Jump to content

Some M8 advantages


innerimager

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Recently I have ben shooting a lot of 'against the light' shots which has meant careful exposure and use of both highlight recovery and fill light controls in PS ACR. With careful use these allow large (slightly under A2) prints to be made from my M8 files which (IMHO) show very little degredation in these areas (although I do sometimes have to work on very minimal banding). As a 'real world' query, what if any effect do people think the use of these controls have to enhance (as opposed to increase) DR? My own impression is that the M8's files are more adjustable with these controls than those from my other dSLR cameras (especially the fill light slider). Am I right or just kidding myself?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 213
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

innerimager's logic is flawed. The shots reveal no advantage to using an M8 and 24mm elmarit. The M8/24mm elmarit is my usual setup but I would love to trade them for an M9 with either a 28mm or 35mm cron.

 

Using a 32mm crop of an 24mm lens has no advantages other than discarding slightly softer corners. It limits one to a 2.8, slow lens, unless one wishes to spend $6000 on a 24mm summilux, which is quite large. Far better to have an M9 with a comparitively small 35mm summilux offering two more stops of light, or an even sharper 28mm cron, which is one stop faster. I would do so if I had the money.

 

And why on earth would someone want to shoot the M8 at 640 at 8000? The dynamic range is inferior and noise is a problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While you certainly can critique my taste, logic has nothing to do with this. I own the 24 elmarit, 28 cron asph and 35 lux asph. There are differences in how they draw that maintain on a cropped sensor. I like the look of the 24/2.8 asph for detailed landscape images much more than either of the other, excellent lenses. for this work 2.8 is not too slow, I rarely shoot it wide open for that matter. Likewise, I like the look of M8 files at iso 640. One man's noise is another man's substance. I also like just leaving the iso at 640 and moving freely between light sources. On this day I was mostly shooting stills for a movie scene being shot in a bedroom, and I snuck outside to grab garden shots between takes. The image posted met my needs, and tastes, and allowed shooting at F2 because of the 1/8000 shutter speed. So, dismiss my taste if you will, but it was illogical to question my logic! ;>) best...Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you,

The dynamic range (DR) is better on M8 than on M9, in any Iso.

See Erwin Puts tests:

 

JPEG!?! Are you kidding me? The M9 has 6 stops of useful dynamic range, and the M8 7? You just keep believing that or keep shooting JPEGs or whatever it is that Puts is trying to get you to do with this test. If you don't want to buy the M9 fine, but don't quote this as a reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites

JPEG!?! Are you kidding me? The M9 has 6 stops of useful dynamic range, and the M8 7? You just keep believing that or keep shooting JPEGs or whatever it is that Puts is trying to get you to do with this test. If you don't want to buy the M9 fine, but don't quote this as a reason.

 

The format has no bearing on the result of the test according to Imatest. Anyway, let's see the side-by-side results of the greater dynamic range of the M9, if they're so obvious to see in RAW.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

is Jaime Roberts' profiles on C1.

 

i swear i am addicted to them. i use them whether i shoot with a UV/IR filter or no. i will not even consider an M9 until he comes up with profiles for that.

 

Currently I am using Jamie's M8 profile in C1 for my M9. Try it. It's good. I am hoping he, or someone, (C1) will soon develop an M9 profile. Of course if someone wants to give Jamie an M9 so he can get on with it, so much the better. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Currently I am using Jamie's M8 profile in C1 for my M9. Try it. It's good. I am hoping he, or someone, (C1) will soon develop an M9 profile. Of course if someone wants to give Jamie an M9 so he can get on with it, so much the better. :D

good to know it will work in a pinch, but i do agree -- somebody has got to give Jamie an M9 tout suite!

 

he makes magic :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I read the Imatest website. They also quote a scientist that states that digital SLRs have higher dynamic range than film. Plasticman, please let's agree again and call this test bullshit. I took some pictures with my new M9 today in very contrasty situations and I am hoping to post a sample that might illustrate the dynamic range of the M9. Nothing scientific, just a real-life image. I have shot enough slide film in my life to tell you that the M9 definitely has SIGNIFICANTLY higher dynamic range than the six stops you may get out of a slide.

 

Let's get away from the M8 vs M9 for a second and let's sharpen our swords against statements that the "usable" dynamic range of each of them is as low as indicated in Puts' review. "Usable" dynamic range? What does that even mean for practical photography? Give me a break. I'll use every little bit of it.

 

I would also welcome the mods to merge this thread with the one on the M9 forum discussing this. Now that I actually own an M9, the separation of M8 and M9 forum is actually starting to bother me. It just fuels the us vs. them mentality that some people have taken. Love my M8, still using it, love my M9, love film. Do I really have to bookmark three different pages?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The format has no bearing on the result of the test according to Imatest.

 

Hmm? Do they also claim that a print has the same dynamic range as a negative? The "format" may have no bearing on the results but the *processing* certainly matters, and the M8's in-camera JPEG engine is nowhere near as good as that of any leading RAW processor, Lightroom included. I'll wait to see someone who's an expert on digital imaging test the RAW files before forming conclusions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote=plasticman;1083360

 

and also the M8 sensor is actually slightly sharper (despite some picture of raindrops I recently saw was supposed to prove the two sensors had the same sharpness).

 

 

I suppose you mean the test that I posted when I first got my M9. I never used the word 'proved' my actual words were 'To me in terms of sharpness they look the same'. I'm quite careful with my words, preferring to avoid the use of words like 'prove'.

 

One thing is for sure that whatever test results are presented they will never be accepted by all.

 

However I would say that I still see nothing in the M9 files that look any less sharp than in my M8 files. I'm no tester but I am content on the issue of sharpness.

 

It may be that the M9 will improve in various areas with new FW releases just as the M8 did.

 

If I recall you put off your M8 purchase for a couple of years, because you weren't happy with the camera, maybe you will repeat that experience with the M9.

 

Jeff

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I recall you put off your M8 purchase for a couple of years, because you weren't happy with the camera, maybe you will repeat that experience with the M9.

 

Hi Jeff - you're quite right, I bought the M8 when I was finally satisfied that reliability issues were finally sorted-out (and so far so good). Even then I had issues with IQ until I found the raw developer that best suited the look I was aiming for, and nearly sold the camera before that happened. Instead I decided to sell my film cameras, as I felt owning five cameras was excessive and stupid. Now I'm hunting for a film camera all over again.

 

So you see I make mistakes all the time - convince myself the grass is greener, or indeed the reverse - and I don't mind admitting it. I actually hope I'm wrong about the M9 - I'm one of the people that's been really vocal about full-frame - defending it against the hordes who insisted that the M8's crop was optimal. Most of those people can now be found on the M9 forum, yacking about their new gear.

 

My problems with the M9 are that, other than the full-frame issue, Leica have tried to address issues that I don't care for: reducing noise, punching-up color and getting rid of the external IR-filters. I think they've been stung by the internet chatter about just these things, and the 'fixes' they've implemented have ruined the look for me, simple as that.

 

I actually don't think the M9 is the last word from Leica, and I'm looking forward to what may come along afterwards, because the lenses have a lot to give full-frame. We'll see if firmware changes can do it for the M9, and as I've said, I'm more than willing to accept I'm wrong about a camera (I often am).

But from my own tests, and from what I've seen out there, I'm simply not convinced (yet), and in the meantime I'm really loving the character of the M8 and more than happy to wait and see.

Link to post
Share on other sites

plasticman,

 

i'm not deluding myself -- i would buy the M9 in a heartbeat if i could afford it! i want my wide open shots to be wide open (and i shoot in low light so the 1/4000 would be enough for me, especially with the lower ISO).

 

however, i've been into a kick of shooting longer lately, wanting to isolate. with my 75 Lux, i can get as close as .7m whereas if i felt the need to get a 90/2 i'd be limited sometimes by the 1m near focus... a small thing, perhaps, but in this case the crop factor is my friend.

 

again, i would not hesitate to get the M9 if i could. but i honestly think the M8 is a better tool for what i'm doing now.

 

cam

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

however, i've been into a kick of shooting longer lately, wanting to isolate. with my 75 Lux, i can get as close as .7m whereas if i felt the need to get a 90/2 i'd be limited sometimes by the 1m near focus... a small thing, perhaps, but in this case the crop factor is my friend.

 

again, i would not hesitate to get the M9 if i could. but i honestly think the M8 is a better tool for what i'm doing now.

 

cam

 

Take that same photo with the M9 and the 75 lux and crop away the extra 8Mp and you have the same composition and same number of pixels as with the M8. With the M8 and M9 the crop factor is not your friend since the pixel pitch on the two sensors is the same.

 

Jeff

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even then I had issues with IQ until I found the raw developer that best suited the look I was aiming for, and nearly sold the camera before that happened

 

I promise you, most of the images you have seen from the M9 have been processed in Lightroom. Those oversaturated colors etc. are not inherent to the M9. You may remember that Lightroom did the same thing to the M8 files. C1 does a lot better. Skin tones are great. Don't judge the M9 from a profile in progress.

 

Another thing that happens is that the M9 files are so big that when you have to down sample them to the tiny internet size that is required for posting, they actually degrade more than smaller files. You have to look at bigger files from this camera otherwise you will be reacting to the side effects of down sampling.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I promise you, most of the images you have seen from the M9 have been processed in Lightroom. Those oversaturated colors etc. are not inherent to the M9. You may remember that Lightroom did the same thing to the M8 files. C1 does a lot better. Skin tones are great. Don't judge the M9 from a profile in progress.

 

Another thing that happens is that the M9 files are so big that when you have to down sample them to the tiny internet size that is required for posting, they actually degrade more than smaller files. You have to look at bigger files from this camera otherwise you will be reacting to the side effects of down sampling.

 

I don't really want to drag out this discussion with you Bernd - as I've said before I'm an admirer of your work and you and a few others can make great images with any camera, so the M8/M9 discussion is just irrelevant really; my reaction was pretty much over the 'making a $3000 lens perform as a $300 one' or words to that effect which I couldn't resist reacting to.

 

Anyway, my own judgements have mostly been based on images I took myself (as uncompressed DNGs with my own lenses) and downloaded DNGs. I tend not to judge anything from online jpegs - always found it hilarious that people will post a compressed image 600 pixels wide to show how good the noise characteristics of a camera are - but even the jpegs haven't convinced me this time, to be honest.

 

Work in progress or not, I hope you can appreciate that the changes made to the sensor and the in-camera processing are not to everyone's taste. I'm glad they suit you, and I look forward to seeing what you do with it, but as far as I can see they don't suit me.

 

Mani

Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you get a copy of Jaime Roberts' profiles for C1?

 

he is an active member here. i'm sure if you sent him a PM, he'd be more than happy to supply you with them! they are truly worth their weight in gold...

 

oh, and my bad typing -- it's Jamie Roberts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

he is an active member here. i'm sure if you sent him a PM, he'd be more than happy to supply you with them! they are truly worth their weight in gold...

 

oh, and my bad typing -- it's Jamie Roberts.

 

Thanks for the recommendation, I will PM him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...