This is more fun than ...

[carstenw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't know about that, tin-foil hat notwithstanding. Your screen is very blue!

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!

[ho_co]

Bill--great, marvelous pictures. Super that you are well enough coordinated to be able to push the button at the right time and get the dancers at the peak. Wonderful anticipation!

 

Particularly with a cell phone!

 

 

Mark M6--

What color temperature is your screen set for? If I'm not mistaken, it's usually recommended that monitors used for judging images be set to around 5000 to 5500 K. (Most commercial monitors come out of the box set to around 9000 K or higher, and it looks to me as if you may not have adjusted its color.)

 

--HC

[Jamie Roberts]

{Snipped} If I'm not mistaken, it's usually recommended that monitors used for judging images be set to around 5000 to 5500 K. (Most commercial monitors come out of the box set to around 9000 K or higher, and it looks to me as if you may not have adjusted its color.)

/quote]

 

Or the Visitors(!) are immune to Mark's color prophylactic pyramid power That's one funny shot, in spite of any colour issues

 

Bill--fabulous shot of Walden!

[sean_reid]

I'd like to make another, less technical point. There is a tendency, especially these days, with "high-definition" being virtually synonymous with "top-quality" in the video realm, for people to assume that maximum sharpness and minimum noise are intrinsic features of the best photographs.

Tony C.

 

You know Tony, I've been thinking about that same relationship for awhile now. I forget sometimes that many people know high definition television better than painting or, even, the history of photography. I see people throw Henri Cartier-Bresson's name into all sorts of discussions and yet some seem to either not know, or to have forgotten, that the technical quality of his negatives never was extremely high. I read people who believe that a Leica is best used on a tripod with ISO 25 high-resolution film, etc. and yet that's a far cry from the working methods of the photographers who best exploited the capabilities of the Leica in the 20th century. Winogrand loved flare and used it beautifully, Koudelka obviously loves grain, Robert Frank has moved further and further from any kind of "technical excellence" as his work has developed, etc.. The speed, size and responsiveness of the M has often mattered, the way one sees the subject in a Leica finder matters. But technically perfect negatives?...not in much of the best Leica work I've seen.

 

For several years now, I've been trying to present the idea that a camera and lens are tools for a kind of drawing and the history of photography bears that out time and time again. Just as there are no absolute rules for painting, drawing, sculpting, etc. there also are no rules for photography. So I forget sometimes that many people want pictures that remind them of what they see on high-definition television.

 

I tried to go after this mindset with articles called "Correct Exposure and Other Myths" and "On Small Sensor Cameras" and I was glad to see your post and am always glad to read when people are reminding us that photography is just a tool for making pictures and that there are a lot of ways that a picture (made with any medium) can look. Certainly, in my mind, a picture is not an exercise whereby one demonstrates the technical prowess of his or her equipment. That's the tail wagging the dog.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

What Tony just said.

 

By the way, when speaking of ISO 2500, if I recall correctly, Sean Reid in his review said that the Leica ISO rating is quite conservative, and that the actual ISO is closer to the traditional one (ie, that 2500 is closer to a real 3200.) In that case, pushed a stop would get you closer to 6400...

 

Or am I remembering incorrectly? (I just got up, haven't shaved, too lazy to run over to Sean's site and search it for the numbers...) 8-)

 

JC

 

You're right...the M8, like the Canon DSLRs, runs about 1/3 stop more sensitive than its nominal ISO rating. It outperforms its ISO spec.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

 

Yes, Sean did say that the M8's 2500 is equivalent to 3200 on the Canon. ,

 

Not quite...actually the Canon is 1/3 stop more sensitive as well. 2500 on the M8 is an actual 3200. 3200 on the 5D is an actual 4000. 1250 on either camera is an actual 1600, etc.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

One problem is that the 24mm is only f2.8 at the fastest. I had no IR-cut filters for my other lenses at that time. I would now use my 35mm f1.4 asph and gain another couple of stops. That would allow me to reduce my iso to 640, probably. I really want an f1.4 wide lens!

 

Bill, I'm not sure what you have already but you might want to pick up either a 28 Summicron or 28 Ultron so as to have F/2. Those are the two fastest wide lenses on the M8.

 

Cheers,

 

S

[bill vann]

I really liked the work.

 

I remain appaled at the comments I see and Sean's comment re HCB and others resonate with my thoughts.

 

While totally OCD about quality it is always second to the image. I've won PPoA competitions with compelling images that were not technically perfect.

 

it seems a growing internet trend to denigrate everything as if this somehow makes the critic "superior" in some way.

 

i really came to this board as it seemed positive and a learning / sharing environment unlike the some others that continue to explore new levels of criticism, acrimony and generally bad karma.

 

i hope to see continued exploration of Leic in the digital arena.

 

My M8 is here and i am struggling with workflow for the best images. the point is I'm struggling and the camera / software are just tools that i must learn to use.

 

finally, if you're of film origin, i'm 54 and bee shooting/assisting since i was 14, i suggest you think back to how things used to be as was also pointed out earlier.

 

bill

[wparsonsgisnet]

Bill, I'm not sure what you have already but you might want to pick up either a 28 Summicron or 28 Ultron so as to have F/2. Those are the two fastest wide lenses on the M8.

 

Cheers,

 

S

 

Sean, I'm thinking seriously of the 28mm f2.0 when I get my 30%-off offer -- BUT I *still* want an f1.4 wide lens! If anyone cam make such a thing, Leica can. Also, I really like the look of their fast lenses.

 

I use f1.4's for my 35, 50 and 75. A 21 or 28 at this speed would be a welcome addition to my inventory. I think I would jprefer the 21, because I need a side aspect for stage photography.

 

In your research on the M8, can you find a way to reverse the relationship of distance to light falloff?

 

 

BTW to all -- I looked at the exif file for the Walden Pond shot and it says it was taken with a Mokia-8 cell phone, 10mpixels. It also told me that I had the monopod attached to the phone, and even asked me if I would like to (1) forward the picture to a friend, (2) use it as wallpaper for my phone screen, (3) posterize it, (4) transfer it to an archival printer, or (5) upload it to the Mokia Forum.

[fotografr]

Bill--Very nice timing on your shots. Image quality is better in some than others, although for those who are commenting about excessive noise, please remember what film would look like shot at these ISOs. I can remember shooting performing arts with Ektachrome 320 pushed to 640 and the results were marginally acceptable. For b&w, I always shot T-Max 3200 and was never all that impressed with it either.

[wparsonsgisnet]

More BTW --

 

I find that this camera has some nice features compared to the D2 (yes, I know it's a no-brainer). Aside from being able to use "real" lenses again,

 

1. The 10-shot buffer made a terrific difference in my ability to capture action. I have used the D2 for the past 2 years on this December dance show and even tho I am familiar with the choreography, I would skip a shot because I knew the 6-second wait would keep me from getting a slightly later shot, or -- *WORSE* -- I'd take a shot and then miss something better a few seconds later.

 

2. While the feature does not seem to please everyone, I find iso 2500 really helpful. If you look at the 8th picture you will notice that it's really a little blurry. At least it looks that way to me. I haven't printed any of these images, yet, so I don't know what they really look like. At 100k, jpeg's don't allow one to brag. Anyway, I will work with this to see if removing a bit of the facial bloom reduces the apparent blur.

 

3. I shot an indoor soccer game this weekend and I now understand why the editors of Sports Illustrated scan 2 million images each week to get a cover. No wonder those photogs all use auto-focus lenses. I shot a couple of hundred pix in 2 12-minute periods and got about 20 shots I like. I'm gonna do this again in 2 weeks to see if I can do a better job. But let me tell you: it's really hard to focus on someone who is moving toward you! Zone focusing helped a bit, but the image I got that is the most outstanding is NOT in focus. It would definitely have been good for a Mag cover and is the biggest fish I never caught! Also, I didn't take advantage of the continuous mode, but I ran out of buffer on several occasions.

 

Regards to all,

[ennjott]

For 5000+ ISO, the first shots are ok. Converting them to B&W will make the noise look nicer.

 

I disagree on the comparison against film. Film noise is less ugly than sensor noise. And recent emulsions can't be compared to the 800 and 1600 films of even just a few years ago. Still I see the advantage with the sensor, especially since it will give you proper "development" and printing every time, unlike photo labs as I just had to experience today.