-noise levels as being relevant only to geeks, and pixel peepers. This is not the whole story. As the signal levels decrease (i.e.when light levels are low) the SNR does matter. Superior data stream technologies do make a practical difference.
iridium7777
Established
i'm confused about your response. you post a bunch of pictures with no further explanation on an internet forum with the only context being that they're high iso images taken with a specific camera.
what did you expect? a bunch of ooh-ahs? did you want people to critique your composition or subject matter? or did you intend them to be representative of specific camera's performance at high iso?
if it's the latter, then i gave my opinion that it's a poor performer. and yes, there are lot of poor performing cameras out there, but not all of them in $4K range, or even $2.5k for that matter . if it's something else, then please share what you were looking for.