View Full Version : M8 as a landscape camera
Tuolumne
07-31-2007, 10:10
What do you think of the M8 as a landscape camera? Its image quality has been described as very close to (as good as?) that of a medium format camera. This, combined with the legendary Leica optics, should make for one hell of a great digital landscape camera. My question is: Does it?
I shoot mostly landsacpes and would like to know if the Leica M8 cuts it for this application. Most of my enlargements are big, 12x18 or larger, so sharpness and detail rendering are a big consideration.
Thanks,
/T
if you shoot landscapes, and you dont need the portability of the leica, wouldn't a 5d make more sense (seeing how its cheaper and has a better sensor)... unless you really like using rangefinder focusing, which i can understand,
Well, it is not as good as a medium-format camera and so if you are thinking of using it as a substitute for one I would think again.
Tuolumne
07-31-2007, 10:44
if you shoot landscapes, and you dont need the portability of the leica, wouldn't a 5d make more sense (seeing how its cheaper and has a better sensor)... unless you really like using rangefinder focusing, which i can understand,
I use a Nikon D200 for DSLR work, so I don't feel like investing in a complete other DSLR system for landscape work. On the other hand, I own alot of Leica glass, so if I could press that into service for landscape work, that would be great.
/T
i'm not sure how much better the leica is than a d200... not significantly better anyhow. the leica is a wonderful portable camera, but if you aren't going to be taking advantage of that then it just becomes a very overpriced digital camera.
D200 is a damn good camera.. check out the awesome landscape shots this guy's capturing with his D200. I don't think the M8 is any better than this image quality wise.
http://www.j-roumagnac.net/index.php?x=browse&category=24
Want ~MF quality without actual MF? Step up to the 1DS MK II ..
Tuolumne
07-31-2007, 12:15
D200 is a damn good camera.. check out the awesome landscape shots this guy's capturing with his D200. I don't think the M8 is any better than this image quality wise.
http://www.j-roumagnac.net/index.php?x=browse&category=24
Want ~MF quality without actual MF? Step up to the 1DS MK II ..
Those are, indeed, very nice. I have been very happy with the landscapes I have shot using my D200. I just thought with all the balyhoo over the M8, perhaps it would be even better.
Thanks,
/T
What do you think of the M8 as a landscape camera? Its image quality has been described as very close to (as good as?) that of a medium format camera. This, combined with the legendary Leica optics, should make for one hell of a great digital landscape camera. My question is: Does it?
I shoot mostly landsacpes and would like to know if the Leica M8 cuts it for this application. Most of my enlargements are big, 12x18 or larger, so sharpness and detail rendering are a big consideration.
Thanks,
/T
A better tool for this job is a medium format camera; the best tool for this application is a large format camera, given your criteria for large prints, and where sharpness and detail rendering are a big consideration.
I don't see how this can be argued.
T has contradictory requirements.. on one hand, he's willing to make a compromise and settle with a "MF-like" camera. On the other hand, raw resolution and imaging information is a huge consideration..
Well, you can't achieve the latter by settling with an imitator. Accept only the genuine article.
A better tool for this job is a medium format camera; the best tool for this application is a large format camera, given your criteria for large prints, and where sharpness and detail rendering are a big consideration.
I don't see how this can be argued.
Don't be too sure Frank :D
Okay then: rationally argued. :)
Nikon Bob
07-31-2007, 12:49
Why not use a Leica for landscape? It works for my personal non professional needs. OTH size does matter and the larger the format the better if you are willing to put up with the extra cost, weight and bulk of the gear to get those huge enlargements.
Bob
an interesting article to read:
http://www.llvj.com/columns/1Ds-4x5.shtml
an interesting article to read:
http://www.llvj.com/columns/1Ds-4x5.shtml
Weak comparo.
1DS "approaches" MF resolution, so why would they compare it with the 4x5 format?
It's like comparing the Audi TT against the Porsche 911 turbo instead of the Boxster..
Why not use a Leica for landscape? It works for my personal non professional needs. OTH size does matter and the larger the format the better if you are willing to put up with the extra cost, weight and bulk of the gear to get those huge enlargements.
Bob
of course he could buy it and take landscapes with it, its just that they wouldnt be much different than the landscapes he takes with his d200...
Tuolumne
07-31-2007, 13:07
T has contradictory requirements.. on one hand, he's willing to make a compromise and settle with a "MF-like" camera. On the other hand, raw resolution and imaging information is a huge consideration..
Well, you can't achieve the latter by settling with an imitator. Accept only the genuine article.
ywenz,
I don't have alot of expertise in scanning. All of my landscapes get printed from digital files. So, I have to go through that intermediate digitizatiion step if I use a medium format film camera. I assume that must introduce some quality degradation that makes the comparison between a medium format negative and a straight 35mm digital image capture somewhat more comparable. At least, so it seems to me.
/T
if you want an m8, just get it. there's no sense hoping it's a replacement for medium or large format.
Ed Schwartzreic
07-31-2007, 13:15
Funny how ideas come up in several places at once - serendipidy. In any case I had been planning to run a comparison between film in my 'blad (likely Plus X), film in a Leica M body, and M8 digital capture at ISO 160. I plan to use my sharpest normal lenses (80 / 50) on both cameras. Film would be developed, printed to the best of my ability, and scanned. I know that this all is imprecise, that the fields of view won't be the same, the FoF will be difficult to compare, and the like, but I have been so impressed with some of my more careful M8 work, that I feel it needs the comparison.
Tuolumne
07-31-2007, 13:17
Ed,
I would LOVE to see that ASAP! When can we hope to see your results? Are you going to shoot landscapes?
/T
ywenz,
I don't have alot of expertise in scanning. All of my landscapes get printed from digital files. So, I have to go through that intermediate digitizatiion step if I use a medium format film camera. I assume that must introduce some quality degradation that makes the comparison between a medium format negative and a straight 35mm digital image capture somewhat more comparable. At least, so it seems to me.
/T
Good point, to "maximize" any images captured on film, you'd need a good scanner. However, large negative + sub par scanning can still be better than small digital crop sensors..
Tuolumne
07-31-2007, 13:32
Good point, to "maximize" any images captured on film, you'd need a good scanner. However, large negative + sub par scanning can still be better than small digital crop sensors..
That is my experience from what I've seen of medium format photos online, although the explanation for it is obscure. It would seem that any image should be no better than the weakest link in the imaging chain, no matter its source.
/T
Tuolumne
07-31-2007, 13:39
These are the kind of issues, mentioned in this post, that make me wonder about the digitization chain in creating digital files of medium format negatives:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=608615#post608615
/T
Here is a BIG frame from my Yashica 124G, shot hand held in a tight arena seat, and probably drunk with massive urge to hit the restroom. Film is 400NPH, scanned on my $150 Epson 4180 flatbed.. dpi setting? forgot..
The image resolution is superb for such a "sub par" workflow.. hard to imagine a digital crop sensor matching the MF format when lens+film+scanning are all improved, which you can easily, given my ghetto MF setup..
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1150/966406984_c789bc2e18_o.jpg
Tuolumne
07-31-2007, 13:43
Here is a BIG frame from my Yashica 124G, film is 400NPH, scanned on my $150 Epson 4180 flatbed.. dpi setting? forgot..
The image resolution is superb for such a "sub par" workflow.. hard to imagine a digital crop sensor matching the MF format when lens+film+scanning are all improved, which you can easily, given my ghetto MF setup..
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1150/966406984_c789bc2e18_o.jpg
That is a great example. While not the best, as you point out, the details on the faces of individuals in the distant crowd are clearly discernable. Now, why would that be, considering the degradation during scanning must be considerable? Or, another way to put it, why can't camera manufacturers make digital cameras as good as the far cheaper scanners that scanner manufacturers make?
/T
ywenz, I'm pleasantly surprised that you are leaning towards the MF over the digital cropped 35 solution. Has someone stolen your identity? ;)
(I'm a film dinosaur and should just stay out of this kind of thread.)
FrankS: I always argue on the side of reason. The criteria in this case: raw resolution for landscape photography..
why can't camera manufacturers make digital cameras as good as the far cheaper scanners that scanner manufacturers make?
/T
10 Years ago a reasonable question would be, why can't the camera manufactures make a digital camera as good as the far cheaper disposable cameras? Well, that was then...
My hat's off to anyone with the gumption to hike with an upper-level DSLR and "pro" lenses capable of really detailed landscape photos, or a medium-format outfit. I tried it years ago, at Bryce/Zion national parks and if I hadn't stuck my M4 and 35-50-90 in a small bag at the last moment I wouldn't have had any keepers from the trip. I hadn't noticed "hiking" around the camera store how quickly I would become exhausted carrying a Pentax 67, 4 lenses, a backpack large enough to hold it, and a tripod and head big enough to hold it steady. Especially with a few thousand feet of altitude thrown in the mix.
Ed Schwartzreic
07-31-2007, 14:35
Lots of entries on the thread in the hour or so since I was last here.
I was thinking of a) subjects at infinity, to deal with the DoF issues -- hence landscapes, as well as b) a still life of some sort, both of course with tripod-mounted cameras. Any suggestions?
My hat's off to anyone with the gumption to hike with an upper-level DSLR and "pro" lenses capable of really detailed landscape photos, or a medium-format outfit.
People do weekend hikes with 30-50lbs backpacks all the time.. if one is doing a simple day hike for photo ops, I'm sure they can substitute 15-20lbs of that for camera + lenses..
richard_l
07-31-2007, 23:09
People do weekend hikes with 30-50lbs backpacks all the time.. if one is doing a simple day hike for photo ops, I'm sure they can substitute 15-20lbs of that for camera + lenses..30-50 lbs for a weekender!?!? Ummm... There's been an ultralight trend for the past 15 or 20years, and the average for a weekender nowadays would be about 15-25 lbs. (Unless you're also lugging your girlfriend's gear.) That said, it's true that Galen Rowell lugged 60 lb packs with lots of photographic gear into the wilderness. Some of us, however, enjoy the walk as much as (or more than) taking pictures. Galen was a pro. That's a different animal.
Richard
A better tool for this job is a medium format camera; the best tool for this application is a large format camera, given your criteria for large prints, and where sharpness and detail rendering are a big consideration.
I don't see how this can be argued.
Well, lets start here:
The late Galen Rowell is arguably one the best landscape photographers of all time...he used 35mm exclusively.
I shoot landscapes professionally in a few modes...
1. FujiGSW690III. Really sharp lens, really light and easy to use camera, but won't do as I am hanging on a ledge looking at a fine landscape across the valley while in mid-climb.
2. Nikon FM3A, Leica M6, Canon 5D and hopefully the Leica M8. All more portable solutions to a larger / heavier medium or large format camera. So the fleeting moments in high places where one's exposure to the elements take a front seat to a photograph, well.....this leads to landscape images that no medium or large format is suited for.
I suppose if Cinematographer David Breshears can haul a 25 pound Imax camera to the summit of Everest, I could manage to tote a medium format camera to 14,000 feet.
But the point is, the image defines the image, not the tool used.
My hat's off to anyone with the gumption to hike with an upper-level DSLR and "pro" lenses capable of really detailed landscape photos, or a medium-format outfit. I tried it years ago, at Bryce/Zion national parks and if I hadn't stuck my M4 and 35-50-90 in a small bag at the last moment I wouldn't have had any keepers from the trip. I hadn't noticed "hiking" around the camera store how quickly I would become exhausted carrying a Pentax 67, 4 lenses, a backpack large enough to hold it, and a tripod and head big enough to hold it steady. Especially with a few thousand feet of altitude thrown in the mix.
This past Sunday, I hauled my back country photo pack up some 4,000 vertical feet to 12,456 feet in just 4 miles, made it up in 1:53.
In just camera terms, the pack contained one 6x9 rangefinder, One Canon 5D, 16-35-II, 50 macro, extension tube, 85 1.8, flash, pocket wizard, spot meter, three batteries, 20GB in CF cards, 10 rolls of 220 Velvia, Gitzo medium carbon fiber. The whole thing weighed close to 36 LBS at launch with a full 100 OZ water bladder.
I don't use the dorky photo backpacks, can't put my Camelback bladder, clothes, avalanche equipment, bivy sack and all that more-important-than-photography stuff in it.
I spent over 6 hours at 12000 to 12,456 feet shooting stock.
I also use the light and fast as hell approach....I am really looking forward to the M8 helping in that role....
hofrench@mac.co
08-01-2007, 01:10
I am a happy M8 user, AND a very happy MF user (Rolleiflex 2.8 Xenotar).
There is simply no comparison between the files. Each has its own look, to be sure, but the 'flex, when used properly, produces a better, more detailed file. Hands down. Does that make me unhappy with my Leica? Not at all. It's great for street situations where speed and discretion are required. It is capable of fine landscapes, too. Just not MF quality.
You can find examples of work from both cameras, plus my Hexar RF on my flickr site.
My Rolleiflex 3.5 is lighter and easier to carry long distances than my M6. I use both for landscape photography, but for max quality there's no doubt the Rollei wins.
This "M8 files look like MF" idea seems to be around in the ether, I haven't yet seen any images which make me think it's true. This is not to say the M8 isn't capable of making very good images, of course.
Ian
I would say that if you are going to spend M8 money on a landscape camera, you could buy virtually any type of camera with that budget, 4x5 6x17 or 6x12, or some pretty nice nikon glass for your D200. What you need to know is what you intend to shoot and where, and in what style, as equipment wise the possibilities are endless with this budget.
My Rolleiflex 3.5 is lighter and easier to carry long distances than my M6. I use both for landscape photography, but for max quality there's no doubt the Rollei wins.
This "M8 files look like MF" idea seems to be around in the ether, I haven't yet seen any images which make me think it's true. This is not to say the M8 isn't capable of making very good images, of course.
Ian
You wouldn't, Ian, not on Internet Jpegs that is. Have a look at large prints: The MF wins on resolution, the M8 on definition. The net result is that the quality is similar. 35 film is behind both....Unless, of course the image on th 35 film is made by the better photographer, in that case, and every case, the image wins over the technique....
Jaap, I've seen large prints. I've had a reasonable amount of exposure to M8 outputs, not just on the web. It's a good camera, no doubt, but I don't think it matches MF.
Ian
Well, lets start here:
The late Galen Rowell is arguably one the best landscape photographers of all time...he used 35mm exclusively.
I shoot landscapes professionally in a few modes...
1. FujiGSW690III. Really sharp lens, really light and easy to use camera, but won't do as I am hanging on a ledge looking at a fine landscape across the valley while in mid-climb.
2. Nikon FM3A, Leica M6, Canon 5D and hopefully the Leica M8. All more portable solutions to a larger / heavier medium or large format camera. So the fleeting moments in high places where one's exposure to the elements take a front seat to a photograph, well.....this leads to landscape images that no medium or large format is suited for.
I suppose if Cinematographer David Breshears can haul a 25 pound Imax camera to the summit of Everest, I could manage to tote a medium format camera to 14,000 feet.
But the point is, the image defines the image, not the tool used.
Originally Posted by FrankS
A better tool for this job is a medium format camera; the best tool for this application is a large format camera, given your criteria for large prints, and where sharpness and detail rendering are a big consideration.
I don't see how this can be argued.
I'm sticking to my guns on this. The OP empasised those criteria, not light weight or ease of handling. For your application of cliff climbing and ledge camping, I would not recommend a LF camera.
jaap. post a 100% crop from the M8 that puts it in MF category..
2. Nikon FM3A, Leica M6, Canon 5D and hopefully the Leica M8. All more portable solutions to a larger / heavier medium or large format camera. So the fleeting moments in high places where one's exposure to the elements take a front seat to a photograph, well.....this leads to landscape images that no medium or large format is suited for.
This is why I have to settle for the low hills and dales like the ones in the attachment I bring my medium-format equipment into. How I long to be able to take my cameras into the REAL high places.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.