M8 Dillemas..

[stewartw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

im an established freelance photographer of 15 years.. used m6s and m7s but dont have any leica at the moment.. fed up with the weight of nikon d2x (2) and all the lenses 18mm up to 300mm.. im upgrading to d3s but have a desire also to move back to leica.. intending to keep the nikon for sports etc.. the leicas will be used for documentary, portraiture, landscape and as a general carry around. i have 20k (uk) to spend..

 

my dilemma is whether to shoot film and scan (at my leisure) or go for 2 m8s..

 

i do feel that film isnt going anywhere and the perceived value of a film print is higher than a digi print..

 

1. has anyone done a side by side print comparison between leica film and leica m8 images.. i mean shooting same scene with the same lens on a film body and m8 body..

 

2. a side by side m8 & d3 print comparison

 

3. i personally think leica messed up with the m8.. should have been a full frame sensor.. why did leica not use a full frame sensor?

 

4. what is the real world exposure latitude with the m8?

 

im looking for personal experiances as i find reviewers tend to be either for or against the leica m system..

 

especially of interest is anyone producing fine art prints..

 

thanks to all who take the time to answer..

[jaapv]

Welcome. Whilst I can understand your questions, these subjects have been discussed ad infinitum... I would use the search function first......

[gmaurizio]

Second Jaap's suggestion: Use search first.

my dilemma is whether to shoot film and scan (at my leisure) or go for 2 m8s..

Forget film and scan. Every decent camera 10+MP, be it Leica or Nikon or Canon will defeat color/slide film scanned (35mm) hands down. B&W is another matter, but there you will need either a Medium Format film or 4x5.

 

1. has anyone done a side by side print comparison between leica film and leica m8 images.. i mean shooting same scene with the same lens on a film body and m8 body..

M8 hands down for any print size from 5x7 and up. 4x6 and 5x7 is hard to tell, since print is so small.

 

2. a side by side m8 & d3 print comparison

Apples and Oranges here. IQ-wise, it's (in my humble opinion) a tie --PROVIDED YOU USE THE FINEST NIKON GLASS, OK????.

Print sizes up to 13x19 no difference. Up to 20x30/30x40, slight advantage to Nikon. If shot in low light, Nikon wins hands down against every other existing camera today. Including 21MP 1DsMkIII.

 

3. i personally think leica messed up with the m8.. should have been a full frame sensor.. why did leica not use a full frame sensor?

Forget about sensor size. There are advantages and disadvantages to both. Leica M8 is just fine.

 

4. what is the real world exposure latitude with the m8?

More than enough any printer/magazine today. You get about 9 stops, maybe 10 if your technique is superb. No printer has that latitude.

[dseelig]

It is something to think about. the 35 summilux asph can be a real nightmare some are good mostly the chrome ones some are terrible yet were good on film. Focus shifts with the high speed lenses. I am glad I own one but I have a canon system when i need the speed. When I am shooting for myself I shoot Leica when most work happens the canon's comes out David

[jaapv]

Originally Posted by stewartw

3. i personally think leica messed up with the m8.. should have been a full frame sensor.. why did leica not use a full frame sensor?

 

 

 

That is at the present day utterly impossible. In the future - yes, maybe, but when???

[jaapv]

im an established freelance photographer of 15 years.. used m6s and m7s but dont have any leica at the moment.. fed up with the weight of nikon d2x (2) and all the lenses 18mm up to 300mm.. im upgrading to d3s but have a desire also to move back to leica.. intending to keep the nikon for sports etc.. the leicas will be used for documentary, portraiture, landscape and as a general carry around. i have 20k (uk) to spend..

 

my dilemma is whether to shoot film and scan (at my leisure) or go for 2 m8s..

 

i do feel that film isnt going anywhere and the perceived value of a film print is higher than a digi print..

 

1. has anyone done a side by side print comparison between leica film and leica m8 images.. i mean shooting same scene with the same lens on a film body and m8 body..

 

..

 

 

This thread will interest you:

 

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

[Michael M.]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not long ago I found a very interesting webside answering partly mentioned points.

 

Clarkvision: Film versus Digital Summary

 

Please refer to the graph where it's shown that there are areas where still analoge film is the winner against digital and areas where it's vice versa ...

 

OK - this is not a Leica / Leica analoge / digital competition but it might show very clearly on what area a M7 could be the winner and where a M8 will be unbeatable ...

 

Michael

[jklotz]

I'll let others answer your specific questions, however, I am a pro and use it on shoots. Keep in mind you'll need another rig for assignment work. For instance, I shoot a lot of interiors for magazines. I shoot the "main" shots with a cambo wide ds or Contax 645 and phase one back. I've been doing detail shots with the M8, and many have made the cut. When shooting people, I'll take my 5D, get the job done minimally, then pull out the M8. For me, I guess it's just a saftey measure.

 

I really like the natural light, the bokeh and falloff, which are beautiful. None of the magazines I shoot for have ever complained about the file size. That being said, I never rely completely on the M8 when under a deadline. Mine has been reliable so far, but the framing is not entirely accurate, and the temptation to shoot wide open will result in missed focusing from time to time. The "keepers" to "trash" ratio is not like a Canon or Nikon in my opinion. When you get a good one, however, you'll have no question as to why you bought one.

 

Hope this helps.

[chris_livsey]

You are shooting digital now and have a workflow. Remember the learning curve? Multiply that several times for the film and scan route (there is no going back ) If you had run film/scan alongside "pure' digital then an option was there.

 

Film print v digital print v perceived value. Not sure of your point here. You say film is going nowhere but value is higher, the point being ?

 

1. What comparison? Are you looking for sharpness, grain, detail, a look ? Film looks different to digital ! Is digital "better" it depends. Sorry that is true.

 

2. Now we are on the same playing field. But alas no. Other than medium format backs the M8 is alone in not having an anti-alias (AA) filter. Out of the box the prints are "sharper" To compare RAW files you would need to match the software. Leica is "optimised" for Capture One (others will prefer results obtained elsewhere but this will not invalidate the argument) D3 is not. Presumably Nikon software will/should provide "best" results (again the operator may find other programs are better because they are more familiar with it and thus can obtain a result they "prefer".

Simply you cannot put TriX in both and use D76 in both, print on the same enlarger and process the same and compare. You can try, and Lord knows many have, but the nit pickers can always find a loophole. This is without looking at not being able to shoot with the same lens and the M8 being cropped frame

With all those caveats my reading is there isn't much in it.

 

3. The laws of physics, with current technology didn't allow it. Can I counter with ' Why did Nikon take so long to make a full frame DSLR?"

 

4. Tricky really as they (Leica) use a digital 'trick' to move data from the richly endowed (bits wise) highlights and move them to the shadows which suffer under digital recording.

Again my reading, There isn't a lot in it between any chip (including MFDB where 16bit gives the illusion of more latitude.)

 

5. There is no 5.

 

Reviewers are for and against. True and that is good you gain a balanced view. At the moment the D3 appears (review wise) to walk on water, although I do detect some mutterings. The M8 polarizes opinion much as a Nikon does to Canon and vice versa. The objective bystander is caught in the crossfire and wisely keeps his or her head down.

 

Run search on large prints. There were discussions of 30 x 40 inch being up to 5x4 film standards some time ago.

 

Personally I shoot H'blad digital for "best" but it nearly weighs as much as a 1DsIII and zoom so the M8 is a carry round/notebook/ somewhere to use those great lenses. I do hear good things about the new Nikon glass, then I hold it, feel the weight and move on. I also hear poor reports of the L glass, but next week/month the Canon people will launch a new 'killer" lens and everyone will want to jump on and off the carousel again.

 

Finally,at last I find it interesting you cite the Nikon for "sports etc" and the proposed Leica for "documentary, portraiture, landscape and as a general carry around". Nothing IMHO can do all that except the M series (keeping the film people happy here). sounds like you really think so to.

[luigi bertolotti]

1. has anyone done a side by side print comparison between leica film and leica m8 images.. i mean shooting same scene with the same lens on a film body and m8 body..

 

I and many others in this forum did : my op.: M8 prints are BETTER, stop. Just a warning about "same lens" : owing to the crop this isn't exactly the test to be done... but is a detail.

 

2. a side by side m8 & d3 print comparison

 

Not me, sorry. Other did and opinions are varying... With a proper processing,as in Jaap's link, people has obtained superb big prints from M8 files

 

 

3. i personally think leica messed up with the m8.. should have been a full frame sensor.. why did leica not use a full frame sensor?

 

Tons of posts on this topic on this forum... My humble op. : they have used a good sensor, probably they evaluated too risky having from the start a FF... We'll see in the future, but unuseful to speak about: M8 is a fine 10MP compact RF camera with 1,33 crop factor, so is.

 

4. what is the real world exposure latitude with the m8?

 

Not sure to understand well the question ... if you refer to dynamic range of the M8, it's one of its strenghtness

 

im looking for personal experiances as i find reviewers tend to be either for or against the leica m system..

 

In this forum, TOO ... most part "for", me included.

 

especially of interest is anyone producing fine art prints..

see # 2 ....

 

thanks to all who take the time to answer..

 

Thanks to you to have entered this forum... of course...if you'll decide to go for M8 ... we'll wait for pics from you (the general rule, here, is that posted pics must be done with Leica Equip or at least Leica lenses... but "alien" pics are generally accepted for comparisions & C...

[BerndReini]

These discussions haven been and will be useless in the future. If you don't go by reviews, why go by one of our opinions. Go and test the M8 for yourself! Don't they still do the 2 hour test drive? If not, I'm sure if you go to a good dealer, they will let you take one for an hour or two. Do this and go out and shoot your own tests. Shoot the subjects you like to shoot on film or digital. Take the files home and see if it works for you.

 

Just my two cents: I love the M8. I take great pictures with it and it is perfect for my kind of photography. I wouldn't trade it for any camera that is currently on the market and I am a former 5D user. I do not miss the full-frame sensor, even though I thought I would when I first switched, and the manual focus is more reliable for my type of shooting than any other system (I shoot through glass at night etc. a lot). But again, that's just me.

 

Btw. all of my colleagues love my M8, but a lot of them say that they couldn't shoot with "that thing." My answer to them: "I know you can't.";)

[tom0511]

I use a D3 and also M8.

Have tried several side by side comparison and found the following:

difficult to compare IQ, because of different sensor size (=different DOF at same f-stop), different lenses (what is from lens and what from the sensor).

What I can say:

.both (D3 and M8) deliever great IQ

-with M8 I feel fine up to 640 ISO in color and 1250/2500 in b&w

-with D3 I feel fine upto 3200 ISO at least

-AWB is ok but not great with both systems

-With the D3 I find it easier to get a well balanced color/tone curve, specially for skin tones I sometimes struggle a bit until I get what I want from M8-RAW

-if everything else is optimized I find the M8 images pull out slightly more detail and contrast even in mushy light

 

-My conclusion: with both one can get great IQ,

I take the M8 if: I want a light,unobstrusive system

I take the D3 if Iwant AF, or if I need ISO higher than 800, or for tele or ultra wide

[jackal]

documentary, portraiture, landscape

 

 

 

stick with film every time then, better pictures all day long

 

(unless you are going for that really commercial digitally graded look which I personally hate)

[redfalo]

I think the decisive question you should ask yourself is: Do you want to have the rangefinder feeling or not? If you love RF photography but want to have the convenience of a digital workflow than I´d go for an M8. The handling of the camerea is as close to an M7 as it can be, and the technical quality of the pictures (when you shoot DNG) is brilliant.

 

I once posted a completly unscientific (and highly critized ) comparasion between my M7 and my M8 here: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/46726-m8-vs-m7-velvia-50-a.html

[Rolo]

This is not quite the combination that you're asking for, as it's M8 v Canon 1D MkII N v MP with Portra, but I'm hoping it will help you.

 

The scene as shown - big hotel, small warning lamp half way up.

 

M8 c/w Leica 35mm Summicron

MP C/W 50mm Summilux ( same view) + Portra 160iso

Canon 1D MkII N c/w 24-70 zoom.

 

From viewing the files 100% on screen, the M8 has slightly better colouring, but no detail advantage worth worrying about over the Canon. Both would make excellent 20" long prints. Their closeness in quality took me by surprise, but on reflection the crop of the 1D takes the best part of the frame and removes the problems associated with FF digital. So, I was extremely pleased.

 

The Portra film in the MP came a poor 3rd in terms of detail, on screen.

 

However, that's pixel peeping and we're all pretty good at that. When it comes to prints, the MP pulls back it's ground substantially and if it's a portrait the skin tones puts it in front of the digital files every time. The grain is absorbed by the paper surface and the prints glow.

 

In terms of B&W, the digital conversions are good enough for most purposes, the B&W CN films are better than B&W conversions from colour and nothing matches the edge of traditional B&W films.

 

M8 & anything else will be good enough for most purposes that don't require MF quality.

 

Let's face it, most of the great photographs we have today were taken on lesser tools.

 

Hope that was of interest.

 

Rolo

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[bayerische]

Rolo, why did you post the M8 file with higher magnification...?

[garyvot]

These are all worthwhile replies, but it would be irresponsible to steer you to the M8 without a complete discussion of the camera's excessive IR sensitivity and the attendant requirements for use of IR cut filters and coded lenses.

 

If you have all-Leica glass, and the lenses are or can be coded by Leica, and you use expensive IR cut filters with each lens, and you set up the camera's firmware properly, then the camera can more or less make color accurate photographs.

 

For non-coded Leica-branded lenses, expect to pay $125 per lens for coding (and about 45-90 days turnaround time), and another $120-$160 per lens for the required filter.

 

For non-Leica lenses, prepare to embark on a bizarre journey of exploration as you try to figure our whether they can be coded to match a particularl Leica lens, whether you'll need to swap the lens mounts for one that activates different frame lines, whether Leica, B+W, or Heliopan IR cut filters provide more color-accurate results.

 

Then of course, the 1.3x crop means that your carefully chosen and expensive lens kit for film no longer works the same way. You'll need a 28 to substitute as a 35, a 40 to substitute as a 50, a 21 to act like a 28, and a 75 to act like a 90, etc....

 

Or, you could just buy a 5D. (Oops you're NIkon... I'm sure there will be "D3-Lite" at some point with a FF sensor.)

[jaapv]

A bit too sombre Gary. Most of the users find this a non-issue. A fair proportion does not even use filters at all. Only lenses shorter than 35 mm need to be coded, 35 mm itself is a discussion-point. Anything longer just adds the focal length to the exif, nothing more. I nearly never remove the filters, find very little flare ( I would lie if I said never) So it is really not that important at all imo. And me - a rabid anti-protection-filter guy in the past too...

And please name one colour-accurate film Nothing new in this world.

 

Focal length shift because of crop. It has been said by others, I can only confirm, after a short while one uses one's lenses just like before and intuitively. But I would like to see some fast short lenses...

[Jamie Roberts]

Agreed with Gary, with the key exception that IMO nothing over 35mm needs the coding, since colour vignetting (which is what the coding takes care of) is next to negligible on 35s and above.

 

None of my lenses--except my new Nocti--is coded except the wides (21, 24, 28).

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Rolo]

Rolo, why did you post the M8 file with higher magnification...?

 

For no particular reason other than speed. It did cross my mind, but I thought the samples illustrated the point well without making it into a scientific peeing contest.

 

Please be aware, I made these for my own benefit, not to steer an audience towards another camera marque. Before, plunging US7,700 into M8 kit (UK pricing for body, filters and coding) I wanted to be clear of any obvious gap between the M8 and my existing MP, with a cross check to my existing Canon.

 

I shot the M8 first and was very impressed with the outcome, really taken aback. I returned to the location on another day and exposed the MP and the Canon. My initial conclusion from this was that 35mm film is dead, but in the weeks that followed, i looked more at the prints that come from the MP and I rather like them.

 

I might be unusual on this Forum in as much as I print about 1000 images a month with 18x12" being a common size, but most being below 10x8". I rarely print larger than that. All this kit matches my regular requirement.

 

It's only my 2c but I'm happy to participate in the discussion. I'm not laying a path down for anyone to tread.