M8: "Super Camera" ... or just a super camera?

[Jean LeBlanc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Jean, I'd say it's a very good workaround that's almost on par with other high-end portable cameras out there. For critical work, I'd use the filters that Leica recommends without hesitation. But to date I haven't run into any situation where I needed to rescue the colour in Photoshop.

 

Wonderful! I'm definitely sold! Thanks so much for doing this!

 

And now, the waiting begins. ;-)

[Jean LeBlanc]

The guy lighting up in the doorway--what's with all those green splotches, there's one straight on his arm! If that's what you mean by "It appears to do what I want it to" then we have a way different set of standards bro I also got to wonder in night shooting in the city likt that, how much flare and loss of contrast those IR filters are causing. That kind of shooting is where I always took the filter off. Got me worried big time now.

 

Those "splotches" are flare from the automobile headlights and various lit signs. I think it's really a bit over the top to be complaining about that. If you know of a camera and lens that could produce an image in that situation without that flare, I'd love to hear about it. What would you guess the difference in EV is between that guy and those headlights? 15? 20? Let's be serious!

[Riley]

jojet

sharp is kind of a big ask when shooting inside and wide open

one thing these images are not .......is soft

[Guest guy_mancuso]

FYI when I was using the IR filter shooting the 1250 ISO tests and there were the blobs and/or reflections they went away when using the filter. But first there caused by the streaking anyway so once that is fixed so will be the blobs but the IR filter did cut them out

[jojet]

I have read the topic started bu Guy about the disapearing of the blobs and reflections when using the cut filter.

 

Perhaps the point is (at least I think the photo is taking with the cut filter seeing the black coat) whether the reflections are coming from the filter. It isn't similar to the blob thing where you could see almost an identical reflection (shape and form) of a particular light. Here it isn't so. So I thought (and think) this isn't the well-known blob thing but has something to do with the reflections of a used filter?

 

By the way, these splotches or flare I've never noticed with mine 35 1.4 L wide open (with no filter in the front).

Also in the picture with the "riksja" I notice large black/green stripe in the middle at the right. Is this the well-known streaking (if so caused by what??) or something else?

 

Sharp or not soft: I've never said the pictures are not soft. They are simply not tack sharp. I get with the 35 1.4 tack sharp pictures wide open. Mine only point is that these pictures doesn't jusitifie the certificate supercamera. Apparently most readers thinks different about that, so its just mine point.

 

Anyway I've seen many pictures made the by famous HCB that were not tack sharp but boy, the composition made it all. That's for me also the main point of a picture: does it appeal to you when you look at. And most times we don't look whether a picture is point sharp but does the picture affects you. I whish I could have make some of those not so point sharp pictures.

 

john

[Guest guy_mancuso]

I'm pretty sure those test images are in the ISO 1250 thread. Now as far as the filter creating problems really have not seen that yet except for one shot directly in the sun but it was not even focused so really can't call it anything. I 'm heading up to Yosemite in the morning with 4 other shooters of differnt camera's also Hassy with a Aptus 65 some 5d's and DMR and of course the M8 so we may try some comparitive shots.Iwant to see the Aptus 65 compared to the M8 just to see how the files look to each other in terms of color , contrast and such.

[Guest stnami]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have to agree with John about the sharpness or lack of in some images. There is a definite trend sharp images by some photographers and disapointing by others.The other thing is that the camera seems to have a hard time coping with areas of intense colour

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Not so sure about handling the instense colors these samples are in some of the brightest sun in the world and the colors are very strong. of course i could back off also but they seem very nice to me and sharpness is killer on these. The M8 does not have a sharpness issue if anything it may have too much on some things, which i rather have it than not. But i am after sharpness a lot also . Depends on what your doing

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!

[jojet]

Guy,

 

 

If' I'm correct I've already seen (at least two of) the pictures in another thread and these are v sharp ( as I recall you've also posted crops of them which look scary sharp and did very justice to a predicate "supersharp camera".

 

That's also mine only point for this thread: the published pictures doesn't justify the predicate "supercamera". That the pictures aren't sharp is perhaps a user failure; rangefinder focus has also a learning curve. The point is that you can't state with these pictures that we are talking about a supercamera or so although some people in this thread do so and I think that isn't really objective imho. When I recall the aforementioned pictures of Guy I'm "afraid" (as a canon user) that the M8 really delivers superb and sharp images (besides the technical problems which will be overcome) and those justifies the predicate; such a small and light camera delivers superb results (technically, artisticly depends on the photographer with whatsoever instrument).

 

john

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Agreed and sometimes the low light stuff does not look as sharp becuase of contrast and tone also. Marc's images are nice for what there intentions are for, Marc may have missed one or two not a big deal in that arena of work for some images. i miss some too , nature of that type of work. But as far as the M8 delivering high detail and sharpness there is no question it can do that in spades. These images are scary and the micro contrast i have not seen below MF and that is the key that I keep trying to say politely. because i could say this is the absolute best sharpest most detailed images on the planet for 35mm. than people would jump all over my butt, but the truth is quietly they are and i have been real careful how i say that. I look at my screen on some of these images I turnaround to see if someone slipped a P45 in there or something. i get to test a Aptus 65 starting Friday in Yosemite and obviously that may kick it's butt but i want to see how bad or how good it can do. Most of the stuff i have shown are tests also. real work like Marcs he has to deal with the elements and speed of the real shoot and movement , bad light and such . Not that any of us will not face the same thing but we also are very over critical of the camera right now becuase of the known problems and such. Which is normal for us to do , no question.

 

But i really have to say in all honesty i have a lot of money in this and i can't fool myself eeither becuase that would be pretty stupid on my part but i really am impressed so far and i actually have a new older version in my hands i bought yesterday. so i have 2 . now either i like to just waste 10 grand on something is one thing but i'm not nuts either. This thing can crank out a great image. With just a few hurdles to get over. Frankly i would not cancel a order if your goal is exceptional detailed images. This has it

[stevme]

 

Sharp or not soft: I've never said the pictures are not soft. They are simply not tack sharp.

 

Take another look at the FedEx truck. Terrific.

 

Steve

[Riley]

i have to say too, although this isnt a reflection on the camera but the glass

i shoot buildings every day, and i notice there is very little if any edge distortion like barreling

they would be at what 28mm, almost every wide i know has at least some

[mwilliamsphotography]

I'm getting the impression that some people are placing this camera in a category it's not best suited to ... and evaluating results based on a criteria better applied to other types of equipment.

 

I stated clearly that IMO the camera delivers in the area I got it for ... low available, mixed light candid work of moving subjects, often using wide open apertures at slow shutter speeds. The "moment" is the objective, with the highest image quality possible under those circumstances. IMO, that's rangefinder territory ... not exclusively, but most certainly a traditional strong point.

 

That it can make sharp images in broad daylight, of stationary subjects, at high shutter speeds and low ISOs is commendable. But, IMO, for that type subject I would not select this camera ... in fact it would be well down the list.

 

So, to me it's not a Super Camera ... but for what it can do, I feel it is a super camera ... meaning a small digital rangefinder with only the RD-1 as competition.

 

It's not brain surgery, no matter how hard people try to make seem so : -)

[hgmoore]

I stated clearly that IMO the camera delivers in the area I got it for ... low available, mixed light candid work of moving subjects, often using wide open apertures at slow shutter speeds. The "moment" is the objective, with the highest image quality possible under those circumstances. IMO, that's rangefinder territory ... not exclusively, but most certainly a traditional strong point.

 

Marc,

 

Very appropriate. I have been lurking here recently, and came to the conclusion that I very much want an M8 and a few lenses. Unfortunately, it is well beyond my means to return to Leica in digital form.

 

What I can afford is to find an M3 and a couple of older design lens, maybe a 50 Sumicron to start with. That should satisfy my nostalgia trip to the style of photography I enjoyed in the 60s. Just gotta find a lab to process bw and slide film to have scanned.

 

harvey

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Marc i would not put this well down the list it may have it's limitations but micro detail is not one of them. Frankly i would go DMR or MF above the M8 but not near the bottom.

[jojet]

Steve,

 

 

My first reactions were not about the New York city pictures but the wedding. That was the initial post and those pictures are not sharp.

 

I'm also not trying to debate about what is the best camera etc. As I stated in my last post about the quality of the M8 I think I said enough.

 

I wasn't either talking about edge distortion. The spotches look like flare to me caused by the filter (if a filter was used, perhaps Marc can say more about that). That's all.

 

One thing is still puzzling me is the big dark stripe in the "rikjsa" picture. Can anybody tell me what this is; is this the famous streaking (I can't find the "corresponding light-source) or something else?

 

I'm glad that to Marc this is his supercamera. I surely can inagine this; walking around leight and having a camera with great posibilities.

 

 

john

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped}

Leica and C1 should be paying Jamie a large fee for his work. He's the only thing between them and immediate disaster. That said, Jamie is learning on the job as are those following and using his guidance. Not something to be expected from Leica or a Leica imaging product. {snipped}

 

Steven, thanks for the kind words. I'd take a Noctilux, if they have one handy

[mwilliamsphotography]

Okay John, whatever you want to conclude from viewing web images. The wedding images of the cake scene for example are sharper from the M8/35/1.4 ASPH than the same shots taken with an AF Canon 5D/35/1.4 under the same conditions. I have both in print size, from 16 bit files at full resolution properly sharpened for that size file, you don't. But the argument is irrelevant, It's more about the moment, the people's body language, expressions, etc., not pixel peeping. The groomsmen pic was there to demonstrate that the IR filters did work and separated the magenta vest from the tux, not because it's a great rangefinder image.

 

Harping on sharpness, and other stuff like that is a trait of the "pixel peeper" mentality that is perversely warping the view of this camera, and IMO gets it into a contest it cannot win despite the exaggerated claims that it is a "Super Camera". All that does is invite people to use false criteria in evaluating the tool. It's a rangefinder folks, subject to the strengths and limitations of a rangefinder ... and the less than ideal conditions one often uses a rangefinder in. HCB is the model, not Ansel Adams.

 

Guy, you and I agree on many things but this is not one of them. For the more static type images I discussed above, I would use a view camera with a digital back, or even my Canon 1DsMKII with a tilt shift lens for building shots before this camera, or a MF back using "micro contrast" Zeiss glass if I wanted huge enlargements ... I'd even use a MF camera with film in certain circumstances before this camera dispite David's expert claims to the contrary ... since he won't be making the 50 prints I may need to do, I will.

 

"Horses for courses" and "different strokes for different folks", is still true.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

I agree i would not use the M8 if shifting and such was required and i need the highest resolution. Agree there and actually thinking more on a MF back for myself . I get to try a Hassy with a Apyus 65 starting tomorrow for the weekend in Yosemite. I will keep the M8's but maybe making move early next year to a MF. But i do like pushing this M8 to the limits and will try some shifting lenses this weekend .

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[mwilliamsphotography]

Give the Aptus some time Guy, it requires a bit of a learning curve also. I don't think you'll be able to use C-1, so the software will be new to you. You can use Adobe Camera RAW also (the Leaf MOS files are supported and can be opened directly in ARC), but the Leaf software is better.

 

Best of luck.