Samir Jahjah Posted December 5, 2006 Share #21 Posted December 5, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Which lens? Dayum...there is no way, and I mean NO WAY that a Nikon D2X would hold up at that ISO. y. But a Canon 5D would hold up with no problem... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 5, 2006 Posted December 5, 2006 Hi Samir Jahjah, Take a look here M8: "Super Camera" ... or just a super camera? . I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Jean LeBlanc Posted December 5, 2006 Share #22 Posted December 5, 2006 what did u say herbert - r u jokking???? :-))))man - if u dont know how to do it - it is your problem - not film problem. and by the way, usually, the balancing of colour with light sources is far more coherent with film post processing. wether u scan or u print the slide in the darkrrom. u just have to know how to do it :-))))))))))))))))) Maybe in Haifa they sell brighter light bulbs. Super Bulbs and perhaps Super Film? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted December 5, 2006 Share #23 Posted December 5, 2006 my experience with film is very limited but vic you know that handling all those speeds in a shoot is near impossible with film and you also know that digital often expresses less aberations like noise than film at speed in real estate we needed flash all the time for K64, i hated the stuff but editors demanded it no surprise you dont care to mention that Riley Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Arias Posted December 5, 2006 Share #24 Posted December 5, 2006 what did u say herbert - r u jokking???? :-))))man - if u dont know how to do it - it is your problem - not film problem. and by the way, usually, the balancing of colour with light sources is far more coherent with film post processing. wether u scan or u print the slide in the darkrrom. u just have to know how to do it :-))))))))))))))))) Ok, ok, Victor - maybe I really don't know how to do it. But if you are an expert, please tell me, why films with more than ISO 400 are offered - and sold - at all. H Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frc Posted December 5, 2006 Share #25 Posted December 5, 2006 Absolutely not bad, with some speeding up of the proces it's a winner for productions like this. Film though, for sheer quality stil beats this. The question is do you need it to satisfy your clients or are they happy with this. With this kind of photography it's: clients happy, photographer happy. For the time being I'll stick to film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddp Posted December 5, 2006 Share #26 Posted December 5, 2006 But a Canon 5D would hold up with no problem... Perhaps....I haven't used a Canon system to any large extent. I'd be very interested to see some 5D shots at this ISO (with Leica glass of course) to compare. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic vic Posted December 5, 2006 Share #27 Posted December 5, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) why 400 film is sold??? or why i use 400 film.. ok - lets talk about colour films of course... provia 400.. u can use it as normal at 800, u can push it without much risk to 1600. i have never had rejected images by editor because it was done on provia400 and not on k64. provia 400 is great - have no douubts about it. i odnt do weddings, so the pic below is the closest to weding. my sisters wedding. provia 400 film, avaliable light. frc... ya - of course i understand your point. and man, i once said on this forum that the only small digital camera i will work with is going to be m8. simply because i love M as small camera, and i dont love any other small format cameras (the slr - dslr). but this is a different question. the clients are suttisfied - cool. but that doesnt make the camera - super camea, or perfect. lets face it - the camea has problems as it seems to be - serious problmes in my opinion. and i say it with some sadness, and great hope that it will be fixed anytime in the near future. and leica shuld know that the m users, at least some of them, dont go blindly with the leica stuff, only because it has red dot on it. about clints - they want me, not my camera. if cleint wants to work with me then it is becasue of my photography, because of my way to do things... so, first of all, this is me who has to be sutisfied with my work, and then i will proudly can give it to the clients. 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/10728-m8-super-camera-or-just-a-super-camera/?do=findComment&comment=111428'>More sharing options...
reven Posted December 5, 2006 Share #28 Posted December 5, 2006 Victor is ones again funny as ever. Man why are you even here ? You always claim the same... Nobody forces you to buy any digital camera, but than you really can leave here. Sorry if this is now a little bit harsh, but your comments are always the same... M8 is shit and you love film. OK Stick with IT ! Jesus, really I have over 5000 shots of film here, all from diffrent cameras and films. (All 35) Some of them really have something speciall. but sorry none of them hold the same detail as my 1Dsmk2 or 5D... P.S: your shot nothing, which can't be done digital... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic vic Posted December 5, 2006 Share #29 Posted December 5, 2006 excuse me christopher... when exactly did u hear from me that m8 is shit????????? i think i clearly say that i would like to have m8, and im glad that leica made it... read my point before making your funny comments. your mk1d is great - im sure it is great - it is fantastic, amazing, it is so detailed that u cacn see the moleculs and sometimes even atoms :-)))))))))))) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
grober Posted December 5, 2006 Share #30 Posted December 5, 2006 The essence of a good group shot is to make it an assemblage of good individual portraits. You certainly demonstrated this idea with your grouping around the wedding cake. I love that shot! You are a lot braver than I: I'm not to the point of committing my M8 to "revenue service" yet because I have no faith in its WB. We'll consider that after it gets its "fix" in Germany, hopefully this month already. -g Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted December 5, 2006 Share #31 Posted December 5, 2006 i odnt do weddings, so the pic below is the closest to weding. my sisters wedding. provia 400 film, avaliable light. Now you've got something to beat ... Marc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reven Posted December 5, 2006 Share #32 Posted December 5, 2006 Yes my 1DsMk2 is a great camera, probably one of the best digital cameras out there. Still it's far from perfect and I had only time for a view shots with an M8 so far, but it looks pretty equal or even better. I just think that you can't really say that 35 film is better, sorry but that's not true... How do you define better ? ... certainly not detail... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted December 5, 2006 Share #33 Posted December 5, 2006 The essence of a good group shot is to make it an assemblage of good individual portraits. You certainly demonstrated this idea with your grouping around the wedding cake. I love that shot! You are a lot braver than I: I'm not to the point of committing my M8 to "revenue service" yet because I have no faith in its WB. We'll consider that after it gets its "fix" in Germany, hopefully this month already. -g Are you shooting raw or jpegs . In either case though you can always take a WB shot of something white and use that kelvin temp as the new WB. This is pretty much like you see with video crews. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
grober Posted December 5, 2006 Share #34 Posted December 5, 2006 Guy, Thanks for the tip. I'll try your recommendation as soon as the M8 returns from its Flight to its Fatherland for a Fix. I've shot both DNG and JPG but am still a child when using C1. While the M8 is on its trip, I'll be able to learn more about using C1. -g Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frc Posted December 5, 2006 Share #35 Posted December 5, 2006 Well Vic, I agree upon what you say about the client choosing you for who you are and what you do. But,........ Many pro's are in a situation were the speed of work required and the enormous amount of post-processing film needs is no longer enabling them to compete without the use of digital stuff. I myself, I do not depend on the income generated by my photography so I'm in the comfortable situation wher I can choose to continue to use film. Your work to seems to allow you to do so, be happy with it and feel sorry for those who have no choice. Finding out about the flaws the M8 has I decided to wait for a while before buying. Filters, mandatory lens-coding, not for me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddp Posted December 5, 2006 Share #36 Posted December 5, 2006 I just think that you can't really say that 35 film is better, sorry but that's not true... How do you define better ? ... certainly not detail... Film is different.....and better for some things, while digital is better for others. I use one or the other depending on the client's needs or wants. And when it comes to my own personal stuff, it boils down to subject matter. For auto racing, I'd opt for the D2X with a 300 2.8. But if I'm doing shots of classic cars and focusing on details - I'm grabbing the MP and shooting film. Horses for courses....and I've said that phrase a bit too many times on this forum. Victor's work has a certain look to it....a look I'm not entirely sure digital would give him. If one knows how to pick film like a chef picks an ingredient, the outcome of the image is clearly affected. And when going digital, you're dealing with photoshop for post processing. Every time the film vs. digital debate pops up here, the argument ends up being the same. They are different mediums, and in some cases film has a nicer look. A nicer texture. Marc's image at the bar at the beginning of this thread is an M8 image that I have wanted to see. Available light, shallow DOF and high ISO. IMHO, it holds up well. How it would look on film didn't pop into my head. Some of the bridal party shots - yes, film comparisons were inevtiable in my mind there. I've shot my share of weddings & events- and I am very wary about shooting a wedding digitally still. I just don't like what I see....that is purely a personal opinion. There's a certain look to a wedding shot with medium format, if you really want to get right down to it. The look I used to get shooting with a Hassy is not easy to replicate. But the M gear certainly can hold it's own in this forum. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted December 5, 2006 Share #37 Posted December 5, 2006 from anything i have seem so far - no way i will replace the provia 100 and 400 for m8 or any other digital small camera. simply no way. sorry again dear people,. but not only this is no match to medium format, in practice, it is not even a match for 35mm format with slide film it. i dont even have to mention b/w film here...QUOTE] Victor, I seem to recall that you mentioned in one of your posts that you are a working professional photographer. I don't know who your clients are, but most of us no longer have the luxury of deciding for ourselves whether to shoot film or digital. A couple of areas where this choice is left to the photographer are wedding/portrait work and fine art photography. For nearly everything that is assignment based, whether from ad agencies, magazines, book publishers or corporate art directors, the specs are for digital format. Given a choice, there are many situations where we might prefer to shoot film, but the reality is that the choice is no longer there. In most professional circles, the film versus digital debate has no relevance anymore, nor do personal preferences for one medium over the other. Those of us who make our living with cameras use what we have to in order to satisly our clients and keep getting their work. Our choice, then, is not whether to use digital, but which digital system to use. Right now I have a full blown Canon set-up and, while it does great work, I hate hauling around a 30 pound bag. For me, the M8 represents the same freedom my first M3 gave me many years ago when I started shooting with M Leicas rather than carrying a bag full of heavy Nikon gear. The M8 will not only lighten my load, it will let me shoot with my preferred rangefinder system and with glass that gives me the results I want. What can possibly be better than that? Regards, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted December 5, 2006 Share #38 Posted December 5, 2006 If one knows how to pick film like a chef picks an ingredient, the outcome of the image is clearly affected. No one said it better than you did, Dan. Good job ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted December 5, 2006 Share #39 Posted December 5, 2006 Hi Marc, Glad to hear it. For C1, to the extent you will use it, also try Jamie's profile. Even with the 486 filters, I find they sometimes yield better results than the current stock profile. In fact, I ended up using a Jamie profile for many of the pics in the wedding you and I discussed. Black tuxes with magenta vests - how perfect. <G> Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted December 5, 2006 Share #40 Posted December 5, 2006 is now the time to mention my magenta suit <g> Riley Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.