View Full Version : Poor M8 review - feedback from actual users
PrisonersDilema
04-01-2008, 08:50
This report paints a very bad opinion of the M8.
Typically, The following were highlighted by the reviewer:
1. Cam tends to overexpose.
2. Poor AWB even in daylight.
3. Use of IR/cut filters.
4. Image quality worse than Nikon D40x or EOS 40D.
5. Noisy at anything above ISO 320.
Reviewer Ben Long even mentions there is nothing 'Leica-ness' about the M8 as there are no mechanical parts. Other than a great looker.
http://www.completedigitalphotography.com/?p=518
Can users comment based on their own experiences? I am considering a digital rangefinder and am considering between an RD1s and M8.
Quinn Porter
04-01-2008, 09:06
Reviewer Ben Long even mentions there is nothing 'Leica-ness' about the M8 as there are no mechanical parts.
One can debate the image quality, but the camera certainly feels like a rangefinder. As for mechanical parts, the entire viewfinder/rangefinder assembly is mechanical as are the lenses placed on the camera. There is also a traditional shutter speed dial. The only things missing are a mechanical film advance lever and shutter release.
Ah. This'll be flamebait, I'm sure. You'll find opinion wildly ranging, betcha, including those that'll sound like they are on the dole from Leica.
1. Mine doesn't over expose at all. It's as accurate as my 5D was, or my S3.
2. The last firmware fixed most of my AWB troubles, and again, now no worse than my 5D or S3.
3. Yup. PIA. Gotta switch 'em, too. What many don't seem to understand is that these things are not only for the "purple blacks," but for ultimate sharpness. Not that ultimate sharpness is the most important thing, especially at 640, f/1.4, indoor light...
4. Um... I've pictures out of mine that look like the 5D could have taken 'em. Worse than the 40D? "Worse" is an interesting word in this context...
5. K. True enough. Small pixels, more noise. I switch to Black and White at 1250 and up because I just don't like the look of pictures out of the camera at higher ISO's: the 5D spoiled me.
So... A mixed bag. Actually, none of what is mentioned above is what is truly the problem of the digital M system from my perspective, but the terrible focusing of many of the lenses I've tried can't easily be fixed. Neither can the small market, or small range of folks experienced with fixing the thing.
RD1s and M8? Try 'em and you'll understand in fairly short order why one is much more expensive. Worth $5k? Well... Probably not. I'd rather have my 5D back, but that's not an option, and even then, I have to put up with the Best Mediocre 50mm Prime Ever (the f/1.2- the "backfocuser," just like a good few of my CV lenses), so I'd be surprised by any shot I took, just like with the Leica and the CV lenses.
There's always something about which to complain. I'd get the M8 again. Not for 5K$, but I'd own it again.
And I'd always try *any* lens before I bought it. Nothing like paying thousands for a backfocuser, only to have to send it to someone that takes a couple months to fix...
tmfabian
04-01-2008, 09:21
Oh yes...i hate when my M8 tends to overexpose in shutter priority mode...that guy just had a bone to pick for some reason, just as canon users poke at nikons.
"...In shutter priority, the camera has a marked tendency toward overexposure...."
digitalintrigue
04-01-2008, 09:28
1. Never seen any exposure issues.
2. AWB is fine with latest firmware.
3. UV/IR is not a bad deal. Would you rather have it on the lens or the sensor? There are pros and cons to both.
4. IQ is fine. Anything here is subjective.
5. Again, this is subjective. One person's unacceptable noise is another person's 'isn't that totally cool, just like tri-x pushed to 1600.'
Don't understand the 'Leica-ness' comment. It's a digital M.
funkaoshi
04-01-2008, 09:35
Is the start-up time of the M8 still that slow, or has this been addressed in recent firmware updates?
The reviewer certainly didn't seem to be going out of his way to disrespect the M8. Several times in the review he extols the virtues of the camera, and rangefinders in general. I think his main complaint is a good one: for 5K you would expect a camera that performs exceptionally well.
digitalintrigue
04-01-2008, 09:41
Is the start-up time of the M8 still that slow, or has this been addressed in recent firmware updates?
'that slow?'
It was never slow to begin with, to my knowledge.
funkaoshi
04-01-2008, 09:47
Well that's good then. I think most of the other complaints he has with the M8 really aren't that big a deal. With my DSLR I shoot raw and fix everything in post anyway. I imagine if I had an M8 I'd work in much the same way. If the camera took a couple seconds to get going before you could shoot however, well, that'd be lame.
I've had one and used it as my primary camera (over 90% of photos) for over a year now and can comment on all of these points:
1. I don't find this to be the case in the slightest. Once one learns how the meter on the M8 functions (how much of the scene it is metering) it functions perfectly. If you're coming from a DSLR with matrix metering then you may experience a bit of a learning curve, but if you're used to the meter in film Ms (or any older center-weighted meter) you'll be fine. I dial in - 1/3 EV to protect the highlights, but I do that on my Nikon as well. From the review it seems like the reviewer simply didn't understand the differences between the M8 meter and others. And seemed to think that having to compensate manually for situations that fool pretty much any meter was a design flaw.
2. AWB was admitedly a bit wonky in previous versions of the firmware but is spot on with the current one. It was never really a problem in my usage (and I think entirely overblown in the internet discussion) as I always shoot in RAW and any WB problems were corrected then. I have to say that, with the latest firmware, I have to manually adjust the WB in probably less than 1% of images, no matter the lightsource.
3. Except in extremely back-lit situations where the chance of reflections/flare is greater (theoretically, I've never experienced this in practivce) this is a non-issue. Would it have been better to somehow integrate the IR filter into the body, yes. Should Leica have worked this one out before releasing the camera, yes. Does it effect how I shoot in the slightest, no. I used UV filters on my lenses beforehand in any case, now it's just an IR/UV filter.
4. As the reviewer correctly states, image quality is as much a function of lens as it is sensor. While other camera makers produce some fine lenses, the newest Leica lenses consistently outperform them. Sometimes this is splitting hairs, though. Do a search for image comparisons: there are plenty out there between the M8 and the 5D, D300, etc etc. The M8 more than holds its own.
5. Noise on the M8: well, at 160 it's non-existent; 320, barely noticeable to the point of being non-existent; 640, it's certainly there but nothing to prevent you from using it whenever required; 1250, a good deal of noise on the screen at original resolution at 100% but in practical use on the web or in a print, nothing to worry about; ISO 2500 is pretty chunky looking and you probably can get better results underexposing 1250 by a stop and fixing it in development--that said, in a print it looks generally fine.
At 1250 and 2500 there are better performing cameras out there, but for the type of work I do it's really not a problem. Shooting with an M6 and in color slides the fastest film I worked with for years was ISO 400 pushed to 800 and never felt like my worked suffered creatively because of it. With the M8 that's like shooting at ISO 640. Sometimes I do get a bit envious that other cameras can shoot up to ISO 12500 without too much noise, but then I remember that I've never had need for that speed with film or in a digital camera in over 10 years of shooting, so why should I need it now? That said, your needs may be different than mine...
As far as nothing "Leica-ness" about it: utter cr*p. If you've shot with a Leica M you can pick up the M8 and start working with it immediately without even looking at the manual. It's slightly thicker than a film M, but other than that feels nearly identical. Nothing mechanical about it? The rangefinder is entirely mechanical, as are the frame lines, shutter dial and focussing. The only thing which I will say is a departure is the sound of the shutter. It's certainly louder than a film M, and was slightly disconcerting at first, but not once have I found it to be a practical hindrance on my photography.
Don't give this review much credence. As many of the comments have stated, this reviewer really doesn't seem to have any experience with the M system or understand the niche the M8 was designed to fill--which it fills quite well. There are things I would change about it, but nothing that makes me not love the camera. If you are capable of stomaching the price tag (which is certainly considerable) and are familiar with all the advantages and disadvantages of the M system, then buy one with confidence.
... including those that'll sound like they are on the dole from Leica...
If Leica had a dole, my bank balance would be considerably greater...
Matthew,
I don't have an M8 - I've often wondered about a lot of the things you've mentioned in your comment and I just wanna say "Thank you" for explaining a lot of it - most folks around here usually tell you to "go and rent/get one and then report back if you have issues" - which is, imho, pretty difficult to do when no one around my parts rents this camera and the ones that sell it only order it in (never in house stock).
This makes more sense to me now and I can see the "issue" with the metering is more from the point of view of someone who's got the usual "35 point metering" stuff in their DSLR (I personally use a centre weighted average when I'm shooting with my 5D so I think I'll be ok with the M8).
One other question though (and this is open to anyone) - with respect to the noise issue at higher ISO's - have any of you folks been running your higher ISO images through any noise reduction software? (either in Photoshop or in a stand alone app)
Thanks,
Dave
tmfabian
04-01-2008, 10:31
I agree entirely, accurate exposure is the key with any high iso setting on any camera(sans d3/300) Having compared my 1250 setting to my girlfriends 5d's 1250 setting they're pretty similar...meaning that neither is really superb. It's just a digital issue more than a camera make issue, digital noise just plain sucks that's all there is to it.
hi dave... it seems the m8 files above 320 require really accurate exposures. i have seen them spot on (exposure value) and they look brilliant! trying to recover from poorly exposed shots is tricky and when i need to i run them through ninja.
however i rarely, rarely shoot above 320.
Having been an M user for the last 20 years I am less than thrilled with the performance of the M8 compared to the flawless performance of my two M6's. This camera (M8), and all its little quirks, just say to me that it was released to soon, not tested thoroughly, and rushed to the marketplace.
Just my two cents...
Bat
Having been an M user for the last 20 years I am less than thrilled with the performance of the M8 compared to the flawless performance of my two M6's. This camera (M8), and all its little quirks, just say to me that it was released to soon, not tested thoroughly, and rushed to the marketplace.
Just my two cents...
Bat
I would agree with you that the camera was probably released too soon, and not tested thoroughly enough (I am amazed that the IR issue wasn't noticed in beta-testing and addressed prior to release). I also agree that long-term reliability (and even short-term in the earliest cameras) compared to film Ms is an open question. Though I'm not sure the reliability issue is one that is unique to the M8, but rather is an issue between film cameras and digital cameras in general. A film camera, even a low end one, was designed and built for a longer product life than any digital camera. I find that sad, but it's with us. These were all issues that plagued my thought process before I made the leap (selling my M6 and film scanner) and bought the M8. Now that I've done it however, I've been quite pleased. I don't mean this to try to change your opinion of the camera, just to illustrate (further) my experience.
it's an interesting review with many interesting "facts"
I've been a Leica M user for more than 35 years - Yes, the M8 is different from my M3, it is a bit more lumpy, the shutter is more noisy, but all in all it is a "real" Leica M8. Build quality is excellent and the image quality is right at the front of the pack. Considering the fast lenses compared to the average DSLR zoom and the better handholdability of a rangefinder I would say that the noise by the same light -which is what counts for getting the shot- will be a lot better than any DSLR. When the 5D is at ISO 3200 you may well be shooting at 640 still with the M8. Having said that, 640 is clean - if exposed properly - 1250 still very good -if exposed exactly. 1250 is my favored setting for B&W work, the noise is so grain-like.
The guy who wrote the review
1. did not know how to expose, being used to little goblins under the hood doing the thinking for him
2. did not know how to hold the camera. he held it skewed, causing him to accuse it of parallax.
3. did not know that Leica (finally!) came out with a firmware that fixed the AWB andmost of the Jpeg issues
4. did not understand the theory behind the necessity and indeed advantages of an IR filter in front of the lens instead of in front of the sensor
5. did not notice the real quirks of the camera, like framelines, that, although theoretically correct, present difficulties to some users, focussing problems with some lenses like the 1.4 Summilux asph, focus shift on the Noctilux, etc.
A very sloppy review. There are better ones out there.
For instance on DpReview, if critical and dated in the AWB/Jpeg thing, is fair and knowlegable, Sean Reid on his (paying) site has extensive and expert opinions on lenses, the M8 and other items of interest, etc.
BillBlackwell
04-01-2008, 14:09
I am somewhat biased. My introduction to "RAW" digital photography was with the M8. Once I got all of my lenses coded and IR/CUT filters on my lenses my film M cameras became elaborate paperweights.
I have been more than satisfied with image quality - other than the digital processing learning curve it has been a seamless process. My thumb just can't seem to stop looking for that pesky (now invisible) film advance lever.
I also thought the reviewer had an ax to grind and somewhat detached from reality.
NickTrop
04-01-2008, 15:09
Regarding the M8 IR issue. While I don't own this camera and never intend to own it. Not in the digital capture camp (printing, post is another matter) - except for taking advantage of their incredible hand-held zoom capabilities... and it's simply way, way, way more than I ever intend to pay for any stinkin' camera...
... the IR "feature" is actually a plus to me. Many folks hack perfectly good (and expensive) digital cameras to shoot IR or make it their IR camera...
... there's also (I think) a cottage industry of people who do this, and (again, "I think") you can get the IR "capability" special ordered.
So, having this "built-in" at the price of merely having to keep a filter on the camera is actually kinda nice if you think about it. If Leica was aware of this issue in advance, they should have sold it as "IR-ready". Shame on their marketing department - if anything.
Dave:
I couldn't make it to Toronto last month due to a kink on my client's schedule, but I'll let you know when I'll come.
Once again, no problem using the M8 at high ISOs (1250 and 2500 when needed, although with fast glass this is not necessary)
This is a ISO 640 shot in the basement of a theater with no windows or other light sources but the bulb you see on the frame... Whatever grain you see, it was added by me in post...
http://www.riccisvalladares.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/20080322-194208.jpg
I'm not going to address the M8 "issues", but rather invite anyone that wants to see plenty of M8 images shot in almost any condition possible to go to my blog.
Cheers,
Riccis
Digital Dude
04-01-2008, 17:46
Ok, the M8 is more than I would pay if I had to do it over again. After returning from playing with Nikons, I can tell you one thing. I will really miss the handling, feel and size of the M8. The Leica glass is truly wonderful so enough said on that. When I manipulate the controls on the D300, I feel like I’m text messaging someone. In the end, I suppose it all depends on what you're looking for.
Regards,
PrisonersDilema
04-01-2008, 17:54
I've had one and used it as my primary camera (over 90% of photos) for over a year now and can comment on all of these points:
Thanks for this. I have been shooting DSLR all the very short, 5 years of my photography and never shot film and never used a manual camera before. I shot briefly with an Epson RD1s before selling that off to concentrate on the Canon system due to the higher cost of owning 2 systems; both systems M and EF-mount cannot share lenses no matter.
Now that my job and family requires a lot of time from me, I have stopped doing wedding assignments (meant to supplement the high cost of this hobby) after 10 paid assignments and hence have no need of the DLSR system (to a certain extent). I have sold off my 5D and am only left with the 24-70L and TSE90mm with no DSLR body. I intend to sell of the 24-70L soon but keep the TSE90.
I am looking at the digital RF system as I dare not shoot film because I do not have the skills and knowledge of manual exposure for it and it is lighter to travel with. I do not want to lug huge bags with 35mm lenses like the 70-200f2.8 that I had gotten rid of. I do not shoot birds or sports. I happen to like street, street portraiture, portraiture (my kids) and landscape. Hence, my likes fit into the RF system. If I get a wedding assignment, I'd just rent a 5D and a 24-70 and earn the difference between cost of rental and fees.
I had planned to get the Epson (I think IQ is good) again but the lack of support for the cam spooked me. Epson does not make cameras as it's core business, although they have a 6 year support. Haveing extensively looked into the prices of lenses (I like Zeiss because I think they are better built, have slightly better IQ than CV ones and I cannot at all, afford Leicas)
This is a genuine request for useful owner's opinion. Frankly, I was on the verge of getting an M8 and googled for reviews when I bumped into this guy's review. I was quite shattered after, since there are only 2 digital RF's in existence, one end of line and the other expensive but very much supported, has a 1.3x crop factor (the 21mm f2.8 Biogon can be a 27mm instead of a 32mm on a 1.5x).
So, my post is not a flamebait but I need encouraging reviews to jump in.
Northernlights:
I am also a wedding photographer and do all my work with the M8... No complaints from me or my clients... I wouldn't advise anyone to dump their DSLR stuff cold and go into rangefinders unless that person has previous experience handling rangefinders, but by looking at your RD1 images (which I loved, BTW) you should have no problem.
Why don't you try getting your hands on an M8 and arriving to your own conclusions instead of going crazy reading all the nonsense that goes in online forums? I know that Leica is currently having a rental program for the M8 and Summarits where prospective owners can rent a kit for the weekend for about $50... Of course, I don't know if it is also taking place in Singapore but you may as well ask your authorized Leica dealer.
Cheers,
Riccis
Riccis,
As always, lovely work :)
No worries about not making it last month - I got swamped with other work issues so it was no loss per se - whenever you can make it, just let me know.
I'll reconsider the M8; not for the wedding work right away but at least for my personal work with a view at perhaps using it occasionally for engagement sessions or portraits.
Cheers,
Dave
Dave:
Thanks, man...
As I mentioned before, ask your Leica dealer about the new M8 rental program. If you do get it, I can definitely see you using it for engagement sessions and getting ready... There are a couple of wedding guys here that, after seeing my stuff, got M8s and started that way but now are using it throughout the wedding day.
Take care, man.
Riccis
Ascender
04-01-2008, 21:40
Ah. This'll be flamebait, I'm sure. You'll find opinion wildly ranging, betcha, including those that'll sound like they are on the dole from Leica.
1. Mine doesn't over expose at all. It's as accurate as my 5D was, or my S3.
2. The last firmware fixed most of my AWB troubles, and again, now no worse than my 5D or S3.
3. Yup. PIA. Gotta switch 'em, too. What many don't seem to understand is that these things are not only for the "purple blacks," but for ultimate sharpness. Not that ultimate sharpness is the most important thing, especially at 640, f/1.4, indoor light...
4. Um... I've pictures out of mine that look like the 5D could have taken 'em. Worse than the 40D? "Worse" is an interesting word in this context...
5. K. True enough. Small pixels, more noise. I switch to Black and White at 1250 and up because I just don't like the look of pictures out of the camera at higher ISO's: the 5D spoiled me.
So... A mixed bag. Actually, none of what is mentioned above is what is truly the problem of the digital M system from my perspective, but the terrible focusing of many of the lenses I've tried can't easily be fixed. Neither can the small market, or small range of folks experienced with fixing the thing.
RD1s and M8? Try 'em and you'll understand in fairly short order why one is much more expensive. Worth $5k? Well... Probably not. I'd rather have my 5D back, but that's not an option, and even then, I have to put up with the Best Mediocre 50mm Prime Ever (the f/1.2- the "backfocuser," just like a good few of my CV lenses), so I'd be surprised by any shot I took, just like with the Leica and the CV lenses.
There's always something about which to complain. I'd get the M8 again. Not for 5K$, but I'd own it again.
And I'd always try *any* lens before I bought it. Nothing like paying thousands for a backfocuser, only to have to send it to someone that takes a couple months to fix...
I loved what you said in response to the review written by the reprobate (can't remember what his name was due to the insignificance of his review so euphemism will have to do). Also I love your comments on the 5D and 50 f/1.2 albeit a little harsh (I love that lens.
The M8 is what it is and when all is said and done, it makes me take a certain type of picture and work in ways that no other camera does and that's what it is, nothing more, nothing less.
-charlie
Ascender
04-01-2008, 22:19
I agree entirely, accurate exposure is the key with any high iso setting on any camera(sans d3/300) Having compared my 1250 setting to my girlfriends 5d's 1250 setting they're pretty similar...meaning that neither is really superb. It's just a digital issue more than a camera make issue, digital noise just plain sucks that's all there is to it.
On the first point being High ISO is entirely reliant upon correct exposure however I don' feel that this is only limited to digital. I just believe that people have very short memories. I could show you some horrific result of chroma noise shot with Fuji 800 proz (such a gorgeous stock if shot/EXPOSED correctly) which came as a result of me not knowing what I was doing.
It seems as though everyone and their dog has a boner for the high ISO performance of the Nikon D3 & D300 both of which I own. However I shoot the 1Ds Mklll and the M8, why, because of the FILEZzzz. Compared to said Nikon they are just so damn beautiful. Okay, so the M8 is noisy but once again, not unreasonably so if exposed correctly and when it does get noisy, it's beautiful.
-charlie
On the first point being High ISO is entirely reliant upon correct exposure however I don' feel that this is only limited to digital. I just believe that people have very short memories. I could show you some horrific result of chroma noise shot with Fuji 800 proz (such a gorgeous stock if shot/EXPOSED correctly) which came as a result of me not knowing what I was doing.
It seems as though everyone and their dog has a boner for the high ISO performance of the Nikon D3 & D300 both of which I own. However I shoot the 1Ds Mklll and the M8, why, because of the FILEZzzz. Compared to said Nikon they are just so damn beautiful. Okay, so the M8 is noisy but once again, not unreasonably so if exposed correctly and when it does get noisy, it's beautiful.
-charlie
D300 and D3 :eek: ... one day I would like to see a list of all the cameras you own or have owned Charlie ... after all aren't we all allowed our 'fifteen minutes of fame?'
I shot an art exhibition opening recently with my M8 and when I presented the client with the files the other night she was delighted with the results ... all done in low gallery lighting with a 35mm f1.2 Nokton with an IR filter blue tacked on the front because I didn't have the right size ... and the art crowd wear a lotta black you know! :p
After reading that review for a good 2-3 minutes I gave up, the reviewer obviously is a moron as he gets so many points about the camera so wrong, for instance saying it has not automatic exposure functions. Hello, what the hell does the A on the shutter dial mean I wonder.....asinine? A number pusher rather then a actual photographer in my opinion. This camera has no molded hand grip, but neither did hundreds, maybe thousands of SLR's back in the day when cameras were made right and you didnt need a camera bag the size of a hat box to carry them around.
Go back to your brick wall.
edrodgers731
04-02-2008, 04:57
Years ago, I shot mostly Nikon and Mamiya with film. The only rangefinder I've used is the Canonete. I've been shooting mainly 5D bodies for the last few years, and the M8 is my first M.
I have to say that every feature on the 5D seems to (at least) one up the M8, with the exception of image quality. :) After post processing about 100,000 5D wedding images, the M8 really stands out to me. The color is awesome. The shadows are excellent. The sharpness at 1:1 in Lightroom is so crisp, I feel like I need to zoom in more. The lack of an anti-alias filter on this sensor is the best idea since sliced bread.
Yesterday I ran a roll of film through an M6, and I must say I really prefer the M8. The only thing I preferred about the M6 was the PC flash port. I guess it's about what you are used to.
I bit nails over the M8 for over a year reading good, bad, and ugly reviews. When I got it home, I was extremely impressed, and it surpassed my expectations entirely.
So, I'm more than willing to deal with the many inconveniences of the M8, (and let's face it...any M body), to use this wonderful machine. In fact, I'm seriously thinking about getting my eyes fixed just for this camera.
In general, I think most M8 reviews depend entirely on the mindset of the reviewer. Reviews like this one come from the practical, good-enough, bang-for-the-buck types. This is not me.
I've been reading a lot of lens reviews lately. What drives me nuts is the common attitude of: "This lens is better because it's almost as good, but it's much cheaper."
So, what do you want? Better value, or better images? More convenient, or better images?
[snip]In fact, I'm seriously thinking about getting my eyes fixed just for this camera.[snip]
I am with you here, I have almost totally stopped shooting SLR except when I need to do some sort of product or tripod work. I wear glasses and never had much luck with contacts, I too have thought about getting my eyes fixed (im nearsighted) so I can shoot easier. With the SLR it didnt mater too much but with the rangefinder it would be awfully handy.
Buy the M8 and enjoy it.
Bah.. I think you guys have me just about convinced.. (more so because of Matthew's responses above)
Dave
In re: high-ISO. I no longer touch the ISO setting on my M8. It's permanently left on 160. In low light if I want to stop down and/or the shutter speed would be too slow, I just underexpose. The exposure compensation (which works in manual-metering in addition to AUTO) only goes 3 stops so if I need the equivalent of more than ISO 1250 I have to stop down one more click (I always manual meter, but if I were in AUTO I would have to switch to manual). Then I "push process" in ACR which is my preferred DNG converter (I gave up on C1-LE a while back). I found by experimenting that gives much less noise than turning up the ISO on the M8. Then for any residual noise I feel needs reduction, I use Noise Ninja (I splurged for the PS plug-in version, it's so much more convenient) with profiles I generated using their instructions.
Ben, would you mind sharing your ACR settings for pusing from 160? When I first heard of people preferring to do this, I did some quick tests and found the results to me more or less a wash between pushing and changing the ISO. Perhaps I didn't spend enough time tweaking develop settings.
As an FYI to us Canadian (or at least Toronto) folks - I've checked around and Eight Elm Photo is going to verify this "try-before-you-buy" / rental program that Leica USA apparently has going on.
Rick from Eight Elm has never heard of it :( but he is willing to call Leica (didn't even have to ask him to do so) and check it out and let me know.
Cheers,
Dave
edrodgers731
04-02-2008, 09:29
If you think about it, there is little difference between changing the ISO and pushing the RAW file. The sensor has only one base ISO, and anything higher is actually a push in the sensor to amplify the signal received.
The difference is that the sensor has the analog data to work with, and the DNG has only a digital representation of the analog data.
Theoretically, the higher ISO setting should be slightly better, particularly in the mid-tones and highlights.
Maybe in practice though, results may vary.
PrisonersDilema
04-03-2008, 05:53
Wow, so much feedback from everyone here.
I do see one or two outrightly tearing down this cam.
Just one - and I have a strong suspicion he is struggling with digital in general.
Ben, would you mind sharing your ACR settings for pusing from 160? When I first heard of people preferring to do this, I did some quick tests and found the results to me more or less a wash between pushing and changing the ISO. Perhaps I didn't spend enough time tweaking develop settings.
I use CS2 and +however# of stops I underexposed, as a starting point, and adjust more or less to taste (even if I metered say 3 stops under, my exposure might have been off a half stop). Sometimes it needs a little playing with the shadow and highlight settings but I leave that up to my lab guy to do in PS (curves or something, whatever it's more than I want to bother myself with) because that's what I pay him for :D
This works best with low contrast subjects, as one tends to lose quite a lot of dynamic range. After all, the histogram gets compressed to the left. In my experience higher ISO and correct exposure gives better results with high contrast subjects, although Ben's method is better if you don't need the range. It all has to do with the amplification of the base noise.
PrisonersDilema
04-03-2008, 07:44
I do agree with this guy, somewhat
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1038&message=27423961
Well, if you do agree, buy a DSLR and an MP. Nobody is forcing you. But you will need to buy a pretty darn good DSLR and go chemical all the way on film to get something like the image quality of an M8....
I do agree with this guy, somewhat
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1038&message=27423961
I'm not going to enter into a "what Leica needs to do to survive debate" as I'm in no position to actually have any influence on their business strategy, but I will comment on the idea express in this linked post that "Many defend Leica for its being RF and the advantage of the form factor. Sadly speaking this is not really that much of a real benefit in todays usage and real field condition."
I entirely disagree with this. Perhaps it's true for many people--they don't see a real benefit in the form factor of the classic rangefinder--but for one, I do. For my usage and photographic needs the RF has many benefits over the SLR (film or digital), which are probably the same preferences that anyone who uses a Leica has, and are pointless to enumerate again. This is true whether I stick a roll of Velvia in an MP or an SD card in the M8. It's a different workflow sure, but the essence remains the same. Simplicity of form factor and function.
"...digital just demand [sic] update of technology way beyond how Leica might sees it." Bol***ks. The idea that technological advances help you be a better photographer is one of the biggest con jobs foisted off on people. There are some exceptions obviously with autofocus and sports/nature shooting, but in the broad stroke outside of this it's your eyes and heart that make the image, the camera just records it.
I'm going to stop before the tangent becomes even more philosophical, but it just drives me insane when people seem to equate what the majority of people want or are used to as the "truth" in the "real world". Perhaps this is because I've always felt I've been in the intellectual, ethical minority most of my life... Sorry, way off topic.
Matthew, you are 100% right, but spare your breath, fulminating will not change the minds of the great unwashed; that is how political parties survive ;)
Matthew, you are 100% right, but spare your breath, fulminating will not change the minds of the great unwashed; that is how political parties survive ;)
True enough.
Form factor wars are so 1990's Jaap..
Dave
Deep breaths plus a burrito with hot salsa for lunch have calmed me down...
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.