View Full Version : Sean Reid's M8 Review
Part 3 is now on reidreviews. Nothing to disappoint M8 owners. Interesting, though, that the RD-1 is better noise wise, although the difference is marginal.
I know this seems a bit backward but here's my priorities over the next two weeks:
1. hound my Leica dealer and remind him that I was the first to place an M8 order at their store many months ago;
2. if in fact this dealer gets one in Leica's first M8 allocations (rumored to be this Friday!), I'll hasten to his store and seize mine with both hands;
3. buy a Leica-approved SD card or two + a thrid-party protector for the monitor;
4. order two Leica acccessories: M8 handgrip and Neoprene case;
5. THEN subscribe and read Sean Reid's complete M8 review.
-g
Okay, is it me or does the RD-1 stand up really well to the M8!? The lower resolution of the RD-1 is apparent when compared to the M8 at 100% crop. The M8 image is bigger but does not show addtional details. I suspect a lot of the sharpness in the M8 crop has to do with the fact that there is no AA filter.
The RD-1 is better than the M8 at high ISO. This is very apparent. Shame on Leica for not measuring up to previous generation technology in this regard.
I continue to think Sean's review does not sell the M8 well at all. The lackluster images speak volumes. And what is the deal with the lack of wide open shoots - images with the "Leica glow"? Even if they're used simply as eyecandy?
Interesting how well the R-D 1 holds up considering that it's now "old technology" with a lower pixel count.
I am absolutely, positively sure that Epson would never consider sticking its toe in these waters again, considering that the R-D 1 was not a barn-burning sales success, and that (justified) complaints about initial quality control, service availability, etc., along with (dubiously justified) kvetching by digi-gadget pundits about the manual shutter wind lever etc. neutralized any "halo effect" they might have hoped to achieve by introducing such an innovative niche product. Still...
...contemplate that the R-D 1 is essentially a Cosina Bessa R3a with a Nikon D70 sensor in it. Now suppose that Epson had not taken such a whupping over the R-D 1's real and imaginary flaws, and now commissioned Cosina to manufacture a camera with the Zeiss Ikon's rangefinder mechanism and a Nikon D80 10-megapixel sensor. Let's assume this hypothetical camera would retain such well-liked R-D 1 attributes as the analog-like controls, the folding LCD, the excellent black-and-white performance, etc.
Given the price difference between a Zeiss Ikon and a Bessa, and between the D70's initial price and the D80's current price, I'd guess that such a camera could sell for about $1,000 less than the M8.
Now, wouldn't that be an interesting situation? Too bad it's never going to happen, given all the brickbats tossed at the R-D 1.
(Yeah, I know, a lot of you would prefer a Nikon D80 or Canon Rebel sensor in a camera that could sell for $1,495, but I just don't see how it would be possible to add a good rangefinder mechanism and the body precision it requires for $500 over the price of the parent mass-market DSLR...)
Nachkebia
11-01-2006, 11:26
Zeiss Ikon digital with full frame non AA filter sensor (fuji or sigma) would be haven to snap around with digital :D
The framings in the comparison between R-D1 and M8 (and M8 vs 5D) weren't compensated for the different cropping factor.
The crops did help in showing the better per-pixel quality of the M8, because the subjects are more similar in visual dimensions, but in real world we always compensate for the different cropping factor, moving forward or backward, even changing lens... we need a certain framing and we behave accordingly.
The R-D1 image is 14% bigger in linear dimensions than that of the M8, hence when viewing 100% crops it has a slight advantage as far as resolution, like if it was a 7.8 Mp camera.
Same for the M8 vs 5D comparison, with the M8 being advantaged.
As for the noise comparison, I always found my R-D1 quite clean at hgh ISO, much better than one could argue judging from the (D70) sensor's technology.
I think I'll be happy with the M8 noise, which is more of grain than "noise" indeed.
Great review anyway :)
Okay, is it me or does the RD-1 stand up really well to the M8!? The lower resolution of the RD-1 is apparent when compared to the M8 at 100% crop. The M8 image is bigger but does not show addtional details. I suspect a lot of the sharpness in the M8 crop has to do with the fact that there is no AA filter.
The RD-1 is better than the M8 at high ISO. This is very apparent. Shame on Leica for not measuring up to previous generation technology in this regard.
I continue to think Sean's review does not sell the M8 well at all. The lackluster images speak volumes. And what is the deal with the lack of wide open shoots - images with the "Leica glow"? Even if they're used simply as eyecandy?
The noise difference between the two is minimal. The M8 does resolve much more detail but I do agree with you that the R-D1 performed quite well. I wouldn't say that the M8 produces lackluster pictures at all but if you feel that way you'll certainly save your wallet a bit.
My reviews aren't ever designed to sell anything. I don't care who makes what, I just try to describe the thing honestly to the best of my ability.
Wide open pictures will come in the lens reviews, that's all about the lens, not the camera.
Cheers,
Sean
Interesting how well the R-D 1 holds up considering that it's now "old technology" with a lower pixel count.
I am absolutely, positively sure that Epson would never consider sticking its toe in these waters again, considering that the R-D 1 was not a barn-burning sales success, and that (justified) complaints about initial quality control, service availability, etc., along with (dubiously justified) kvetching by digi-gadget pundits about the manual shutter wind lever etc. neutralized any "halo effect" they might have hoped to achieve by introducing such an innovative niche product. Still...
...contemplate that the R-D 1 is essentially a Cosina Bessa R3a with a Nikon D70 sensor in it. Now suppose that Epson had not taken such a whupping over the R-D 1's real and imaginary flaws, and now commissioned Cosina to manufacture a camera with the Zeiss Ikon's rangefinder mechanism and a Nikon D80 10-megapixel sensor. Let's assume this hypothetical camera would retain such well-liked R-D 1 attributes as the analog-like controls, the folding LCD, the excellent black-and-white performance, etc.
Given the price difference between a Zeiss Ikon and a Bessa, and between the D70's initial price and the D80's current price, I'd guess that such a camera could sell for about $1,000 less than the M8.
Now, wouldn't that be an interesting situation? Too bad it's never going to happen, given all the brickbats tossed at the R-D 1.
(Yeah, I know, a lot of you would prefer a Nikon D80 or Canon Rebel sensor in a camera that could sell for $1,495, but I just don't see how it would be possible to add a good rangefinder mechanism and the body precision it requires for $500 over the price of the parent mass-market DSLR...)
Epson cooked it's own goose with marketing and supporting the R-D1. I agree that the camera you describe could be very appealing. The R-D1 sensor, btw, is based on the D100 unit. There's always Zeiss...some day.
Cheers,
Sean
The framings in the comparison between R-D1 and M8 (and M8 vs 5D) weren't compensated for the different cropping factor.
The crops did help in showing the better per-pixel quality of the M8, because the subjects are more similar in visual dimensions, but in real world we always compensate for the different cropping factor, moving forward or backward, even changing lens... we need a certain framing and we behave accordingly.
Great review anyway :)
Hi Marco,
Thanks.
There are pros and cons to the various ways one can do that kind of comparison. My current feeling is that same lens and same vantage point provides the best comparison because the perspective is identical and, importantly, so is the DOF (until one allows for CoC of different sensor sizes, etc.)
With the first 5D/M8 comparison I worked by approximately matching FOV. There, the 5D lost DOF because of its longer lens and that difference was problematic. With the second comparison I kept focal length the same and just let the M8 crop in. Again, I'm coming to prefer the latter approach and that's the way I plan to go from now on, I think. I think it provides the purest information.
Cheers,
Sean
This whole mystique of the absence of an anti-aliasing filter is something that leaves me a bit dubious -- I'm sure there are situations in which it gives a better result, and I suspect that there also will be a lot of situations in which it gives a worse result. Many of the M8 sample pix in Sean's review look to me as if they're simply over-sharpened, leaving me to wonder how much of the effect is due to the absence of an AA filter and how much of it is the product either of in-camera processing or of the default settings of the Capture One software he used for all his test shots.
Since it seems to be one feature (or absence-of-feature) that everyone is talking about in connection with the M8, let's think a little harder about this whole anti-aliasing business. First, why is it necessary? Well, unlike film (which, for all practical purposes, is continuously sensitive across its whole area) a digital sensor is sensitive to light only in small "pits" distributed in a regular pattern. The locations of these pits correspond with the pixels in the final image, but it's important to remember that each sensitive pit is much smaller than the area of the final pixel -- there's a big void between each pair of pits that isn't sensitive to light at all. You can think of these voids as forming a large, fuzzy, dark grid that's superimposed over the image formed by the lens.
When you're photographing objects with strong patterns (uncommon in some types of photography, common in others) this "dead zone" can cause unexpected image effects. If a darker area in the pattern happens to line up with a dark area of the "dead zone," the final image will show it as much darker than a similar area that happens to fall into a photosite's sensitive area.
When the subject's pattern is regular, this interaction can cause moiré effects, in which a larger, ghostly pattern is distractingly visible.
Although it's seldom discussed and is less obvious, it's also clear that the interaction can cause effects on non-regular patterns. This phenomenon is now unpleasantly familiar to film scanner users as "grain aliasing" -- if you scan a coarse-grained black-and-white negative, the resulting image will look much grainier than a conventional "wet print" of the same negative. The interaction of the film's random grain pattern and the scanner's regular "dead zone" pattern causes a larger, irregular pattern to appear.
I wonder if some of the M8's vaunted microcontrast might not be a subject-level version of the same phenomenon -- "texture aliasing," you might call it? Admirers of this effect might say that as long as the texture looks good, who cares whether it's real or artificial?
To get back to the suppression of aliasing, this generally is done in two ways -- but it's important to realize that they both do exactly the same thing. Fundamentally, the strategy is to reduce aliasing by "contaminating" some of the signal from each pit with part of the signal from the surrounding pits. This "contamination" averages the values a bit, so that false patterns are suppressed.
One way to accomplish this averaging is to cover the sensor with a filter that has no effect on "low spatial frequencies" (coarse details) but applies a slight blurring to "high spatial frequencies" (fine details.) This property is why an anti-aliasing filter is also sometimes called a "low-pass filter" -- low-frequency detail passes right through it, while high-frequency detail is scattered just enough to average itself over several adjacent pits.
The other option is to do exactly the same thing mathematically, using a software algorithm. The effect on the image should be exactly the same. The advantage, of course, is that you can turn off anti-aliasing software when it's not needed, or tweak its parameters to give the best match to a particular subject. The disadvantages are that it's slower, and that the results may be worse if the user (or the algorithm) makes the wrong choices.
[Non-subscribers to "Reid Reviews" may want to skip the following section:]
It interested me to note that while Sean's comparison of the M8 and the R-D 1 showed an affinity for the software-based approach, he gets a bit equivocal depending on whether the comparisons favor the M8 or not.
Early in the review, he rhapsodizes about the sharp details of an M8 picture compared to an R-D 1 picture, speculating that the lack of an AA filter has a lot to do with the Leica shot's crisp appearance. He demonstrates that much of the Epson picture's crispness can be restored by applying a small amount of unsharp masking -- but dismisses this as being not as good as "real" sharpness.
Later on, though, when comparing the M8's high-ISO noise levels to the Epson's (the Leica's are visibly higher at ISO 1600) he notes that the Leica produces a higher pixel count, and that downsampling its images to the same dimensions as the Epson's has the effect of smoothing out its noise. His samples demonstrate this. BUT -- the reason it works is that downsampling averages -- that is, anti-aliases -- adjacent pixels!
In other words, Sean seems to feel that "real" sharpness (Leica) is much better than software-generated "fake" sharpness (Epson)... but that software-induced "fake" low noise (Leica) is just as good as "real" low noise (Epson)! Huh?
[Sean, I'm not accusing you of bias here -- only noting that this whole realm of software interaction is one that perhaps we all need to think about more closely than we do. I only just thought of the anti-aliasing/downsampling symmetry myself...]
Incidentally, another potential source of aberrations in Sean's writeup (you non-"Reid-Reviews" subscribers may as well go get a sandwich or something) seems to be his use of Capture One for raw conversion of all his comparison shots. If you've read Michael Reichmann's M8 review on "Luminous Landscape," you may have been as surprised as I was to see how much difference can be made by using different raw-conversion applications on the same original file; apparently, per Reichmann, this is caused by differences in how the different software manufacturers build their calibration files for each camera.
So... Sean's comparison photos seem to show that the Leica produces more vivid, detailed, and subtle color than the Epson. Then again, Leica has a relationship with Capture One (a limited version of their software is supplied with the M8 as its raw-conversion program) so it stands to reason they might have better calibration data for it than they do for Epson, correct? The only way to find out for sure would be to pass the Epson files through Epson's own converter software (if they don't have a good calibration for their own camera, they have only themselves to blame!) and see if there are any differences.
I'm not saying Sean should have done this -- he's done a lot of useful work already -- but I am saying you shouldn't be too quick to assume that your results would duplicate his, if your raw-conversion workflow happens to involve different software choices.
Oh, well, if nothing else, this newfound wealth of detailed reviews provides something to discuss for those of us who are interested in the M8 but can't currently afford one!
jlw: really interesting post. I've learned something today.
Ian
Epson cooked its own goose with marketing and supporting the R-D1. I agree that the camera you describe could be very appealing. The R-D1 sensor, btw, is based on the D100 unit.
Right, I forgot. Peripherally (but not quite incidentally) I just replaced my own D100 with a D80. I'd have to say that except for pixel count (which really only comes into play with large enlargements) I can't see one dratted bit of difference in image quality between the two. I guess maybe the sensor manufacturers have hit some kind of plateau. Or maybe it's just, to paraphrase what you say in your review, pixels ain't everything...
There are pros and cons to the various ways one can do that kind of comparison. My current feeling is that same lens and same vantage point provides the best comparison because the perspective is identical and, importantly, so is the DOF (until one allows for CoC of different sensor sizes, etc.)
Sean,
thanks for your answer, I respect your point of view.
Maybe you could add a separate paragraph "same framing disregarding dof", photographing distant objects at medium apertures (like distant trees at f/8 or f/11) ? :D
Ok, better not to make the hard work even harder for this nice guy.. :)
Benjamin Marks
11-01-2006, 13:27
jlw - fantastic stuff. What a good read. Sean, if you're reading this thread, I thought that Part III of your review was the best yet. Keep up the great work!
Ben Marks
Simon Larbalestier
11-01-2006, 13:38
Another good review Sean and well reasoned. From what i've read i think the M8 will certainly work for me even at 3200. What a pity it's not properly weather sealed and produced with the slippy MP covering.....
More often than not i'm shooting in the rain or at the very least hot humid situations - a strong reason to keep the film M's alongside.
I just came over here from the FM forum. Looks like they banned Sean for promoting his pay to read reviews. I was upset that they banned him. I think he was contributing good information to the forum in the threads. On the other hand I can understand why they banned him as well. It can seem like he was only publishing with plugs to his reviews. I don't think Fred Miranda has any paying advertisers. But if you are going to promote your commercial site you might as well take out an ad. In all honesty I rather read the LL review which is free and less objective.
J. Borger
11-01-2006, 13:52
I just came over here from the FM forum. Looks like they banned Sean for promoting his pay to read reviews. I was upset that they banned him. I think he was contributing good information to the forum in the threads. On the other hand I can understand why they banned him as well. It can seem like he was only publishing with plugs to his reviews. I don't think Fred Miranda has any paying advertisers. But if you are going to promote your commercial site you might as well take out an ad. In all honesty I rather read the LL review which is free and less objective.
And what have these remarks about website policy to do with the discussion we are having here about the M8?
John Camp
11-01-2006, 13:54
JLW,
Nice post. There is one advantage to software that you didn't mention, and it's to the Leica's benefit. (I'm not biased in this; I have an R-D1 which I like very much, with a Leica to arrive Saturday.) Sean in his Leica 2 review shows an aliasing effect on a piece of loosely woven cloth (the "scarecrow's hat.") But instead of running software that corrected the entire file (and thus blurred it a bit) he selected only the part that showed aliasing, and cleaned that up. The rest of the picture, which was most of it, retained its sharpness. Since most photos show no aliasing because they don't have the tight patterns, they don't need to be cleaned up at all, and will seem unnaturally sharp compared to cameras with an AA filter. (Not sharpened, but sharp.) I suspect most people who choose to shoot Leicas would prefer it this way -- to selectively clean up their own files, rather than have the camera do it for them.
JC
Simon Larbalestier
11-01-2006, 13:57
I just came over here from the FM forum. Looks like they banned Sean for promoting his pay to read reviews. I was upset that they banned him. I think he was contributing good information to the forum in the threads. On the other hand I can understand why they banned him as well. It can seem like he was only publishing with plugs to his reviews. I don't think Fred Miranda has any paying advertisers. But if you are going to promote your commercial site you might as well take out an ad. In all honesty I rather read the LL review which is free and less objective.
It was Gid not Sean who opened this thread. I don't see all this as plugging his own site, Sean's contributions, as on the Leica Customer Forum, are very constructive and make the threads much more dimensional and interactive.
That aside $26.50 for a years subscription is less than night out drinking so i think it's a small price to pay for a lot of useful information.
It just seemed like an appropriate topic to address the subject since it is titled Sean Reid's M8 review. Nothing more than that.
John Camp
11-01-2006, 14:01
Being banned from Fred Miranda is like being banned from Iraq.
JC
In all honesty I rather read the LL review which is free and less objective.
Is that what you meant to say? I agree that the Luminous Landscape review didn't seem very objective, but normally that's NOT what you want in a review...
Wow, I picked the wrong topic to start posting with. I guess its leftover venting from the other site. I never said there was anything wrong with paying a subcription fee to read reviews. No different than subscribbing to a magazine. My point or should I say , my question is, was it wrong for him to be banned for plugging his site or was it wrong for him to be plugging his site without paying FM for advertising? I don't know if he paid or not and can only ssume he did not or else he would still be there. But reading other threads on this forum I am seeing the same kind of posts that most likely lead to his banning on FM.
examples:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29900
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28305
Simon Larbalestier
11-01-2006, 14:15
:) that's odd - i thought this thread was about the issues Sean raised in part three of his review of the M8 not Sean himself.
BTW welcome to RFF rjcruz :) you picked a hot topic to post in!
back alley
11-01-2006, 14:17
rj, it's cool, no one is gunning for you.
i appreciate the info but am surprised to hear it.
sean has handled his website and talking about it here very professionally, in fact, most references to it usually come from others.
joe
Now I want an RD-1 more than ever...
Don't shoot Sean, its all my fault :o
Great post JLW. I have to say that I felt a certain bias coming through in Sean's review, especially part 3. However, that is always going to be difficult to avoid if you really like the camera/lens you are reviewing. That said, there's no denying that on the evidnce produced so far, the M8 will do the job very nicely, just not that much better than the RD-1, which also has the ergonomic edge ;)
JLW wrote:
"This whole mystique of the absence of an anti-aliasing filter is something that leaves me a bit dubious -- I'm sure there are situations in which it gives a better result, and I suspect that there also will be a lot of situations in which it gives a worse result. Many of the M8 sample pix in Sean's review look to me as if they're simply over-sharpened, leaving me to wonder how much of the effect is due to the absence of an AA filter and how much of it is the product either of in-camera processing or of the default settings of the Capture One software he used for all his test shots."
Hi Jim,
Over-sharpened they are not. That's actual sharpness you're seeing, not a software artifact. C1 does barely any sharpening at all at its default level and there was no other sharpening done to the files seen at 100%. There's no mystique about eliminating the AA filter, the results are very real. There are trade-offs with respect to moire but I myself am willing to make them.
"Early in the review, he....about the sharp details of an M8 picture compared to an R-D 1 picture, speculating that the lack of an AA filter has a lot to do with the Leica shot's crisp appearance."
Yes
"He demonstrates that much of the Epson picture's crispness can be restored by applying a small amount of unsharp masking -- but dismisses this as being not as good as "real" sharpness."
Not "much" but "some". One can sharpen the Epson file all kinds of ways and it still won't look like the M8 file. As you know, I have a good deal of experience with the R-D1 and its files. A sharpened soft file is not the same as a file that is sharp from the start and cannot be. Contrast and resolution are two different things. One can't create actual resolution with contrast. That doesn't mean that some won't prefer the look of the Epson. But I have to call things as I see them.
"Later on, though, when comparing the M8's high-ISO noise levels to the Epson's (the Leica's are visibly higher at ISO 1600) he notes that the Leica produces a higher pixel count, and that downsampling its images to the same dimensions as the Epson's has the effect of smoothing out its noise. His samples demonstrate this. BUT -- the reason it works is that downsampling averages -- that is, anti-aliases -- adjacent pixels!"
Jim, one has to resample in order to print files from both cameras at the same size. That's just a reality. 100% crops are fun but the print is the real test and for a print at 240 ppi, 300 ppi, etc. one must size accordingly. For any given print size, either the Leica files must be downsampled or the Epson files must be upsampled. That's just a reality of printing and I imagine you know that. I made the same point in the 5D review and resampled the 1Ds2 files there. To be accurate with respect to final printing, one should compare equally sized files.
"So... Sean's comparison photos seem to show that the Leica produces more vivid, detailed, and subtle color than the Epson. Then again, Leica has a relationship with Capture One (a limited version of their software is supplied with the M8 as its raw-conversion program) so it stands to reason they might have better calibration data for it than they do for Epson, correct?"
Actually, I myself pushed Epson to do what was needed to get C1 support and they did it. C1 is unusual in that they only support cameras that they can test first-hand in order to build color profiles. I know they did that for the Epson because I was involved in starting that process myself.
"The only way to find out for sure would be to pass the Epson files through Epson's own converter software (if they don't have a good calibration for their own camera, they have only themselves to blame!) and see if there are any differences."
C1 does better with color for the R-D1, to my eyes, than PhotoRAW. But feel free to post your own comparisons if you're interested. In order to make meaningful comparisons, one must stabilize some variables. RAW conversion is important variable to stabilize.
Look Jim, I think you realize that I have been an advocate for the excellences of the R-D1 for a long time. I'm pretty familiar with it by now. I don't think I need to summarize my R-D1 history here. It's a wonderful camera and I still love it dearly. But I can't let that bias my results. You can trust my eyes and knowledge or not but what I've written in those reviews is what I know to be true about these cameras. All of it is based on first-hand experience, reviewing prints, etc. and I would argue that it is all quite accurate. I think that I described the R-D1 fairly accurately in 2004 and I think I've described the M8 accurately in 2006. That doesn't mean that everyone will be happy with my results, but I can't worry about that aspect.
Sean
jlw - fantastic stuff. What a good read. Sean, if you're reading this thread, I thought that Part III of your review was the best yet. Keep up the great work!
Ben Marks
Thanks Ben!
Cheers,
Sean
Another good review Sean and well reasoned. From what i've read i think the M8 will certainly work for me even at 3200. What a pity it's not properly weather sealed and produced with the slippy MP covering.....
More often than not i'm shooting in the rain or at the very least hot humid situations - a strong reason to keep the film M's alongside.
Amen....the covering can be changed but the lack of weather seals was a real mistake and I told them that two years ago.
Thanks,
Sean
I just came over here from the FM forum. Looks like they banned Sean for promoting his pay to read reviews. I was upset that they banned him. I think he was contributing good information to the forum in the threads. On the other hand I can understand why they banned him as well. It can seem like he was only publishing with plugs to his reviews. I don't think Fred Miranda has any paying advertisers. But if you are going to promote your commercial site you might as well take out an ad. In all honesty I rather read the LL review which is free and less objective.
Nope, Fred banned me because I made a public post challenging the inconsistency in the way he applies his rules. Actually, he deleted the thread and then banned me. Others also questioned him and have been warned by PM to hush up.
"It can seem like he was only publishing with plugs to his reviews."
Nonsense. I did there what I do here, respond to questions and include a link in my signature to RR. If you pay close attention to FM, you'll see that lots of people have links to commercial sites in their sigs. although that may soon change. I may post here when I'm up to something new but there's genuine interest from many in knowing that.
I believe Fred tossed Jorge as well, want to criticize Jorge too? In any case, we're here to discuss the M8, not soap opera politics.
Sean
It was Gid not Sean who opened this thread. I don't see all this as plugging his own site, Sean's contributions, as on the Leica Customer Forum, are very constructive and make the threads much more dimensional and interactive.
That aside $26.50 for a years subscription is less than night out drinking so i think it's a small price to pay for a lot of useful information.
Thanks Simon. I'm getting very used to being trolled. His post had nothing to do with the M8 review but people with these kinds of agendas seem to be coming out of the woodwork lately. The better known RR becomes, the more I see these kinds of off-topic digs.
Cheers,
Sean
Being banned from Fred Miranda is like being banned from Iraq.
JC
LOL! I bet Jorge agrees.
Cheers,
Sean
Wow, I picked the wrong topic to start posting with. I guess its leftover venting from the other site. I never said there was anything wrong with paying a subcription fee to read reviews. No different than subscribbing to a magazine. My point or should I say , my question is, was it wrong for him to be banned for plugging his site or was it wrong for him to be plugging his site without paying FM for advertising? I don't know if he paid or not and can only ssume he did not or else he would still be there. But reading other threads on this forum I am seeing the same kind of posts that most likely lead to his banning on FM.
examples:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29900
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28305
You forgot all the posts other people have started about my reviews, even Jorge himself. I suppose we all should be banned. Are you actually here to discuss the M8 or just to troll me?
Let's see, here's one from Jorge himself, a sticky no less:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22632
I suppose he should be banned.
Then we better ban Carlos too, look at this:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18219
Get over it. One of these days again I'll be able to post here without being trolled. Why don't you give it a rest and contribute something useful and on-topic to the thread. We're talking about an M8 review here.
Can we get back to the camera review now?
Sean
back alley
11-01-2006, 15:57
sean, time to become a site sponsor here at rff and then you can plug away without fear!
joe
Don't shoot Sean, its all my fault :o
Great post JLW. I have to say that I felt a certain bias coming through in Sean's review, especially part 3. However, that is always going to be difficult to avoid if you really like the camera/lens you are reviewing. That said, there's no denying that on the evidnce produced so far, the M8 will do the job very nicely, just not that much better than the RD-1, which also has the ergonomic edge ;)
No bias at all. If anything, I had to be careful not to get too protective of the R-D1. Enthusiasm and bias are not the same thing. Note the enthusiasm in my R-D1 review as well. There's no need to be dispassionate, just fair.
Sean
Well,
What a response. My thread was never heated or insulting. Just an observation. then i get this
"Get over it. One of these days again I'll be able to post here without being trolled. Why don't you give it a rest and contribute something useful and on-topic to the thread. We're talking about an M8 review here."
Well, why don't you contribute your review without teasing and getting people to sign up to read it. That would be "Something useful" Geeeeeee talk about being arrogant.
sean, time to become a site sponsor here at rff and then you can plug away without fear!
joe
OK, Joe. But you need to send me my birthday money first!
Cheers,
Sean
back alley
11-01-2006, 16:07
end it here before i do.
sean offers a service for a fee, the key word being offers.
no one is under any obligation to pay the fee but then there is no service.
very simple really.
i choose to pay the fee because i like to read reviews and i happen to think that sean's reviews are worth paying for.
but then i buy about 20 bucks worth of photo mags each month too.
joe
back alley
11-01-2006, 16:08
OK, Joe. But you need to send me my birthday money first!
Cheers,
Sean
i'm sure we could work out a deal...when's your b'day?
;)
Well,
What a response. My thread was never heated or insulting. Just an observation. then i get this
"Get over it. One of these days again I'll be able to post here without being trolled. Why don't you give it a rest and contribute something useful and on-topic to the thread. We're talking about an M8 review here."
Well, why don't you contribute your review without teasing and getting people to sign up to read it. That would be "Something useful" Geeeeeee talk about being arrogant.
RJ, you've made four posts here, all of them trolling so far. I've been contributing to this site for more than two years. You're barking up the wrong tree.
The sheer amount of trolling I've been dealing with lately is certainly testing my normally good nature. I know it even tests Joe's good nature from time to time. There's only so much nonsense a person can tolerate.
Sean
end it here before i do.
sean offers a service for a fee, the key word being offers.
no one is under any obligation to pay the fee but then there is no service.
very simple really.
i choose to pay the fee because i like to read reviews and i happen to think that sean's reviews are worth paying for.
but then i buy about 20 bucks worth of photo mags each month too.
joe
Hey Joe,
It's amazing. It seems that lately it's impossible for me to try to post at RFF without the trolls all coming out.
Cheers,
Sean
I will drop the subject with this last post and move on to more on topic discussions. But I am not the only one with this view.
rj, sorry but i'm not comfortable importing whole sections from another web site so i edited it out.
please feel free to roam our friendly site but please keep the 'friendly' part in mind as you do so.
joe
back alley
11-01-2006, 16:17
Hey Joe,
It's amazing. It seems that lately it's impossible for me to try to post at RFF without the trolls all coming out.
Cheers,
Sean
it must be the price of popularity.
what i find amazing are the folks that think they should not have to pay anything because it's on the net.
granted, there is a lot of free stuff on the net but lots to buy also.
it's not like you haven't paid your dues or that the reviews are fluff...i can read pop photo if i want fluff.
joe
If anyone wants to get back to talking about the M8, I'm in.
Cheers,
Sean
I was staying out of this because I am no longer taking sides on flame wars. I did get rid of the user because he started it and seem to be continuing it. However I think the post should have stayed in original form because we seldome edit here. but it was MY fault for not communicating to the mods soon enough.
Look Jim, I think you realize that I have been an advocate for the excellences of the R-D1 for a long time. I'm pretty familiar with it by now. I don't think I need to summarize my R-D1 history here. It's a wonderful camera and I still love it dearly. But I can't let that bias my results. You can trust my eyes and knowledge or not but what I've written in those reviews is what I know to be true about these cameras. All of it is based on first-hand experience, reviewing prints, etc. and I would argue that it is all quite accurate. I think that I described the R-D1 fairly accurately in 2004 and I think I've described the M8 accurately in 2006. That doesn't mean that everyone will be happy with my results, but I can't worry about that aspect.
Sean, that makes it sound as if this were an M8-vs.-R-D 1 debate, which we both know is not the case.
As you pointed out in your review, certain comparisons are inevitable because the M8 and R-D 1 are the only digital rangefinder cameras out there, and those comparisons are facilitated by the fact that they have the same lens mount.
In what I wrote, I wasn't trying to take one side or another in that comparison, but rather to use the similarities between the M8 and R-D 1 to examine some facets of the approach you took to comparing them.
There isn't much point in trying to analyze subtle distinctions between chalk and cheese -- the differences are so vast that any minor points of commonality are likely to be trivial. On the other hand, it could make sense for a "cheese critic" (writing, no doubt, for Chasseur des Fromages) to analyze differences between, say, parmesan and asiago.
Likewise, while it would be pointless to critique the performance of someone who did attempt to compare chalk and cheese (other than to point out that he was wasting his time) it WOULD be practical and possibly somewhat useful to comment on the methodology of our putative cheese critic in his parmesan-vs-asiago comparison.
And (here's the key point) it would be possible to make these comments without necessarily disputing the cheese boffin's actual conclusions about the relative merits of parmesan and asiago! The point is simply to identify where the original critic's observations might be open to alternate interpretations, or to note ways in which people with different tastes or priorities might draw different conclusions from the same observations.
I'm going to stop here... for some reason, I feel really hungry...
Benjamin Marks
11-01-2006, 18:22
Best pizza I've ever had: in Oakland, CA: Asiago, anchovies and lemon slices! No lie.
Ben
Gabriel M.A.
11-01-2006, 19:22
(...) on the methodology of our putative cheese critic
(...)
without necessarily disputing the cheese boffin's actual conclusions about the relative merits of parmesan and asiago!
I think you lost the Cheez Whiz camp there. :rolleyes:
You wouldn't want to obfuscate the matter by exacerbating the gap between its point and its comprehensability by not positing alternative analogies ;)
butter71
11-01-2006, 19:59
Best pizza I've ever had: in Oakland, CA: Asiago, anchovies and lemon slices! No lie.
Ben
if you're talking the best pizza in oakland/berkeley, i hope you mean Zachary's.
stevenrk
11-01-2006, 20:19
Jim, one has to resample in order to print files from both cameras at the same size. That's just a reality. 100% crops are fun but the print is the real test and for a print at 240 ppi, 300 ppi, etc. one must size accordingly. For any given print size, either the Leica files must be downsampled or the Epson files must be upsampled. That's just a reality of printing
Sean
Sean, interested to know whether what I see on screen in reading your review plays out the same way when you are looking at the print.
And, at the price of repeating what others have said, thank you for your excellent reviews and much appreciate the time you take to discuss your insights.
Sean, interested to know whether what I see on screen in reading your review plays out the same way when you are looking at the print.
And, at the price of repeating what others have said, thank you for your excellent reviews and much appreciate the time you take to discuss your insights.
Hi Steven,
Thanks very much. Which aspects of the files are you thinking of?
Cheers,
Sean
Another good review Sean and well reasoned. From what i've read i think the M8 will certainly work for me even at 3200. What a pity it's not properly weather sealed and produced with the slippy MP covering.....
More often than not i'm shooting in the rain or at the very least hot humid situations - a strong reason to keep the film M's alongside.
BTW, I'd suggest that you e-mail Leica and stress your interest in seeing a weather-sealed digital M body. They need to realize how important that is for a lot of professional work.
Cheers,
Sean
No bias at all. If anything, I had to be careful not to get too protective of the R-D1. Enthusiasm and bias are not the same thing. Note the enthusiasm in my R-D1 review as well. There's no need to be dispassionate, just fair.
Sean
No harsh criticism meant. Enthusiasm is fine, as is passion.
Regarding the noise comparisons between the M8 and the RD1, I think uprezzing the RD-1 files and then sharpening (to counter the AA filter effects) would have been a more interesting comparison, because I think that is what most people will do for prints. My guess is that in doing this it would have benefited the M8 more as sharpening tends to increase noise. I'll be happy to do this for you and save you some time if you lend me your M8 :D
Keep up the good work and ignore the trolls. It is appreciated and IMHO very good value for money.
willie_901
11-01-2006, 22:08
This whole mystique of the absence of an anti-aliasing filter is something that leaves me a bit dubious
There is no reason to be dubious.
Information Theory (see, “Probability Theory: The Logic of Science” by E. T. Jaynes and G. Larry Bretthorst) tells us that whenever we modify, alter or filter data, the altered data can not yield estimates for the parameters of interest that best represent the true, but unknown parameter values. This means competent post-processing data manipulation is always better than competent pre-acquisition data manipulation. By the way, the parameters of interest are the frequencies and amplitudes (photon count) of the light falling on a specific point on the digital sensor.
Simply put, Information Theory says whenever possible avoid distorting the data before you collect it. This is not a subjective issue. Photographers know this intuitively, and we purchase the best lenses we can afford to minimize distortion before the image is recorded. Likewise our empirical experience tells us, raw image processing is superior to JPEG image processing.
Sometimes pre-acquisition data modification is unavoidable, but that doesn't make it any less destructive. The best physical anti-aliasing filter known to mankind still degrades the data.
..Buckets of stuff deleted
In other words, Sean seems to feel that "real" sharpness (Leica) is much better than software-generated "fake" sharpness (Epson)... but that software-induced "fake" low noise (Leica) is just as good as "real" low noise (Epson)! Huh?
There is no contradiction.
Information Theory says real sharpness is always better than software generated sharpness.
The symmetry jlw supposes between physical solutions and software solutions does not exist.
Software can not create noise. The noise is.
Software can (and does) create artifacts in the form of a residual signal.
In signal analysis, noise is the random error in a parameter estimate. Empirical noise is almost random. When we say noise, we mean those errors in the parameter estimate that are random. ISO noise is similar to the noise we hear from audio amplifiers. When the gain increases, the thermal noise increases.
Aliased signals are not noise. Alias signals can be huge when the noise level is low. Aliased signals are artifacts. Alias artifacts are not random. Non-random phenomena can be modeled. Aliasing of spatial frequencies is well understood. Post-acquisition we may be able to model aliasing artifacts down to the level of the noise, and then we can subtract them from the image. But no model is perfect and the post-acquisition calculations used to model the artifacts probably rely on approximations. So, when a post-processing algorithm models the aliasing artifacts and subtracts them from the data, the result is the signal we want, plus a residual, plus the noise. The "software-induced fake noise" is actually a software-generated residual. The noise is always just the noise. The post-processing residual is fake in the sense that it has nothing to do with the parameters of interest. The pre-processing residual is a real in the sense that it is a measure of the anti-aliasing filter efficiency. Yet, there is no reason why the amplitude of the post-processing alias-model residual can't be similar to the amplitude of the residual from imperfect pre-acqusition filtering. And, their similar amplitudes does not contradict Information Theory.
Earlier I stated the parameters of interest are the frequencies and amplitudes of the photons captured by the sensor. It turns out light also has a phase.
Will a high quality lens produce less phase distortion at the sensor than a low quality lens?
Does a physical anti-aliasing filter distort the phase?
Do Bayer-type digital sensors capture any information about the phase?
Do Foveon digital sensors capture any information about the phase?
Does a film emulsion capture any information about the phase?
In fact, is there any useful information in the phase?
No harsh criticism meant. Enthusiasm is fine, as is passion.
Regarding the noise comparisons between the M8 and the RD1, I think uprezzing the RD-1 files and then sharpening (to counter the AA filter effects) would have been a more interesting comparison, because I think that is what most people will do for prints. My guess is that in doing this it would have benefited the M8 more as sharpening tends to increase noise. I'll be happy to do this for you and save you some time if you lend me your M8 :D
Keep up the good work and ignore the trolls. It is appreciated and IMHO very good value for money.
It depends on how big the print/press output is, of course. For magazine publication, for example, pictures are much more often used at page size or smaller rather than at double-truck. That means the Epson files would run at just over full res at full page size but the M8 file would be downsampled for that same use. And, actually, even full page size is larger than many pictures run. So, thinking about real world uses for these cameras, such as magazine photojournalism, is what lead me to compare them as I did. I wasn't trying to favor one camera or the other in terms of which way I went (downsampling Leica or upsampling Epson) but rather was trying to reflect the sizes that I think prints are most often made at.
Thanks for the comments.
Sean
There is no reason to be dubious.
Information Theory (see, “Probability Theory: The Logic of Science” by E. T. Jaynes and G. Larry Bretthorst) tells us...
Fascinating post....one of the most interesting I've read on the web in a long time.
I would just add that Jim's point about "software induced fake noise" isn't an accurate description of that happens. Downsampling, of course, samples out noise to some extent, it doesn't add fake noise. Large files (in terms of pixel measurements) need to be downsampled to match the dimensions of smaller files. In that process, they lose some noise. It's a very different kind of loss than what one loses with an AA filter.
When I looked at my first M8 files this summer, there was something in them that really struck me. I've recently begun to understand that what intrigued me was the return of something that I hadn't, until then, even noticed had been lost. And what has been lost to the AA filter is not just resolution but also very small subtleties and variations in color. Having now realized that and also having realized how attracted I am to the kind of rendering that is possible with no AA filter, I'm finding the difference to be compelling.
Looking at this in terms of Information Theory is really an interesting idea. It's great to see this thread develop in this direction.
Willie_901, I will be following your discussions of this with interest. It's engaging.
Cheers,
Sean
SnapperJ
11-02-2006, 00:23
I have just finished reading Sean’s review (parts 1 to 3) of the M8 which I found to be very useful. One thing I am interested in is the results from the M8 in a back lighting situation, say a backlit figure using a large aperture, f2 would be good. I would like to see how the sensor without an AA filter deals with this.
There is no reason to be dubious.
Information Theory (see, “Probability Theory: The Logic of Science” by E. T. Jaynes and G. Larry Bretthorst) tells us that whenever we modify, alter or filter data, the altered data can not yield estimates for the parameters of interest that best represent the true, but unknown parameter values.
You can't scare me with citations (or excess capital letters, either.) I've read up on information theory (both the communications-based Claude Shannon variety and the physics-based Leo Szilard flavor) and I already knew that filtered data are only approximations of the real data.
My point was that in principle, it shouldn't make any overall difference whether you're doing the filtering via a hardware filter or a software filter. Sure, there might be specific, subject-by-subject, case-by-case differences -- but since they are specific, we have to expect that the procedure that works "best" for one person is going to be sub-optimal for another.
To make what I wrote a bit more clear and specific: one part of Sean's review (again, apologies to those who have chosen not to subscribe to his site and haven't read it) talks about the benefit in perceived sharpness achieved by omission of a hardware anti-aliasing filter from the Leica M8's light path.
Later, in talking about the M8's EI 1600 noise level, he notes that its perceived obtrusiveness can be reduced by downsampling its files to a smaller size.
My point: Both these processes involve filtering the data.
Practical application:
-- Sean does most of his shooting at lower EI ratings, where the M8 exhibits low levels of perceived noise. The absence of an AA filter will be an advantage for him.
-- I do most of my shooting at EI 1600 (check my gallery to see why.) Based on Sean's information, I infer that if I used an M8, I would need to downsample my shots to get noise results similar to those of other cameras I use. This downsampling would filter the data, and this filtering would cancel out some of the perceived-sharpness advantage that the M8 provides at lower EIs. In other words, the absence of an AA filter likely will be less of an advantage for me.
Again, I didn't write this to criticize Sean or to say his conclusions were wrong. What I'm doing is applying his observations to my own situation. This is no different from what you probably do when you check the movie ratings in your newspaper: You say, "The critic gives this one four stars, but he loves slasher movies and I hate them, so I won't bother to go -- even though he's undoubtedly correct in saying it's a stellar example of the slasher-movie genre."
What' I'm saying is: Based on Sean's analysis, the M8 has a lot of advantages -- but I wouldn't be able to expect vastly superior sharpness to be one of them for the kinds of pictures I take. Your mileage, naturally, may vary.
Information Theory (see, “Probability Theory: The Logic of Science” by E. T. Jaynes and G. Larry Bretthorst) tells us that whenever we modify, alter or filter data, the altered data can not yield estimates for the parameters of interest that best represent the true, but unknown parameter values.
However, there are two comments to make here:
- The point of an AA filter is to cut off frequencies at a certain threshold. So your premise is somewhat compromised, because the whole purpose of the AA filter is to make those true, but unknown parameter values about the spatial frequency distribution irrelevant (while producing an acceptable result) that signal processing has to reconstruct. The key point here is that the AA filter produces problems somewhere else. But this is a question of parameterisation.
- Since we live in a real world: while I agree that usually it is best to make any data alteration as late as possible in the chain because of information losses, in some cases there is a certain trade-off against the added complexity of doing things later. Software vs. hardware is a typical case. (For example, there is a reason why people still use radios with tuners instead of USRPs and software-defined radio, which is clearly better.) You hint at that when you speak about "competent post-processing", by which you are making certain assumptions; imperfect post-processing is not necessarily superior to filtering the data beforehand. In this concrete case, a camera company might not have the expertise or manpower to do all the signal processing in software to replace a commercially-available AA filter. So if, as it happens, users complain about image problems that can be attributed to the M8's lack of an AA filter instead of only lauding the added sharpness etc., postprocessing evidently wasn't competent enough. On the other hand, this is easier to correct with the next version of the RAW converter than in hardware.
Philipp
I have just finished reading Sean’s review (parts 1 to 3) of the M8 which I found to be very useful. One thing I am interested in is the results from the M8 in a back lighting situation, say a backlit figure using a large aperture, f2 would be good. I would like to see how the sensor without an AA filter deals with this.
It's an interesting question and we'll see results made in that sort of lighting when I test the lenses for CA. Those are some of the next articles I'm working on.
Cheers,
Sean
jlw wrote:
"-- I do most of my shooting at EI 1600 (check my gallery to see why.) Based on Sean's information, I infer that if I used an M8, I would need to downsample my shots to get noise results similar to those of other cameras I use. This downsampling would filter the data, and this filtering would cancel out some of the perceived-sharpness advantage that the M8 provides at lower EIs. In other words, the absence of an AA filter likely will be less of an advantage for me."
Hi jlw,
I agree that it's always important to look at this kind of information with respect to how it applies to one's own work. But I think you're still overlooking something very important. When you make, for example, those dance pictures with the R-D1 at ISO 1600, you don't present them as 100% crops as a final form. I imagine they're either printed or used on the web at a certain size. Let's say, for example, that they're used at 4" x 6" in a brochure (forgive me, I don't know the usage in this case so I'm just using an example). At that size, the R-D1 files would be downsampled somewhat and the M8 files downsampled even more. If one really want to make a fair comparison of any two cameras with respect to their real-world output, they should be compared at equivalent pixel dimensions (in this case 3008 x 2000 pixels).
When I compared the 1Ds MkII to the 5D, I downsampled the former files to 5D size so as to make a fair comparison. I did the same with the M8 and R-D1.
When one down-samples he begins with information that does exist (picture data and noise). When one sharpens, he enhances the edge contrast of information that does exist but cannot create detail that was not recorded in the file. To over-generalize about the two processes, so that they seem equivalent, would be misleading.
Bottom line: The final prints from both the R-D1 and M8 will show similar levels of noise at any given size when the capture is made at ISO 1600. The Canon 5D will show less noise than either at the same ISO. That's my real world experience having now worked a lot with all three cameras.
If you get a chance to do a shoot with the M8 and R-D1 and make prints, perhaps you'll get a better sense of what I'm saying here.
You wrote:
"What' I'm saying is: Based on Sean's analysis, the M8 has a lot of advantages -- but I wouldn't be able to expect vastly superior sharpness to be one of them for the kinds of pictures I take."
You'll see a difference at ISO 1600 but it wouldn't be vast and it might not be an important difference at all to your work. You may well prefer the look of the R-D1 files at that ISO. I know I love them.
Best,
Sean
Benjamin Marks
11-02-2006, 08:51
Let me just comment, as a spectator, that it is nice to see folks disagreeing about arguments/assumptions/data as opposed to people. Quite an interesting exchage. I still want an M8, though. Time to start saving. Oh, and just like when I was in college and wanted an R4 more than anything, as soon as I am in the ball-park for the equipment, I'm sure the goal posts will move -- exchange rates, price increases, newer models, etc. Sigh.
willie_901
11-02-2006, 09:10
You can't scare me with citations (or excess capital letters, either.) I've read up on information theory (both the communications-based Claude Shannon variety and the physics-based Leo Szilard flavor) and I already knew that filtered data are only approximations of the real data.
Scaring people is lazy and cowardly. The purpose of a citation is to give credit where credit is due and to provide an avenue for others to read the source for themselves. I don't make the news, I just report it. If you think I'm making this stuff up, here's where you can read about it.
My point was that in principle, it shouldn't make any overall difference whether you're doing the filtering via a hardware filter or a software filter.
It does make a difference, in principle.
In principle, an excellent hardware filter can work better than a mediocre post-processing software filter. In principle, filtering via hardware (before the data is digitized) can never do better than filtering the data with software after data acquisition. A software model that corresponds to the data in a one-to-one fashion can do better than the hardware approach. This is a general statement.
What is specific, and what is case dependent, are the mathematical models and algorithms used to model the data post acquistion. An inaccurate model or a flawed algorithm will produce an obvious residual that is well above the thermal noise level. An incompetent software filter is worse than a competent hardware filter. What is best, from a technical point of view, is the solution with the lowest residual signal. If two different solutions model the data to within the thermal noise level, then neither is best.
That said, if you find a hardware filtered image more pleasing to your eye than a software filter, than the hardware approach is aesthetically superior. No one can question your subjective decision. A technically superior image (the one with the smallest residual) may not be aesthetically superior.
Later, in talking about the M8's EI 1600 noise level, he notes that its perceived obtrusiveness can be reduced by downsampling its files to a smaller size.
My point: Both these processes involve filtering the data.
Both do filter the data post acquisition. Downsampling that smooths the thermal noise also smooths the data. For a given resolution inherent to the data, there is an optimal filter. Too little filtering leaves too much thermal noise. Too much filtering degrades the resolution to an unacceptable level.
The inherent signal-to-thermal noise ratio is important. The image with the best signal-to-thermal noise ratio before downsizing can have the highest resolution after downsizing.
The alias residual-signal artifact level is another story. If the downsizing algorithm happens to average the alias residual signal more than it aveages the resolution, then downsizing will appear to make a big difference. Different downsizing algorithms may provide very different results. The alias residual signal in data acquired with a hardware filter may have very different characteristics than the alias residual signal produced by the post-acquisition signal processing. The same downsizing algorithm may affect each type of data set differently.
Try not to think of the aliasing-artifact residual signal as noise.
Because ISO noise is thermal noise, it is random. Placing a hardware filter in front of the sensor does not reduce or increase ISO noise. Removing alias artifacts post processing does not reduce or increase ISO noise. The residual signal created by removing aliasing artifacts with hardware or software should not be confused with thermal noise. To the eye the alias residual signal may look like thermal noise, but aliasing artifacts are not random. and their residual signal can not be random. Aliasing artifacts arise from the regular spacing of the sensor cells. Constructive/destructive wave interference does not produce random signals. If film-dye distribution was as ordered as sensor cells, a negative would the display aliasing artifacts. (Grain in a negative scan is caused by alias artifacts but this has nothing to do with the information content of the negative and everything to do with how the scanner digitizes the light filtered by the negative.)
If it is true that post-acquisition alias-signal removal works better at low ISO settings, it will certainly work better at high ISO settings.
I choose not to use a digital camera. I do not own any Leica gear. I do not pay to read Sean's Reviews. I don't even enjoy some of his posts I can read for free. But information theory and signal modeling support Leica's approach, and they support Sean's observations as reported on RFF.
If the M8 produces high-resolution images without a hardware anti-aliasing filter, then the M8 package is a significant advance in digital imaging. This is what happens as new technology matures. From the limited data available right now, it seems to me Leica has found a better way to model the inherent resolution in the data. They do not seem to have found a better way to amplify the gain of the sensor circuit. Or, perhaps the sensor cell size is more important to Leica than the cell signal-to-thermal noise ratio before amplification.
In my photography I prefer sensitivity to resolution. This is a subjective preference. Others make the opposite choice. I enjoy viewing their photographs. We all enjoy making photographs.
Hello, Sean --
I don't want to bore everybody else by turning this into too much of a private conversation between you and me -- but on the other hand, I feel that we're converging on something useful here by discussing the process of "translating" a reviewer's comments into information that will be useful to the reader's own photography.
Over the next few weeks we're probably going to be seeing a LOT of "My experiences with my new M8" posts (complete with example photos, I hope!) and this will provide the rest of us with a lot of useful information in trying to visualize how the characteristics of the M8 might play out in our own photography.
To do that, though, we'll all have to polish up our skills at saying, "Well, this guy does A and B, whereas I do X and Y, and the difference means that when he talks about seeing this, I'm more likely to see that..."
Again, I don't want this discussion to get too parochial, but I'm going to cite one more set of examples just to show the wide range of usage scenarios photographers have now in the "digital era" (you film guys may now smirk a bit at not having to make these kinds of choices!)
-- You mention the inevitability of downsampling when making prints, but the fact is that although I'm not happy about it, I almost never make prints anymore. My pictures follow two paths once I've edited them:
1) Ballet performance pictures get selected, cropped, color-corrected, and saved on CDs as full-res Photoshop files. Generally I'm doing this in a tearing hurry in the dead of night following a dress rehearsal, so the discs can be on editors' desks the next morning in hopes that they'll run a photo with their critic's review. (A photo tremendously increases readership, which in turn helps attendance, so a good photo can mean hundreds of additional ticket sales.)
I crop these images, but I don't downsample them at all -- I have no idea how large they might want to run the photo, so I try to give them the widest possible range of choices by supplying all the data I can.
[There's a nasty little kicker in this scenario that makes it a bit tricky. Normally, photos run in a newspaper get downsized so drastically (and newspaper reproduction is so lousy) that small quality flaws in the original image just don't matter. BUT-- newspaper photo editors generally make their picks by looking at the available photos on a monitor, and often check quality at 100% pixel size. So if you send in a photo that looks too rough, it's less likely to get used -- even though its problems wouldn't matter at all in the final print! Because of this, I try to send the biggest, cleanest files I can, even though I know most of their quality is going to get lost in the reproduction process.]
2) Later, my photos get exported and posted on a website and made into DVD "slideshows." Both these uses involve drastic downsampling, usually to half or one-third the original pixel size or even less! Again, a lot of subtle quality differences become irrelevant at these sizes.
So, I'm usually stuck in a scenario where I have to furnish MORE quality than is really needed, and then later I usually need LESS than I have! I very seldom get the chance to optimize the quality of an individual image to a particular use.
Getting back to my original thesis about how to interpret reviews to suit your particular circumstances: What the wealth of information in your excellent M8 writeup tells me is that while the M8 has a lot of features I'd really like, its enhanced image quality probably wouldn't provide me with as much bang-for-the-buck in my performance shooting as it does for you in your types of shooting.
Where I'd see the benefit of the M8's image quality enhancements would be in my studio work, where I'm using strobes, can shoot at lower EI ratings, and am aiming for results that can be reproduced at poster size.
[And before anybody kvetches: Yes, IMO, RF cameras are better than SLRs for studio shots of moving subjects. Why? There's no finder blackout - you can see the flashes go off!]
I choose not to use a digital camera. I do not own any Leica gear. I do not pay to read Sean's Reviews. I don't even enjoy some of his posts I can read for free.
So you got into this discussion just because you were feeling disputatious? Oh, well, it's a slow day at work for me, too...
... yeah, I understand the randomness involved and the theoretical differences among the different types of processing applied. What I'm saying is that at the practical level, the effects of those differences are unlikely to be distinguishable in the shots I shoot under crappy lighting conditions. By the time I've processed the original data files to suit my needs and looked at them with my wet little eyeball, I suspect that the differences in character between up-front antialiasing and after-the-fact downsampling are going to shrink below my personal detectibility threshold.
But as I'm sure someone such as Leon Lederman would be saying about now, screw all this theory and let's get some experiments up and running! Unfortunately, my personal research budget is a bit underfunded at the moment, but I'm looking forward to seeing what other people can do...
I agree with Ben that this is a much more productive thread then I sometimes have seen lately on RFF.
Hi Jim,
I strongly agree with you that each person has to look at the pros/cons of a camera with respect to how they apply to his or her own work.
I also sometimes send work to art directors on CD or DVD at full-res. Most of them, however, are experienced enough to understand how a full-res file seen at 100% on screen will translate at a given size on the printed page. They do this work so much that it's just natural to be able to do that.
In the end, every picture that takes a final form will be set at a given size (in pixels or in inches/cm). That size decision can be made at various points along the production line but it will have to be made somewhere for printing or monitor display. Given that reality, the fairest way to compare two cameras is at the same file dimensions in pixels. Some times, it isn't necessary but with noise comparisons it can be important.
BTW, I seem to be making some progress with Leica regarding my firmware change ideas (for ISO, EV and WB access).
Cheers,
Sean
BTW, I'd suggest that you e-mail Leica and stress your interest in seeing a weather-sealed digital M body. They need to realize how important that is for a lot of professional work.
Cheers,
Sean
I must confess I'm not that worried about this aspect. Leica's always have been pretty good in that way, and though electronics are more sensitive, I have "abused" my non-sealed Canon 10D in this manner various times without any damage at all. And after all, even Canon 1D's are not submarines.
Having said that, I can understand a camera builder not making any claims for legal reasons and it may well be that I will be the first M8 user to drown his camera in a rainstorm :( (even as a non-professional....)
Benjamin Marks
11-02-2006, 10:19
jlw: a question, if you have any energy left for this thread: I would have thought that someone who does dance photography would like the longer effective baselength of an M8 finder. Is this not true? Or do you usually light with strobes? I do a lot of available light photography and I find that even with a VF magnifier, that the 75/1.4 and 50/1 are a little hit and miss wide open with the RD-1. Not so with a 0.85 M6, though.
I must confess I'm not that worried about this aspect. Leica's always have been pretty good in that way, and though electronics are more sensitive, I have "abused" my non-sealed Canon 10D in this manner various times without any damage at all. And after all, even Canon 1D's are not submarines.
Having said that, I can understand a camera builder not making any claims for legal reasons and it may well be that I will be the first M8 user to drown his camera in a rainstorm :( (even as a non-professional....)
Well, one rolls the dice and sees what happens. I don't think you'll find a reviewer that has gotten the OK to test the M8 in pouring rain but my 1Ds certainly handled that. Some people get lucky with rain and electronics and some don't. I know of several 20Ds that have fried in the rain, for example. As you know, I argue that professional cameras intended (among other things) for PJ work should be sealed.
Cheers,
Sean
stevenrk
11-02-2006, 11:25
Hi Steven,
Thanks very much. Which aspects of the files are you thinking of?
Cheers,
Sean
Sean, specifically, the M8 samples you have up present a certain quality that the images from the other cameras do not. You describe this difference with precision -- what I would describe as the 3 dimensional quality that one sees from the combnation of Leica glass and the M sensor. But a screen image can draw that very differently than a print from a printer. Wondering if the reaction/quality differences are as apparent when viewing a print. If so, would be interested in knowing whatever details you can provide about the print, ie., size, printer. etc.
Thank you. Best, Steven
Dear Steven, Sean
Thought I would ask on a (deservedly!) popular thread. Have you noticed any difference in the way different fora show images? specifically color? It seems that all sRGB are not the same, as the sam image can look different at least on my screen.
Sean, looking forward to the answer on the 8bit first three M8 pieces were very informative, but I can't say they convinced me to buy the M8; however, that's only because I pre-ordered months ago!
Regards
Victor
Well, one rolls the dice and sees what happens. I don't think you'll find a reviewer that has gotten the OK to test the M8 in pouring rain but my 1Ds certainly handled that. Some people get lucky with rain and electronics and some don't. I know of several 20Ds that have fried in the rain, for example. As you know, I argue that professional cameras intended (among other things) for PJ work should be sealed.
Cheers,
Sean
Well, I must confess I'd feel more comfortable with a weathersealed camera in these conditions- but hey! the camera cost less than the trip :( :rolleyes:
And well- rainbows are lucky.:)
http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e32/jaapv/CRW_0741.jpg
http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e32/jaapv/CRW_0731.jpg
jlw: a question, if you have any energy left for this thread: I would have thought that someone who does dance photography would like the longer effective baselength of an M8 finder. Is this not true? Or do you usually light with strobes? I do a lot of available light photography and I find that even with a VF magnifier, that the 75/1.4 and 50/1 are a little hit and miss wide open with the RD-1. Not so with a 0.85 M6, though.
You're right, a longer EBL would be a plus for me. I'd consider a 75/1.4 to be a bit risky on the R-D 1, although I have used my M-converted 50/0.95 Canon successfully. The Megaperls 1.3x eyepiece magnifier makes me feel a lot more confident in using this lens -- in fact, we had a thread (click here) (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28346&highlight=megaperls+magnifier) about this a while back.
Of course, shooting stage productions, I'm usually at a moderate distance from my subjects -- enough that even a 50/0.95 has a bit of DOF. If I were shooting at portrait distances, I might well have the same types of problems you've noted using your 50/1 and 75/1.4. Come to think of it, I got burned on that a couple of weeks ago. See the attached image of a girl trying on her hat, shot during a studio rehearsal with a Canon 100mm f/2 on the R-D 1. Would have been a cute picture... except that I scored a clean miss on the focus! (see inset.) You'll notice that instead of focusing on the girl's eyes, I wound up focusing several inches behind that (you can see the sharper area in the brim of the hat.)
I hadn't thought to bring the Megaperls magnifier that day -- maybe it would have helped, but a 100/2 lens is pretty demanding in the focusing accuracy department. I was taught that all other things being equal, a lens' numerical aperture (focal length/f-number) is a gauge of the focusing accuracy it needs. A 50mm f/1 lens has a numerical aperture of 50mm (50/1) and needs a lot of focusing accuracy; if this rule-of-thumb is correct, a 100mm f/2, which also has a 50mm numerical aperture (100/2) would need just as much. Your 75/1.4 would be a bit more demanding yet (53.57mm numerical aperture) and my personal worst-case scenario for RF lenses would be my 85/1.5 Canon (a whopping 56.67mm numerical aperture!)
If I recall correctly, Leica has said that the 135/2.8 Tele-Elmarit (48.21mm NA) is pushing the limits of the M8's RF accuracy, so presumably these other lenses would be at-your-own-risk propositions as well. I suspect that the Leica 1.25x magnifier is going to be a very popular accessory with 75/1.4 Summilux owners who want to try the M8!
Meanwhile, since 50mm is the R-D 1's longest frameline, I infer that Cosina and Epson feel its RF can handle the demands of Cosina's 50/1.5 Nokton (33.33mm NA) but beyond that you're on your own. So, the M8 should have an advantage here -- even if it's not quite enough of an advantage to handle a 75/1.4 without the eyepiece magnifier.
Even if the M8's RF didn't have this advantage over the Epson's, I'd still want an M8 just because it has longer framelines in the viewfinder. I often need a lens a bit longer than 50 for shooting in large theaters -- and while I can manage with the 100/2 Canon, the need for an accessory viewfinder is really a nuisance!
For studio shooting, as you say, focusing accuracy is not really an issue. There's plenty of light to see by, and I'm generally using strobes so I can go for a nice, small aperture. But even though I do fine with the R-D 1 under these conditions, I'd be curious to get an M8 in a studio environment and see what that 10-megapixel, non-antialiased imager can do with textures and details such as lace, sequins, eyelashes, etc... oh, well, some day!
Thanks for introducing such an interesting sub-topic... interesting to ME, anyway!
When they bring out a digital M that's weathersealed (I suppose that'll mean new lenses as well, downer) and performs better in terms of the fringing, I'll be salivating, even if the resolution count is only marginally higher. Half the appeal of my M3s and 6s is that I know I can use them most anywhere.
Sean, specifically, the M8 samples you have up present a certain quality that the images from the other cameras do not. You describe this difference with precision -- what I would describe as the 3 dimensional quality that one sees from the combnation of Leica glass and the M sensor. But a screen image can draw that very differently than a print from a printer. Wondering if the reaction/quality differences are as apparent when viewing a print. If so, would be interested in knowing whatever details you can provide about the print, ie., size, printer. etc.
Thank you. Best, Steven
Not surprisingly, the camera with the most similar files to the M8 is the R9/DMR.
They do have a different look.
Cheers,
Sean
Dear Steven, Sean
Thought I would ask on a (deservedly!) popular thread. Have you noticed any difference in the way different fora show images? specifically color? It seems that all sRGB are not the same, as the sam image can look different at least on my screen.
Sean, looking forward to the answer on the 8bit first three M8 pieces were very informative, but I can't say they convinced me to buy the M8; however, that's only because I pre-ordered months ago!
Regards
Victor
I'll publish once all the pieces fall into place. Sometimes I'm glad to hear that people decided *not* to buy a camera after reading one of my reviews. Either way is good.
Best,
Sean
When they bring out a digital M that's weathersealed (I suppose that'll mean new lenses as well, downer) and performs better in terms of the fringing, I'll be salivating, even if the resolution count is only marginally higher. Half the appeal of my M3s and 6s is that I know I can use them most anywhere.
You probably know that I strongly agree about the importance of the weather-sealing. What fringing are you talking about?
Cheers,
Sean
I'll publish once all the pieces fall into place. Sometimes I'm glad to hear that people decided *not* to buy a camera after reading one of my reviews. Either way is good.
Best,
Sean
OOPS maybe din't say right:rolleyes:
I already ORDERED, so review didnt convince me, only made me feel
even better.:)
BTW what are the stars under people signature (Steve, others have?)
best regards
Victor
RIVI1969
11-11-2006, 10:26
The noise level difference between the 2 cameras at high ISO is far from minimal as Sean Reid says in his review. The RD1 files looks far cleaner and the resolution advantage is not sgnificantly to claim that the M8 is superior in any way, at least not for that absurd price. (I cannot wait to the DP real and objective review)
(I cannot wait to the DP real and objective review)
Phil is not exactly innocent either. Apparently he was aware of the issues as well, and is "holding" his review while Leica addresses the issues. That's one way to write great reviews, wait until the camera is fixed in version 2! :rolleyes:
Read Phil's statement (in his green) at: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0611/06111001leicam8statement.asp
So while others write glowing reviews, others just hold back. Either way we don't get the info needed for early adopters.
AShearer
11-11-2006, 11:57
Phil is not exactly innocent either. Apparently he was aware of the issues as well, and is "holding" his review while Leica addresses the issues. That's one way to write great reviews, wait until the camera is fixed in version 2! :rolleyes:
Read Phil's statement (in his green) at: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0611/06111001leicam8statement.asp
So while others write glowing reviews, others just hold back. Either way we don't get the info needed for early adopters.
Exactly: I just made this same point in the thread about Michael Riechman. http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31158&page=4
I must say it is rather shocking, if any reviewer knew, and did not reprt it. Obviously, these people cannot criticize Leica for not treating them as they should treat journalist. A journalist should not care less what a private company wants him to publish and what's not. This is unclearn journalism, to say the least. Leica wants to make money, they did not develop the M8 from humanitarian reasons. Accusing the reviewers for not noticing something that was noticed latter on is one thing, which I find, rather absurd, but not reporting what they knew is a betrayal of the heart of the profession. I hope the ones reporting from Iraq are doing a more reliable work.
Well, in their defense, at first it really did seem to be just a firmware finalization issue for white balance....which people could easily expect to be sorted out. It wasn't until we got everyone together on the forums that the multiplicity and depth of the issues emerged.
And can you blame them for not suspecting that it was possible that serious flaws were being intentionally covered up in a flagship Leica product? It is still hard to believe....
Well, perhaps the end result of this is that we are all a bit wiser regarding the relation of these reviewers and the camera companies. We've learned to take their reviews with a grain of salt, and also that camera companies may request that a reviewer not talk about certain "problems". Other reviews might "hold off" until things are OK, (while you are going ahead and ordering a hot camera).
The very unfortunate thing is that some of you paid for the lesson by getting an expensive camera you are not happy with. I hope that all of you get this issue resolved to your satisfaction, and don't have to "settle" for anything, as you shouldn't have to with a $5k camera.
btw, so far, from what I have understood so far, Sean is the only reviewer that did not intentionally colaborated with Leica in misleading potential buyers. Maybe I missed something or maybe I don't know something, but the two other cases, one, in which a reviewer left out crucial findings, the other, when a reviewer delayed a review for a camera that is already in the stores as a result of Leica's request, are far more bothering than the question whether Sean's initial test did not reveal (to him) explicitly a limitation of the camera. From my working with different cameras (20D, 5D, R-D1, slr/c D1) any reivew I ever read leaves out important things that come up in the hands of a real world user.
roblumba
11-11-2006, 19:24
I don't understand where people figure that Phill is holding back the information. It seems more reasonable that he had either not started or not finished the review and decided to wait until Leica finishes their resolution before finishing his review. Make sense to me. Remember the old lesson, ASSUME makes an ASS out of U and ME. It's a silly lesson with so many applications.
I don't understand where people figure that Phill is holding back the information. It seems more reasonable that he had either not started or not finished the review and decided to wait until Leica finishes their resolution before finishing his review. Make sense to me. Remember the old lesson, ASSUME makes an ASS out of U and ME. It's a silly lesson with so many applications.
Note phil's comment: Phil:" Note that we have been working closely with Leica on this, obviously it made sense for us to delay our review until these issues have been resolved."
what is it here? KGB? they have been "working closely with Leica"?!! I don't know what about you, I don't like that statements- they are supposed to have some independence from the manufacturers- we are talking about a camera that is in the stores already- they should better have some dignity in front of their audiance. I wasn't assuming anything (if you were referring to my comment).
roblumba
11-11-2006, 20:47
I think it's funny how people come up with conspiracy theories from "working closely with Leica". Who knows what that means except that he called them and talked to them about this and asked many questions and perhaps got some answers. I don't see how you can come up with a conspiracy from those words unless Phill has a history of acting in this manner.
Well, I don't think there was any conspiracy. I respect a lot all of these reviewers. I don't believe, and never did, that any of these people gained a penny from that thing. I concern by something different, which is, that the sources of information in this, new, internet era are loosing what is one of the main standards that formed what is called "journalism" which is the independence of the source of information from the subject of information and from the interests of the subject, in particular, when the subject is a financial organization or a politician. Is it so difficult to understand? is there anything of that that you think I am wrong about? People have to be reminded of their responsibilities once they are in a position of power as Phil is. His power results from the facts that his words, and his lack of words, have very significant implication regarding how people spend their money. If this is simply a mistake, that's fine, everybody should learn from it. But if these people don't want to understand that even once they have been reminded, then it is really something we should all be aware of. They pretend to give the best information available. Delaying a review because a camera, which is alreayd sold in stores, and for 5000$ is slightly irresponsible, i.e. a case in which someone fails to reslize his responsibilities. Is it so difficult to understand?
galavanter
11-11-2006, 21:46
I don't see how you can come up with a conspiracy from those words unless Phill has a history of acting in this manner.
I have been banned twice from dpreview. I first discovered the site and joined sometime prior to 2000 when looking for my first digital camera, a 2mp Canon Elph.
Close to a year ago, an already notoriously trollish member alluded to masturbation when someone posted a picture of a pretty girl on a thread about high resolution photographs. I attacked him, complained to dpreview, finally starting a thread about it which resulted in my banning (suicide by Phil Askey I like to call it). The other member notes in his signature still today that he is a dpreview "supporter". I take this to mean financial.
A couple of months ago, reading up on all the hype about the Pentax K10D, I went to Pentax's American site to see some newly posted sample pics. One was a mannequin head, a caricature of a ridiculously happy smiling black man with giant teeth and big red lips. My immediate and sincere reaction was that Black African Americans would not be overjoyed when viewing this sample photo.
I rejoined dpreview and started a thread entitled, "Are Pentax K10D Sample Photos Racially Insensitive?" I only posed a question, suggesting that from a marketing point of view, Pentax could have chosen many other photos, ones that would not possibly alienate a significant percentage of their American market.
Well as you might imagine, the thread turned into a rather controversial one. I was called many things and although there were some intelligent, thoughtful responses, including one from a Pentax marketing person/photographer, people seemed to come out of the woodwork to type long tirades against me, a few in broken English.
Finally an old redneck from Texas made a thinly veiled personal threat to me. I simply responded with a factual retort, concerning a heinous hate crime that took place in Texas 1998, the murder of James Byrd Jr. He was dragged behind a pick up truck with a chain until his head came off. A rather serious piece of evidence that racism still exists in our society.
I was immediately banned again. This thread was now close to a hundred posts long, and in a few more days it too disappeared entirely from the history books of dpreview. But go to Phil Askeys site today, and you will find an advertisement for the new Pentax K10D, linking you to the very same American Pentax website. The offensive pic (to me) has finally been removed and replaced with full sized images of a pretty girl, one of my marketing suggestions to Pentax.
Phil Askey to me is a talented guy with a very well designed and popular website that I've read may be the most popular digital photography site in the world. But like many of his ilk, he has no interest in changing that world, only in maintaining the status quo and thereby his own financial success.
Jim
RIVI1969
11-11-2006, 22:16
Halabar, you are right and I take back what I said. Of course if DP release his full review with the camera as it is right now maybe it would get an "ABOVE AVERAGE" at the most. I really want to know what Phil has to say about noise because for him it is a major issue all the time, and after seen the pictures from Sean Reid... well, I am very happy I get a Nikon D80 instead; for 1/4 of the price it performs perfectly and delivers beautiful images without any purple casts and almost noiseless up to ISO 1000... just like my RD1 but with bigger files.
roblumba
11-12-2006, 07:21
DPreview does have news bits that are shown on the front page. His reviews are quite a bit different. It seems like Phill usually takes his time to release the full reviews of a camera and it doesn't suprise me that he cooperates with Leica during this difficulty.
I agree that news should provide a checks and balances type of atmosphere. In our day an age a lot of news is just entertainment. I know some people that think American news is a joke. So often it's just sensationalistic entertainment. There's some good information there, but I tend to agree with them.
I don't have my career hanging on the line for photography news, so I'm not in a difficulty position as some of you. Perhaps Phil thinks he's just providing casual entertaining information for a bunch prosumers like me. I don't know the politics either, but sound like there's plenty.
You know the term, "don't burn your bridges". It's very wise in the world of politics, cause if their not your allies, they are likely your enemy. Seems like there's an awful lot of burning going on. Then again, you can't satisfy everyone all the time.
Okay, enough cliches. I'm going to go shoot some photos. ;)
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.