M8 - images...

[Paul T.]

these are from the Leica User German website, and are apparently taken by a Leica employee.

(lights touchpaper.... stands well back...)

http://www.leica-camera-user.com/son...stiges-20.html

[Mark Norton]

Yes, and if the person with the M to his eye is the photographer, his "M8" has a film rewind knob.

[IGMeanwell]

No exif data either ... nor image data that size what what scanned it

so can't confirm if that guy was carrying another leica with him or if this is just bull

I take it back

one did have its exif data: Though I don't know that kind of image at F1 ? I think they are still working on the firmwear

Make - Leica Camera AG
Model - M8 Digital Camera
Orientation - Top left
XResolution - 72
YResolution - 72
ResolutionUnit - Inch
Software - Adobe Photoshop CS Windows
DateTime - 2006:10:14 08:30:27
YCbCrPositioning - Co-Sited
ExifOffset - 232
ExposureTime - 1/750.2 seconds
ExposureProgram - Manual control
ISOSpeedRatings - 160
ExifVersion - 0221
DateTimeOriginal - 2006:10:13 10:15:27
DateTimeDigitized - 2006:10:13 10:15:27
ComponentsConfiguration -
ShutterSpeedValue - 1/724 seconds
ExposureBiasValue - 0.00
MaxApertureValue - F 1.00
MeteringMode - Center weighted average
LightSource - Auto
Flash - Not fired, compulsory flash mode
FocalLength - 0.00 mm
FlashPixVersion - 0100
ColorSpace - Uncalibrated
ExifImageWidth - 935
ExifImageHeight - 624
FileSource - DSC - Digital still camera
SceneType - A directly photographed image
CustomRendered - Normal process
WhiteBalance - Manual
DigitalZoomRatio - 0.00/0.00 x
SceneCaptureType - Standard
Contrast - Normal
Saturation - Normal
Sharpness - Normal

[Jon Graham]

Originally Posted by Mark Norton

Yes, and if the person with the M to his eye is the photographer, his "M8" has a film rewind knob.

Mark - the guy who took this picture used an m8 according to the exif. The pictures are kind of mixed up -some apparently film, others M8.

If you don't have an exif reader, the M-8 ones have a file title beginning with 'L' when you move the cursor over the photo.

[Stephan]

Dammit you have to be logged in to see those...

[IGMeanwell]

Here's one

remember its not mine ... were borrowing it for observational purposes

This is the picture with the exif data

Courtesy of Chris_H on the Leica forum

[Jon Graham]

FWIW here are some very legitimate looking M8 shots

http://www.hklfc.com/cgi-bin/topic_s...1&bpg=1&age=60

[jaapv]

If those ISO 2500 shots are legit, it is pretty impressive. In B&W it would beat any film.

[Woody Campbell]

Except that the camera exists and is capable of taking pictures, which is comforting.

[sgy1962]

Originally Posted by jaapv

If those ISO 2500 shots are legit, it is pretty impressive. In B&W it would beat any film.

Is that typical of digital to be so crisp? A lot of folks, especially with B&W, would not find that so appealing. I know these are digital neophyte type comments, but my first impression was "Wow, that's 3D like." It's kind of jarring to the senses. Does digital print out like that?

I

[sgy1962]

I'm referring to the mountain terrain landscape pictures.


Sometimes I get the impression that things can be too crisp; too 3D like. It's like shooting the 50mm Summilux ASPH in harsh lighting. Teh result is that things can appear too delineated. I guess all high quality digital is like that?

[J. Borger]

What's the point of pixelpeeping at some lousy pictures??
Am i missing something here?

Sean Reid and others who used the M8 said think DMR ... so look at GOOD pictures from that camera.
Or buy the october number of LFI magazine which has about 8 M8 pictures printed in it taken by a Magnum Photographer.

THis all makes little to no sense ..

[tallkev]

Hi there, I'm a new user...

I found some more images here in DNG format: http://www.lightmediation.com/blog/i...a-la-photokina

via the flickr Leica M8 group http://www.flickr.com/groups/leica_m8/

[Bromo33333]

Originally Posted by sgy1962

Is that typical of digital to be so crisp? A lot of folks, especially with B&W, would not find that so appealing. I know these are digital neophyte type comments, but my first impression was "Wow, that's 3D like." It's kind of jarring to the senses. Does digital print out like that?

I

In a digital photo, it is easy to perform sharpening (without sharpening, digital will look kind of soft) - and if it is expertly done (in camera or photoshop), the photo will look really, really crisp. If it is done poorly the high contrast edges will look "hot" and might have a lot of "pop" but will be fatiguing and cartooney to look at long term.

If this is using the cameras sharpening + typical Leica optics - they did good. Really good.

[Bromo33333]

Originally Posted by sgy1962

I'm referring to the mountain terrain landscape pictures.


Sometimes I get the impression that things can be too crisp; too 3D like. It's like shooting the 50mm Summilux ASPH in harsh lighting. Teh result is that things can appear too delineated. I guess all high quality digital is like that?

Nope. It is all in the processing - you have to be careful with sharpening or you can get that. If you look at a high contrast area - going light to dark - you will see that the lighter edge gets a little brighter before the transition to dark - that is a (I don't lknow the techncial term) "hot" edge and is the result of over sharpening to give the impage extra "pop." It is a defect.

A good example of this is (note the reviewer is concentrating on ggrain and seems to miss this defect):

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...shootout.shtml

(look for the 100% crop comparing the Pentax 67ii to the Canon 1Ds - and you will see the 1Ds image with "hot" edges compared with the scanned film. The reviewer is convinced by the "pop" of the impage that it has more reoslution - but aside from grain, there is subtlety of shading present in the film not present in that digital image)

With sharpening, an image will appear to have more resolution, without actually having more resolution. Also you can interpolate ("rezzing up") to heighten the illusion as well.

The Leica with 10 mp will have good reoslution, but the quality of those pixels - absence of chroma through their microlens array as well as some built in correction for lens abberration, should allow the Leica image to be superior to a typical 10mp camera. Interetsing the Leica have chosen to improve in areas that are hard or impossioble to do post processing which is especially impressive given that it is easier usually to can a few photoshop routines and put it in the firmware.

Equally impressive is their adoption of DNG - which is a stable "raw" style format that is not going obsolete and allows for 12 bits per color.

[ywenz]

As John Camp pointed out in another thread, Leica is so idiotic in the regard of how they managed the release of images from the M8. Instead of showing the public some badass images shot by credible photogs that really trump the advantages of the M8, the first batch of images we are treated to are these piss-poor snap shots that look like they could have been shot on a 5 year old Canon D30..

Hint to Leica: If you really wanted to control the release of picture from the M8, perhaps you should have disabled write capability to the SD card in your demo cameras.. sheesh..

[jaap]

Originally Posted by jaapv

If those ISO 2500 shots are legit, it is pretty impressive. In B&W it would beat any film.

yes it beats any film !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
you may think so if you look long enough at a monitor

[Bromo33333]

Originally Posted by ywenz

As John Camp pointed out in another thread, Leica is so idiotic in the regard of how they managed the release of images from the M8. Instead of showing the public some badass images shot by credible photogs that really trump the advantages of the M8, the first batch of images we are treated to are these piss-poor snap shots that look like they could have been shot on a 5 year old Canon D30..

Hint to Leica: If you really wanted to control the release of picture from the M8, perhaps you should have disabled write capability to the SD card in your demo cameras.. sheesh..

It might all be to their plan - who knows. unoffical "leaks" tend to generate a bunch more buzz than official ones.

From what I can see they are handling the release brilliantly. And all these forums are giving them a ton of free advertising.

[jaapv]

The semi-official Leica magazine. You can get a subscription through the Leica website. or HERE.

[jaapv]

And.. Photographing mountains is an ancient Leica tradition, they even once built a special lens for it : the Mountain-Hector

[AndyPiper]

Mountain ELMAR (105mm f/6.3) - but who's counting?

8^)

No such thing as a camera that is "too sharp". I'll take any amount of sharpness the camera can deliver. If I want soft, all it takes is a slow shutter speed or a Summar lens.

The technical term for a "hot" oversharpened edge is a "sharpening halo" - not that it's all that much more technical.

But what looks overly-sharpened in a 100% pixel view on the screen often just looks clean and crisp in a 250-300 ppi print. The printing process adds its own softening to the image.

Digital photography guru Bruce Fraser says that digital images (whether film or sensor based) should look "crunchy" at 100% when they are properly sharpened for print output.

http://www.creativepro.com/printerfr...ory/20357.html

[Bromo33333]

Originally Posted by AndyPiper

Mountain ELMAR (105mm f/6.3) - but who's counting?

8^)

No such thing as a camera that is "too sharp". I'll take any amount of sharpness the camera can deliver. If I want soft, all it takes is a slow shutter speed or a Summar lens.

The technical term for a "hot" oversharpened edge is a "sharpening halo" - not that it's all that much more technical.

But what looks overly-sharpened in a 100% pixel view on the screen often just looks clean and crisp in a 250-300 ppi print. The printing process adds its own softening to the image.

Digital photography guru Bruce Fraser says that digital images (whether film or sensor based) should look "crunchy" at 100% when they are properly sharpened for print output.

http://www.creativepro.com/printerfr...ory/20357.html

Agreed on what you said - but it is still important to realize that a 'sharpening halo' is not resolution, just additional "pop" and processing on an image. Legitimate to use, but as in the picture I linked to, the window panes onthe film on the right side of the crop are clearly visible on the film scan (which isn't the full resolution of the 6 x 7 film) is clearly visible, but not visible at all on the digital, yet the digital image has the illusion of greater resolution.

Raw unsharpened digital looks quite soft and needs some sharpening to display some sharpness of an image. Make sone wonder about the importance of lens sharpness and digital in general ... ?

[egpj]

Originally Posted by Jon Graham

FWIW here are some very legitimate looking M8 shots

http://www.hklfc.com/cgi-bin/topic_s...1&bpg=1&age=60

Jon, your MONEY baby! Thanks for the link

[jaapv]

Originally Posted by AndyPiper

Mountain ELMAR (105mm f/6.3) - but who's counting?

8^)

No such thing as a camera that is "too sharp". I'll take any amount of sharpness the camera can deliver. If I want soft, all it takes is a slow shutter speed or a Summar lens.

The technical term for a "hot" oversharpened edge is a "sharpening halo" - not that it's all that much more technical.

[/url]

Thanks mate, fallible ancient memory and all that..
Film also exhibits this halo, the amount depending on the developer. Only then it is not called halo but " edge effect" but it serves the same function of enhancing the impression of sharpness.

[jaapv]

Originally Posted by jaap

yes it beats any film !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
you may think so if you look long enough at a monitor

If you had some pictures in your gallery, one might start to think that there was any photographic thought behind your posts. May I suggest that you start your gallery with a few views from your dwelling in the Norwegian mountains.....