View Full Version : M8 and Eos 1Ds Mk II
chewbacca
12-02-2007, 17:39
Hello fellow photographers
Couple days ago, I had an opportunity to “meet” M8 for real, first time. When camera was realest, I went to shop and played with it but I don’t count that. My Friend Denis just porches M8 and broth it to me on a fashion shoot. So we put it to a test and I wont to share my impressions. This is not meant to be technical review; but more likely personal observation and as such it is subjective.
Before I start let me say something about my self. Am not big fan of digital. Don’t get me wrong; tool is tool and it is there to serve us as creative individuals. At the end of the day it comes to one thing: are you satisfied with your creation; or not? Equipment that we use doesn’t reflect on what we have to say in our photos.
I am cinematographer with more then 20 years of experience in photography. Last couple years I do some commercial photo work, mainly in fashion and advertising. Beside that I constantly am working on my art projects. I’m using M system for 19 years now and I don’t have any other 35mm equipment. In my M toolbox I have: 2x MP and M3; 35mm, 75mm Summilux’s; Elmarit 21mm ASPH, 35mm, 50mm, 90mm summicron’s ASPH; VC 12mm and 15mm. that is my working set. Beside that I have some older Leica lenses that I use from time to time. My main work is on Hasselblod and LF system. Am processing my films on Jobo ATL-1500 and scanning on my Imacon 868. Only digital camera that I have is canon G9 and I use it as “digital Polaroid”, so it is far to say that I am as analog as it gets.
On the other side my wife is photographer and she is big fan of digital. In last couple of years she didn’t shoot tow rolls of film. She is using Canon Eos 1ds mkII with L lenses. I gave a try with Eos but in numerous occasions it disappointed my expectation. On the other hand she is working much more then me and in her world speed is important; so I understand completely and am always backing up in domestic disputes film VS digital.
Now to go back to the subject of this post. I was shooting catalog for jewelry on Hassey and I broth all leica lenses and MP with Provia as reference. We also borrowed Eos from my wife. After I was dun with a job it was time to play, and I asked model if she could stay and spend some time with tow old nerds. Then we restage scene under same conditions, and first I took some pictures with MP using
50mm summilux at f1.4, then 75mm at f2, then summicron 50mm at f2.8 and 90mm at f4.
It was a time to see digital beasts in action 1ds mkII VS M8. Eos had 24L, 35L, 50L, 50 macro and 85L. On M8 we decided to go with Elmatit 24, Summilux 35, Summicron 50 and Summicron 90. First problem in lining them side by side was the image size, so M8 was tighter then Eos and we didn’t won’t to use canon zooms to compensate on that. Idea was to put best canon lenses VS leitz. On the other side canon had bigger chip with more elements to compensat. Finally we decided to compose shoots centrally in order to crop canon image to same physical size as M8 (that sound weird). During the shoot we were constant imagining frame lines on canon focus screen (common thing to do with motion picture camera).
Canon is definitely faster system; it is build for speed and that is noticeable instantly. On the other hand we were in studio with a model not on the soccer game, but never the less, canon was ripping and making impression of much more faster camera in total. Other conceptual difference was that we are putting rangefinder opposed to AF SLR. We used strobes for that setup and rangefinder was in his element by my standards, having a big advantage over SLR. This M8 is firs Leica for my friend Denis, so hi was much slower then me with Leica, and much faster with Eos. One big point on my behalf for M8 was that I really didn’t have impression of holding digital camera. When my eye is on viewfinder and finger on focus; it feels more-less, like any other M with winder. I was more familiar with canon software and commands and I was confused couple times with Leica’s interface. But taking in consideration that I have almost on experience with digital, that’s not add. I must say that for someone like me M8 is much more familiar ground to step in digital world then Eos.
So for this part of the test I must give point to M8 over Eos 1ds mkII. But this is highly personal opinion based mainly on SLR and rangefinder deferens and photographer’s preferences. Not to mention physical size of canon compared to leica.
Long before we started this test I read a lot on M8 and Ds Mk II. My experience with digital cameras is limited but am not stranger to digital images. I have good knowledge of digital postproduction; scanning my films for more then 10 years now and working on Photoshop since version 2.0; so I was aver of what can I expect in terms of image quality. It was clear that M8 had some issues; but so thus canon and any other tool. When I told my wife what we wont to test she simply told me that canon would deliver better and bigger image and that is unfair fight… There was couple of similar comments from my friends. I was aver of numbers, but I have to say that I rely don’t like to count lines and dots; and especially when that method is used to determent esthetical value in photography. I would say that some of most important artwork in photography was made by “low” quality equipment by today standards. Somehow I don’t think that Robert Mapplethorpe, Henri Cartier Breson, Robert Capa, Diane Arbus, Irving Pen, Joel-Peter Witkin, Nan Goldin…, would be affected by number of pixels in there cameras and algorithms in ROW to tiff conversion.
Camera is a tool for photographer and as such can be compared with a photographer in a first place. Philosophy aside, my idea was to see how suitable M8 is in my case and Canon was there as a benchmark in digital SLR.
Canon delivers decent picture, but I don’t like canon optics. In my humble opinion whole L series is over rated and completely misinterpreted by some individuals, but that is whole different subject. Don’t get me wrong, that is good camera but with lot of room for improvement. Personally I don’t like SLR and size meter in my case. And I was hoping that M8 would be able to deliver similar results agents all adds.
I must say that result was much more then I initially expected. Canon shows all attributes that I was aver of. On the other side M had excellent sharpness, fine color rendering (I didn’t notice any major problems) and dissent dynamic range. But it had a “character”; definitely made by leica lenses. This is a first time for me to see a character in any digital camera ever.
Summicron 90 gave best performance and look, by my opinion. During whole test we could see radical difference in performance of Canon and Leica lenses.
M8 had a bit more noise and some artifact; but again we are talking about digital cameras.
To conclude:
1. Canon Eos 1 Ds Mk II is superior Body to Leica M8, but personally I don’t care, my opinion is that if you need huge digital picture; use digital beck! Any other case Canon and Leica are capable to delivering enough for normal Leica format printing.
2. M8 is optically superior to Canon by far. That difference is huge in my opinion; blessing M8 with personality capable of producing “leica vibe”. On the other hand 1Ds is full frame and that is biggest advantage of this camera.
M8 is definitely Leica, and with all down sides it is unique tool. It is only digital rangefinder and in my book that is a huge plus. Idea that I can just slip digital camera in my already existing M system is excellent but I am aware that without full frame sensor, M8 will turn in to “digital Polaroid ”.
On the other side, I can say that M8 is by far best digital photo camera that I ever had to use. Canon is grate camera but its not my cup of tea; niter any other SLR for that matter. I hope that Leica will work more on M9 and that we will have full frame in future to enjoy.
Thus are my 2-cent on a fact. I am sorry if I was to long or if I unwillingly offended someone. English is not my first; niter a second language, and I apologies for some misspelling I made in this post.
Luka :cool:
Wooow... I haven't read the post and I won't since I'm not a canon user. But I'm not sure to understand " M8 is optically superior to Canon by far"...
zanef2.8
12-02-2007, 17:47
thanks Luka for the review! It's a very interesting read
Luka, thank you for your post. I just printed it so I can give it a second read. I have appreciated your work in the gallery and hearing a little about your use of the tools of the trade is valued.
shutterflower
12-02-2007, 17:54
I played with an M8 once, and also with an EOS 1D mark III. I can safely say that the huge size and weight of the EOS was an immediate turn-off. I would never work with a camera of that heft if given the opportunity to use a smaller machine. With commercial print projects, smaller machines are rarely acceptable. I would say, however, that a rangefinder is not reasonable for studio use. Especially when working with models or other living subjects, you need to be quick and AF is a necessary aspect of that. Fast frame rates as well.
At the moment, the D3 looks like a beautiful machine, but it's heavy and big...and 12MP is not enough resolution to make sense of its size. Nice and noiseless, though.
You're right about the digital backs. If I were in a situation to work with a model for a commercial project, I would be happiest with a Contax, Mamiya, or Hasselblad setup. Or the new Pentax maybe.
chewbacca
12-02-2007, 18:02
Hi thanks for feedback,
NB23, I didn’t won’t to separate camera body from lenses. I was viewing final product not technical capabilities of camera body’s. By optically I was referring to optical systems used on both cameras. Sorry for misunderstanding.
Thanks Rover
chewbacca
12-02-2007, 18:15
Shutterflower thanks for feedback,
Studio work and rangefinder is for me personal preference. I like to see moment of flesh going on, reaction of model in that moment and so on. When using 50, 75 and 90 I use strictly M3 and I am viewing with camera on right eye and with open left eye. M3 is almost 1:1 (0.95 if am not mistaking). In this way I can see 3D image with frame “hanging” in the air. Focusing isn’t big problem for me.
And if can add; in my mind that is a whole point of RF, photographer can see actual moment of taking picture, not as on SLR where you are looking dark faze. It comes wit a price, but it is meter of practice, and reword is high.
Some more things; am considering camera as extension of my mined. And in that constellation I don’t separate camera body from the lens that am using and a film inside; in my had that all is just one thing and id is extension of me. I pick different combo for different thing, but after that moment I don’t question. I act on it. Maybe this is weird, but it is my way and it serves me good so far. So at the end of the day I have what I was wishing to get. Am pointing agene that all this is personal view based on my concept of creative work and my attitude toward photography. I was teaching cinematography on university and my unorthodox views was put for discussion often.
chewbacca
12-02-2007, 19:39
sitemistic
I pointed that Ds is better camera. But that was not my point of observation. I was talking about M8 as Leica that appear to be digital. Many users and rewires are not far to M8 by compeering it in pixel count with other cameras. Am saying we should stop counting pixels and start-enjoying photography’s that we make as we did before. M8 is best digital rangefinder and it come to be leica. I can easy afford one but am not buying one, but that isn’t a reason to not admire what leica achieve with this one. Excellent point. Maybe my English is not so good and I probably passed wrong message. sorry
trev2401
12-02-2007, 19:52
At the moment, the D3 looks like a beautiful machine, but it's heavy and big...and 12MP is not enough resolution to make sense of its size. Nice and noiseless, though.
really? why not?
chewbacca
12-02-2007, 20:20
My wife disagree wit me on this matter. She thinks also, that se II smoker M8. And is she prepay Ds MkIII and waiting for delivery in mid December. My point: Leica keep on working you are on good track. It is easy to comer something with equal or les capable system. But if you comer it with something seriously and camera hold its ground by showing character a signature of real value; it is big thing in my book.
I repeat this was observation from old-dog on some new bones. I can also say that DS MkIII don’t stand ground agents my Linhof, Schneider, Fiji, Imacon combo, but what that prove except that I am prick. M8 put a fight and show me that it is not electronic junk, but truly Leica with some problems to be solved. And if that make me fool; so be it. But at the end of day I have my photos that talking for me and am satisfy man. Am not owner of M8 nether a fan. Just some one who wonted to sheer his personal observation without insulting anyone. Sorry again.
emraphoto
12-02-2007, 21:33
"The 1DS Mk II smokes the M8 in image quality"
hmmm... it's a bit of a long read but perhaps this might be of interest.
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/9022-30-x-40-inch-m8-prints.html
And it's on the Leica User forum, everything must be taken with a grain of salt.
emraphoto
12-02-2007, 23:00
of course... it's just a read, that's all im saying thanx.
Paul Kay
12-03-2007, 00:44
Interesting, and good to see personal opinions/conclusions - as a comparison, this is one of the few I've found to be readable and considered. I myself have Canon 1DS bodies with 24/35/50/85 L Primes and an M8 with the 24/2.8 Asph, 35/2 (version 4) and 50/2 (latest). Although its early days for me and the M8 I'm well convinced already that there are very substantial optical differences between the 2 systems. I'm very wary of really comparing the systems though because, bluntly, they have very different strengths and weaknesses, but in many instances I certainly prefer the Leica results. As for the comment that the MkII 'smokes' the M8 in terms of image quality, personally I'd have to disagree. My M8 experience so far actually tempts me to try R glass on my Canons for some types of work - Canon's 20mm for instance HAD to go and I'm not a huge fan of zooms!
I don't own the 1Ds Mk2 nor the M8 (at least not until my R-D1 packs up) but for what I have seen so far the 1Ds Mk2 seems to run circles around anything that is not at least MF, (and I think it is reasonable to think that probably the 1Ds Mk3 will start to compete with lower end MF backs) of course if you take the images from a 1Ds Mk2, crop it down to 10Mpixels and compare to the output of the M8 than the absence of an AA filter is bound to give some advantage to the M8, however I think that people don’t buy a camera like the 1Ds to crop it down to 10Mpixels so the test seems a bit pointless to me.
About the optical quality I think Canon (like Nikon, Pentax and a few others) have figured out how to design lenses, and even if Leica still produces the best glass, the difference seems to be quite small, and Canon top quality primes are very close.
Even a 5D is be able to provide an image quality comparable to the M8 at less than half the price, and it keeps your wides wide!
On top of that, as soon as you push the ISO over 800 and even a humble 10Mpixel cheap consumer SLR seems to run circles around the M8.
So why the hell I still shoot with a 6Mpixel Dinosaur like the R-D1 and once it will break down beyond repair will replace it with a super expensive 10Mpixel camera like the M8 that also suffers for significant design flaws?
Well either I am an idiot, or I think that a rangefinder camera offers a photographic experience very different from an SLR, and that is the main reson behind it, there is also the fact that to carry around a top of the line DSLR with two or three lenses you need quite a big backpack, but with a RF system you can get away with a small camera bag.
RF people are usually less concerned with lppmm and stuff like that, and are well aware that going street shooting with a 6lbs cannon around your neck ain’t going to work, and is pretty uncomfortable too.
So here is my take:
Is the image quality of the M8 comparable to the top of the line Canon DSLR?
No
Is the image quality of the M8 better than the 5D?
Probably not
Does the M8 cost twice as much as a DSLR with a similar image quality?
Yes
Do I care?
No
chuckcars
12-03-2007, 06:27
Luca, do not be sorry. Your review is excellent and well done. I agree with your point of view - having dumped all my Canon gear in order to buy in to the Leica system. Very glad I did.
I have a huge 17-lb aluminum Gitzo tripod with a 4-lb Arca-Swiss B2 head on it, that in terms of sturdyness and steadyness "smokes" my 0-series Gitzo carbon-fiber with small Kaiser ballhead, although both cost me about the same. However, me carrying that big Gitzo around the streets of Rome or up Macchu Picchu is completely out of the question. The little Gitzo is remarkably solid and it does what I need (holds rock-steady a 3-5-lb setup up to 300mm) unlike similar-sized tripods that cost a tenth the price but which are wobbly. The same situation holds true with the M8 vs a 1Ds Mk II (or III). But if I was a studio photographer, or any pro with an assistant (or was young with a strong back) I would probably own the Canon because I would need its features.
I can understand the enthusiasm for the M8 from the POV that it's the only real alternative if you want a digital RF. Plus it seems to have a bit more dynamic range than most digital sensors, and, of course, you get to use Leica M lenses with it. But enthusiasm doesn't excuse silliness, does it? From the standpoint of overall IQ, the M8 has a hard time keeping up with a 5D - many would argue it simply can't - never mind Canon's 1D series. I have yet to see a really clean looking image from an M8 shot over iso 640, never mind the iso 1600 that any recent Canon DSLR can pull off with ease. And there are DSLR's on the near horizon that are going to make even that performance seem tame. What excuses will M8 users be offering then?
Aha, but is the M8 better at sport photography compared to the DS Mk2 for street :D ??
when it comes to the merits of Leica lenses, I agree that they are generally outstanding. However, my Canon 135f2L and Zeiss ZMs are in my subjective opinion just as good. I am therefore skeptical of the Leica glass changes everything argument, but not having done the digi comparison posted cannot claim the contrary!
Personally, I would use the DS Mk2 where bulk was not an issue and use the m8 for stealth/street/travelling light. Kinda simple really (as one poster pointed out!!!).....
as an aside I have a digital Rebel XTi and my gripe is not with image quality but that the autofocus is crap....really crap!
Personally, the M8 does not appeal, but a 16+mp M9 full frame would...a lot, esp if as small as the film bodies. Yes please!!!!!
I can understand the enthusiasm for the M8 from the POV that it's the only real alternative if you want a digital RF. Plus it seems to have a bit more dynamic range than most digital sensors, and, of course, you get to use Leica M lenses with it. But enthusiasm doesn't excuse silliness, does it? From the standpoint of overall IQ, the M8 has a hard time keeping up with a 5D - many would argue it simply can't - never mind Canon's 1D series. I have yet to see a really clean looking image from an M8 shot over iso 640, never mind the iso 1600 that any recent Canon DSLR can pull off with ease. And there are DSLR's on the near horizon that are going to make even that performance seem tame. What excuses will M8 users be offering then?
That's just dslr talk, IMO. Shooting with a Leica is something else. It's a style in itself and for that, I dont, think shooting clean iso3200 shots is necessary. A M8 stands by itself. I don't see the need to compare it to a Kwanon a Neekon. A Leica is a different animal and anyone who uses a Leica and compares it to other cameras is simply wrong. IMO.
Does anyone know when pixel number will no longer matter to image quality/blow-up size?
I can see the benefit of improved performance at higher ISO, but just curious about pixel number. Sitemistic, for your press work do you find an advantage to the higher pixel count with cropping, etc.?
dazedgonebye
12-03-2007, 08:58
Does anyone know when pixel number will no longer matter to image quality/blow-up size?
I can see the benefit of improved performance at higher ISO, but just curious about pixel number. Sitemistic, for your press work do you find an advantage to the higher pixel count with cropping, etc.?
How many pixels you "need" depends on how big you need the output to be. For most folks, I'm convinced 10mp is plenty adequate (certainly for me).
For any given sensor size/level of technology, adding pixels begins to be a matter of decreasing, or even negative, returns. As far as I'm concerned they could freeze the number of pixels available on pretty much every camera out there and start concentrating on IQ any time now. Of course, it might be necessary to kill off entire marketing departments before going in that direction.
4MP I get fropm my D2H is plenty, believe me!
I've shot product shots destined for publication and posters many times with it.
I am now getting a 10 feet x 10 feet poster from a D2H file and I'm very happy with it.
Honestly, I'm wayyy beyond this megapixel and features craze. I understand the market can't stop because of me but I know I stopped following long ago.
Thanks for the information. The ability to chose depth of field and deal with people movement seems like a huge plus with the new sensors. I don't blow anything up too large, so I'd love full frame so I don't need to buy more lenses.
...Shooting with a Leica is something else. It's a style in itself and for that, I dont, think shooting clean iso3200 shots is necessary....
I have to disagree. The reason I got a Leica to begin with is that it's an excellent low-light camera. Nice clear finder, easy to focus, no mirror flap, etc.. I never cared about the increased resolution digital offers, but I DO care about having the option of shooing at high iso without the attendant film grain or, in the M8's case, digital noise at anything over iso 640.
I don't think Leica can survive be being a "style in itself," I think it needs to be compared to other cameras and needs to start measuring up.
dazedgonebye
12-03-2007, 09:37
I have to disagree. The reason I got a Leica to begin with is that it's an excellent low-light camera. Nice clear finder, easy to focus, no mirror flap, etc.. I never cared about the increased resolution digital offers, but I DO care about having the option of shooing at high iso without the attendant film grain or, in the M8's case, digital noise at anything over iso 640.
I don't think Leica can survive be being a "style in itself," I think it needs to be compared to other cameras and needs to start measuring up.
As in all discussions of this type, it comes down to personal use and style.
As in all discussions of this type, it comes down to personal use and style.
That's true. That's the "negotiable" part. The non-negotiable part, past a certain point, is chasing the diminishing returns of esoteric, expensive lens designs and hand craftsmanship at the expense of simply making a digital RF that can do what any consumer-level DSLR can do: capture clean images at high iso's.
Tell me this: If Zeiss Ikon or Voigtlander started selling a digital rangefinder tomorrow with the sensor from, say, the Canon 40D in their bodies that offered useable iso 3200, would the members of this forum not collectively trip over each other on their way to the store to snatch them up? Answer truthfully, now! :D
Paul Kay
12-03-2007, 09:56
Both MPixels and 'Image Quality" are irrelevant if you don't/can't take the shot in the first place, whether its because the camera is too big/heavy, slow/cumbersome, obtrusive, etc., etc..
My interest in the M8 lies in its size and the weight with 2 or 3 lenses. Match this with lenses which are well up to delivering images fit form my purposes and it is providing me with a very carriable, usable system with which I can take images which I simply wouldn't shoot with my Canons (tooooo heavy......etc.).
dazedgonebye
12-03-2007, 10:00
That's true. That's the "negotiable" part. The non-negotiable part, past a certain point, is chasing the diminishing returns of esoteric, expensive lens designs and hand craftsmanship at the expense of simply making a digital RF that can do what any consumer-level DSLR can do: capture clean images at high iso's.
Tell me this: If Zeiss Ikon or Voigtlander started selling a digital rangefinder tomorrow with the sensor from, say, the Canon 40D in their bodies that offered useable iso 3200, would the members of this forum not collectively trip over each other on their way to the store to snatch them up? Answer truthfully, now! :D
I certainly would...if they used a 5D sensor (overcoming the FF problem) I'd be willing to do a little violence to be head of the line.
Both MPixels and 'Image Quality" are irrelevant if you don't/can't take the shot in the first place, whether its because the camera is too big/heavy, slow/cumbersome, obtrusive, etc., etc..
Really? An M8 with a Summicron 28 mounted is much smaller and lighter than a Canon 40D with a 28/1.8 mounted? And the Canon is slower than the Leica when both are in Manual mode? Really? :confused:
infocusf8@earthlink.
12-03-2007, 10:06
I stopped posting (and was censored three times) at the photo.net forum because it got to the point where a posting for the M8 couldn't be made without the Canon users jumping all over it with comparisons. Something I've never figured out is why the M8/Canon comparison continues and why every time someone makes a verifiable claim about M8 image quality Canon users need to refute it with a Canon claim. It seems a pointless argument since the cameras are so different in design and application. I also don't follow the continuing argument that Leica technology is so outdated and they will have to do a better job on the M9 when Leica can't make enough M8's to keep up with demand. Leica also has seen such an increase in demand for lenses that they can't keep up production to meet it. I've been in retail sales of photography equipment for 16 years and photography for going on 52 years and after demonstrating and using equipment from every manufacturer on a daily basis I think both manufacturers make excellent equipment that produces excellent image quality with the right optics and the application of sound photographic techniques. When it came time for me to invest in a digital camera that I wanted the Leica M8 won hands down for a variety of my own subjective reasons that were applicable to my photography (after all aren't most things we choose really based on subjective factors?). The image quality my M8 produces is superb and has opened new doors for my photography and a renewed interest by me to get back to the roots of actually thinking about all the factors that take place to produce a good image versus the park it in "P" mode and shoot away then fix it in Photoshop. Can I use my Leica for bird and wildlife photography? No, and for that reason I would probably purchase a 40D with a 100-400 IS lens (sorry Nikon I used your cameras for 33 years but your present menus are way too convoluted for me). All that being said it would be refreshing to see this constant debate between the two factions resolve itself to an appreciation of the respective equipment and not an ongoing one-upsmanship (not sure thats a word but it sounds good) that just keeps repeating itself to no real end.:bang:
infocus, I'm an RF shooter by choice. I used to shoot weddings with two M6TTL's, a 50 pre-asph. Summilux; 35 Asph. Summilux; 90 pre-asph Summicron. Wonderful cameras, wonderful lenses. A bit limited for some things, but the EOS-3 was always in the bag for those times. :)
When the M8 came out, I sat on the fence and waited, credit card in hand, hoping it would be a real, useable, no-excuses digital RF. But it isn't. It's a hobbyist's camera. The reason the M8 discussion keeps getting shunted off to ever-smaller internet sites is probably because it can't stand the blunt, straightforward statements of fact that it meets on open internet forums such as this: the sensor in that camera is in no way near the current state of the digital art. Its extended DR and 14-bit sensor don't compensate for its Nikon D70-like high iso performance.
When I loaded my EOS-3 and my TTL's with the same film stock, then the playing field was level, and the Leicas oftentimes even had the edge in image quality. But the same isn't true now with different sensors in every camera. The Canon sensors are simply much better than the Leica sensors with the iso dial set past iso 640.
That the M8 has been a big success just shows that digital is absolutely the dominant capture technology now, and that the old Leica virtues of simple, straightforward camera design still hold. But, again, I'll say: If Voigtlander or Zeiss Ikon made a 10mp, 1.5 crop digital RF tomorrow with a Canon sensor in it, not only would the members on this forum trip over themselves to buy it, they'd be working their spellcheck programs 'til their hard drives smoked looking for new superlatives to describe the things. You know it's true. :D
...if they used a 5D sensor (overcoming the FF problem) I'd be willing to do a little violence to be head of the line.
Hah, I just saw this! You and me both! :)
When the M8 came out, I sat on the fence and waited, credit card in hand, hoping it would be a real, useable, no-excuses digital RF. But it isn't. It's a hobbyist's camera.
I don't like to get into gear debates, but in this case I must respectfully disagree with you. As a fellow wedding photographer, I have been using M8s since April of this year all over the place (New York, Chicago, California, Mexico and Finland) without skippping a beat or a complaint from any of my clients. You will also hear more about the M8 and wedding photographers in 2008, stay tuned...
Best,
Riccis
infocusf8@earthlink.
12-03-2007, 11:21
I'll say: If Voigtlander or Zeiss Ikon made a 10mp, 1.5 crop digital RF tomorrow with a Canon sensor in it, not only would the members on this forum trip over themselves to buy it, they'd be working their spellcheck programs 'til their hard drives smoked looking for new superlatives to describe the things. You know it's true.
That may be your choice and so be it but I do disagree with you. Everyone in the digital world seems to be in a constant state of waiting for the newest next and best instead of purchasing what they need and working with it to achieve the best image quality they can get. That is what fuels the economics of retail photography. I can't tell you how many times I've heard the same old story from people who bought an expensive outfit thinking it would improve their photography only to be disappointed and want to know if they should sell it and switch to brand X. If I want the look and feel of a Canon I'll buy one, instead I chose the look and feel of the Leica and no I would not sell it to purchase a Leica with a Canon sensor my present M8 does exactly what I want it to do and very well.
I stopped posting (and was censored three times) at the photo.net forum because it got to the point where a posting for the M8 couldn't be made without the Canon users jumping all over it with comparisons. Something I've never figured out is why the M8/Canon comparison continues and why every time someone makes a verifiable claim about M8 image quality Canon users need to refute it with a Canon claim. It seems a pointless argument since the cameras are so different in design and application.
Thanks for that.
IQ discussions at the current state of technology are pointless and I really couldnt care less about what the average internet amateur calls "noise" and which camera is more or less "noisy" than the other.
Get a life. Film looks better anyway. And remember: There is nothing worse than a noise-free image of a fuzzy concept.
chewbacca
12-03-2007, 13:20
Prosaic:
Amen to that! I personally think that all that techno talk is waste of time. At the end of the day it come to what you have to say; use pinhole if needed!
Sitemistic:
I strongly disagree with you. On any system for recording images by chemical or digital base, optical element is determining factor; and as such it leave it on mark. You are talking about canon cameras and for the sake of argument lets say that same camera WTi is used to record scene with Canon 50mmL at f1.4 and 50mm Summilux-R at F1.4 mounted via adapter. So by what are your saying is that we will have same image just because camera had just 10 mp?
Am averring that you are an expert on digital cameras and my knowledge in this field is limited. On the other hand I know that this logic is far from realty if talk about film. Best exemplar can be made with any LF system; wide variety of formats can be shoot on same camera with different lenses. And for sure Super-SummarXL Aspheric will deliver same image on 4x5 and 120Roll film. Result from thus develop films would be same if we use same material. But then, if we use Summar 210 from 1950 or pinhole; we would for sure have different image. And for the end of this virtual test lets say that we try same experiment but this time with lowest quality material available on market. We could see the difference again.
So if you can pleas explained to me how is possible that 10Mp camera cant make difference? Thank you in advance.
Get a life.
This is rather vague. Could you be more specific?
Film looks better anyway.
In color? At iso 1600? 800, even?
chewbacca
12-03-2007, 14:05
Thanks for answer.
chewbacca
12-03-2007, 17:22
I also think so; but what do I know!
infocusf8@earthlink.
12-03-2007, 17:56
I'm no expert. But the experts I've read seem to pretty much agree that the tools in Photoshop, like unsharp mask, etc., pretty much erase the differences between lenses on digital cameras. With digital, sharpness is much more influenced by processing than the lens itself.
I really don't follow this as any expert in PS will tell you that unsharp mask is one of the worst tools to use on an image for sharpening. Smart sharpen is a much better tool if you're going to use one but there is really no compromise for a sharp image to begin with. Leica's design criteria for Kodak was to design a sensor that did not compromise the sharpness of the Leica lenses and did not require processing to make the image sharp, they are successful in that respect. Canon (and other's) on the other hand relies heavily on their Digic processor to clean up the image that comes off the CMOS sensors they use which inherently produce a softer image than a CCD.
I keep hearing a lot of speculative thinking from Canon owners, on these forums, about what ifs. What if a this or that company produced a rangefinder with a Canon sensor in it and they will come in droves. I'll bet against it every time. Has Cosina Voigtlander made an Epson RD2? Was it as successful as the M8? No to both. Will Canon produce a rangefinder? I'll bet against it. Will there be a better Leica rangefinder? That remains to be seen but with speculative logic you can carry on the argument not to buy something ad infinitum because the next one will always be better.
And as for a Canon Rebel Xti being a better camera with better image quality that is pure rubbish. The fit and finish of the camera doesn't hold a candle to the M8 and the argument regarding sensor size can also be applied here as the Rebel uses an APS size sensor and the M8 an APSC sensor. More surface area better image quality, at least that's what I'm hearing. Do you care to dispute yourself? I had hoped that this forum was not run by Canon users who seem intent on trying to make Leica M8 owners somehow regret they didn't buy a Canon. I see that is not the case and have better things to do than listen to opinions by people who neither own or use the camera. See you in the field, I'll be the one with the M8 and a smile on his face.
chewbacca
12-03-2007, 17:57
Why lighting a scene to achieve atmosphere, we can just put gradient oval selection in Photoshop over 2d image; if we start to simplify things based on tricks, whole this discussion is completely pointless. For years I was telling my students that at the “end" we are going to shoot with Nokia telephones or 8x10’’!
fdigital
12-03-2007, 18:13
Digital is the same as film. Get everything right from the start and you'll have a beautiful picture. The lens matters a huge amount - I've found on my canon 5d that the lens matters more than it does on film, as the sensor is more taxing on resolution and the way the lens renders the image. I use canon L lenses, and I find them very good - especially the L primes like the 35 1.4, 85 1.2, 135 f2 and the 24 1.4. These in particular are stunning examples of canons top lens technology and all samples are as good if not better then leica or zeiss equivalents of the same focal length.
Not only do the L lenses have improved resolution/micro contrast but it's often the things people don't think about too - each one is weather sealed, water/dust resistant, extremely flare resistant (my 17-40 f4L is just amazing - I have never had it flare on me, even when pointed directly at the sun without a hood), all have good contrast and hold it wide open, color reproduction is of high quality throughout, built like absolute tanks etc etc.
The more USM you add, the more unwanted artifacts will occur in the image - basically you want to be processing to an absolute minimum for the highest quality.
I like the m8, and I'd like to have one. But I use my cameras for work as well as play, my 5d and 1d make a great team - one full frame and the other crop sensor, one high resolution and large files and the other small files - ones able to be used in the rain/dust/weather. I've dropped the 1d, ran it into walls etc etc and it's tough as hell. No rangefinder to go out of alignment, no base plate to be sheared off. My canon DSLRs do everything I could ask, maybe in some situations without the same "sparkle" that the m8 has via its lenses and no AA kodak sensor, but I can guarantee that in high pressure situations where I depend upon the camera and it's subject to extreme conditions such as blistering rain and dust, knocking around in the back of a truck etc etc, the DSLR is a much more comforting thought.
trev2401
12-03-2007, 18:33
Digital is the same as film. Get everything right from the start and you'll have a beautiful picture. The lens matters a huge amount - I've found on my canon 5d that the lens matters more than it does on film, as the sensor is more taxing on resolution and the way the lens renders the image. I use canon L lenses, and I find them very good - especially the L primes like the 35 1.4, 85 1.2, 135 f2 and the 24 1.4. These in particular are stunning examples of canons top lens technology and all samples are as good if not better then leica or zeiss equivalents of the same focal length.
Not only do the L lenses have improved resolution/micro contrast but it's often the things people don't think about too - each one is weather sealed, water/dust resistant, extremely flare resistant (my 17-40 f4L is just amazing - I have never had it flare on me, even when pointed directly at the sun without a hood), all have good contrast and hold it wide open, color reproduction is of high quality throughout, built like absolute tanks etc etc.
The more USM you add, the more unwanted artifacts will occur in the image - basically you want to be processing to an absolute minimum for the highest quality.
I like the m8, and I'd like to have one. But I use my cameras for work as well as play, my 5d and 1d make a great team - one full frame and the other crop sensor, one high resolution and large files and the other small files - ones able to be used in the rain/dust/weather. I've dropped the 1d, ran it into walls etc etc and it's tough as hell. No rangefinder to go out of alignment, no base plate to be sheared off. My canon DSLRs do everything I could ask, maybe in some situations without the same "sparkle" that the m8 has via its lenses and no AA kodak sensor, but I can guarantee that in high pressure situations where I depend upon the camera and it's subject to extreme conditions such as blistering rain and dust, knocking around in the back of a truck etc etc, the DSLR is a much more comforting thought.
oooooo k... yes yes... I'm sure we pretty much know how good/fantastic/wonderful canon bodies & lenses are.
As sitemistic pointed out, let's not let this thread degenerate into one of FM's 'Canon's Da Best & you were an id*iot to buy anything else' threads.
Now how bouts the M8?
fdigital
12-03-2007, 19:12
oooooo k... yes yes... I'm sure we pretty much know how good/fantastic/wonderful canon bodies & lenses are.
As sitemistic pointed out, let's not let this thread degenerate into one of FM's 'Canon's Da Best & you were an id*iot to buy anything else' threads.
Now how bouts the M8?
I think that whole comment was a bit out of line. I never slagged the m8, in fact I said that I want one. I also said that the images it produces seem to have a magical "sparkle" to them. I'm not a canon fan-boy - far from it. I use an Olympus OM2 and nikon F3 for film SLRs and I've had numerous leica/japanese rangefinders. The original post in the thread was a comparison with the m8 vs a 1dsmk2. My comment was relevant in that I was stating that FOR ME (personal opinion warning - if you're too proud of your $5000 leica to hear it can be beaten in some areas, go suck a leica lemon), the canon DSLR is a better compromise of overall usefulness due its excellent reliability and consistency. Not just Canon DSLRs either, the Nikons are excellent - especially the new D3 and even the new olympus e-3 which is highly sealed against the elements.
As I said in my first post, the slight image advantage at low isos the m8 may have over a D3, E-3, 5d or a 1d can be overlooked by the fact that the DSLRs are just more versatile and (IMO) more reliable in trying conditions.
The other point I just thought of is that the m8 isn't so great over 1250iso - All the above mentioned DSLRs are excellent up to 3200. If you want to argue that high ISO performance isn't important, I'll post up a portrait taken for the local top newspaper of a guy that owns the only still running silent theatre in the world, @ iso 3200.
All of this is relevant, because the original poster was comparing a canon DSLR and a leica m8. I am too, just put into context of my professional usage of the gear.
I had hoped that this forum was not run by Canon users who seem intent on trying to make Leica M8 owners somehow regret they didn't buy a Canon.
The M8 owners who've responded in this thread sure don't seem to listen very well. No one here is a 'Canon fanboy' or any other sort of gibberish. I shot with Leicas; I even made money with them, which, I'd wager, is more than the most Leica owners can say. I love using them, too, but I'm not so blinded by brand loyalty that I can't make a simple, technically accurate observation, viz, Canon makes a better sensor for high iso use.
I...have better things to do than listen to opinions by people who neither own or use the camera.
You're not alone. Many M8 owners seem equally agoraphobic. But there is a sanctuary on the world wide web where you won't have to rub shoulders with the hoi polloi: http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/
fdigital
12-03-2007, 19:52
I'm no expert. But the experts I've read seem to pretty much agree that the tools in Photoshop, like unsharp mask, etc., pretty much erase the differences between lenses on digital cameras. With digital, sharpness is much more influenced by processing than the lens itself.
I really don't follow this as any expert in PS will tell you that unsharp mask is one of the worst tools to use on an image for sharpening. Smart sharpen is a much better tool if you're going to use one but there is really no compromise for a sharp image to begin with. Leica's design criteria for Kodak was to design a sensor that did not compromise the sharpness of the Leica lenses and did not require processing to make the image sharp, they are successful in that respect. Canon (and other's) on the other hand relies heavily on their Digic processor to clean up the image that comes off the CMOS sensors they use which inherently produce a softer image than a CCD.
I keep hearing a lot of speculative thinking from Canon owners, on these forums, about what ifs. What if a this or that company produced a rangefinder with a Canon sensor in it and they will come in droves. I'll bet against it every time. Has Cosina Voigtlander made an Epson RD2? Was it as successful as the M8? No to both. Will Canon produce a rangefinder? I'll bet against it. Will there be a better Leica rangefinder? That remains to be seen but with speculative logic you can carry on the argument not to buy something ad infinitum because the next one will always be better.
And as for a Canon Rebel Xti being a better camera with better image quality that is pure rubbish. The fit and finish of the camera doesn't hold a candle to the M8 and the argument regarding sensor size can also be applied here as the Rebel uses an APS size sensor and the M8 an APSC sensor. More surface area better image quality, at least that's what I'm hearing. Do you care to dispute yourself? I had hoped that this forum was not run by Canon users who seem intent on trying to make Leica M8 owners somehow regret they didn't buy a Canon. I see that is not the case and have better things to do than listen to opinions by people who neither own or use the camera. See you in the field, I'll be the one with the M8 and a smile on his face.
CCD vs CMOS....
All I can say is that now nikon are using CMOS, Canon are using CMOS, Sony are using CMOS, Panasonic are using CMOS, Olympus are using CMOS.
In the old days of digital cameras, it was thought that CMOS was an inferior chip, but now I think in terms of overall versatility, efficiency and image quality, the CMOS is ahead of the CCD. Try doing a 30 second exposure with a CCD nikon and then comparing it to a CMOS canon, both at low iso. Compare the Canon 30d to the Nikon d200 at high ISO. Theres no comparison - the CMOS sensor does better at those 2 things. Quite a bit better. This is the reason nikon is now using CMOS. If you check the d3 samples posted all over the net, there is no lack of sharpness there at all.
"Leica's design criteria for Kodak was to design a sensor that did not compromise the sharpness of the Leica lenses and did not require processing to make the image sharp, they are successful in that respect. Canon (and other's) on the other hand relies heavily on their Digic processor to clean up the image that comes off the CMOS sensors they use which inherently produce a softer image than a CCD."
- Wrong. The m8 produces a sharper file than the CMOS DSLRs because it has a very very weak Anti Aliasing filter in front of the sensor. Not because of the CMOS vs CCD thing. They designed it this way to get maximum sharpness at the expense of more moire and also IR penetration - if you haven't already noticed most people with m8s that use them for color work also use IR filters on the front of the lenses.
Also, if shooting RAW (which you should be if you're shooting digital seriously), the picture is not processed whatsoever within the camera. It is, in effect, the RAW data output by the sensor. The Digic processors in the canon have very little to do with processing in RAW output, more the speed and efficiency at which it's done.
I have the 1Ds Mark II. I used my friends Epson RD-1 and my Leitz 50mm f/1.4 Summilux first version and I had a hard time seeing which produced the better landscape image.
So they are close enough.
I use my M5 with my 50 Lux all the time and scan the neg's.
I use Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Riccoh and Leica 35mm systems and I like them all.
I have just purchased but not yet recieved an HP DesignJet 130 24" x 36"
6 color dye printer and so soon I will be printing my landscapes the same size as I paint my oil paintings of landscapes. I'm thinking all my dslr's will be able to print this big. I know my 1Ds Mark II will and I am hoping my Leica M5 with 50 Summilux will too!
Cheers to all you fighting Ninja's! I'm a lover not a fighter!!
The M8 owners who've responded in this thread sure don't seem to listen very well. No one here is a 'Canon fanboy' or any other sort of gibberish. I shot with Leicas; I even made money with them, which, I'd wager, is more than the most Leica owners can say. I love using them, too, but I'm not so blinded by brand loyalty that I can't make a simple, technically accurate observation, viz, Canon makes a better sensor for high iso use.
You're not alone. Many M8 owners seem equally agoraphobic. But there is a sanctuary on the world wide web where you won't have to rub shoulders with the hoi polloi: http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/
I am an M8 owner, amongst other cameras. Please don't include me in your "don't listen very well" comment. I've been as harsh a critic of Leica and the M8 as any non M8 user. These sort of generalisations are not much more than trolling. If you don't own one or have shot extensively with one, then perhaps you should limit your comments. The same applies to any camera that any one of us has not used.
And it's on the Leica User forum, everything must be taken with a grain of salt.
As opposed to this forum?:rolleyes: :p (or any other internet forum for that matter...)
Just fyi, the poster of the thread quoted is a (if not the) printing guru of this world....
Batman is nice you know. But I think Superman can kick his ass because he has x-ray vision. I´m not a Superman-Fan-Boy either. But Superman has a lot more Superpowers than Batman. Just look at the facts.
fdigital
12-04-2007, 01:24
:rolleyes:
forum
noun
1. a public meeting or assembly for open discussion
2. a public facility to meet for open discussion
I just love it when people take a perfectly normal thread discussing the virtues and impressions of this and that, and make it into a sarcasm elitism 'fest, because they can't handle the topic at hand.
Chewbacca - would you mind sharing some pictures from the shoot with us from the m8 or the 1ds or both?
fdigital
12-04-2007, 01:26
Err... the M8 using a sensor without AA filter requires far less "sharpening" if any (which is not sharpening but edge contrast enhancing btw) than sensors with such a filter. That is not unlogical, given that an AA filter is basically a piece of matte glass in front of the sensor. The sensor behind it would probably needs as little sharpening as the Kodak sensor, developed not just for the M8 but for digital backs as well.
True. The m8 files are naturally sharper due to the much weaker/thinner AA filter in front of the kodak sensor. It's also the reason from magenta looking blacks in color.
If Canon offered a digital RF, would they use a chrome finish? If Leica offered a FF sensor, would the camera break your shoulder? Enquiring minds want to know!
http://patternassociates.com/rico/leica/misc/ouago3.jpg
Paul Kay
12-04-2007, 02:14
Really? An M8 with a Summicron 28 mounted is much smaller and lighter than a Canon 40D with a 28/1.8 mounted? And the Canon is slower than the Leica when both are in Manual mode? Really? :confused:
Hmmmmmm! I actually sold a 20D when I bought the M8. I'd tried it with Canon's 20/2.8, 35/2 and 60/2.8 micro - a far bulkier and somewhat heavier outfit altogether than the equivalent M which didn't fit in as small a case! The 20 and 35 lenses could be described as 'adequate' no more (probably less in the 20s case) and no amount of PS will an adequate lens into a superb lens. I also have a 35/1.4L - an excellent though not perfect lens) but its very much heavier. The EFS60 micro is a cracker (or the 2 copies I have certainly are) even at infinity. So I'm not biased in favour of ALL Leica lenses (and I use 1D Canon's series most of the time). But I'd say (a personal opinion) that a dSLR is still far more obtrusive in many situations than an M rangefinder. Speed of use depend on many factors but a largely preset Leica M is pretty fast to use.
I won't post again on this (clearly emotive) topic but I will say that to date the M8 has yielded images in the way that I wanted it to with the minimum of fuss and least time spent in PS - I'm a photographer and accept but begrudge time spent dealing with image files as I sometimes spend 8+ hours a day using PS, and that is way more than enough already.
True. The m8 files are naturally sharper due to the much weaker/thinner AA filter in front of the kodak sensor. It's also the reason from magenta looking blacks in color.
Let's be pedantic. The lack of an AA filter can cause moire, which can be removed in software. The lack of an IR cut filter causes magenta shift, which needs an IR cut filter infront of the lens. Both decisions are tradeoff to exceptional image quality, beyond the specifications of comparable sensor.
How did my word tradeoff transmogrify into advantage ???
dacaccia
12-04-2007, 02:59
it's not really suitable comparing M8 to a DSLR. The - let's call it "atmosphere" - is simply different, regardless which actual or less actual DSLR you choose. Cause will probably be the different lenses of M and R (I am using Leica-R on my Canon). You will easily find out taking some street with the one and the other. With the Canon images are of really stunning quality, esp. with the Leica lenses which beat the Canon easily (I've tested), but ... the whole thing is simply different with M8.
Cheers,
dacaccia
Just to add a luddite perspective,
I am thinking of shooting Fuji slide film next year instead of negative film as it will be easier for me to scan.
Fuji vs Kodak anyone?
But Leica has always been about uncompromised quality. That's why folks pay a premium for them. So why did Leica photographers jump on a compromised camera from Leica? Because they desperately wanted a digital camera. And one that would use their Leica lenses. And then a lot (no, not every M8 owner feels this way) of them seem to get on internet forums and make the argument that the camera blows away all the other digitals on the market. That there is some pixie dust inside that makes magic. Instead of being critical of Leitz for creating a compromised camera, they defend them by declaring that camera superior.
I agree with a lot here, mostly my thoughts though are along the lines that no digital camera is perfect, all are compromised to some degree which is the product of a still young advancing technology. I think everyone should use and enjoy the tools they have chosen, and not worry what is best, they are all flawed in some way. Film cameras evolved to the point that the lines were clear, each camera had a slot in the market, each lens had a characteristic, each kit a use for which it excelled, and they all used the same media. Digital to a certain degree will get there but the media will remain proprietary to the manufacturer because in addition to the sensor, the processor and electronics will always be unique. So it will be interesting to see this market mature. And there will always be fuel to the what is best arguments, more so I think than than when Trix is Trix in my Canon and your Nikon no matter what days.
I see some signs I like, the Canon 40D with only 10mp and the full frame Nikon D3 with only 12, is the megapixel cold war finally over? Is improvement in imaging going to win out over marketing for a little while? That same advancement has to be made by all competitors, including Leica. There will always be the RF/SLR difference, a Canon L lens vs Leica lens is an old tired discussion, they aren't changing and they are just different. The digital RF in my opinion has to keep stepping forward though to keep pace because if they don't the eventually the only reason to have an M8 will be to have a RF digital body on which to use your Lieca lenses.
Now, those Fuji mailers, I assume they return the processed slides mounted?
Please don't include me in your "don't listen very well" comment. I've been as harsh a critic of Leica and the M8 as any non M8 user. These sort of generalisations are not much more than trolling. If you don't own one or have shot extensively with one, then perhaps you should limit your comments.
Gid, I wasn't trolling, honest, and I tried to keep my comments specific to what I'd read in this thread. I don't own the camera, but I have seen the high iso files on the web, so I am comparing apples to apples, I think, and I'm limiting my comments to that aspect of the camera. :)
fdigital
12-04-2007, 04:04
Just to add a luddite perspective,
I am thinking of shooting Fuji slide film next year instead of negative film as it will be easier for me to scan.
Fuji vs Kodak anyone?
Fuji Provia for skin tones in a colorful environment - eg travel
Fuji Astia for Pure Skin tones
Fuji Velvia 100f for flower bokeh and general high saturation shots without going too overboard
Kodak e100vs for when you want a little less real but still pleasing colours than velvia 100f, or just when you're shooting on a contrasty day (I find the velvia to block up shadows in contrast)
Gid, I wasn't trolling, honest, and I tried to keep my comments specific to what I'd read in this thread. I don't own the camera, but I have seen the high iso files on the web, so I am comparing apples to apples, I think, and I'm limiting my comments to that aspect of the camera. :)
Yes- you have seen them on the web, but you have not seen them where it counts - in print, and believe me, the on-sensor noise reduction that gives the Canon sensors their apparent high-iso performance, compares unfavourably with the noise of CCD sensors, especially the Kodak sensor in the M8 and even more with film. I am really interested to see what the new Nikons will do in this respect. They may well surpass the M8 and blow Canon out of the water - in print.
Digital Dude
12-04-2007, 04:32
As an owner of the new M8, I truly appreciated your assessment and review. I was very tempted to purchase the D3 that was less expensive than the Leica although I opted for a camera that was less complicated and more fun. Obviously, I’m not a professional and I don’t view the Leica as just a piece of equipment. As a former defense worker, I do have some experience with optics and ranging systems and I’m sure this contributes to my appeal of the M8. In the end, I admire the compact design and lens quality of the M-series. Sure, I would love to see refinements in the current design since the QC of the Leica (in my opinion) is nearly the worst in the industry. For now, it’s my choice and I look forward to Leica’s future developments. Thanks again.
Regards,
fdigital
12-04-2007, 04:49
Yes- you have seen them on the web, but you have not seen them where it counts - in print, and believe me, the on-sensor noise reduction that gives the Canon sensors their apparent high-iso performance, compares unfavourably with the noise of CCD sensors, especially the Kodak sensor in the M8 and even more with film. I am really interested to see what the new Nikons will do in this respect. They may well surpass the M8 and blow Canon out of the water - in print.
I'm sorry but this is SOLEY your opinion. I own a 5d and a 1d and have previously owned a 30d. In my uni there are people with D2xs and D200s (which I really appreciate - especially in the ergonomics area).
A the moment the 2 kings of low light noise performance are the 5d and the 1dmk3. The d3 is only just starting to filter onto the web, and from the samples I've seen, seems to beat my 5d by a little, but not a huge amount in High ISO performance.
The previous nikons, and the current d300 still do not hold a candle to the 5d in low light performance with sensor noise. I'm sorry, but when shooting a RAW file, the canon camera does NOT process the picture at all. The RAW file is just that - a RAW unprocessed image without in camera processing. Even comparing d200/300 JPEGS and M8 JPEGS with the canon files, the nikon/leica files have MUCH more noise reduction at high ISO than the 5d. The reason why the 5d and the 1dmk2/mk3 are the most used cameras for weddings by professionals is specifically because of their superior low light performance.
The m8 doesn't compare to the 5d in that respect either
Please also note that the 5d is a number of years old. It isn't the latest technology.
If you do not believe me, have a look on this page. Believe me, the prints mirror the results on screen:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2265/2062859422_0666482558_o.jpg
That result is with JPEGs, as you can see the ISO3200 5d result is basically no softer or less detailed than the iso 800 result - which is almost noiseless. Both the M8 and the D200 are both pretty unusable at that level.
Also by saying that CMOS sensors are the problem etc etc etc, you are also burning the new D3 and D300, both of which use CMOS sensors for their well documented by now noise and efficiency characteristics.
If you are going to argue this fact you are either:
a) a brand loyalist to nikon (sony - they make their sensors) /leica
b) blind
c) extremely ignorant
fdigital
12-04-2007, 04:50
As an owner the new M8, I truly appreciated your assessment and review. I was very tempted to purchase the D3 that was less expensive than the Leica although I opted for a camera that was less complicated and more fun. Obviously, I’m not a professional and I don’t view the Leica as just a piece of equipment. As a former defense worker, I do have some experience with optics and ranging systems and I’m sure this contributes to my appeal of the M8. In the end, I admire the compact design and lens quality of the M-series. Sure, I would love to see refinements in the current design since the QC of the Leica (in my opinion) is nearly the worst in the industry. For now, it’s my choice and I look forward to Leica’s future developments. Thanks again.
Regards,
You've got an enviable position for me - I'd love to have an M8 as my daily personal camera. You couldn't get a better digital for that!
Gid, I wasn't trolling, honest, and I tried to keep my comments specific to what I'd read in this thread. I don't own the camera, but I have seen the high iso files on the web, so I am comparing apples to apples, I think, and I'm limiting my comments to that aspect of the camera. :)
kevin,
Cool. I was a bit grumpy this morning, so apologies.:)
Fuji Provia for skin tones in a colorful environment - eg travel
Fuji Astia for Pure Skin tones
Fuji Velvia 100f for flower bokeh and general high saturation shots without going too overboard
Kodak e100vs for when you want a little less real but still pleasing colours than velvia 100f, or just when you're shooting on a contrasty day (I find the velvia to block up shadows in contrast)
For me it would have to be Provia 400 if you were looking at just one film for all year use - it can be pushed quite hard. OT, a work colleague has just brought in a Pentax MX and a MG and a few lenses that he doesn't use anymore and told me to take them home and play with them - I guess I'll have to use up those last few rolls of Provia :cool:
I'm sorry but this is SOLEY your opinion.
Did I present it otherwise?
I own a 5d and a 1d I'm sorry, but when shooting a RAW file, the canon camera does NOT process the picture at all. The RAW file is just that - a RAW unprocessed image without in camera processing.
You are looking one step too far - a Cmos sensor has more native noise than a ccd, so there is on-chip circuitry that -amongst other things- reduces noise. The strong point of Canon is that they do this excellently, resulting in virtually noiseless high-iso files. The drawback is that the result looks to some viewers "digital", an esthetic assesment, which I happen to share, and so does, clearly the OP, but not his wife.
We simply do not subscribe to the mantra that smooooooth is beautiful.
Even comparing d200/300 JPEGS and M8 JPEGS with the canon files, the nikon/leica files have MUCH more noise reduction at high ISO than the 5d. The reason why the 5d and the 1dmk2/mk3 are the most used cameras for weddings by professionals is specifically because of their superior low light performance.
The m8 doesn't compare to the 5d in that respect either
Please also note that the 5d is a number of years old. It isn't the latest technology.
If you do not believe me, have a look on this page. Believe me, the prints mirror the results on screen:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2265/2062859422_0666482558_o.jpg
That result is with JPEGs, as you can see the ISO3200 5d result is basically no softer or less detailed than the iso 800 result - which is almost noiseless. Both the M8 and the D200 are both pretty unusable at that level.
Also by saying that CMOS sensors are the problem etc etc etc, you are also burning the new D3 and D300, both of which use CMOS sensors for their well documented by now noise and efficiency characteristics.
Which is surely solely your opinion.... See above.
If you are going to argue this fact you are either:
a) a brand loyalist to nikon (sony - they make their sensors) /leica
b) blind
c) extremely ignorant
Do you hold this kind of pejorative opnions about everybody you disagree with? Or have you got a problem if someone argues? That is, after all, what forums are for.....Relax, mate, these are just cameras we are discussing, not some kind of religion. Have a beer.
iridium7777
12-04-2007, 06:15
yes, although they tell you now it's more than 2 stamps, it's something like $1.35 they want.
Now, those Fuji mailers, I assume they return the processed slides mounted?
fdigital
12-04-2007, 07:24
Did I present it otherwise?
You are looking one step too far - a Cmos sensor has more native noise than a ccd, so there is on-chip circuitry that -amongst other things- reduces noise. The strong point of Canon is that they do this excellently, resulting in virtually noiseless high-iso files. The drawback is that the result looks to some viewers "digital", an esthetic assesment, which I happen to share, and so does, clearly the OP, but not his wife.
We simply do not subscribe to the mantra that smooooooth is beautiful.
Which is surely solely your opinion.... See above.
Do you hold this kind of pejorative opnions about everybody you disagree with? Or have you got a problem if someone argues? That is, after all, what forums are for.....Relax, mate, these are just cameras we are discussing, not some kind of religion. Have a beer.
Look, I'm not trying to get shirty with you. I enjoy this type of discussion, and it's all in the name of the camera community discussing cameras and learning from each other right? If I came off sounding offensive I apologize, though I don't agree with you at all, and I'm trying to get my point across as well as I can. Have a look at the sample site I linked you to... it was from dpreview.com and has a noise comparison between the m8, d200 and 5d.
It is clear from viewing just that test that the d200 and the m8 are under heavy noise reduction past the point of 1250iso and are smudging detail quite badly, when as the 5d is holding it. Yes, the 5d is smooth but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's smoothing detail. It just means there is less luminance noise than the nikon and leica. Obviously as noise control gets better, the picture will have less luminance (grainy speckly) and color (red blue yellow green dots and splodges) noise while retaining micro contrast and fine detail in the subjects.
The other thing I'd love to hear your comeback to would be the whole CDD vs CMOS thing - You're saying you'd love to see how the new nikons do because you think they'll blow canon out of the water.... I've got some news if you didn't already know. THE NEW NIKONS USE CMOS SENSORS.
So how exactly do you put the two together? If the CCD is a better technology for general image quality and more specifically for noise control at high isos, why aren't nikon still using it? Why do you think they switched to the CMOS technology and suddenly all the guys are raving about their high ISO ability?
Now, as a final effort to back up what I have been saying, I'm going to post 2 examples of Canon and CMOS low light ability I took about an hour ago around my house. One is at 1600 iso in good light, and the other was me trying to push the sensor of my 5D to the absolute extreme of low light situations @ 3200 iso. Both are RAW processed in ACR with NO adjustments to ANYTHING. NO noise reduction, NO sharpening. Both shot with $90 50mm 1.8
1. ISO 1600, f2.2, 1/50th
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2313/2086849874_284e659755_o.jpg
When I pixel peep into 100%, I can (to genevieve the model and my girlfriends dismay) see the individual hairs on her upper lip, as well as the pores on her cheek and nose. No large loss of detail here....
2. ISO 3200, f1.8, 1/2 a second - handheld.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2325/2086065303_596c84e5f4_o.jpg
I shot this from the distant glow of a normal sized TV. The shot is not crucially sharp because it was handheld for half a second. This is the extremes of what anyone would normally be shooting. I can see decent detail in the boys hair even with the 1/2 second shutter speed. The histogram on my computer comes up as no information past about halfway - which means the shot was underexposed.
To me, this is exceptional noise control in both instances. Both have low noise, high detail, and high color/contrast. If any m8 or d200/d2x/k10d/d300/CCD lovers would like to publicly challenge me in saying that the m8 or CCD sensor in general has better high ISO noise control, I invite you to post a picture from your machine under the same sort of situations and lighting without ANY noise reduction or sharpening.
Cheers:p
So can anyone tell me how to get the Fuji film into my M8? After taking out the memory card try as i might it don't fit :)
Also I'm glad there is the same problem with noise as the D200 .. phew at least I'm happy in the knowledge of having two blind eyes :) I have real sympathy for you guys who get to see the difference. It must be frustrating.
I'm not sure what Trolling is .. I'm sure I once saw a definition but can't see it now .. but for what it is worth .. I hardly ever print .. but I do use the TV for slide shows .. (well you gotta replace the good old slide projector with something when you need to bore the neighbours :))
My first digital was a 1meg P&S, after a couple of years I fimally broke cover and dumped (gave to my son) my Minolta for a D70. I was amazed and found myself 'zooming-in' for example to see the "details of the stichting round the button hole" or the "drops of pollen on a flower" .. it was only when I did my said slide show that I realised how intraverted I'd become (trying not to use swear words) because the folks were impressed by the content and not my mind blowing 6 meg pixels.
So whilst we can talk about resolution .. and it passes a few mins to read all about it .. it all comes down to the end result. What you gonna do with the said picture.
But it does matter? Unfortunatelly it does, everything has to advance, evolve and get better, even if we don't think we need it at the time.
Good luck and happy picture taking.
PS did I troll? what it Trolling?
No need to shout, Gavin. Yes I knew. Frankly I don't care two hoots about Canon or Nikon. I have my M8's and am in the process of adding a DMR. Most of my Canon stuff has been dumped over the last couple of years.
Ok. Shoot-out.
The M8 will not perform to my satisfaction at ISO 2500 (Surprise :p :D) so I tricked it into ISO 5000 here, and that was a lot better....
http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e32/jaapv/5000.jpg
A 100 % crop:
Yes, blotchy noise, but hey, ISO 5000. And still good detail, look at the loudspeaker in the monitor:
http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e32/jaapv/5000crop.jpg
For more serious use:
ISO 1250, default setting, no noise reduction, nothing....
http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e32/jaapv/trix2.jpg
S
fdigital
12-04-2007, 08:56
Okay firstly, you're examples are much better than the plethora of (probably mostly horribly exposed and then pushed) samples on the net. The iso 5000 shot is pretty impressive, although I think lacking in detail a bit, as well as that the whole area is really well lit, being at 1/125th @ 2500 pushed to 5000. Still impressive though in comparison to what I've seen.
One thing I have to say though is that the canon 5d's iso sensitivity is actually a tad higher than what the numbers suggest - it's been proven a few times that iso 3200 is actually equal to iso 4000 in real world terms, so your iso 5000 shot is pretty comparable to my posted iso 4000 shot, considering mine was underexposed and in a very dark environment.
The second shot at 1250 is impressive in terms of a number of things, the first being sharpness which is typical m8 excellent, second being color and contrast retention which looks excellent too. I'm assuming it was taken with a summilux 75 1.4 - bokeh is beautiful.
But some things on it are a little strange. I notice banding running horizontally left from the very top of the first light into the middle of the photo, and also banding on either side of the light post running vertically parallel. Also I notice another band with a blueish tinge running vertically from the 2nd furthest lamp down the the path. I had a similar situation happening with my Epson r-d1 - vertical and horizontal lighter than the picture streaks running vertically and horizontally from light sources in high iso photos. If I'm just seeing things please forgive me, the picture is excellent and a fine advertisement for the m8 otherwise.
Could you (honestly) say that the 2 samples I posted from my 5d are plasticky and oversmoothened though?
Yes, the banding is well spotted, this camera was before the update. Leica uses the same ISO calculation as Canon. 1250=1600.
fdigital
12-04-2007, 09:08
Fair - So now that there are some samples on the table, I feel the comparison has much more meaning. No doubt you're a good photographer and know how to use your gear. If I could have an m8 I would, but the 5d for the price is in my opinion near unbeatable. I would still like to know if you regard my samples as plasticky and oversmoothened.
As people said before, comparing canon/nikon DSLRs to rangefinders is not easy because you're comparing 2 different types of cameras.
Anyone else feel free to add some more samples to the table - this thread had been viewed HEAPS so it must be of interest to people.
No I don't, and at this level the differences obviously are small, maybe too small for a monitor. But looking at those images I do feel that a photographer like you could, obviously a good one, have gotten a slightly more -artistic- for want of a better word, result. Probably more the lens than the sensor.
fdigital
12-04-2007, 09:35
No I don't, and at this level the differences obviously are small, maybe too small for a monitor. But looking at those images I do feel that a photographer like you could, obviously a good one, have gotten a slightly more -artistic- for want of a better word, result. Probably more the lens than the sensor.
Of course there are trillions of better low light shots to be had than those, but I just wanted some quick examples. In all of this the skill matters more than the camera being used, I have seen large prints from a canon 1d which was a 4.2mp 1st generation DSLR which were magnificent in every way.
I cannot be surprised - the 1D is legendary for the quality of its pixels - and it is a CCD camera :p :D
Both are RAW processed in ACR with NO adjustments to ANYTHING. NO noise reduction, NO sharpening.
As far as I understand, every RAW to RGB Bitmap conversion is a form of interpretation. Thats why you get different JPGs from different RAW converters. A "neutral" RAW conversion is not possible by definition. There are no conversion standards (demosaicing algorithms, clipping color gamut, handling bit-depth etc.) and to make things worse every manufacturers RAW format needs different treatment.
What we see in your example is how you, the EOS 5D and ACR handle certain types of images under certain conditions. It doesnt say anything about other people, other cameras, other conditions and other RAW converters.
fdigital
12-04-2007, 16:53
As far as I understand, every RAW to RGB Bitmap conversion is a form of interpretation. Thats why you get different JPGs from different RAW converters. A "neutral" RAW conversion is not possible by definition. There are no conversion standards (demosaicing algorithms, clipping color gamut, handling bit-depth etc.) and to make things worse every manufacturers RAW format needs different treatment.
What we see in your example is how you, the EOS 5D and ACR handle certain types of images under certain conditions. It doesnt say anything about other people, other cameras, other conditions and other RAW converters.
Well thats the nature of the beast. ACR is more or less the standard for raw conversions, in my testing I've found it superior to the Canon raw converter, the dxo one etc etc. In the end the differences between the converted raw file are tiny between all the converters - you may as well pick the one with your favorite interface. It's sort of like comparing film. You send a fuji c41 out to one lab, and kodak out to another lab. The minor processing differences will be there but the characteristics of the film still show and are still there.
Comparing 2 raw files from 2 different cameras IS valid, because thats what you have - theres no way to standardize testing perfectly and each person must choose what is right for them. Comparisons between cameras have been made, are being made and will be made.
Comparing RAW is much more accurate and fair than comparing JPEG files - I'm sure I don't have to tell you why...
fdigital
12-04-2007, 16:55
I cannot be surprised - the 1D is legendary for the quality of its pixels - and it is a CCD camera :p :D
My second camera is a 1d, and I can tell you that speed of shooting (9.5fps, if you're into that sort of thing) and weathersealing are the only things better than the 5d. Image quality isn't even on the same plane.
Wow! This has become a 1D VS. 5D conversation... But why are Canon shooters all the same?
fdigital
12-04-2007, 17:16
Wow! This has become a 1D VS. 5D conversation... But why are Canon shooters all the same?
:bang:
Why are leica shooters all the same?
:bang:
Why are leica shooters all the same?
Same as? You mean why they have common sense? Probably because they are usually older.
fdigital
12-04-2007, 18:04
I don't understand your argument, or what you're trying to say. I'm not a canon diehard, I use their cameras for professional work. I also use leica rangefinders, nikon/olympus SLRS. No idea what you're trying to get at, sorry.
with the M8. the camera may make very good images when it works, but as a tool for someone who needs reliability it's an obvious dud.
I agree. All those pros on LUF and GetDPI.com are blathering idiots that will be brought to bankruptcy soon by this camera......
...how long will the bandwagon keep going before the wheels come off?
If you want to shoot a digital rangefinder, maybe never. Jeff Ascough says his M8 delivers images that look like high quality film scans, and that's saying something.
http://www.jeffascough.net/blog/
Same as? You mean why they have common sense? Probably because they are usually older.
eh.. much greater number of good SLR shooters than RF.
I didn't need to justify buying my M8 to anyone I actually know, so I don't need to justify it to anyone here. I bought it, I use it. If I sell it I may loose money, I may regret it, but I won't bleat on about it. I am enjoying taking pictures with my camera, maybe they are not as technically good as they could be, but I'm enjoying myself.
I hope there will be an improved camera, not that I need it - but hey I'll still buy it. At that time, even if it isn't as good as the best of the day, it will still be better than I need, and I suspect this forum will still split hairs, guys keep it up! It makes for some entertainment in the cold wet miserable evenings ...
RFF is all about forgetting what's "good enough".;)
Sitemistic, MikeL, thats what I mean :)
Sometimes I'm amazed with the clarity of the arguments .. the quality of the language used is an education for me.
Keep it up guys .. it pure gold ;)
Jeff Ascough says his M8 delivers images that look like high quality film scans
That's why I've decided to keep my Coolscan 5000 as my digital rangefinder for the time being. I get full frame capture and the digital depreciation stays on my desk. :D
ywenz - never trust a man with a clean desk!
ywenz - never trust a man with a clean desk!
My man's a sunflower seeds lover too.. gotta love that.
i used to own a 1dsmkII and switched to a P20 and now a P30....and i just got a m8....
first: lenses play a HUGE part in digital imaging.....HUGE....the only canon lens that really makes the dsII sing is the 100macro....everyhting else needs software sharpen and that is where the trouble starts IMO....i shot the P20 with the rollei 6008 and schneider lenses and that was just amazing...the 180...hmmm......to me the m8 is far superior to the canons....i only shoot base iso (so noise is not an issue for me) and i have yet to find an AF system that works for me (fashion in studio, mostly)....
the m8 files have a depth that compares to the P20 and when i cropped those files (the p20 is square) i ended up with a 10-12mpix file....which is plenty for any commercial application..plenty....if you shoot FA landscapes, get a P45 and print big...if your work mostly ends up on a magazine page or printed (including billboards) 10mpix is plenty big enough...even if you crop.....
the P30 is in a different class...why? DR and resolution...but does anyone notice on an 8x10? an 11x14? 16x20 definitely....uprzed a m8 file in GF to 16x20 (with crop) the other day....yes the detail starts to look fuzzy...kinda like the canon detail almost always looks.....i gave up on the canons when i looked at my full lenght files at 60% and the hair is just a mess....not so with the m8....
i find the canons amazing cameras and most people just don't want RF! so the 5D remains probably the best dslr ever built....quality, price, speed, handling...unbeatable (especially when compared to dsII and now dsIII) but everybod is different and loks for something different in thier files.....
I agree. All those pros on LUF and GetDPI.com are blathering idiots that will be brought to bankruptcy soon by this camera......
Jaap, I don't mean to sound insulting. As you know, I have a very high regard for your work. But, if you were setting off on, say, a two day hike into the mountains, would you actually depend entirely on an M8 or would you carry something else for backup? I've never had a single failure with my Nikons -- ever -- and I've been using Nikon digitals since they first came out, so I'm not concerned about going far afield with my D2X, which is heavy, but isn't as heavy and inconvenient as carrying a couple of rangefinder bodies and several prime lenses. Last summer I fell down some sidewalk steps with that camera and it hit hard enough to total the lens that was on it, but I was able to mount a different lens and go on shooting. I know you've had very good luck with your M8, but I also keep reading about M8s dying, locking up for no known reason, etc., and requiring several months' turnaround for repair. I might expect that from consumer point-and-shoots, but not from "professional" equipment priced the way the M8 is priced. As I said in a thread early this year, that's a heartbreaker. I really wanted an M8 for street work, but I'm not about to pay six grand for a camera that might have to spend half its life in Wetzlar. I still hope and pray that Leica will come on with an M9 that lives up to the reputation Leica had back when I was working with my IIIf, M2 and M4.
As far as pros on LUF or anywhere else shooting with M8s is concerned, anyone can call himself a pro, and I'm sure there are photojournalists doing street photography with M8s. But I have a credulity problem with someone who calls himself a pro and then claims he does unrepeatable shoots such as weddings with an M8. Maybe they do, but then there are people in the circus who perform on high wires without a net. They're pros too, and their attrition rate is very high.
Best regards,
As far as pros on LUF or anywhere else shooting with M8s is concerned, anyone can call himself a pro, and I'm sure there are photojournalists doing street photography with M8s. But I have a credulity problem with someone who calls himself a pro and then claims he does unrepeatable shoots such as weddings with an M8. Maybe they do, but then there are people in the circus who perform on high wires without a net. They're pros too, and their attrition rate is very high.
Best regards,
Well, I guess that I am a hack... :D
Cheers,
Riccis
Jaap, I don't mean to sound insulting. As you know, I have a very high regard for your work. But, if you were setting off on, say, a two day hike into the mountains, would you actually depend entirely on an M8 or would you carry something else for backup? I've never had a single failure with my Nikons -- ever -- and I've been using Nikon digitals since they first came out, so I'm not concerned about going far afield with my D2X, which is heavy, but isn't as heavy and inconvenient as carrying a couple of rangefinder bodies and several prime lenses. Last summer I fell down some sidewalk steps with that camera and it hit hard enough to total the lens that was on it, but I was able to mount a different lens and go on shooting. I know you've had very good luck with your M8, but I also keep reading about M8s dying, locking up for no known reason, etc., and requiring several months' turnaround for repair. I might expect that from consumer point-and-shoots, but not from "professional" equipment priced the way the M8 is priced. As I said in a thread early this year, that's a heartbreaker. I really wanted an M8 for street work, but I'm not about to pay six grand for a camera that might have to spend half its life in Wetzlar. I still hope and pray that Leica will come on with an M9 that lives up to the reputation Leica had back when I was working with my IIIf, M2 and M4.
As far as pros on LUF or anywhere else shooting with M8s is concerned, anyone can call himself a pro, and I'm sure there are photojournalists doing street photography with M8s. But I have a credulity problem with someone who calls himself a pro and then claims he does unrepeatable shoots such as weddings with an M8. Maybe they do, but then there are people in the circus who perform on high wires without a net. They're pros too, and their attrition rate is very high.
Best regards,
any equipment will fail at one point....especially if it never has before and you are counting on it....so you always have to have a back-up (body/lens/....)...
leica actually has a pro program which guarantees 2day turnaround and/or loaner...and it makes repair a bit cheaper and provides free service/checkup twice a year...all you have to do is sign up with them and it does not cost a penny....never had that with my canons and my phase does not have that kind of service....
Strangely enough, the M8 seems to be holding its own against the 1DsIII, according to this thread:
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=188
and here:
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/40120-m8-file-against-1ds3-file.html
Were it but so simple. Firstly, a doubling of the pixel count results in a 33% in resolution (linear vs surface) And then it could be argued that the higher pixel count makes the sensor outresolve the lens, making the increase meaningless. Thirdly, one must ask at which print size and viewing distance will one actually see the increased pixel count. So, whilst this is a superior camera, it is competing against digital backs and as such may not add much to the use we put our 135 class cameras to ( and that is normally not wall-sized prints). The number of megapixels as such does not tell us much about the quality of the image.
fdigital
12-06-2007, 06:33
any equipment will fail at one point....especially if it never has before and you are counting on it....so you always have to have a back-up (body/lens/....)...
leica actually has a pro program which guarantees 2day turnaround and/or loaner...and it makes repair a bit cheaper and provides free service/checkup twice a year...all you have to do is sign up with them and it does not cost a penny....never had that with my canons and my phase does not have that kind of service....
Canon has CPS (canon professional service). Same service as leica, if not better because it's so freakin big! Theres a CPS place in every state in Australia, I've heard it's huge in the UK as well. Surely the US has it too.
http://www.canon.com.au/CPS/home.aspx
fdigital
12-06-2007, 06:39
Strangely enough, the M8 seems to be holding its own against the 1DsIII, according to this thread:
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=188
and here:
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/40120-m8-file-against-1ds3-file.html
1dsmk3
http://forum.getdpi.com/gallery/files/2/1Ds3Crop.jpg
5d
http://forum.getdpi.com/gallery/files/2/5DCrop.jpg
M8
http://forum.getdpi.com/gallery/files/2/M8Crop.jpg
I don't know what you see, but to me it looks like the 1dsmk3 is beating both the m8 and the 5d by quite a large step in fine detail and resolution, the m8 looks to me about the same as the 5d in fine detail and resolution, if one or the other is better I HIGHLY doubt it would make a difference in print.
The one thing I will say though, is what the hell is going on in the shadow area under the roof on the m8 crop pic??? looks like it's barely holding detail in there, and the graduations look shoddy as.
Lets not do a third run of this thread here. Jack Flesher adressed your remarks in the other threads.
Here we go again, trying to make comparisons between captures on a computer monitor. No two computers are going to give the same result, and none of the results are going to tell us much. In order to be able to draw conclusions you need at least well-printed 11 x 14s.
Everyone seems to preach one need to compare printed examples. Can someone please explain why comparisons can't be made on the monitor? If we're talking about differences in resolution, then surely the monitor can present each image accurately enough for one to make a judgment on the image with superior resolution...
Yes, monitors vary in quality, but that change in quality is applied to all 3 images.
The fact is that just about any of the current crop of pro and prosumer cameras delivers enough quality (in the right hands) to make a double truck CMYK ad that any client will be pleased with. So if the M floats your boat and you know what you are doing it makes a fine pro camera, so does any of a truck load of other cameras, some more expensive and some cheaper. Of course there is one caveat if you work in weather then only the weather sealed cameras might be OK -leaving out the M8 and 5D but there are plenty of pro's who don't shoot in foul weather (your power packs will blow up long before your non-sealed camera).
If you are making 30 x 40 prints of all your work or are comparing files 1:1 on computer monitors to decide which is 'better' or make your living shooting resolution tragets and rulers then the above statement doesn't apply to you.
The Leica was about a compact discreet available light camera that could capture life in a way not possible before. It was emotional content over technical perfection.
Shazam!
I'll probably pick up a used 5D as everyone dumps them to get the new 5D II or whatever it will be called.
It's starting already. The wedding photogs on the DWF are selling them very near the $1,500 mark before its replacement has even been announced.
(...) I really don't see a big advantage in the extra pixels unless you are comparing dick size on internet forums.
LOL... Thanks
Hank, that's the best summary of the situation I've seen yet. In the 60s, when I was shooting with a IIIf, M2 and M4 I also was shooting with a 4 x 5 view and a Rollei. I never tried to use the Leicas for high quality stuff. That came from the bigger negatives. But the Leica was a wonderful thing to use, and really indispensable on the street. Thanks for the penetrating summary.
emraphoto
12-06-2007, 17:31
an amen 2 that
I was wondering around Photo Miami and the AIPAD photo show today. Looking at the prints of some of the iconic photos of the 20th century, many made with Leica's. Most of them would never have passed muster with the pixel police -not high enough resolution, too much noise, not sharp out to the corners -my Canon Rebel could do better then that with a kit zoom lens!
In looking at some of the contemporary stuff, some of it was great or at least interesting but there where a lot of pieces that reminded me of the old artist's axiom "if you can't make it good -make it big" and it was very big and very high resolution.
fdigital
12-06-2007, 21:34
No disrespect to anyone, but I shoot a lot of architecture and interiors. When blown up to a small billboard, quality matter a LOT to me. Also I see absolutely no reason, if interested in photography, to accept something which gives worse results than something else. Why use a camera that has low resolution or "just enough" or one that has intermittent problems for work when you could use one that is better in nearly every way?
A 5d and a 50 1.2 is not much bigger than an m8 and a noctilux, and probably weighs less. An m8 and noctilux would cost over 10k. A 5d and 50 1.2L would cost under 5k. The m8 has had serious reliability issues and still has image quality glitches that plague it. The 5d has proven to be brutally reliable. The noctilux is a beautiful lens in jsut about every way, but so is the 50 1.2L.
When you're taking photos for a living, this sort of stuff REALLY matters. For someone that does it as strictly a hobby, sure it doesn't matter to compare digital cameras to the last point and doesn't make sense to be on top of technology. If Pros had this attitude, they wouldn't last very long - the world would pass them by. There are a few exceptions of course, but generally, most (for instance) wedding photographers are likely to choose a 5d over an m8, most architecture photographers are likely to choose a 5d over an m8, all sport photographers - a 5d over an m8, most studio photographers are likely to choose a 5d over an m8 (MOST!), most press photographers are likely to choose a 5d over an m8. It's not that the m8 is a bad camera, it's more that they can rely on the versatility and reliability of the SLR, and that sort of stability is needed to output quality work consistently.
No disrespect to anyone, but I shoot a lot of architecture and interiors. When blown up to a small billboard, quality matter a LOT to me. Also I see absolutely no reason, if interested in photography, to accept something which gives worse results than something else. Why use a camera that has low resolution or "just enough" or one that has intermittent problems for work when you could use one that is better in nearly every way?
A 5d and a 50 1.2 is not much bigger than an m8 and a noctilux, and probably weighs less. An m8 and noctilux would cost over 10k. A 5d and 50 1.2L would cost under 5k. The m8 has had serious reliability issues and still has image quality glitches that plague it. The 5d has proven to be brutally reliable. The noctilux is a beautiful lens in jsut about every way, but so is the 50 1.2L.
When you're taking photos for a living, this sort of stuff REALLY matters. For someone that does it as strictly a hobby, sure it doesn't matter to compare digital cameras to the last point and doesn't make sense to be on top of technology. If Pros had this attitude, they wouldn't last very long - the world would pass them by. There are a few exceptions of course, but generally, most (for instance) wedding photographers are likely to choose a 5d over an m8, most architecture photographers are likely to choose a 5d over an m8, all sport photographers - a 5d over an m8, most studio photographers are likely to choose a 5d over an m8 (MOST!), most press photographers are likely to choose a 5d over an m8. It's not that the m8 is a bad camera, it's more that they can rely on the versatility and reliability of the SLR, and that sort of stability is needed to output quality work consistently.
Most photographers will choose an SLR over an RF. That competition in the marketplace was won by the Nikon F long ago. But if you prefer An RF finder and the M's ergonomics and manual focus the 5D is not going to be an adequate substitute. Not by a long shot -it's a whole different way of working and seeing -it's not just size and weight. The M8 by the way is not a compromise in quality I prefer the M8 files in post to the 5D's. For architecture I'd want tilt shift lenses so an RF camera would not even be a consideration.
As far as my comment of good enough. For most applications there is no gain in quality on the printed sheet by going from a 5D or Nikon D3 to a Canon 1Ds MKIII despite the added MP. More MP is an easy thing to understand and its easy to compare test targets but it's just one small bit of what makes possible a quality image (both technical and artistic quality). It may be one or two must have lenses which will determine which camera you will use and what crop factor is acceptable. For a sports guy frame rate and autofocus speed is all important, for me those two features are not important at all. So the camera that would be 'best' for me would be crap for the sports shooter and visa versa.
I've been using the M8 for paying work since February without a hiccup. After years of using nothing but Canon 1Ds DSLR's I'm in heaven. Does that make it better then camera X Y or Z ? for my purposes yes, but everyones requirements and preferences are different.
All of this was shot with the M8. I'll put the quality up against anything shot with any 35mm DSLR:
52866
52865
52868
fdigital
12-06-2007, 23:04
No doubt you do great work, It's awesome seeing the m8 in real working action, we're both more or less making the same point. I'd love to have an m8, but for me at this point in time the 5d is a do it all wit exceptional image quality in all circumstances.
No doubt you do great work, It's awesome seeing the m8 in real working action, we're both more or less making the same point. I'd love to have an m8, but for me at this point in time the 5d is a do it all wit exceptional image quality in all circumstances.
Truthfully from a strictly business point of view I could have squeezed one more year out of the 1Ds. No one was complaining about the work. But I'm really an RF guy so the opportunity to be able to work that way again was worth something to me. I waited a while because of the problems and maybe I've been lucky but so far it's been flawless.
I think Nikon, Canon, Olymous, Pentax -they all make great products and have there strengths. I think the amount of choice today is a great thing and while it may be a competition for the manufacturers I don't feel the need to pick a winner or a 'team' to root for. I need more then one type of system and hope they all thrive better for photographers everywhere.
I don't think he was referring to monetary value. Speaking for myself, as long as the capacity for quality photography of these cameras remains magnitudes beyond my capabilities as a photographer, I don't see any need to "upgrade" . To own "the newest and bestest" just because it is new and allegedly better has never been my style.
Hmmm .. wanna admit to your level of photog according to Ken's 7 to 1 (and new level 0) :)
http://kenrockwell.com/tech/7.htm
The M8 is no M3, not a daring leap forward but it turned Leica into a digital company and put it back in the game. We shall see what the company does with the opportunity.
Very nicely put.
I don't think he was referring to monetary value. Speaking for myself, as long as the capacity for quality photography of these cameras remains magnitudes beyond my capabilities as a photographer, I don't see any need to "upgrade" . To own "the newest and bestest" just because it is new and allegedly better has never been my style.
Jaap I'm going to save this quote and post it again after you post your first M9 pics ;)
emraphoto
12-07-2007, 18:25
i used my r-d1s DAILY for a year and a half... i shoot a lot of frames and essentially put it into an old army bag... beside an m6 i have used daily for many, many years. not a single hiccup. both the r-d1s and the m6ttl have more than payed for themselves in print sales and the occasional "right place/right time" affair. i travel with a meter, a couple of lenses, a small tool kit, a few rolls of film, a palm, battery's, sd cards and a few other odds and sodds in that bag. basically i'm not handling any of my gear with kid gloves... not a single problem. -35? no problems. POURING rain and an m6? no problems.
i have now added an m8 to the mix and so far??? yup, no issues. every single day it's been out and not a hiccup.
i have shot paid work on an m or m-mount rangefinder for a LLLOOOONNNGGG time and in a LLLOOOTTT of different countries and haven't had a single problem (well the 50mm 'cron focusing ring freezes up pretty stiff in minus 35 to be honest).
does the xti take a better picture of the neighbours cat? couldn't care less.
does the 5d show up around the neck of 99.99.9.999.9 percent of pro's? see above.
will the d3 perform better at iso 64000? meh...
i see a lot, and i mean a lot of pictures of coffee cups on desks, cats, dogs and lamp posts at the end of the driveway comparing this camera to that... if that floats your boat then have at her but i'll tell you right now the m's (and epson) i have used remain fully functional and intact.
chuckcars
12-07-2007, 19:59
emraphoto, you have spoken well, knowledge and experience. Best post yet on a thread that is going nowhere. Thanks,
emraphoto
12-07-2007, 21:03
"if it works for you, keep shootin', man"
now that was spoken well
dacaccia
12-07-2007, 23:49
emraphoto, not often do I read words like yours - words of someone who really goes out and photograph. Thanks for that.
Let me add: My husband was a photographer. He went out every day with his M3, M6 and 6x6. He never had had any problem (apart from a problem with M6 and one lens just after buy - the lens was replaced, the body was repaired on guarantee).
So did my M6 till now (I am amateur, though) - and the M8 of my partner. And so will do my Epson, I am sure - without special care and photo bag etc.
Cheers,
dacaccia
No disrespect to anyone, but I shoot a lot of architecture and interiors. When blown up to a small billboard, quality matter a LOT to me.
I just wanted to add one more comment about this remark beacuse it is indicative of a problem that seems widespread. With the advent of digital and the internet everyone is comparing the 'quality' of different cameras without regard for there intended use.
When before digital would architectural photography and a Leica be mentioned in the same sentence? It would be like commenting "man I tried using that 4x5 Sinar P view camera with the f/5.6 max aperture lens mounted to take some hand held available light shots and it sucked.
In the rush to compare pixel to pixel IQ people forget that different cameras were optimized for different tasks. I am afraid that Leica in the quest for ultimate IQ to satisfy the internet test target photo club may wind up screwing up the M as the ultimate street camera. Already some are abandoning the M8 for small sensor cameras like the GRD because they feel it's closer to the experience of a film M loaded with TriX.
Rangefinder 35, Autofocus SLR's, Medium format and view cameras all were designed with different tasks in mind and so made different compromises and chose different priorities - if IQ was the only determining factor everyone would have shot 8x10. If Leica asked me what would you rather see in the M9? better IQ then a MF digital back or a quieter, smaller, better handling camera with no improvement in IQ I know what I'd choose. Now if it was an MF camera that I was going to use for product shots I'd choose the opposite. If I was shooting architecture I'd be more worried about the availability of swing tilt lenses.
Everyone obsesses about MP and f