Working Pro with M8 [Archive] - Rangefinderforum.com

Avotius

11-09-2007, 03:40

I am pretty much on board for the M8, even though the many problems I have heard about it, I think they are things I can get over, just like I did with my ricoh grd. What does bother me is....well.....is 10mp enough?

For most of you out there it is but I wonder how many of you do magazine spreads and large (over 30 inch) prints. My canon 20D so far has been ok...kind of, and at 30 inches prints are ok'ish. Two megapixles is not a lot when it comes to a large print. Im sure I could make it work but its always in the back of my mind. Mags and stock and all the others have been raising their bars pretty high, for the most part a 35mm negative doesn't cut it anymore and even medium format has some very strict guidelines, for instance one magazine here wont take 645 shots and only drum scans.

Just curious, anyone here work pro with the m8? I mean really work pro, not occasionally sticking photos up on stock photo sites or something like that. People who know my photos here will know what kind of quality I expect from prints and as much as I would like to shoot film, it really isnt working out much anymore as the last shop in town that has pro film just closed last week. I really want to keep working with rangefinders and am hoping there is a way out from me buying a 1ds mk2 or 3 and hiring a on call chiropractor.

Btw, my photo teacher told me to go get a 8x10 camera if I was so worried about image quality, but he wasnt being snide about it, he thinks I should be shooting higher quality imagery.

varjag

11-09-2007, 03:55

Well, some journalists (John Vink, Bruno Stevens) do use M8 professionally. 10MP, given that there's no low-pass filter in M8 built in, should be OK for a mag spread.

KM-25

11-09-2007, 05:40

I did an assignment with mine yesterday for Newsweek, the images look great.

But, I always have to carry a second system backup, my Canon 5D as it would be for now. As good as the M8 is, there is no way I would ever try to do everything with it. The 5D still out does in terms of resolution and image quality so I use it a lot more for commercial work and stock.

As good as the M8 is and as fun as it is to use, f I were you and had Canon gear like you do, I would save my money and get a 5D and a few great primes right now since the prices are very low and the camera is fantastic.

The M8 is not that much quieter than a 5D and if you were to put a 28/1.8 on the 5D, it is not that much bigger either for street work.

Seriously though, the 5D is much better than your current 20D, you would perhaps miss the high iso ability that the 5D and even the 20D has over the M8 as well.

Also, consider that if you buy an M8, it should be a brand new one or used from a seller who is really willing to give you a trial . Also consider that if you decide the M8 is not for you, unlike other cameras, you will lose over $1,000 instantly on re-sale over the new price.

I am not knocking the M8, I love mine, but there is simply no way I would use only an M8 to get my work done.

victoriapio

11-09-2007, 06:37

I can't speak for 30" prints because I do not print that large.

But I can speak about published work. I typically shoot with a 1dsmk2 and double-truk magazine spreads are no problem. I did a feature layout for Texas Highways - a travel photography magazine - and submitted a picture taken with a Pentax Optio that was a 4mg pixel image. It printed up great! I do the photography for Victoria, Texas' annual report and many of them were taken with the Epson rd1s (the others with the 1dsmk2). They look great. Certainly images from an M8 would work on a double truk spread.

So my recommendation is to stick with a camera that brings out the best in your photography, be it DSLR or DRF. The higher the publication quality of the magazine, the better all images look regardless of their source.

O.C.

Avotius

11-09-2007, 08:04

As good as the M8 is and as fun as it is to use, f I were you and had Canon gear like you do, I would save my money and get a 5D and a few great primes right now since the prices are very low and the camera is fantastic.

I figured that in the far off future I would have a 5d mk2 to replace my very much falling apart 20D. I would never just use a single camera to do anything, for instance I use my rangefinder stuff for normal focal lengths and the digital stuff for the very wide or tele. My gf just got a 5D and I use it a lot (probably more then she does actually ;) ) and so I do greatly appreciate that camera and wouldnt mind having my own later on down the line.

I gf just did a 16 page double spread for a magazine with photos taken with the 5D and the canon fisheye and 17-40. They came out really well despite some very substandard printing. I have a lot of confidence that the camera is great indeed. a 12 mp file makes it in the door with some publications here and some it doesnt. Some places want a minimum of 16mp now for their very well printed magazines, difficult to say the least.

ps. noise never bothered me, I use my ricoh grd at 1600 all the time lately and the printed results look quite well actually...in black and white at least, I havnt tried color yet.

pgmj

11-09-2007, 08:20

About big prints from the M8 (I recommend reading the whole thread):

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/9022-30-x-40-inch-m8-prints.html

CameronDavidson

11-10-2007, 03:31

Avotius

11-10-2007, 04:04

I shoot with two M8's and a Canon kit. I recently completed two annual reports that were a mix of Canon and Leica files. I am currently in the middle of a corporate portrait project that i am shooting with the M8's. Up to double trucks, the files are perfect.

The key is is to process the file in ACR 4.2 or Capture One - turn off the sharpening and noise reduction. Sharpen the file (if needed) later in the process.

My clients are happy with the files. I see the difference between the Canon 12 bit files (1Ds II) and the 14 bit M8 files.

I just did a bunch of double truck spreads with my canon 20d for a rather odd magazine format that had the image come out to 5400x3000 with a lot of cropping. I was pretty surprised by the ISO 3200 results that I got out of it as I had never tried to push one of my digital files so far with printing. Indeed the key really is that sharpening should be the last thing you do before saving a tiff. I do my processing in ACR and never did get into capture one. I hear that lightroom is supposed to be pretty decent for the raw work flow but I have yet been able to get my hands on a copy over here in chongqingville where they no longer have real software. Any comments on using the m8 with lightroom or the such?

Joe Mondello

11-10-2007, 06:10

Hi Colin,

Depends entirely on the *kind* of pro work I think.

I have no clue about 30" prints, but I can certainly vouch for the fact that the M8 has better resolution than a 5D or a D200.

As for a working pro who uses the M8 check out Guy Mancuso's website (http://www.guymancusophoto.com/) and also wander over to the Leica User Group (http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/).

etrigan63

11-10-2007, 07:20

I just did a bunch of double truck spreads with my canon 20d for a rather odd magazine format that had the image come out to 5400x3000 with a lot of cropping. I was pretty surprised by the ISO 3200 results that I got out of it as I had never tried to push one of my digital files so far with printing. Indeed the key really is that sharpening should be the last thing you do before saving a tiff. I do my processing in ACR and never did get into capture one. I hear that lightroom is supposed to be pretty decent for the raw work flow but I have yet been able to get my hands on a copy over here in chongqingville where they no longer have real software. Any comments on using the m8 with lightroom or the such?
A new M8 (or use one with all the docs and discs) includes CaptureOne LE 3.7.x which is eligible for upgrade to 4.0 if it hasn't been activated yet. Lightroom does a decent job with M8 files but I personally do not like it for high ISO or B&W work.

[Those of you who have already heard my Bibble Pro speech can leave now.]

I use Bibble Pro (http://www.bibblelabs.com) for RAW conversion. The program includes Noise Ninja for noise reduction and has a plugin structure that includes some excellent B&W conversions based on film/reagent/paper emulation.

Here is a ISO 640 shot developed with BibblePro + NN and converted to look like Fujifilm 400 on Agfa Multicontrast Paper.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2083/1851772872_10d3910085_b.jpg
The frame, matte and watermark are also added via Bibble plugins.

hofrench@mac.co

11-10-2007, 07:33

I print for gallery exhibition and sale at 30" with M8 files quite often.
It is far and away more better quality than your 20d. I know, because I own one. I would also dispute what was said earlier that the 5d has better image quality.
I believe that up to 640 iso, the M8 generally produces the better file. I believe the M8 files print better, too.
This is not to knock the 5d, which I think highly of. I also agree that you wouldn't want the M8 as your only option. The 5d is more versatile, in truth, but not higher quality. Certainly not at the lower asas.

kinok1

11-10-2007, 08:47

I'm a working pro who has adopted the m8 into my workflow. life has not been this good for a while. clients no longer have the time for film.

the nikons just dont cut it ALL the time.

for all its flaws (and there are a few) the m8 is a dream to use.

case: was in nyc last week shooting some portraits of a fairly well known singer for a large corporate client.

at the end of the shoot we were doing a soft review of the images. anytime one of the 'candids' taken with the m8 on a 50 at 1.4 came up on the screen, the publicist stopped me...

there is something about that glass...

if you can justify the cost...stop fondling the damn thing, and staring at focus charts, the m8 is a great camera.

Oh, and as far as 10megapixels being 'enough'. ive had images from a d200 resized to poster size...and the client could care less...

g

Toby

11-10-2007, 08:51

If you want to compare 5d to M8 follow his link http://cyberphotographer.com/m8v5d/ That shows a pretty clear win for the 5d which is unsurprising if you forget about megapixels and consider the advantage the larger sensor gives the 5d.

etrigan63

11-10-2007, 08:56

Unfortunately the author of the comparo decided on using the internal JPEG engines of both cameras "because he can't be bothered with RAW conversion". It is well known that the M8's JPEG is not that good and that the really spectacular images everyone sees are created from RAW files. If you shoot straight JPEG out of the camera, a P&S camera will out do an M8. The real magic happens with RAW files.

Toby

11-10-2007, 09:25

Okay, my general take as a working pro is that the M8 or any rangefinder is just not flexible enough as a main camera system. I shoot portraits mainly but living in a small town sometimes I just have to take whatevever comes along. I run a 5d and a 20d with 17-40L and 70-200L zoom as well as 50 1.4 and 85 1.8 primes that means I've got effective focal lengths from 17 - 300 mm, decent low light capabilty as well as a good TTL system. Unless you are lucky enough to be the type of pro who can pick and choose what he does a rangefinder system does not give you access to the long focal lengths that are essential for a jobbing pro. I would classify the M8 as an extra to a DSLR set up. In the first instance you just need equipment that covers the most bases.

Roger Hicks

11-10-2007, 12:10

clients no longer have the time for film.

Hell, clients never had the time for film even when film was the only option!

(My experience in advertising goes back 30+ years)

"Of course I want it yesterday. If I wanted it today, I'd ask for it tomorrow."

(Then it sits on their desk for 48 hours)

Cheers,

R.

Roger Hicks

11-10-2007, 12:17

Unless you are lucky enough to be the type of pro who can pick and choose what he does a rangefinder system does not give you access to the long focal lengths that are essential for a jobbing pro.
Dear Toby,

Depends on what sort of pro work. In advertising I seldom needed more than 150 on Hasselblad, 210 on 4x5 or 360 on 8x10. A 135 on an M8 is 180 in 35mm terms, 250 on Hasselblad, 450+ on 4x5. Or about 1000mm on 8x10...

But of course in those days, few clients would accept 35mm for advertising.

[Edit] I'd add that nowadays, pro photography pays so badly that it ain't luck -- it's a refusal to do anything else. I'm a qualified teacher and an experienced and much published photographer, and I'd advise anyone to avoid either as a career in the 21st century.

Cheers,

R.

Toby

11-10-2007, 13:46

Dear Toby,

Depends on what sort of pro work. In advertising I seldom needed more than 150 on Hasselblad, 210 on 4x5 or 360 on 8x10. A 135 on an M8 is 180 in 35mm terms, 250 on Hasselblad, 450+ on 4x5. Or about 1000mm on 8x10...

But of course in those days, few clients would accept 35mm for advertising.

[Edit] I'd add that nowadays, pro photography pays so badly that it ain't luck -- it's a refusal to do anything else. I'm a qualified teacher and an experienced and much published photographer, and I'd advise anyone to avoid either as a career in the 21st century.

Cheers,

R.

Roger

I seldom use longer than an 85mm with my 5d or a 165mm with my Pentax 67
but I do have the option of a 70-200 in my bag. It's not so much that you need it it's like insurance , for £450 you can put a canon 70-200 F4L in your camera bag if you buy a 5d and have some extra bases covered, with a decent lens. What does £450 get you in leica land?

etrigan63

11-10-2007, 14:22

Some rather spectacular CV or Zeiss glass. My entire set of lenses are CV and cost less than $1000 all together. Unless I tell someone it's CV glass, no one can tell it's not Leica glass from the photos.

keithwms

11-10-2007, 14:57

Btw, my photo teacher told me to go get a 8x10 camera if I was so worried about image quality, but he wasnt being snide about it, he thinks I should be shooting higher quality imagery.

Haha, true. But if the gear impedes your shooting style then the gain in resolution and tilt & shift function is meaningless. So I would say get an RF-coupled 4x5 ;) You can easily pull 50+ meaningful megapixels off a 4x5 sheet!

Of course, how many megapixels is sufficient for big enlargements is a topic that has been hashed and rehashed and served with a side of bacon on the net. There is no answer for everybody. I won't even bother to tell you what I think. Try it for yourself!

I will offer one comment on megapixels and the importance thereof. I am sure you know this already... but anyway, the actual resolution goes as the square root of the mp count. So a sensor that has double the resolution of a 6mp camera is... a 24mp camera. In other words, the difference in actual resolution between 10 and 12 or 16 is pretty small. What does matter in terms of enlargeable detail (ultimately signal:noise) is the pixel size. That's my main beef with the m8, the ~1.3x crop factor, which gives the camera kinda soso noise performance compared to its dslr colleagues in the same price range. This matters because when you enlarge the image, you enlarge the noise along with it. If you denoise, you trade resolution to do so. Take a look at what a d3 can do at ISO 3200 or 6400 and you'll see what I am getting at.

hofrench@mac.co

11-10-2007, 18:40

There are long and interesting threads here on printing with the M8 and on file quality from the camera:
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/9022-30-x-40-inch-m8-prints.html

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/34540-big-enlargements-m8.html

jlw

11-10-2007, 19:34

Of course, how many megapixels is sufficient for big enlargements is a topic that has been hashed and rehashed and served with a side of bacon on the net. There is no answer for everybody.

But the original question wasn't about printing in general, but specifically about the ability to produce two-page magazine spreads.

Graphic arts professionals (I'm one of 'em) have a fairly blunt mathematical way of looking at this; it depends on the final printed size of the reproduction and on the linescreen, the spacing of the "rosette" ink patterns that produce a color image in offset printing.

At typical newsstand-magazine page sizes, you'll seldom see a double-page spread that's more than about 17 inches wide, and a typical linescreen for a consumer magazine might be 150 lines per inch. That makes the entire spread about 2,500 rosettes wide.

You want each of those rosettes to represent more than one image pixel; that provides some "oversampling" that helps avoid the appearance of moiré patterns. The minimum factor that will do this is 1.414 (square root of 2) but most engravers would rather to bump it up to 1.5 to provide a little wiggle room.

2,500 rosettes x 1.5 = 3,750, so most magazine printers would like to see a file at least 3,750 pixels wide to print that 17-inch-wide spread (and actually they'd be happier with a bit more.)

The specs on DPReview say the M8's sensor yields a width of 3,970 active pixels -- so you'd be just on the hairy edge of what a magazine printer would consider the acceptable minimum, and that's assuming you don't need to crop the image.

Of course, if it were an absolutely once-in-a-lifetime shot they'd use it regardless of pixel count, and we know it probably would look fine. We also know that daily and weekly media routinely use lower-pixel-count images at large sizes (although probably at coarser linescreens) with no problems.

But if the production team has a choice of two otherwise-equally-good shots to use for a spread, and one of them has a comfortably high pixel count vs. a barely adequate pixel count for the other, the one with more pixels is probably going to win the tie-breaker.

(Now you know why those stock agencies are pushing for images with more pixels -- it can be the difference between making and not making a sale. Or to look at it another way, the higher the pixel count, the more ways an image can be used; so, more sales opportunities and higher value.)

The numbers start going up quickly when you begin looking at more demanding print jobs, such as high-end catalogs -- these may have larger page formats, glossier papers, and effective linescreens of 200lpi or even more. The people who shoot highly-detailed subjects, such as food, for these publications are likely the ones still using the 8x10 view cameras your instructor mentioned.

TJV

11-10-2007, 22:05

I'm sorry but this discussion is rediculous. No one is questioning Mikhael Subotzky of Magnum Photo's about his image quality. He uses a 10D.
The M8 isn't perfect but you'll like it, and if you like it you'll use it to make more pictures. End of story.

MJones

11-10-2007, 22:10

But the original question wasn't about printing in general, but specifically about the ability to produce two-page magazine spreads.

Graphic arts professionals (I'm one of 'em) have a fairly blunt mathematical way of looking at this; it depends on the final printed size of the reproduction and on the linescreen, the spacing of the "rosette" ink patterns that produce a color image in offset printing.

At typical newsstand-magazine page sizes, you'll seldom see a double-page spread that's more than about 17 inches wide, and a typical linescreen for a consumer magazine might be 150 lines per inch. That makes the entire spread about 2,500 rosettes wide.

You want each of those rosettes to represent more than one image pixel; that provides some "oversampling" that helps avoid the appearance of moiré patterns. The minimum factor that will do this is 1.414 (square root of 2) but most engravers would rather to bump it up to 1.5 to provide a little wiggle room.

2,500 rosettes x 1.5 = 3,750, so most magazine printers would like to see a file at least 3,750 pixels wide to print that 17-inch-wide spread (and actually they'd be happier with a bit more.)

The specs on DPReview say the M8's sensor yields a width of 3,970 active pixels -- so you'd be just on the hairy edge of what a magazine printer would consider the acceptable minimum, and that's assuming you don't need to crop the image.

Of course, if it were an absolutely once-in-a-lifetime shot they'd use it regardless of pixel count, and we know it probably would look fine. We also know that daily and weekly media routinely use lower-pixel-count images at large sizes (although probably at coarser linescreens) with no problems.

But if the production team has a choice of two otherwise-equally-good shots to use for a spread, and one of them has a comfortably high pixel count vs. a barely adequate pixel count for the other, the one with more pixels is probably going to win the tie-breaker.

(Now you know why those stock agencies are pushing for images with more pixels -- it can be the difference between making and not making a sale. Or to look at it another way, the higher the pixel count, the more ways an image can be used; so, more sales opportunities and higher value.)

The numbers start going up quickly when you begin looking at more demanding print jobs, such as high-end catalogs -- these may have larger page formats, glossier papers, and effective linescreens of 200lpi or even more. The people who shoot highly-detailed subjects, such as food, for these publications are likely the ones still using the 8x10 view cameras your instructor mentioned.

My graphic design backgorund is in different areas in interpretive signage where resolution is not as demanding, but this is a great explanation where the M8 file size would fall into a full spread for your typical magazine.

CameronDavidson

11-11-2007, 05:25

My primary RAW developer is Capture One (http://www.phaseone.com)or RAW Developer (http://www.iridientdigital.com/products/rawdeveloper.html). I use ACR 4.2 with the M8 for some files, if I am not getting the look I want from Capture One or RD.

With Sharpening turned off, I have up-rezzed an M8 file with Adobe Camera Raw 4.2 and the file looks very good. Actually, much better than I expected. I then sharpen the file using Capture Sharpening in the PhotoKit Sharpening (http://www.pixelgenius.com/sharpener/index.html) plug-in by Pixel Genius.

My stock images are with several of the large agencies and I've have not problem with the Leica M8 files being accepted into their libraries.

Hope this helps.

tomasis

11-11-2007, 15:07

avotius, if you take better pictures with RF, take this by all means. It is not about technical perfomance but handling ability. Don't waste your time on wondering which is better camera. Just decide which type suits you. DSLR or DRF. The end.

My shooting improved a lot when I did sell everything of DSLR, lucky me :)

HAnkg

11-12-2007, 06:04