M8 User view in the RPS Journal

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In case anyone is interested, the April copy of the RPS Journal is carrying a 4 page piece on the M8 (p176). Its a user 'view' as opposed to 'review', written by myself, and is really my opinion on why I find the M8 suits me. I have tried to be quite objective and would be interested to hear any comment by those who read it.

[nad]

Paul

 

Is the article on-line available somewhere??? Unfortunately RPS Journal isn't available in shops here in Århus, Denmark. It's always so much more infomative and interesting to read a user review than all those 100 % pixel pepers investigations...

 

niels

[pgk]

Niels

 

I'll put it on-line in due course (when the next issue is published) and let everyone know where it can be viewed.

[nad]

Paul

 

Thank You!!!

 

niels

[farnz]

Paul,

 

I found it be a well-balanced article written by someone who clearly knows the camera and appreciates the differences inherent in rangefinder photography. (I do get a little weary of the plethora of reviews that point out all the wonderful things that SLRs and P&Ss do that RFs don't and ignore the ethos of RF photography.) But you're review was certainly not one of those and, I was pleased to find, noted the technical difficulties that Leica and Kodak had to overcome with the sensor design.

 

I'll admit that I was a tad surprised that the RPS Journal would include a review of a camera that's no longer on sale and has been superseded by the M8.2 and the M9 but better that than the M digital line being shunned completely.

 

 

On a different but connected subject, I read Stephen Farnow's article in the journal titled "Creating Visual Magnets", which, while interesting enough, showed his PS technique to be a little less developed than I had expected, although I won't go into what led me to that conclusion. My reason for mentioning the article is that after he'd done his visual magnet magic there is a half-page print of the final photo. In the photo there's what I would consider to be unacceptable pixellation and halo-ing around some of the edges of the mask, for example around the boatman's head and the strut of the right-hand side of the boat tat appears to partly be over-sharpening or perhaps a lack of feathering. Worse, similar has occurred around the strut at the back of the boat that wasn't at the edge of the mask.

 

I'm not sure if it's a six-colour printing registration error (unlikely) in my copy of the journal or whether it's also evident on your copy too. I'd be grateful if you'd confirm whether your copy shows the same please?

 

Cheers,

Pete.

[pgk]

In the photo there's what I would consider to be unacceptable pixellation and halo-ing around some of the edges of the mask, for example around the boatman's head and the strut of the right-hand side of the boat tat appears to partly be over-sharpening or perhaps a lack of feathering. Worse, similar has occurred around the strut at the back of the boat that wasn't at the edge of the mask.

 

I'm not sure if it's a six-colour printing registration error (unlikely) in my copy of the journal or whether it's also evident on your copy too. I'd be grateful if you'd confirm whether your copy shows the same please?

 

Cheers,

Pete.

Hi Pete

 

Glad you found it balanced - I intended it as a user view rather than review as such so it relates my own experiences and opinions as a user rather than anything else . FWIW reproduction of my two images was ok but I think that there is a lot more micro detail that might have been printable - however the variances of unsharp masking and litho printing have not really produced everything I would have really liked.

 

Regarding the image you comment on, my copy is exactly the same and my own interpretation would be that the file used for printing is not of sufficiently big enough for the final published size. Its odd but there is certainly some pixelation evident around the inside of the boat's periphery.

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have (temporarily) posted the article here: Marine Wildlife - Downloads as a downloadable PDF.

[Islandmike]

Thanks for posting the article, Paul.

 

I thought it fair and balanced - an excellent assessment of the M8 that exactly mirrors my own view.

 

Though I get frustrated by the description of the camera as having a crop factor of 1.33 - it's not a 35mm camera; it's a camera with a sensor "film" diagonal of approx 33mm, so the "standard" lens is 35mm. More or less 'half frame format' - and of course, we get the best bit of the lens working for us.

 

Do we ever talk of a 6x6 camera having a crop factor of 0.6? No. We just call it 'medium' format.

 

Cheers

 

Mike

[pharyngula]

Paul, Thanks for posting a link to the downloadable pdf. I very much enjoyed reading it.

 

I was particularly struck by your statements near the end where you talk about how the M8 has "re-taught [you] a lot" and how it has "enlivened your interest in photography". I feel very much the same way and was expressing similar sentiments about the M8 just last night in an e-mail to someone on the nikonians.org site that I also frequent.

 

I too decided to shed my pro-glass zooms and instead now use primes almost exclusively on my D700. My several months with the M8.2 got me to rethink how I wanted to use my dSLR. I don't think an M8 or M9 replaces a dSLR or vice versa, they have their particular strengths that suit different assignments and even "moods". The point being, however, that the M8 really puts the thinking back into photography and this spills over even to using a technically "sophisticated" dSLR (where much of the "thinking" is necessarily relegated to trying to remember what all the settings and controls do!)

 

In any event, just adding my 2 cents and applauding you for a nice article that really gets to the essence of the M8, its warts and limitations as well as its inspirational qualities and joys of use.

 

Doug

[wparsonsgisnet]

Paul, it's a terrific article. Congratulations both for the excellent content and for getting published.

 

I agree about the nice change from others' grousing about the M8. You use it and describe it well.

[wda]

Paul, I thought it was a refreshing and unexpected pleasure to find a user view of the M8. Well done! It serves to show that models do not die or lose favour, just because there have been replacement models. Just consider the active following of the Digilux 2 which predates the M8 by a few years. A good camera, while it continues to perform as originally specified, is still a good camera in obsolescence. Mine continues to give me enormous pleasure and satisfaction.

[Chroma project]

Interesting article indeed, thanks a lot.

[epand56]

Any chance to have the article posted on line somewhere? It looks promising and interesting. Now that the magazine is out (couldn't find it here in my town) I think this is no more a problem...

[farnz]

Enrico,

 

Check out the link in post #7, which is still working as I write this.

 

Pete.

[nad]

Paul

 

Thanks for sharing the review. Great read...

 

niels

[SJP]

+1

 

Words out of my mouth, very good review. And great pictures !

[schmolinski]

Dear Paul thanks for posting the PDF! I really liked reading it, and especially the seceond last paragrapgh reflects my feelings as well. On the whole I can say that your article is very well balanced!

Thanks again for sharing; Leica is passion!

[ldhrads]

Great review. For many like me who have come to the Leica table later on, it rings true. Using this camera has taken me back to my roots, in my case my dad's old Retina IIIc!!!.

 

I find rangefinder work amazingly satisfying as your article points out. Thanks for a posting the review where I could read it.

[Guest BigSplash]

An excellent balanced review ..many thanks for sharing this with us. Out of interest do you use the Leica M8 underwater and if so with which underwater housing.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[epand56]

Enrico,

 

Check out the link in post #7, which is still working as I write this.

 

Pete.

 

Thank you friend, I'm often dumb