View Full Version : Erwin Putts M8 test report
First part, not very favorable judging by his words
http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/m8report/t006.html
Even if I actually prefer the images from the M8...
Moreover all other early reviewers said the Leica has a not yet optimized the firmware.
sunsworth
09-16-2006, 11:00
to quote Putts...
"The overall performance of the M8 Optics, sensor technique and post processing) is most certainly a match for the best players in the market..."
http://www.narrativerooms.com/LC_detail.jpg
I increased the contrast in the M8 image and sharpened both images. Keep in mind I was starting with the jpgs from the review. The original 5D detail looked almost posterized compared to the M8 -which seemed to have a lot more midtone/quartertone tonality to work with.
I expect that image quality should be on a par with other DSLR pro offerings.
Here are the originals:
http://www.narrativerooms.com/original_detail.jpg
http://http://www.narrativerooms.com/original_detail.jpg
anabasis
09-16-2006, 11:33
The M8 shot looks really soft. Putts error or what?
I don't really trust low res jpgs from the web to judge a camera however.
JCA
The softness is no big deal as long as you have captured all the detail and a full tonal range. You can choose to apply sharpening, saturation and contrast in camera. Or just try and capture as much info as possible in camera and then apply everything in post with software that's likely to do a better job then any in camera software.
Comparing the before and afters from both cameras -I would much prefer to have the M8 file to work with ( I currently use a Canon 1Ds)
24x36 frame needs a x8 enlargement for a 8x12 (aprox. A4 print).
Whether the sensor and lens resolve 40 lp/mm we will get 40/8 = 5lp/mm of real detail in the print. Just the amount of detail the human eye can resolve, at best, at optimum distance (25cm or more, depending on age).
For a A3 print (12x16, aprox) and 5 lp/mm of real detail the sensor (film) need to resolve 80 lp/mm. There is no full frame digital camera with this resolution power (I think a 22MP full frame camera would be necessary). Only medium format cameras, mostly due to the smaller enlargement factor, can reach the necessary resolution for those prints.
These requirements are increased for a cropped sensor. The M8 sensor has a crop factor of 1,33, and therefore 40x1,33 = 53 lp/mm and 80x1,33 = 106 lp/mm should be resolved in order to have 5lp/mm of real detail in those prints (A4 and A3).
The 74 lp/mm of maximun theoretical resolution (Nyquist limit) of the M8 sensor -but less than that number of real maximum resolution-, means that the M8 is capable of gorgeous A4 prints, but other cameras actually in the market will provide visibly better prints at A3 sizes or bigger (I am thinking on the Canon 1Ds Mark II and Canon 5D, due to the bigger picture size -number of pixels- and smaller enlargement factor). I think the M8 could be comparable with a Canon 1Ds, in terms of detail resolved on paper.
The image quality will be very good, due to the optics, the abscense of low-pass filter and the (big) size of the sensor. I try to say that 10MP in the M8 are not like 10MP in other cameras with inferior lenses and smaller sensors. However, the full frame cameras with more pixels, specially if they work with good lenses, will provide higher resolution on paper. Color rendition, contrast, distortions and fingerprint of the lenses are another history... Leica lenses are hard contenders here.
I would not disagree with any of what you say, however it has been my experience that on a CMYK 150 line screen 2 page magazine spreads you would not be able to tell the diference between the 1Ds and a 22MP medium format back in a side by side comparison if the files where properly prepared. Even on an Epson ink jet print with a some types of subject matter the differences would not be noticable. That's why I have not yet upgraded my 1Ds. In addition to the fact that I prefer the way the 1Ds handles skintones compared to its Mark II replacement.
specular
09-16-2006, 12:27
I think these are compelling quotes from Mr Puts' review.
"Most M-users (as can be inferred from the many news groups entries) assume that the optical superiority of the M lenses can be migrated to the digital domain without any problem. Such a view disregards the many issues involved....The inherent superiority of the Leica lenses (the 2/75 is definitely a better performer than the Canon zoomlenses used here) cannot be capitalized on."
"You might start a war about the differences in resolution: for me the analysis of this level of details is input for the theoretical discussion and has limited practical value. See the model pictures. You will be hard pressed to get these details on the printer."
"Where the rest of the photographic world is preparing for the deep changes that follow in the wake of the technological possibilities, Leica has an eye on values from the past...There is nothing wrong with this approach, but Leica now knows very well that a broader product line with more modern products is required to survive. The Leica M in whatever livery is a niche product. "
I guess it boils down to if you like the more compact size of the M8, have M lenses, prefer the traditional simplicity and can spare the $5000, then it's a no-brainer.
He says there is a slight delay in the shutter trigger on the M8... yikes!
But the optical quality, which is on par, is not enough to justify the cost of the system. Film, yes. Digital, no. Unfortunatly this camera is only for those who need to feel better about themselves and are to shy for therapy. For this kinda cash I'd buy a whole Mamiya 6 or 7 system and get my negs scanned. I supremely happy, my D200 and 30 year old nikkors rock compared top the putts samples....
Nachkebia
09-16-2006, 13:26
Eeexactly!! though anyone might need a therapy even me :)
But the optical quality, which is on par, is not enough to justify the cost of the system. Film, yes. Digital, no. Unfortunatly this camera is only for those who need to feel better about themselves and are to shy for therapy. For this kinda cash I'd buy a whole Mamiya 6 or 7 system and get my negs scanned. I supremely happy, my D200 and 30 year old nikkors rock compared top the putts samples....
I know that after the buyer remorse wears off, I always feel better after I buy new gear! I think in the long run 5000 bucks on a camera would be cheeper then therapy, unless you got good insurance. To bad cameras arn't covered. "Here is my $500 copay, can I have my camera please"
Unless I am forced to leave behind film photography, I won't.
Why would anyone leave behind the M system and change over to somnething like the M8? If you want advanced digital photography, something like a Canon already offers a great product with great lenses. If you want the film based rangefinder camera with superb optics, then you already have several options on the market, with the Leitz M line being most likely the Rolls Royce of such cameras. It takes the discipline and wish to work for many hours on a computer to refine and complete the digital "film", and this is a task that not everybody wants to do unless it is required or it is leading to vastly superior results.
I am not seeing myself [yet] in need to switch to a digital camera or add an advanced digital camera to what I already own and use for photography.
One day, I may be asking "who has an el-cheapo M8 for sale?"
Raid
The question, for us RD-1 users, is how much better is the M8 (no doubt it is better, at least from a pixel count point of view)
But the optical quality, which is on par, is not enough to justify the cost of the system. Film, yes. Digital, no. Unfortunatly this camera is only for those who need to feel better about themselves and are to shy for therapy. For this kinda cash I'd buy a whole Mamiya 6 or 7 system and get my negs scanned. I supremely happy, my D200 and 30 year old nikkors rock compared top the putts samples....
I am glad that you are happy with what you have. The image quality that I have seen (granted, it hasn't been much) seems to be as good as the DSLRs out there. But there is much more to the M8 than being "on par" optically. Some of us just love using a rangefinder. Using a rangefinder is different than using an SLR/DSLR and the Leica gives us rangefinder users a top quality camera with a fantastic viewfinder to move into the digtial world.
We will see what is revealed in the weeks to come when we get more samples using updated firmware but, I think the M8 desrves more respect than you give it.
http://www.narrativerooms.com/LC_detail.jpg
I increased the contrast in the M8 image and sharpened both images. Keep in mind I was starting with the jpgs from the review. The original 5D detail looked almost posterized compared to the M8 -which seemed to have a lot more midtone/quartertone tonality to work with.
I expect that image quality should be on a par with other DSLR pro offerings.
HAnkg, you are spot on here.
I immediately saw the finer detail and smoother image of the M8, hidden behind the apparent "soft" image and indeed you perfectly managed to pull them out.
In the Canon sample there's little you can do to improve the "harsh" look.
Look also at the crop of the eye, much better sharpness and colors from the M8.
And we are talking about full frame 12.8 Mp vs a cropped 10.5 mp one, with firmware still not optimized (read Sean Reid's review and the comment from HenningW in this forum)...
Btw even if those samples are jpeg compressed images, they are 100% crops from the half body image, so rather good to judge actual quality.
With the pre production firmware in the M8, I think E.Puts hadn't made a fair test
HAnkg, you are spot on here.
I immediately saw the finer detail and smoother image of the M8, hidden behind the apparent "soft" image and indeed you perfectly managed to pull them out.
In the Canon sample there's little you can do to improve the "harsh" look.
Look also at the crop of the eye, much better sharpness and colors from the M8.
And we are talking about full frame 12.8 Mp vs a cropped 10.5 mp one, with firmware still not optimized (read Sean Reid's review and the comment from HenningW in this forum)...
Btw even if those samples are jpeg compressed images, they are 100% crops from the half body image, so rather good to judge actual quality.
After some work the M8 image has a more 3D look with much more depth in the midtones. Certainly we can't tell its overall image quality by one sample, but I am surprised that Mr Putts didn't pick up on this. To be honest, I don't think that he likes the idea of a digital M abd this colored his review.
Agreed with all you said Chuck.
Anyway these are some comments about Putts' report made by Phil Askey, editor and owner of dpreview.com:
I'm pretty shocked that he's allowed to post samples from the cameras, this was a BIG according to Leica.
_____
Unfortunately the samples are awful, we were told absolutely no crops, samples or anything from the pre-production cameras were allowed (STRICTLY). Honestly the test is flawed, the 5D images look horrible (not what I am used to seeing from a 5D) and the M8 images appear to be JPEG crops (and the JPEG engine was clearly not fully tuned in the camera we had).
It's a pity this kind of _______ gets out before proper controlled repeatable tests are carried out on production models. It can create significantly the wrong impression of a camera.
______
Bizarre then that Leica trust him with a beta camera and appear to be unaware that he's published images from it.
After some work the M8 image has a more 3D look with much more depth in the midtones. Certainly we can't tell its overall image quality by one sample, but I am surprised that Mr Putts didn't pick up on this. To be honest, I don't think that he likes the idea of a digital M abd this colored his review.
I totally agree. It is very important to highlight this because most (if not all) of DSLR produce flat pictures, without subtlety in tones ... for instance, PBase is full of those digi flat and vulgar pictures. BTW, softness is not bad at all, it's precisely what lacks DSLR pictures. And as it has already been said, the most important in digi photography is the possibilities offered by post-processing ... I'm far from being an expert, but it seems to that it is a nonsense to compare raw digi pictures.
If the RD-1 is already much much better than any DSLR, I expect the M8 to be better than the RD-1, even just slightly.
Best,
Marc
John Camp
09-16-2006, 15:18
The Puts site is down. Wonder if Leica put out a hit on him? 8-)
JC
...Using a rangefinder is different than using an SLR/DSLR ...
Chuck,
Well said! Some people will never get what you are saying. I have the 5D and I am embarrassed to bring it to dinners and gatherings.
Those SLRs are like the SUVs. :bang:
sunsworth
09-16-2006, 15:18
Why would anyone leave behind the M system and change over to somnething like the M8? If you want advanced digital photography, something like a Canon already offers a great product with great lenses.
BECAUSE IT'S A BLOODY RANGEFINDER!
Ok Folks -
Who is Erwin Putts? (Question the source...)
Why would he even consider testing a prime Leica lens against a Canon zoom?
He does not spell check his review? That says quite a bit to me about lack of attention to detail. (nothing personal here.)
If you take a look at his photography - highlights are blown out and the files are in dire need of spotting. I have no idea who this gentlemen is and do not mean to denigrate his review or his work.. However, I do not feel that it is realistic and I question the ability to test a prime lens against Canon zoom. (I use Leicas and the 1DsII kit with L lenses.. The Canon L primes are very good. )
And that's your first post! Wow, I'm looking forward to your next ones! :)
Welcome Cameron! :angel:
grantray
09-16-2006, 15:20
His site is now down. Also, I was under the impression, from other reviewers, that all journalists are under NDA's concerning images due to use of non-production firmware?
-grant
specular
09-16-2006, 15:22
I think he's brilliant. and he says,
"You might start a war about the differences in resolution: for me the analysis of this level of details is input for the theoretical discussion and has limited practical value. See the model pictures. You will be hard pressed to get these details on the printer."
How did this review even get out? I bet it wasn't meant to. The website is not even up anymore, and earlier most links were not active. It clearly was not ready for primetime.
HenningW
09-16-2006, 15:24
hhmmmmm...........
Link now says 'not found on this server', and I can't get any access at all to his site. Must have pulled it.
There was definitely an embargo on posting images or parts of images taken with the M8. I was happy enough with the quality (and compared it to my 5D), but it would truly be unfair to do a detailed comparison since the firmware I had was v0.23, and some things were definitely not optimized.
Henning
Originally Posted by raid amin
Why would anyone leave behind the M system and change over to somnething like the M8? If you want advanced digital photography, something like a Canon already offers a great product with great lenses.
BECAUSE IT'S A BLOODY RANGEFINDER!
Thanks Sunsworth! :D
AndyPiper
09-16-2006, 15:46
The page is back - minus all the samples shot with beta firmware and the comments baed thereon. Basically just a "body" review, now.
newyorkone
09-16-2006, 16:57
Very irresponsible...
JPEG crops??? What was he thinking...or maybe I should say, what was he drinking?
While I couldn't resist playing with the file Puts posted those images from a preproduction camera don't tell you anything about what the M8 will do. Hopefully the signature of the final releases image capture will be appealing. While the M8 will not out resolve Canons top of the line (well maybe on the very wide end where the Canon lens line is weak) that's not the whole enchilada.
Melvin Sokolsky became an icon of fashion photography shooting 8x10. He can afford to shoot whatever he wants and a few years ago he switched from large format to Canon 1 series digital, he prefers the look from the 1Ds over the output from higher resolution medium format digital backs. Now the 1Ds doesn't out resolve 8x10 or Phase One P series but the whole package -the freedom it allows him while shooting, the fingerprint of the image capture and what he can do in post works for him.
The pictures published by Erwin shouldn't form the basis for any kind of debate over the M8's file quality. They are not representative of what the camera can do and much of his review will be discredited over the next couple of months. So now you have Phil Askey's response and my own.
Sean
newyorkone
09-16-2006, 20:20
The pictures published by Erwin shouldn't form the basis for any kind of debate over the M8's file quality. They are not representative of what the camera can do and much of his review will be discredited over the next couple of months. So now you have Phil Askey's response and my own.
Sean
Sean,
Thanks for offering a voice of reason. I could care less about the "leaked" test images but what I am more concerned about was what Erwin said about the shutter having lag. What are your thoughts regarding the lag? Are we talking lag like Canon 5D like lag since it is electronic versus a manual M body where the lag is nonexistent or is it something worse than that. Any info you may offer regarding this would be much appreciated.
Thanks. There's no problem with shutter lag in the M8. Whatever the difference may be between the M7 and M8, in this respect, is inconsequential in real life. As I said in my review, shutter lag with the M8 is essentially non-existant.
Cheers,
Sean
newyorkone
09-16-2006, 21:00
Thanks. There's no problem with shutter lag in the M8. Whatever the difference may be between the M7 and M8, in this respect, is inconsequential in real life. As I said in my review, shutter lag with the M8 is essentially non-existant.
Cheers,
Sean
That was fast...just what I was hoping to hear.
Thanks...you rock :)
The pictures published by Erwin shouldn't form the basis for any kind of debate over the M8's file quality. They are not representative of what the camera can do and much of his review will be discredited over the next couple of months. So now you have Phil Askey's response and my own.
Sean
Sean
What I find amazing about the Erwin's M8 photo of the girl in the rope dress, is the dress and eyes were not in the same focal plane! The eyes were actually OK and although still processed by a beta software looked better than the 5d. The rope dress was simply out of focus. Yikes.... Erwin's methodology is so sloppy it defies description.
The Moire pattern test, which was in better focus, actually looks to have the same or better resolution than the 5D but is obscured by heavy, color moire artifacts. Wow, what does he expect of a sensor with no moire filter being tested by a chart that reveals moire artifacts more than any other. And we don't even know if the camera moire reduction software is even active.
Despite all the crap, there was some useful information to be gleaned by the photos, no thanks to Irwin. But to the folks that aren't used to looking at bad tests, they may come away with the wrong interpratation of the quality of the Kodak sensor.
I think the results are actually encouraging, and await patiently the results of qualified reviewers like Sean
Rex
The question, for us RD-1 users, is how much better is the M8 (no doubt it is better, at least from a pixel count point of view)
Whoa! As another R-D 1 user, I had been thinking the M8 was everything I ever wanted, and was scheming how on earth I could manage to buy one.
But now after reading Erwin's review (even the expurgated second version) I'm not so sure!
Yes, 10 megapixels would be great, and having framelines for 75mm and 90mm framelines would be nice. And as Sean Reid has pointed out, some of Erwin's initial negative comments were about characteristics that are partly determined by the firmware, and the test camera's firmware wasn't final. (These comments have been snipped from the reposted version of his review.) Perhaps the release-version firmware will be better. Still...
-- No exposure compensation dial? I use exposure compensation a lot. Having to dive into the menu system to get it would be a huge pain. There's no way to fix this in firmware.
-- There's some controversy on whether or not the M8 has more shutter-release lag than a mechanical M -- but there's no doubt that it needs a three-stage shutter release so it can incorporate the meter-on, AE-lock, and shutter release functions. Maybe going through all those stages caused the lag Erwin originally thought he was feeling (before this remark was expurgated from his review.) Meanwhile, other reviewers have noted that pressing the release just enough to lock AE can be touchy. I can't help thinking that the R-D 1's separate AE lock button is a better solution.
-- The original version of Erwin's writeup (before he removed anything firmware-related) noted that he was getting only 200 shots per battery. Crikey, that's not very good -- I'd need three batteries to get through a typical shoot. The R-D 1 is a bit of a battery hog if you turn instant review on, but if I leave it off I can get through a long shoot on one Epson battery. Let's hope Leica's final firmware is less power-hungry.
-- Holy cow, once the buffer is full it takes a full minute to empty it?!? This also was excised from the second version of his review. Again, I hope the final firmware does better -- no photographer is going to want to spend that long sitting in the "penalty box." I'm sure they can improve on this, but I still suspect there may be a speed penalty for choosing the computation-intensive DNG format for raw-file storage.
-- Leaving out the anti-aliasing filter sounds like a great way to get finer detail...until you look at the "Siemens star" photo in Erwin's test (again, removed from his reposted review.) The center of the star was pretty badly artifacted. I wonder how this is going to play out in photos of finely-detailed real objects with regular patterns in them, such as fabric textures...? Kodak's DCS14 SLR also dispensed with the antialias filter, and I recall some reviews noting problems with moiré patterns in such subjects. Again, since the M8 uses software-based antialiasing, maybe the final-version firmware will be better than in Erwin's now-removed test shot. But what if it's not? Leica's notion of the best tradeoff between fine-detail rendering and moiré avoidance may not be the same as my notion.
-- Come on, a $4800 camera and they can't spring for a PC outlet? (And before you ask "Why would anyone need a PC outlet on an RF camera?", let me answer by saying that an RF is great for studio shooting with an AC-powered electronic flash system; one big advantage over an SLR is that you can SEE the flashes go off through the viewfinder, which makes it a lot easier to coordinate action shots.) Sure, you can put a slave trigger in the hot shoe, or use one of those cheesy hot-shoe-to-PC adapters, but it still seems a little chintzy.
So, one good thing about all this is that it makes me feel a bit better about the fact that I'm going to be sticking with my R-D 1 for quite a while! If I encounter some bucks-up photo snob who wants to know why I haven't traded for an M8, I no longer have to say, "Because I'm too poor"; instead I can say, "Yeah, it sounds good, but for the way I shoot I really kinda need a hardware exposure compensation dial and an AE lock button."
PS -- Another loss from Erwin's original writeup: You no longer get to see the test photos of his striking but dour test subject. Wonder why she always looks so annoyed in his pictures of her? Maybe she doesn't like the tarty way he makes her dress up...?
Ok, the PC socket was an issue to me as well oddly enough:(
It's a joke a small sensor size m8 within 5 years it's waste
Mark Norton
09-17-2006, 00:54
I'm pleased the PC socket has gone, I always lose the plastic dist caps. As for working with studio lighting, buy some new. As in infra-red triggered...
zuikologist
09-17-2006, 01:38
Stupid question: Putts states the (the body of) M8 is made in Portugal. The camera clearly shows Made in Germany. Does he mean just external parts? Which one is correct?
Nachkebia
09-17-2006, 02:22
I have heared long time ego that most Leica lenses are produced in portugal?..
ClaremontPhoto
09-17-2006, 02:27
The shutters are made in Portugal, with an ancient sewing machine.
The Portugal Leica plant builds binoculars and projector lenses....I cannot remember ever seeing a M lens "made in Portugal" .Mr. Puts has copied that one from his damning review of the Leica R3 , forty years ago :D
It's a joke a small sensor size m8 within 5 years it's waste
Blathering nonsense, my friend. We live in a society that considers it normal that a 50.000 Euro car in perfect order is worth 10.000 in five years time and is "obsolete" as well...:rolleyes: This kind of thing has nothing to do with the quality of the object.
Nachkebia
09-17-2006, 02:37
Not really... don`t agree with you at all... sensor is technology and technology develops, no one is saying M8 sensor will be unusable in couple of years, but there will be much much much better sensors on the market so there will be demand for better! in film days you would just buy new film, new kodak portra is comming soon for instance :D
So I'll buy a M9 in 5 years time. What is strange about that? In the meantime I've had fun with the M8 :) I'm an amateur, the camera is written off as soon as I buy it.I pay about 17 Euro for a roll of Kodachrome nowadays, so financial considerations are not my worry. These days one doesn't buy new film, one buys a new camera ;) Sad, I agree, I would like to nostalgially reverse time as well.
>>Blathering nonsense, my friend. We live in a society that considers it normal that a 50.000 Euro car in perfect order is worth 10.000 in five years time and is "obsolete" as well... This kind of thing has nothing to do with the quality of the object.<<
Thanks, Jaapv. Anyone who wants to really buy a Leica M8 -- and who is also a new-car buyer -- can afford to. Simply get the next model down from what you want, and spend the $5,000/4.000 euro difference on buying the camera. In Five years, the car will have lost much more value than $5,000, and both it and the camera will remain functional if properly cared for. At some point about 10 to 12 years from now, the $5,000 camera will retain more resale value than the 50.000 euro car.
Nachkebia
09-17-2006, 03:08
Enjoy sir! :angel:
Thank you mate.:cool: :) . But back to the subject. Let's not forget Mr. Puts was the semi-official propagandist for Leica for many years, until he got bought by Canon. So now he is Canon's unofficial spokesman hired to say what they wouldn't dare themselves, for fear of being called biased. With his network at Leica he will certainly have been able to lay his hands on a Beta M8, but the fact that he published photographs with his review is a sure indicator that it was an err.."unofficial" camera. If you really want to be suspicious you might think Leica might have played a lemon into his hands in order to discredit him:eek: But no.. I think that cannot be true...:rolleyes:
Nachkebia
09-17-2006, 03:24
jaapv : Honestly speaking, I am more interested in new Fuji digital SLR which is comming soon, which will definatly have revolutionary sensor... I know what M8 can do already, even it was beta software what Mr. Puts had that it pritty much it :)
Bob Parsons
09-17-2006, 03:25
While I couldn't resist playing with the file Puts posted those images from a preproduction camera don't tell you anything about what the M8 will do. Hopefully the signature of the final releases image capture will be appealing. While the M8 will not out resolve Canons top of the line (well maybe on the very wide end where the Canon lens line is weak) that's not the whole enchilada.
<snip>
I tried the same and found with an ajustment to curves, levels and a small amount of sharpening the M8 results were indistinguishable from the 5D samples. That's apart from the obvious plane of focus and angle of view changes.
The results shown tell us very little about the M8 performance.
Bob.
AShearer
09-17-2006, 04:35
To quote Mr. Putts
"The 1.33 factor for the reduction in angle of view (also referred to as crop factor) is of course reflected in the frame-lines being used. When putting the 24mm on the body, it is a bit of a surprise to see a 30mm frame being selected. Normally one would not bother, but when you are used to the M7 body, and select the 24mm lens you know that the finder cannot show the full view of the lens. On the M8 the finder gives frame-lines that you would expect to cover the 35mm lens."
Can anyone explain what the hell he means, by talking about a 30mm frame and what does the last sentence mean? I get frustrated sometimes by his writing. I find it full of apparent typos and confusing, sometimes contradictory statements.
I'll translate: "The framelines represent the actual field of view of the lens mounted; a 24 mm lens, for which the M7 has no framelines, brings up framelines for the equivalent FOV of a 30 (!) mm lens on a film M camera."
He should have said 32 mm.And it is not a 30 mm frame-line. It is a 24 mm on a different format.
jaapv : Honestly speaking, I am more interested in new Fuji digital SLR which is comming soon, which will definatly have revolutionary sensor... I know what M8 can do already, even it was beta software what Mr. Puts had that it pritty much it :)
Seems like a good idea, if you are into SLR's. But of course, Foveon type sensors are not usable on RF camera's.
Foveon type sensors are not usable on RF camera's.
Is there a technical reason for this?
Got any reference?
Just curious.
CHeers
Sean
What I find amazing about the Erwin's M8 photo of the girl in the rope dress, is the dress and eyes were not in the same focal plane! The eyes were actually OK and although still processed by a beta software looked better than the 5d. The rope dress was simply out of focus.
Rex
Hi Rex,
Exactly, it is out of focus. I've been surprised that more people haven't mentioned that.
Cheers,
Sean
Is there a technical reason for this?
Got any reference?
Just curious.
CHeers
I've always understood that due to the way they are built in three colour layers the angle of acceptance is even more problematic than CCD or CMos sensor types, but I'll gladly yield to superior knowledge of the latest developments...
I always feel it is a bit of a Wankel engine thing: Theoretically and technically superior, but of limited interest
telenous
09-17-2006, 05:32
C'mon now, really. If you want a digital rangefinder there isn't much choice, is there? With Epson packing it up and abandoning the rangefinder arena there's only one contender left. So Leica M8 cannot do everything our imaginations hold imaginable. Why is that so much of an issue? And when was it the case that rangefinders excelled in each and every aspect of photography? Buying a camera is always a compromise between what it can and can't do. That's why we end up with an assortement of different cameras.
Whoa! As another R-D 1 user, I had been thinking the M8 was everything I ever wanted, and was scheming how on earth I could manage to buy one.
But now after reading Erwin's review (even the expurgated second version) I'm not so sure!
1) Yes, 10 megapixels would be great, and having framelines for 75mm and 90mm framelines would be nice. And as Sean Reid has pointed out, some of Erwin's initial negative comments were about characteristics that are partly determined by the firmware, and the test camera's firmware wasn't final. (These comments have been snipped from the reposted version of his review.) Perhaps the release-version firmware will be better. Still...
2) -- No exposure compensation dial? I use exposure compensation a lot. Having to dive into the menu system to get it would be a huge pain. There's no way to fix this in firmware.
3) -- There's some controversy on whether or not the M8 has more shutter-release lag than a mechanical M -- but there's no doubt that it needs a three-stage shutter release so it can incorporate the meter-on, AE-lock, and shutter release functions. Maybe going through all those stages caused the lag Erwin originally thought he was feeling (before this remark was expurgated from his review.) Meanwhile, other reviewers have noted that pressing the release just enough to lock AE can be touchy. I can't help thinking that the R-D 1's separate AE lock button is a better solution.
4) -- The original version of Erwin's writeup (before he removed anything firmware-related) noted that he was getting only 200 shots per battery. Crikey, that's not very good -- I'd need three batteries to get through a typical shoot. The R-D 1 is a bit of a battery hog if you turn instant review on, but if I leave it off I can get through a long shoot on one Epson battery. Let's hope Leica's final firmware is less power-hungry.
5) -- Holy cow, once the buffer is full it takes a full minute to empty it?!? This also was excised from the second version of his review. Again, I hope the final firmware does better -- no photographer is going to want to spend that long sitting in the "penalty box." I'm sure they can improve on this, but I still suspect there may be a speed penalty for choosing the computation-intensive DNG format for raw-file storage.
6) -- Leaving out the anti-aliasing filter sounds like a great way to get finer detail...until you look at the "Siemens star" photo in Erwin's test (again, removed from his reposted review.) The center of the star was pretty badly artifacted. I wonder how this is going to play out in photos of finely-detailed real objects with regular patterns in them, such as fabric textures...? Kodak's DCS14 SLR also dispensed with the antialias filter, and I recall some reviews noting problems with moiré patterns in such subjects. Again, since the M8 uses software-based antialiasing, maybe the final-version firmware will be better than in Erwin's now-removed test shot. But what if it's not? Leica's notion of the best tradeoff between fine-detail rendering and moiré avoidance may not be the same as my notion.
7) -- Come on, a $4800 camera and they can't spring for a PC outlet? (And before you ask "Why would anyone need a PC outlet on an RF camera?", let me answer by saying that an RF is great for studio shooting with an AC-powered electronic flash system; one big advantage over an SLR is that you can SEE the flashes go off through the viewfinder, which makes it a lot easier to coordinate action shots.) Sure, you can put a slave trigger in the hot shoe, or use one of those cheesy hot-shoe-to-PC adapters, but it still seems a little chintzy.
8) So, one good thing about all this is that it makes me feel a bit better about the fact that I'm going to be sticking with my R-D 1 for quite a while! If I encounter some bucks-up photo snob who wants to know why I haven't traded for an M8, I no longer have to say, "Because I'm too poor"; instead I can say, "Yeah, it sounds good, but for the way I shoot I really kinda need a hardware exposure compensation dial and an AE lock button."
Hi jlw,
1) Not only early firmware but crops of an out of focus bodice to boot.
2) EV comp. criticism is valid and, as you know, I discussed it at length in my review. First level menu but still a bad design.
3) There shouldn't be controversy over this, there's no lag to speak of.
4) Early firmware, battery life is much better than that. Outlasts R-D1 with new firmware by about 2:1
5) He's misleading again, 11 frame RAW buffer and one *does not* need to wait for the buffer to dump to shoot again, one frame out, one frame in. As I wrote in my review, this camera is fast, esp. compared to R-D1
6) Look at DMR samples to clarify this. Moire is rarely a problem.
7) Probably a trigger voltage issue but I would have liked to see a PC connection too.
Cheers,
Sean
I find the comments of Erwin Puts quite useful in that he is being definitely negative towards the M8 accomplishement. That said I am quite impressed with other positive opinions such as detailed by Sean Reid. All this information is of value towards forming a basis for each readers personal evaluations and plans. My plan is to go for M8, I am still favorably inclined to want to use and enjoy learning and accomplishing professionally satisfying results from the digiital RF experience. There are certainely possible negative factors in all camera and systems but for the M8 these do not outweigh the positive in my non humble opinion.
>>Blathering nonsense, my friend. We live in a society that considers it normal that a 50.000 Euro car in perfect order is worth 10.000 in five years time and is "obsolete" as well... This kind of thing has nothing to do with the quality of the object.<<
Thanks, Jaapv. Anyone who wants to really buy a Leica M8 -- and who is also a new-car buyer -- can afford to. Simply get the next model down from what you want, and spend the $5,000/4.000 euro difference on buying the camera. In Five years, the car will have lost much more value than $5,000, and both it and the camera will remain functional if properly cared for. At some point about 10 to 12 years from now, the $5,000 camera will retain more resale value than the 50.000 euro car.
That is a wonderfully practical piece of advice and all of it true.
Cheers,
Sean
jaapv : Honestly speaking, I am more interested in new Fuji digital SLR which is comming soon, which will definatly have revolutionary sensor... I know what M8 can do already, even it was beta software what Mr. Puts had that it pritty much it :)
You do? Wow, how do you know what the M8 can do already?
Cheers,
Sean
Nachkebia
09-17-2006, 06:19
sreidvt : even if it as good as 5D it is still not impressive, fuji had an idea to create sensor that reacts to light with cristals same as film.. so that is very interesting..
Fujifilm Develops New Image Sensor Technology for Digicams
Fuji Photo Film Co. Ltd., Tokyo, Japan, has developed a new basic technology for a new type of image sensor that ensures 3x higher sensitivity and richer color depth than conventional image sensors, reports PhotoImaging Enterprises Association International's PEN News Weekly.
In today's digital cameras, images are captured and converted into digital signals by triplets of CCDs placed side by side -- one each for red, green, and blue. It is difficult for ordinary photographers to realize that a digital image captured with a digital camera has less depth than pictures taken with film in which the photosensitive pigments for the three primary colors of red, green, and blue are layered above one another, but pro photographers can recognize this.
Adopting the same concept of layering, the new image sensor developed by Fujifilm uses organic pigments reacting to red, green and blue light. The pigments are sandwiched between transparent electrodes and stacked above one another. When light enters each pigment layer, electric current flows between the electrodes, and the electric current is then converted into digital signals.
Fujifilm has made a prototype image sensor containing a green-reacting pigment. It yields monochrome pictures having the same depth as photo film, and is now making prototype elements for red and blue light as well. The company has filed a patent application on the basic technology and hopes to commercialize new image sensors in three to four years, says PEN News Weekly.
Inventors: Taniguchi, Masato; (Kanagawa, JP) ; Takada, Shunji; (Kanagawa, JP)
Correspondence Name and Address: SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
SUITE 800
WASHINGTON
DC
20037
US
Assignee Name and Adress: FUJI PHOTO FILM., LTD.
Serial No.: 082697
Series Code: 11
Filed: March 18, 2005
Abstract
A multilayer deposition multipixel image pickup device comprising a pixel unit, wherein the pixel unit comprises: a plurality of electromagnetic absorption layers being capable of absorbing electromagnetic waves of different wavelengths and performing photoelectric conversion; at least one pair of electrodes that sandwich each of electromagnetic absorption layers; a charge transfer and charge read part; and a plurality of contact parts that couple at least one of the electrodes and the charge transfer and charge read part, wherein a length between outermost surfaces of ones among electrodes of the pixel unit is smaller than a pixel size that is a circle-equivalent diameter of the same area as a first electromagnetic absorption layer of the electromagnetic absorption layers, the first electromagnetic absorption layer having a largest area in said plurality of electromagnetic absorption layers.
For more information open this web page
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html and search this number combination " 20050205958 "
It is very important to highlight this because most (if not all) of DSLR produce flat pictures, without subtlety in tones ... for instance, PBase is full of those digi flat and vulgar pictures. ... I'm far from being an expert
Best,
Marc
Marc:
I don't wist to be critical of you but this is total rubish. I make my living with digital photography and have been a commercial photographer for over forty years. My studio has been 95% digital for seven years and I've shot a few thousand assignments on digital and certainly had the opportunity to compare digital with film at a very critical level. Shooting raw files and post processing correctly digital has tonality equal or better than any transparency film that I've ever shot not to mention the total control of the final look. With raw files a tallented photographer can design the look that he desires rather than leaving it up to the fim engineers at kodak and fuji. You as the creator have the control to make the emulsion that you want when shooting raw.
You're confusing the tallent of a few amateurs on pbase with the capabilities of digital in a true pros hands. This is one of the big pitfalls of digital. It requires a great knowledge and skill level as it does in film based photography. The supposed ease of making great photographs with a digital camers along with the low price of gear had brought into the equation a bunch of no tallent hacks that think they're photographers.
I still use my film cameras up to my 8x10 and personally love the traditioal approach for some of my assignments and virtually all of my personal work but there is no superiority of one method of capture over another. Film has its advantages and digital has advantages too. To say all digital images are flat and are lacking vs film is total nonsense.
Jim Watts
09-17-2006, 06:45
Re. the lack of immediately accessible EV compensation. Provided the AE Lock from first pressure on the shutter button works effectively, for me its not an issue in most cases. I find it much more 'fluid' to just point to an area that experience tells me will give the amount of compensation I desire. It only matters if you want/need to shoot a number of frames continously. I usually find I'm waiting/holding for the correct moment so the very small amount of time it takes to reposition the camera is quicker than making the adjustment via the dial (with its lock) as on my RD-1, with the bonus that I don't need to remember I have set it.
W00t, this year's Fuji announcement of another "revolutionary" new sensor. You'll recall that their last "revolution" -- the one with the extra photosite for measuring luminance -- didn't make as much of a splash as they claimed it was going to.
Even if it does turn out to be a big improvement... and even if Fuji were to put it into a camera that I'd consider buying, which is an even bigger "if"... well, while I was waiting "three or four years" (or five, or six, or seven) for commercial applications to appear, I could have taken a lot of pictures!
In other words, good to see that companies are still researching the fundamental technology of digital capture, but predicting which horse will win the Kentucky Derby is a bit tricky while it's still a foal!
The company has filed a patent application on the basic technology and hopes to commercialize new image sensors in three to four years, says PEN News Weekly.
The technical term for this kind of announcement in the digital world is vapourware ;) Let's judge when it is implemented...
Re. the lack of immediately accessible EV compensation. Provided the AE Lock from first pressure on the shutter button works effectively, for me its not an issue in most cases. I find it much more 'fluid' to just point to an area that experience tells me will give the amount of compensation I desire. It only matters if you want/need to shoot a number of frames continously. I usually find I'm waiting/holding for the correct moment so the very small amount of time it takes to reposition the camera is quicker than making the adjustment via the dial (with its lock) as on my RD-1, with the bonus that I don't need to remember I have set it.
Hi Jim,
That's great then. Do you change ISO very often? If not, given that I know you shoot RAW, the M8 controls may work very well for you. Are you planning on getting one?
Cheers,
Sean
I guess it boils down to if you like the more compact size of the M8, have M lenses, prefer the traditional simplicity and can spare the $
Hasn't that pretty much been the case with Leica all along? For as long as I have been "into" photography (since my early teens) there have always been other cameras that seemed to have more features and cost less money than a Leica (I opted for a few of them myself over the years before finally getting a Leica).
Hi Jim,
That's great then. Do you change ISO very often? If not, given that I know you shoot RAW, the M8 controls may work very well for you. Are you planning on getting one?
Cheers,
Sean
Another effective way to achieve exposure compensation is to lock the shutter speed via a half press of the shutter button, then turn the aperture ring the required amount. Since the shutter speed stays locked, Bingo! A simple EV control
As for instant access to the ISO speed, its less important in practice than in theory. Yes, it would be nice if ISO could be changed on the fly but in reality I selects a ISO value for a particular situation and leaves it there. On my RD1, 200 ISO is default in bright light, 800 ISO in low light, and 1600 ISO when I want to play with NoiseNinja.
A final point on Erwin's rope bodice photo. It's out of focus. Since the picture was taken down so early, most people didn't have a chance to critically inspect it but I did. The girls eyes were in focus but the bodice wasn't. Kind of makes it hard to analyis sensor resolution doesn't it??
Yes, I am getting one. I am number 2 on my local Calumet dealers list so I should be in the first wave.
Rex
Rex
DaveKennedy
09-17-2006, 08:10
"Professional photographers (with a handful of exceptions) have long ago abandoned the M-system and it is unlikely that they will return to this system."
Well it shows he's not im touch with actual working news photographers.... many pro's have tons of Leica gear they want to use again.
DaveKennedy
09-17-2006, 08:28
BTW, can someone please tell me if this camera can do high ISO and not look like crap?
Sean, any thoughts? And what's Erwin's site? I tried the above link and it doesn't take you to the main site where I can see the second part of the review Mr. Putz did.
I agree, the JPEG examples on Erwin's site were of such poor quality with so much compression artifacts that it was hard to distinguish the true quality of the original image.
The only example which I found telling was the high ISO comparisions. The 5D's high ISO performance was clearly superior. This isn't suprising because I didn't expect anyone to trump Canon's CMOS sensors in that department.
I agree, the JPEG examples on Erwin's site were of such poor quality with so much compression artifacts that it was hard to distinguish the true quality of the original image.
The only example which I found telling was the high ISO comparisions. The 5D's high ISO performance was clearly superior. This isn't suprising because I didn't expect anyone to trump Canon's CMOS sensors in that department.
I agree that I don't expect the M8 to trump the 5D in the high ISO department. Canon has that area pretty well nailed down. But even there, Erwin's methodalogy is so poor we don't even know if the Leica noise reduction software is even on. Or if the beta implementation of the noise reduction algorythm is complete. Nobody knows and thats why his "test" is almost useless.
Rex
It would be more realistic to compare Leica to Nikon in the area of noise reduction. At least one is comparing CCD sensors then. Canon is extremely smooth at high ISO - at a price: it is oversmooth at low ISO giving rise to the "digital look" some of us don't like.
It would be more realistic to compare Leica to Nikon in the area of noise reduction. At least one is comparing CCD sensors then. Canon is extremely smooth at high ISO - at a price: it is oversmooth at low ISO giving rise to the "digital look" some of us don't like.
The so called "plastic" look of the Canon. The tendency for everything to look like it was dipped in cosmoline.
Rex
BECAUSE IT'S A BLOODY RANGEFINDER!
Rangefinder or not, it still is a digital camera.
Raid
Re. the lack of immediately accessible EV compensation. Provided the AE Lock from first pressure on the shutter button works effectively, for me its not an issue in most cases. I find it much more 'fluid' to just point to an area that experience tells me will give the amount of compensation I desire. It only matters if you want/need to shoot a number of frames continously.
That's a good way of setting one-shot compensation. I'll have to try it sometime.
I tend to use compensation more to provide "windage" for metering. For example, one of my few regular paying gigs is to photograph member receptions at an art museum. In this museum there's one gallery with white walls and another with light gray walls; if left uncompensated, these backgrounds would influence meter readings enough to give underexposure of the faces of people looking at the exhibit.
So I've learned that when I'm in the white-wall room, I set the compensation dial to +1, and when I'm in the gray-wall room, I set it to +2/3.
I suppose I could do that with a menu system -- it's just more of a nuisance.
I applaud Leica for wanting to keep the layout of the M8 clean and simple -- but in the tradeoff between simplicity of form and simplicity of function, this is one case in which they've leaned a bit more toward favoring form than I personally would have preferred.
sunsworth
09-17-2006, 09:49
The so called "plastic" look of the Canon. The tendency for everything to look like it was dipped in cosmoline.
Rex
Canon 5D, Leica lenses
32943 32944
It's amazing how a single mediocre reviewlet of the M8 can spawn so much response.
Rangefinder or not, it still is a digital camera.
Raid
That's a cheap statement Raid, why are we using RF cameras? Can't we pick up a cheapo Canon SLR film body instead? pffftt
It would be more realistic to compare Leica to Nikon in the area of noise reduction. At least one is comparing CCD sensors then. Canon is extremely smooth at high ISO - at a price: it is oversmooth at low ISO giving rise to the "digital look" some of us don't like.
It's all in how you post process the image. If you don't know what you're doing, you'll end up with an image that has very flat and "digital" look to them. Check out this chic's images from her 20D.. this is what I'm talking about.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gonzale/sets/72057594091957612/
Also, I don't get why people claim Canon applies too much noise reduction and oversmoothing at high ISO.. Compare high ISO images from Canon to that from Nikon or DMR. You will find the Canon file to be noise free and showing just as much detail as the other images. Looks like Canon has found the magical algorithm to reduce noise!
John Camp
09-17-2006, 09:59
I agree that I don't expect the M8 to trump the 5D in the high ISO department. Canon has that area pretty well nailed down.
Rex
I never expected the Leica to be better than the Canon on high ISO, either, but comments from some of the people who have shot it suggest that it's quite good. When I'm shooting an SLR, I'm typically up to something different than when I'm shooting a rangefinder, and I'm very often using a zoom. With a rangefinder, I'm almost always using a 'lux, which means that I've always got at least a couple of stops more on the rf, than the SLR -- which somewhat negates a Canon's superiority in this area.
I've always thought well-handled Canon shots were very good, and have never really been too offended by a so-called plasticy look. But some people have said that Canon uses a lot of noise suppresssion at high ISO, to get the clean files. I personally think I'd rather apply the noise suppression myself, with an after market program like Noise Ninja.
What I'd like to see from Sean in his eventual shot-for-shot comparisons is files as you'd actually send them to Vanity Fair or Vogue: Take the shot and do all the processing. Don't tell me that Canon (with in-camera noise suppression) is better than Leica (without it) -- take both shots to the final print quality.
I think sometimes that's not done by reviewers because they are uncertain of their photographic skills, so you get lines like, "Here's a quick couple of shots that I took this morning while I was going to to get the milk and forgot to put on my glasses and I was in a hurry to get to work and the sun was in a bad spot, but you can see from these that x camera is better than y..."
Better to say, "This is it. This is all I got."
JC
John Camp
09-17-2006, 10:01
Canon 5D, Leica lenses
32943 32944
The plasticy look makes them obviously unusable for anything.
(Not. Nice shots.) 8-)
JC
sunsworth
09-17-2006, 10:25
Rangefinder or not, it still is a digital camera
Indeed it is, but I would have thought that a participent on a rangefinder forum would understand the operational differences between an SLR and a rangefinder. The same argument holds with film cameras, why buy a film Leica when you can have an SLR with more advanced functions for a 10th of the price?
AndyPiper
09-17-2006, 12:19
I don't use a rangefinder or a Leica because it has "better image quality" - in fact I mostly use pre-1990 lens designs, including the sneered-at 90 Tele-Elmarit and pre-ASPH 21. Barely different from Canon or Nikon SLR lenses from then or now as regards IQ.
I use a Leica RF because of the little window in one corner. And the various handling and viewing advantages that little window implies.
Even Erwin's flawed samples (R.I.P.) showed the M8 is obviously cleaner than Tri-X pushed 2 stops or Delta 3200 (IMHO).
If one likes making silver prints or projecting slides, the fact that digital ISO 1600 may be slightly cleaner than film ISO 1600 is immaterial.
By the same token, if one likes using RF's, the fact that this or that SLR has slightly better image quality is immaterial.
It will be of some interest to see how the M8 stacks up in the realm of digital imaging. Noise being one factor, but only one of many.
But I would not switch back to SLRs even if they offered noiseless ISO 4000 for $500 - except for those things an SLR has always done better (400mm lens or life-size macro).
Also, I don't get why people claim Canon applies too much noise reduction and oversmoothing at high ISO.. Compare high ISO images from Canon to that from Nikon or DMR. You will find the Canon file to be noise free and showing just as much detail as the other images. Looks like Canon has found the magical algorithm to reduce noise!
I take back my comment about Canon having a "plastic" look to their files. They do a hell of a job in the noise reduction department, especially in color. Leica's implementation of software algorithms to deal with noise, moire and sharpening issues are critical to bringing out the full potential off the Kodak sensor.
Incidently, I have a special version of the Canon 20D developed for astronomical uses. It is called the 20Da and has an enhanced noise reduction algorithm that effectively increases the ISO sensitievity by one stop with NO reduction in resolution. I have taken pictures with the very high resolution canon 90mm TS that resolve a star down to one pixel.
Rex
It is not so much resolution-destroying noise reduction,nor loss of detail, it is strong filtering in front of the sensor combined with the character of the sensor type. Don't get me wrong, I find the Canons very impressive camera's and large prints from my by now obsolete 10D can only be called excellent -certainly not flat, with a near-midformat grainlessness and up to A3 size plenty of resolution, but somehow, after a while they seem to me -totally subjectively- boring (for want of a better word) in a way that for instance Nikon digital prints are not. My analysis is that it is the type of sensor. It is more like comparing film brands.
It's all in how you post process the image. If you don't know what you're doing, you'll end up with an image that has very flat and "digital" look to them. Check out this chic's images from her 20D.. this is what I'm talking about.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gonzale...7594091957612/
Also, I don't get why people claim Canon applies too much noise reduction and oversmoothing at high ISO.. Compare high ISO images from Canon to that from Nikon or DMR. You will find the Canon file to be noise free and showing just as much detail as the other images. Looks like Canon has found the magical algorithm to reduce noise!
Gabriel M.A.
09-17-2006, 14:40
The M8 shot looks really soft. Putts error or what?
I don't really trust low res jpgs from the web to judge a camera however.
I wouldn't trust E.P.'s photos either. His web image posts are, to put it gently, to make an amateur blush. I'll wait for something more reliable on this arena for, geez, would you believe DPreview?
There's absolutely no need to make such a big fuss about some "random thoughts" from Erwin Puts ...
There's absolutely no need to make such a big fuss about some "random thoughts" from Erwin Puts ...
The only reason that anyone is making a fuss about Erwin's pictures is they are the only verified files coming from the M8. Beggers can't be choosers.
I wish someone with a little more technical savy would violate Leica's NDA agreement by sending their M8 files to an anonamous Email address.
If any of you beta users want to talk to me about the weather my email address is Wrecks@#*%$.com
The only reason that anyone is making a fuss about Erwin's pictures is they are the only verified files coming from the M8. Beggers can't be choosers.
Agreed ... but the reaction on the Internet is really, hysterical. ;)
I've no doubt that many sources will give the camera some really glowing reviews but, just in case, just in case ... dpreview only gives it an "Above Average" rating, will you cancel your pre-order?
I know I won't ... :D
Agreed ... but the reaction on the Internet is really, hysterical. ;)
I've no doubt that many sources will give the camera some really glowing reviews but, just in case, just in case ... dpreview only gives it an "Above Average" rating, will you cancel your pre-order?
I know I won't ... :D
THis is also the reason why Ricoh GRD has such a cult following. The M8 will be a cult camera, nothing more.
THis is also the reason why Ricoh GRD has such a cult following. The M8 will be a cult camera, nothing more.
Ah! But a cult I'm happy to belong to -have done so for 35 years already, really....
Indeed it is, but I would have thought that a participent on a rangefinder forum would understand the operational differences between an SLR and a rangefinder. The same argument holds with film cameras, why buy a film Leica when you can have an SLR with more advanced functions for a 10th of the price?
Steve: I fully understand the difference between a rangefinder camera and a SLR camera. On the other hand, I have always stated that it is my personal view that I refer film based photography. To me, when using film, a rangefinder camera is quite different from an SLR. Adding the digital part to the M camera is not something I am looking for. I realize that many people think differently.
Raid
"That's a cheap statement Raid, why are we using RF cameras? Can't we pick up a cheapo Canon SLR film body instead? pffftt.
ywenz"
============================
Respect other people's right to express their opinions if you want anybody to respect yours, ywenz.
Raid
As for instant access to the ISO speed, its less important in practice than in theory. Yes, it would be nice if ISO could be changed on the fly but in reality I selects a ISO value for a particular situation and leaves it there.
Rex
Hi Rex,
That will depend on the individual. Yesterday I was shifting it around every few minutes to hold the shutter speed and aperture settings I wanted. Better that a camera not impose its preferences on the photographer. The tail isn't supposed to wag the dog.
Cheers,
Sean
Gabriel M.A.
09-17-2006, 18:08
THis is also the reason why Ricoh GRD has such a cult following. The M8 will be a cult camera, nothing more.
What is a cult camera? The one people take to a Rocky Horror Picture Show event? One that they used to film "Eyes Wide Shut"? One that Jimmy Swaggart would use? One you use for voodoo ceremonies?
What is a cult camera? I can understand a camera having a cult following. But a cult camera? ::scratching head::
BTW, can someone please tell me if this camera can do high ISO and not look like crap?
Sean, any thoughts? And what's Erwin's site? I tried the above link and it doesn't take you to the main site where I can see the second part of the review Mr. Putz did.
Hi Dave,
I can't talk about specifics with file quality yet.
Cheers,
Sean
Respect other people's right to express their opinions if you want anybody to respect yours, ywenz.
Raid
I basically said the same thing the others did, but I used some more playful words. I see you get caught up in the wording game as well. That is too bad. Back to the original point, your reasoning for questioning the need of the M8 still doesn't make sense. You basically equated the M8 to every other digital camera simply because the medium is of the same. Using the M8 is not the same as using the 20D.
DaveKennedy
09-17-2006, 20:04
Any ideas about when you can let the cat out of the bag about the $6Million question? Not givin' you a hard time but it's clearly a deal breaker...if this camera is as bad as everyone says the DLux cameras were...then I've wasted the last decade waiting for this camera...
AndyPiper
09-17-2006, 20:22
Where does "as bad as everyone says the Dlux cameras were..." come from??
Even Erwin's "flawed technique" shots at ISO 2500 were better than a Dlux at 400.
Kodak sensor with 6.8-micron pixels, Phase One (or whoever) image processing and Solms assembly
---vs.
Panasonic sensor with 2.5-micron pixels, Panasonic Venus image processing, and Takamatsu assembly??
This is like saying "if an M7 is as bad as everyone says the Leica C11 APS camera was..."
Hi Rex,
That will depend on the individual. Yesterday I was shifting it around every few minutes to hold the shutter speed and aperture settings I wanted.......
Cheers,
Sean
Shifting ISO to hold a shutter speed and aperture? Boy, I have never done that, in fact, I never thought of that. But it does go to show if ISO settings were as accessable as shutter speed and aperture there would be one more variable to work with as it should be.......but not this time.
sigh.....maybe the M9.
Rex
using the M8 is not the same as using the 20D.
Some people, and Leica, certainly hope so.
Philipp
Agreed ... but the reaction on the Internet is really, hysterical. ;)
I've no doubt that many sources will give the camera some really glowing reviews but, just in case, just in case ... dpreview only gives it an "Above Average" rating, will you cancel your pre-order?
I know I won't ... :D
I sure hope that Irwin Puts' "test" isn't taken seriously by more than a few. The problem is that his site had the only verifiable pictures so naturally people are going to want to look at it. I've commented before that the pictures are out of focus and suffer from so many problems as to be almost useless. I say almost, because I myself don't see the bad things that others do. Frankly the pictures look pretty good for out of focus shots with beta software!
One thing for sure, I'm not cancelling my order over an out of focus picture of a Puts model in a rope dress.
I wish that Sean Reid and the other beta guys wouldn't be so darn ethical about revealing their findings and picture files.
LEICA, SET THEM FREE
Rex
Any ideas about when you can let the cat out of the bag about the $6Million question? Not givin' you a hard time but it's clearly a deal breaker...if this camera is as bad as everyone says the DLux cameras were...then I've wasted the last decade waiting for this camera...
File quality like the D-Lux....? I'll be receiving a production M8 just after Photokina and will then be able to test and publish based on production-level firmware. Until then, look at the file quality of the Leica DMR and imagine the advances that could be made between the time that was first released and now.
Cheers,
Sean
Shifting ISO to hold a shutter speed and aperture? Boy, I have never done that, in fact, I never thought of that. But it does go to show if ISO settings were as accessable as shutter speed and aperture there would be one more variable to work with as it should be.......but not this time.
sigh.....maybe the M9.
Rex
Hi Rex,
Many photographers do this. In the case I mentioned, I was photographing at the Tunbridge World's Fair in VT and wanted to hold a minimum of F/8 at 1/500 for one series. As the light levels changed, I changed ISO as needed. The habit we have of leaving ISO at one setting and only varying aperture and shutter speed is a carry-over from film, it will fall away (broadly speaking) with time.
Cheers,
Sean
The concern with EV compensation could be handled by switching the camera over to manual operation. That's always been my preferred way of dealing with tricky light anyway.
Back to the original subject: Phil Askey's comment on Erwin Puts's "review" on DPReview (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1038&message=20056936)
Back to the original subject: Phil Askey's comment on Erwin Puts's "review" on DPReview (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1038&message=20056936)
Those comments are completely unnecessary IMO ... you don't gain your audience by trashing others' "opinions".
newyorkone
09-18-2006, 10:34
Those comments are completely unnecessary IMO ... you don't gain your audience by trashing others' "opinions".
Unnecessary? Perhaps you would have preferred that he danced around the issue like a ballerina. What's wrong with being direct and here's something novel...speaking the truth. Sometimes the truth hurts and it is well deserved in this case IMHO.
I personally find the comments NECESSARY considering the damage Mr. Puts could have possibly caused. Leica should sue him! It's fine to express one's opinion but it is quite another to slander, lie and deceive. All of which Mr. Puts has selfishly done in the pursuit of having the glory of being the first to post M8 images.
What's wrong with being direct and here's something novel...speaking the truth.
That's not direct but rude and arrogant ... and what's the truth, when the bloody FZ50 can be highly recommended? :confused:
Leica should sue him!
Now I call that NAIVE, lad and it's completely out of whack. :)
Many of those who have never really owned a Leica could never understand ... a true Leica will never have to be the latest and greatest. It's one of those things which don't need any justification ... like a Rolls Royce, if you can afford and want it, then buy it.
What I don't get is why the M8 must be compared to the Canon 5D?:confused: Can anyone explain that? The Nikon Dx2 would be nearer the mark...
If the RD-1 is already much much better than any DSLR, I expect the M8 to be better than the RD-1, even just slightly.
Big IF ... :)
Actually, I think we can be pretty confident the M8 will be a significant improvement on the RD1.
Wow, there seems to be a lynch mob forming online for Puts across multiple photo/digital sites. I guess now that the camera is announced there is not much else to talk about until images are available. He really did put his foot in it with that "review".
Frankly, I don't think EITHER image gives any idea of what either camera can do. I'm guessing in the case of the M8. I'm 100% sure in the case of the 5D.
Wow, there seems to be a lynch mob forming online for Puts across multiple photo/digital sites. I guess now that the camera is announced there is not much else to talk about until images are available. He really did put his foot in it with that "review".
Well, he should have known better....
What I don't get is why the M8 must be compared to the Canon 5D?:confused: Can anyone explain that? The Nikon Dx2 would be nearer the mark...
No good reason, except, perhaps, that more people are familiar with 5D oerformance than DX2 ... Maybe?
It remains apples and oranges, although I am familiar with oranges...
newyorkone
09-18-2006, 12:00
Now I call that NAIVE, lad and it's completely out of whack. :)
Talk about hippocracy...
You say Phil is rude and arrogant and then you go on and use demeaning words like "NAIVE" (in all caps no less) and "lad" in a public forum.
Who's rude and arrogant?
Talk about hippocracy...
What's that, the rule of the horses?
Philipp
John Camp
09-18-2006, 13:14
What I don't get is why the M8 must be compared to the Canon 5D?:confused: Can anyone explain that? The Nikon Dx2 would be nearer the mark...
It's compared to the 5D because that's what Puts did, and he's the only one who has published image reviews. He apparently now uses Canon gear, and has given some of it very good reviews.
I don't want to start a flame war, so I'll emphasize that I think Canon gear is first-rate. Absolutely first-rate. But it's odd always to find Canon people bad-mouthing other cameras; in this whole discussion, over the three forums that I read, I don't think I've seen a single person who identified hismelf as a Nikon user, or an Olympus user, putting down the M8. (There are a few film users who do, but that's coming from a different direction.) But there are Canon people all over the place with invidious comments. What the heck is that all about? Canon's a great camera. So's the Nikon. So's the DMR. I think the M8 will be. But...jeez.
JC
Well done. You score one point for your knowledge of Latin, and zero for being a decent human being. Please don't call people 'lad' or otherwise insult them. I presume you think it helps your argument but in fact it does the opposite, and makes this one more thread that generates a lot of heat, but very little light.
This is getting silly. Philipp was not the one calling anybody " lad" and he just had his little joke. it is Greek btw.
You're right, sorry. Not worth expending the electrons on, tho sometimes a joke ain't worth it when it prolongs the unpleasantness. Anyway, there comes a point when it's all greek to me...
(And don't think I didn't notice that late edit, LOL! Timing can be hyper-critical, no?)
I presumed that you all know in "formal English" lad only means a male person of any age between early boyhood and maturity (unless you thought of the Black Magician's Trilogy) ... it all refers to someone's idea of sueing Erwin Puts.
Still I'm quite surprised that some could really believe that Erwin Puts wanted to become the first one to post M8 images. My apologies if you were offended ...
What I don't get is why the M8 must be compared to the Canon 5D?:confused: Can anyone explain that? The Nikon Dx2 would be nearer the mark...
He actually did a favor to the M8 IMO because now it's being compared to a better DSLR in terms of image quality. Based on the images Erwin Puts once put up, the M8 definitely has better ISO performance than the D2X.
The overall tone of his writeup is quite positive ... so perhaps all the fuss was because Erwin put up the images first? I've no doubt that Leica and Puts will sort it out ... I don't understand how it could irritate the rest of the world.
You're right, sorry. Not worth expending the electrons on, tho sometimes a joke ain't worth it when it prolongs the unpleasantness. Anyway, there comes a point when it's all greek to me...
(And don't think I didn't notice that late edit, LOL! Timing can be hyper-critical, no?)
Your telepathic post was indeed surprising...
He actually did a favor to the M8 IMO because now it's being compared to a better DSLR in terms of image quality. Based on the images Erwin Puts once put up, the M8 definitely has better ISO performance than the D2X.
Yeah, ok but let's compare cropped CCD's to one another and leave the 35 mm Cmosses where they are.I still think CMOS technology is excellent now, but a dead end. I do feel the noise reduction applied to CMOS sensors, which are,afaik basically more noisy than CCD, is detrimental to the look of the photographs. Having said that, Canon certainly has the smoothest high-ISO files in the industry. But CCD is here to stay. A bit like Class A transistor amplifiers.
We waited this long so it should be easy to wait for competent reviewing by Phil Askey and Sean Reid, yes? There is light at the end of the tunnel. This M8 will take good pictures and people will buy it. :D
Gabriel M.A.
09-18-2006, 16:06
If you don't know what you're doing, you'll end up with an image that has very flat and "digital" look to them. Check out this chic's images from her 20D
You've obviously never taken pictures in Paris during a late, overcast day.
Gabriel M.A.
09-18-2006, 16:09
It remains apples and oranges, although I am familiar with oranges...
True. Many people confuse Tang for oranges, though, which explains their amusing musings.
newyorkone
09-18-2006, 18:48
I presumed that you all know in "formal English" lad only means a male person of any age between early boyhood and maturity (unless you thought of the Black Magician's Trilogy) ... it all refers to someone's idea of sueing Erwin Puts.
Still I'm quite surprised that some could really believe that Erwin Puts wanted to become the first one to post M8 images. My apologies if you were offended ...
Right...that's what lad means...and I'm sure that's what you meant and it wasn't demeaning at all.
Half-hearted apology accepted...
Now let's get back to the M8.
Actually, I think we can be pretty confident the M8 will be a significant improvement on the RD1.
On picture quality maybe, on support definitely, but on ergonomics?
The RD-1 can be used sas an analogue RF camera, all the information you need are shown on the dials on the top plate, and all the controls you need are provided without needing to access the LCD.
The M8 on the other hand is much more digital than the RD-1, you really need the LCD for exposure compensation, ISO setting, and even to just look at wich ISO you have set the camera.
With the M8 I think you would really struggle to go trough a full day of shooting under different lighting conditions without using the LCD screen.
Jim Watts
09-19-2006, 02:17
Hi Jim,
That's great then. Do you change ISO very often? If not, given that I know you shoot RAW, the M8 controls may work very well for you. Are you planning on getting one?
Cheers,
Sean
Hi Sean,
I do change ISO often especially when in low to moderate low light so the fact that this is menu driven is more of a problem for me than exposure compensation, but its not a deal breaker. I think that we (rightly if the possiblity is there) are expecting much more from digital than film in this respect. When I was shooting more film I had to change the roll to change the ISO :bang: or use two bodies with a different film in each.
I have just brought a Ricoh GRD, which I know you have used, the 'adjust wheel' means of changing ISO in the menu here seems pretty quick. If in the M8 ISO (can be made to) appear(s) on the first screen and changed with a quick couple of button presses it should be OK. An implementation like on the new Pentax DSLR would have been nice though. Set up and lower limits for ISO, set the exposure combination and let the camera vary the ISO between those limits.
Of course if I keep my RD-1 (which I will) and buy the M8 (which I am seriously considering) I could use two digital bodies. I note from one of your other posts that you intend to keep 1 RD-1 and add 1 M8. It seems to me from what I have heard of the M8 so far this would make a great combination as they compliment rather than duplicate one & other. Have you done any shoots using both? Can you share the experience?
The cost of the M8 in the UK although better than I expected is still high for me. I will probably end up selling my (fairly rare) black chrome M4 to fund an M8 purchase, but it will be reluctant to part with it as I have had it from new for over 30 years. Realistically though it has seen much less use since getting the RD-1 (mainly to cover the wide angle end) and an M8 with its frames and crop to give a wider field of view would satisfy me here.
Nachkebia
09-19-2006, 02:30
Does it have something like auto iso with minimal shutter set? for example you set iso range, lets say 100-400 and minimum shutter you want to have lets say 1/30 ?
Jim Watts
09-19-2006, 02:52
Does it have something like auto iso with minimal shutter set? for example you set iso range, lets say 100-400 and minimum shutter you want to have lets say 1/30 ?
Not sure, but I don't think so. It would probably make the range to limited. Probably better to change the combination of shutter speed and aperture:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/pentaxk10d/page5.asp
Nachkebia
09-19-2006, 03:12
No it wont limit anything, you are still controling shutter if you are in manual mode, if you are in A mode it drops shutter to minimum as we said 1/30 and if light is not enough it bumps up iso.. check D2xs, D200 or D80 :)
Hi Sean,
I do change ISO often especially when in low to moderate low light so the fact that this is menu driven is more of a problem for me than exposure compensation, but its not a deal breaker. I think that we (rightly if the possiblity is there) are expecting much more from digital than film in this respect. When I was shooting more film I had to change the roll to change the ISO :bang: or use two bodies with a different film in each.
I have just brought a Ricoh GRD, which I know you have used, the 'adjust wheel' means of changing ISO in the menu here seems pretty quick. If in the M8 ISO (can be made to) appear(s) on the first screen and changed with a quick couple of button presses it should be OK. An implementation like on the new Pentax DSLR would have been nice though. Set up and lower limits for ISO, set the exposure combination and let the camera vary the ISO between those limits.
Of course if I keep my RD-1 (which I will) and buy the M8 (which I am seriously considering) I could use two digital bodies. I note from one of your other posts that you intend to keep 1 RD-1 and add 1 M8. It seems to me from what I have heard of the M8 so far this would make a great combination as they compliment rather than duplicate one & other. Have you done any shoots using both? Can you share the experience?
The cost of the M8 in the UK although better than I expected is still high for me. I will probably end up selling my (fairly rare) black chrome M4 to fund an M8 purchase, but it will be reluctant to part with it as I have had it from new for over 30 years. Realistically though it has seen much less use since getting the RD-1 (mainly to cover the wide angle end) and an M8 with its frames and crop to give a wider field of view would satisfy me here.
Hi Jim,
If it's not too much trouble, would you mind quoting this into a new thread and we'll start there. I'm not so keen on contributing to keeping the Erwin Puts thread alive. I'm dissapointed enough in Erwin's article as is.
In fact, let's just move the discussion (with respect to questions for me) into the thread about my review rather than Erwin's. Erwin should be answering questions in this thread, rather than myself.
Cheers,
Sean
Jim Watts
09-19-2006, 04:18
Sorry I misunderstood your post. You want to be in A mode with a fixed minimum shutter speed after which the ISO increases to maintain the aperture.
On the Pentax you could set say 1/30 at f2.8 and the ISO would vary (within the limits set) to maintain this but it would limit you to this combination unless you changed it. There are quite a few situations where I would find this useful. As to whether the Pentax K10D does what you want and the Nikons do (which of course could also be useful) I'm still not sure from the info available.
Nachkebia
09-19-2006, 04:24
Jim Watts : Exactly, you can do the same in M mode on nikon, just set 1/30 and apeture to f/2.8 the iso would vary, or A mode with shutter and iso to vary together :)
Jim Watts
09-19-2006, 04:30
Hi Jim,
In fact, let's just move the discussion (with respect to questions for me) into the thread about my review rather than Erwin's. Erwin should be answering questions in this thread, rather than myself.
Cheers,
Sean
Sean & All
I have moved it to the Review thread here:http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=378537&posted=1#post378537
Huck Finn
09-20-2006, 19:34
Curiously, Erwin makes no mention of the lack of a film advance lever on the M8. I had to chuckle about this :D as I recalled some of his past reviews that promoted the experience of advancing the film to almost a fetish-like level. Despite the fact that SLR users had learned to abandon the film advance level 20 years ago with the introduction of autofocus cameras, Erwin would talk about it in his reviews as integral to the act of photography. The Konica Hexar RF took quite a beating from him for its lack of said lever:
"When you close your eyes and pick up the Leica and the Hexar several times, the difference in feeling and haptics emerges.
"When you hold the Leica, your thumb slides behind the film advance lever, and your finger lays on the shutter release button, which is sharp as a trigger.
This simple and intuitive act signifies to the brain a state of alert attention and you fall into the mood of a hunter or an active sportsperson anticipating the moves of the other players.
When holding the Hexar, both hands hold the body and when your finger touches the release button, there is no trigger effect. the finger just rests there and you do not get any feedback from the body. So you switch almost automatically into a more passive state of mind and allow the camera to work for you. This is easy to do as the automatic functions of the camera (exposure, film transport, motor winder) are so well executed that you start to rely on them and even transfer control to them."
Or this from his review of the Zeiss Ikon:
"The lever-wind in a mechanical precision camera has a special role and standing. It is the direct interface between the photographer and the camera when making a picture, but the throw of the lever-wind translates into the mechanical force that transports the film, cocks the shutter, and during the process moves every wheel and cog and spring that is involved in the mechanical working of the camera. . .
"The lever-wind cycle is without any resistance (on the ZI) and here Zeiss may have gone astray a bit. . . . The impression of mechanical excellence of the Leica CRF is primarily based on the smooth and silky movement of the advance lever when the gears mesh without slack but with sufficient resistance to notice that the film is transported and the camera is ready for the next exposure. . .
"I have dwelled some time on this topic as it is one of the more important aspects to deal with when analysing a mechanical camera. The mental act of preparing for the next photograph is set between the moment that the shutter is pressed and the film is wound on to the next exposure. The CRF is famous for its propensity to synchronise the compositional state of the scene and the mental state of the photographer. The mechanical movements of the camera should not distract from this tate of synchronisation. The 'emptiness' of the transport movement (in the ZI) does interfere in the stream of consciousness approach of the CRF."
Pure poetry! :D
I don't know how he could have offered a positive review of the M8 with devestating effect on "feeling and haptics" that must emerge due to the automation and lack of a film advance lever. ;) How can any photographer achieve the required mental state for high quality photography?
I love old Erwin. He does give me a good laugh from thim to time. :) :cool:
Nachkebia
09-20-2006, 23:51
Huck Finn :D :D :D :D thanks for a morning lough! :D
Now let's be nice to our friend Puts, Huck :D:D Of course he cannot say anything about film advance levers any more. His new buddies haven't had advance levers on their EOS-ses for decades. They would not be pleased if our attention were drawn to the lack of this essential haptic part.. :p
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.