M8 owners should buy new lenses NOT an M9?

[Angelos Viskadourakis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

image at 2500 iso M8 early firmware 35mm summicron Asph.Looks clean to me with M8.No uvircut.

I see M8 capable of high iso with proper technique,after testing M9 i found a difference but real small one.I have to admit that dynamic range is getting compressed at higher iso,in both cameras M8 & M9.

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/viskadourakis/

 

candle light in face ,some weak street light is the backlighting.@2500iso M8.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/viskadourakis/3241549725/in/set-72157623081627618

 

that one @1250 iso M8-just candle light.Looks like TRI-X ,quite good for my taste.

http://bighugelabs.com/onblack.php?id=3353194391&size=large

 

For colour i would use M8/M9 up to 640 iso and for 2500iso and above i would use one of my Canons if people & movement are involved.For night static & architecture work i would definitely use the M8.

I strongly believe that a new firmware for M8 with interval iso(eg400iso,.800iso,1000iso) will benefit the system even more.

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!

Edited June 30, 2010 by Angelos Viskadourakis

[jaapv]

Seems to me that the raw converters are simply taking-over some of the ground previously held by in-camera processing and proprietary software like Noise Ninja. The images that I've seen (and downloaded and tested for myself) are certainly useable for pro use, but there is gross loss of very fine detail and even color merging in the final result.

 

Whether that is significant in the final print is another matter - and please note that I personally like a somewhat grainy image, and also don't see low noise as a sine qua non of a good image.

 

But as far as I'm concerned, the only difference between M9 and M8 images run through the new noise reduction algorithms, is that the M9 has already smudged away some noise internally, and therefore has a head start (down a questionable track).

Not really. All other things being equal, an ff 18 MP camera will show less noise than a 10 MP 1.33 crop camera. Add the black point shift of the M9 and you have a significant advantage.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[plasticman]

Not really. All other things being equal, an ff 18 MP camera will show less noise than a 10 MP 1.33 crop camera. Add the black point shift of the M9 and you have a significant advantage.

 

Well as I said, noise isn't a primary concern for me. But from what I've seen, the noise 'improvements' from the latest Adobe releases apply equally well to the M8 - though naturally more pixels will create the appearance of smoothness when printed images are the same size and viewed from the same distance.

 

Personally, I'll take noise (or grain) over watercolor effects. I'm sure the noise-reduced images can work when printed, and no disrespect to Chris, but I refrained from commenting on this image in the original thread, even though I felt the noise-reduction algorithm had done atrocious damage to the texture of the original (test) image.

If that's what people want to do with their non-AA filtered, Leica-lens images then so be it (and obviously sometimes there is no option). But I don't see the point.

 

PS: link guaranteed free from viruses (virii?) of any sort.

[jaapv]

Well as I said, noise isn't a primary concern [for me]. But from what I've seen, the noise 'improvements' from the latest Adobe releases apply equally well to the M8 - though naturally more pixels will create the appearance of smoothness when printed images are the same size and viewed from the same distance.

 

Personally, I'll take noise (or grain) over watercolor effects.

Agree 100% But it is nice that 2500 is no longer an ISO value that makes you feel uncertain when taking the image. And that is the point the M9 has arrived at now. The M8? I would stop at 1250 and only use 2500 if needed and very,very carefully exposed. Then it works as well, as we have seen. Edited June 30, 2010 by jaapv

[hoppyman]

M9 800ISO with conversion in LR2.7

100% crop to show actual reproduction with no aliasing (you need to look at original size as posted)

Hedge Grasshopper in my garden photo - Geoff Hopkinson photos at pbase.com

[Guest BigSplash]

M9 800ISO with conversion in LR2.7

100% crop to show actual reproduction with no aliasing (you need to look at original size as posted)

Hedge Grasshopper in my garden photo - Geoff Hopkinson photos at pbase.com

 

Geoff what an unbelievable image ....breathtaking! Can you tell us what lens etc. Was this dare I ask tken using a Visoflex ...if yes I like it even more.

 

Super thanks for sharing it.

[plasticman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Agree 100% But it is nice that 2500 is no longer an ISO value that makes you feel uncertain when taking the image. And that is the point the M9 has arrived at now. The M8? I would stop at 1250 and only use 2500 if needed and very,very carefully exposed. Then it works as well, as we have seen.

 

All very true.

 

I rarely change my from my preferred 320ISO - a setting that sacrifices a marginal degree of dynamic range in favor of a slight texture to the images which comes as close to film grain as I've seen with any digital camera.

 

I understand that working pros sometimes can't choose the conditions under which they're forced to capture images - but in my view the rest of us are better served buying the fastest possible lenses, and foregoing the occasional shot of a black cat in a black room at midnight.

[hoppyman]

Glad you liked it Frank. This is the Macro Elmar 90 from half a metre and the extreme magnification is due to the 100% pixel for pixel reproduction of course. Subject is about 100mm long.

I do have a Visoflex complete with bellows and it works really well on the M9. Better than on my M8 due to the superbly accurate framing with no crop factor of course.

[stunsworth]

I rarely change my from my preferred 320ISO - a setting that sacrifices a marginal degree of dynamic range in favor of a slight texture to the images which comes as close to film grain as I've seen with any digital camera

 

I tend to shoot most of what I do at 160 ISO, though I've been meaning to try some 2500 shots to see how good the LR3 noise reduction is. I've seen a lot of excellent examples on the web, but I typically limited myself to ISO 1250 because of noise at 2500. The 1250 images I've pushed through LR3 noise reduction have looked very good indeed, much better than LR2. The appearance of the detail slider makes it relatively easy to decide on the trade off of lower noise against loss of fine detail.

[Guest BigSplash]

Glad you liked it Frank. This is the Macro Elmar 90 from half a metre and the extreme magnification is due to the 100% pixel for pixel reproduction of course. Subject is about 100mm long.

I do have a Visoflex complete with bellows and it works really well on the M9. Better than on my M8 due to the superbly accurate framing with no crop factor of course.

Geoff if you have a Visoflex you maybe interested in the low profile hot shoe pickup made by michael bass in USA His web site is www.michaelbassdesigns.com I have given hime detailed measurements for the item that now just fits below the Viso and it works a treat.

[hoppyman]

Frank I don't have a need there but I took a look. Nice that there is a custom manufacturer out there for specialised items like this.

 

If you are doing a lot of Viso work with lighting requirements like that I would re-iterate that the M9 offers considerable advantage due to the precise framing. I could readily frame my subject at around 30 cm to within less than a mm which is phenomenally precise.

[SJP]

image at 2500 iso M8 early firmware 35mm summicron Asph..

great picture!

[Guest BigSplash]

Frank I don't have a need there but I took a look. Nice that there is a custom manufacturer out there for specialised items like this.

 

If you are doing a lot of Viso work with lighting requirements like that I would re-iterate that the M9 offers considerable advantage due to the precise framing. I could readily frame my subject at around 30 cm to within less than a mm which is phenomenally precise.

 

Yes but with a 90mm macro can you take an image as large as a shoe box (or computer) and then take an image of say a microprocessor chip on the motherboard. This is what I use a viso for and I can control and review the lighting also...

 

....however I admit that using any digital camera it is possible to shoot 10 images at different apertures etc and select / review the best while you are taking the images.

[hoppyman]

Frank I have both the Visoflex AND the macro 90. The best accessory that you can buy for both is the M9.

[blimey]

Amateurs worry about sharpness

Pros worry about money

while Photographers worry about lighting conditions...

[leicashot]

Amateurs worry about sharpness

Pros worry about money

while Photographers worry about lighting conditions...

 

When us pros aren't worrying about money, we're worrying about lighting conditions.

[leicashot]

image at 2500 iso M8 early firmware 35mm summicron Asph.Looks clean to me with M8.No uvircut.

I see M8 capable of high iso with proper technique,after testing M9 i found a difference but real small one.I have to admit that dynamic range is getting compressed at higher iso,in both cameras M8 & M9.

 

Flickr: Angelos Viskadourakis' Photostream

 

candle light in face ,some weak street light is the backlighting.@2500iso M8.

CANDLE LEICA M8 on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

that one @1250 iso M8-just candle light.Looks like TRI-X ,quite good for my taste.

On Black: anastasi © by Angelos Viskadourakis [Large]

 

For colour i would use M8/M9 up to 640 iso and for 2500iso and above i would use one of my Canons if people & movement are involved.For night static & architecture work i would definitely use the M8.

I strongly believe that a new firmware for M8 with interval iso(eg400iso,.800iso,1000iso) will benefit the system even more.

 

i don't see this sample as being a good representation of ISO 2500 on the M8. While the M9 isn't much better, neither are really what I'd call excellent by today's standards, especially compared to a Nikon D3s which I own.

 

The image is at a very small size and looks like its been cleaned up with noise ninja or something like it. Heck it looks like it was taken at ISO 160. I try to avoid anything over ISO 800 on the M8/9 unless there is good clean low light. Under most low light situations calling for ISO's above 800, the Leica does fall behind, for pixel peepers that is.

 

I shoot Leica for the joy of it so would rather have a grainy M9 file than a silky smooth D3s one because the experience of shooting is more important than the final result.....but in a professional situation, I just can't take the chance with high ISO M8/9 files, and must pull out the D3s, which I shoot to 12,800, which is like ISO 2500 on the M9 - seriously

Edited July 10, 2010 by leicashot

[wilfredo]

I continue to enjoy the purchase of a new lens for my M8 http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/people/132007-max-world.html Getting this lens has been my most satisfactory lens purchase to date.

 

I realize that some people can spend $7000.00 on a new body without any sacrifice whatsoever. Some do it with some sacrifice involved. For me, it would be a major sacrifice, and the payoff is just not there, hence I will continue to wait and see what the M10 brings along.

 

BTW, There are reports of the sensor glass on the M9 apparently cracking for no reason at all. This is a new M9 mystery problem that needs resolution.

Edited July 15, 2010 by wilfredo

[BRJR]

The question is should one invest £5000 in an M9 or buy two new ASPH lenses...for me it is a no brainer, buy the lenses and use on the M8.

 

1. Yes, I would purchase the lenses; as, (from my experience) the lenses tend to increase in price, but I have not seen the cost of any digital camera body do this. Lenses, provided you are careful in selecting the ones you know are compatible for your shooting preferences --- could easily last you a life-time --- whereas M8/M8.2 and M9, likely will not (as, technologically, they will all likely suffer from "digital rot").

 

2. A couple of Leica lenses I purchased new, just a year ago, are now for example worth $1500.00 USD more than I paid for them (leica 24mm f/1.4, now sells for $1,000.00 USD more and my leica 50mm f/0.95 lens is $500.00 USD more). The same is similarly true for my other Leica lenses and all my Nikkor lenses as well (I have a number of Nikon lenses, as seen at this link: Member profile: BRJR: Digital Photography Review -- click under "View plan", in my profile, to see the mentioned lenses).

 

3. At some point, you will already have the lenses you are interested in/need (I stopped buying DSLR Lenses over 3 years ago, since I now have all the ones I want; and, the same will likely hold for Leica, after my next couple of lenses purchases); and, whenever you purchase a new camera body, you will not have to pay the increased costs for lenses. Even "KR", has repeatedly told us, the "smart money" goes first into quality lenses, unless of course one can purchase both at the same time.

Edited July 25, 2010 by BRJR

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[LuxBob]

At one time FP4 was considered the limit and HP4 gave you grainy but adventurous images. The problem was that once you had one in your camera you were stuck with that until the film ended. I still have a mental barrier above ISO 400 but when one can switch picture to picture it is a luxury.

For me these are still extensions of the possible even though on my D700 I can go a lot further, I still view ISO 320 as a personal limit and not a limitation on the M8.

Edited July 25, 2010 by LuxBob