How good is the M8?

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

if i leave the house without my Hubble telescope i feel naked !

 

I like that LOL. They had to fly up a special filter because it unexpectedly turned out to be unusable without it :D (well, actually it was a diopter, but still...)

[KM-25]

I wonder if you really worked out the differences in DOF on a 1.3 and 1.0 sensor? In the real world, it comes down to about 2/3 stop. Not really relevant, except in the most extreme cases.

 

Bokeh is much more than what is directly behind the subject. For me, losing the peripheral bokeh is the biggest problem. Leica lenses are often very, very good performers in the periphery and exhibit a distinct look that seems a crime to have cropped out.

 

I use a brilliant copy of the 24 1.4L on my 5D's, the look it gives across the entire frame is marvelous, to crop it would be a waste. It is very sharp in the corners even wide open by the way if one uses it correctly, ie: curvature of field.

[Guest umb]

I wonder if you really worked out the differences in DOF on a 1.3 and 1.0 sensor? In the real world, it comes down to about 2/3 stop. Not really relevant, except in the most extreme cases.

 

I was shooting with an APS-C cam (difference in stops is about 1) and I'm telling you it is a big difference, especially with wide angel lenses.

[Riley]

that would be a 1.6 crop APS C umb ?

maybe thats why

remember M8 is 1.33

 

M8 = 56% FF

APS C = 39% FF (variously)

Foveon = 33% FF

FT = 26% FF

[jaapv]

I was shooting with an APS-C cam (difference in stops is about 1) and I'm telling you it is a big difference, especially with wide angel lenses.

 

So did I and I totally agree with you So the difference in the difference between the M8 and film (in this case) came as a pleasant surprise to me.

[jrc]

I think if you put an M8, a 1DsII and a D2x on a tripod and shot some particular scene with a medium length lens (~50mm) with good lighting, and then did a high-quality printing, most people -- even people who knew a lot about photography -- would have a hard time saying which was which. There are serious, big-time photographers using each of these systems.

 

The key difference is that one or the other systems plays better into a particular person's working methods. If I were a photojournalist or something like an anthropolgist or other social scientist, doing field documentation, I'd definately use a DSLR, purely for their flexibility (up to 1000mm lens down to photomicrographs with the same camera.) If I were doing mostly wildlife, I'd use a D2x, because for any given range of shot, the lens will be shorter, faster and lighter and cheaper than the Canon equivalent. If I were shooting dance in a darkened theater, or sports, I'd go probably for the 1DsII, for the high ISO. If I were trying to be inconspicious, doing close-up street work, the M8 works for me.

 

Even Guy Mancuso, who has been a serious supporter of the M8, has a Leica DSLR that he uses along with the rangefinder. For some things, rangefinders just aren't as good as DSLRs; and vice-versa.

 

What becomes aggravating about these discussions is that somebody will say flatly that X camera (usually a 5D) is "better." The unanswered part of the question is, "Better for what?" For them? For the price? For macro photography? For sports? For wildlife? For night shooting? For street work?

 

When somebody says that either the M8 or 5D is better, they're not lying. For them, it probably IS better. What you have to question is the natural human assumption that what's best for me is also best for you.

 

JC

[carstenw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I also find that many of the comments here are wildly optimistic. I own a 5D (soon to be sold) and an M8, and I love both cameras. I find that at the moment, the 5D is a way more reliable tool, but I am no pro, and my heart goes with the M8. Besides, the 5D and its lens set is too heavy for my purposes.

 

Still, the M8 is no silver bullet. It makes really nice files, but many of my shots with it are way off with either IR effects or extremely poor WB. I would wait with buying an M8 until you can evaluate it with a B+W or Leica 486 IR filter on the lens you want to use. If you try it and like it, buy it, but don't jump in head-first without knowing that you are getting into a situation which at the moment is a bit difficult.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

I think if you put an M8, a 1DsII and a D2x on a tripod and shot some particular scene with a medium length lens (~50mm) with good lighting, and then did a high-quality printing, most people -- even people who knew a lot about photography -- would have a hard time saying which was which. There are serious, big-time photographers using each of these systems.

 

The key difference is that one or the other systems plays better into a particular person's working methods. If I were a photojournalist or something like an anthropolgist or other social scientist, doing field documentation, I'd definately use a DSLR, purely for their flexibility (up to 1000mm lens down to photomicrographs with the same camera.) If I were doing mostly wildlife, I'd use a D2x, because for any given range of shot, the lens will be shorter, faster and lighter and cheaper than the Canon equivalent. If I were shooting dance in a darkened theater, or sports, I'd go probably for the 1DsII, for the high ISO. If I were trying to be inconspicious, doing close-up street work, the M8 works for me.

 

Even Guy Mancuso, who has been a serious supporter of the M8, has a Leica DSLR that he uses along with the rangefinder. For some things, rangefinders just aren't as good as DSLRs; and vice-versa.

 

What becomes aggravating about these discussions is that somebody will say flatly that X camera (usually a 5D) is "better." The unanswered part of the question is, "Better for what?" For them? For the price? For macro photography? For sports? For wildlife? For night shooting? For street work?

 

When somebody says that either the M8 or 5D is better, they're not lying. For them, it probably IS better. What you have to question is the natural human assumption that what's best for me is also best for you.

 

JC

 

Exactly John i still have to have a DSLR with my M8 and becuase I do many different things so that range needs to be there. The nice thing for my is my files between the 2 are very close and that works to my benefit.

 

Now i buy the bokeh crop factor on a scientific level but seriously I been shooting with a crop camera for several years even the 1dMKII and i can get plenty of bokeh whenever i want but you also need to know how to place subject and background and also what is in the background. I love my 180 F2 and all my fast glass like that and the bokeh is really great but on the same hand i have far better coners than any FF camera also. Balance is the key and frankly some bokeh is so overdone it becomes too much. But that is my opinion and some love it on everything.

[carstenw]

Bokeh on toast, mmmmmmmmm!

[jaapv]

Just to get the facts clear: DOF values for 24x36, M8 and RD1 (1.5 crop)

All at 3 m distance.

 

135-2.8

08 cm film

06 cm M8

05 cm RD1

 

90-2.0

13 cm film

10 cm M8

09 cm RD1

 

90-2.8

18 cm film

14 cm M8

12 cm RD1

 

75 - 1.4

13 cm film

10 cm M8

9 cm RD1

 

75-2.0

27 cm film

20 cm M8

18 cm RD1

 

50-1.0

21 cm film

16 cm M8

14 cm RD1

 

50 -1.4

30 cm film

23 cm M8

20 cm RD1

 

50-2.0

43 cm film

33 cm M8

28 cm RD1

 

35-1.4

62 cm film

48 cm M8

41 CM RD1

 

35-2.0

89 cm film

60 cm M8

59 cm RD1

 

24-2.8

326 mm film

227 mm M8

192 mm RD1

 

I used DofMaster, calculated the M8 at 0.023 mm, the RD1 at 0.02 and the film at 0.03 mm. APS-C would have shown an even wider DOF with a COC of 0.018.

Unless I have been clicking very stupidly,(not impossible at all) or DofMaster is totally out (rather more unlikely), the DOF on the M8 will be more shallow than film at the same focal length,and not too much out when "jumping" one length.

 

One added effect that goes a long way to equalizing 24x36 DOF and the M8. On a RF camera the framelines are not very accurate. On film one has to compose rather loosely to avoid cutting off essential parts of the image. A digital camera allows instant review, so it is- for more or less static or predictable subjects- possible to crop the image closer on exposure, as a check is available. This will often result in the same enlargement of the subject on the film/sensor, thus the same DOF.

[richardhagen]

In print? As good as it gets - At ISO 160 it is better than prints from 645 MF IMO. (I'm talking 60x40 at a good professional printing lab)

 

With all due respect, I find it hard to believe that you can get a sharp 60x40 print from a 35 mm camera - especially one without a full-sized sensor. I am completely amazed at this statement!

 

Richard

[jaapv]

The proof is in the pudding - which happens to be pinned to the wall in front of me. razor-sharp and all the detail one could wish for....It might interest you to have a look atTHIS THREAD Fyi, David Adamson is one of the top printers, if not the top printer of this world.

[wparsonsgisnet]

With all due respect, I find it hard to believe that you can get a sharp 60x40 print from a 35 mm camera - especially one without a full-sized sensor. I am completely amazed at this statement!

 

Richard

 

There is a thread here where a custom printer displays such prints in his gallery. He has also offered a reduced price to members of the Forum to have a selected raw image made into a print by him.

 

I am trying to find such a digital neg to take advantage of his very kind offer.

 

Thanks for posting the link Jaap. I was wandering thru the archive trying to find it while you were supplying it.

 

As I said, I am looking fora suitable digital neg (probably will be my granddaughter) to have prints made by David.

[richardhagen]

The proof is in the pudding - which happens to be pinned to the wall in front of me. razor-sharp and all the detail one could wish for....

 

Again with all due respect: When I see it, I'll believe it. And btw: I am a Leica owner and admirer but I do recognize it limitations.

 

Richard

[Cruewell]

Thanks all for your help, it's been very useful! If I don't get the camera it won't be because I have any doubts about it's quality.

 

Here are a couple more samples of the kind of photos I take. They are all from Madrid center. The black an white is partly the consequence of many years of B&W darkroom, but since going digital I shoot color also.

 

 

 

 

[richardhagen]

There is a thread here where a custom printer displays such prints in his gallery. He has also offered a reduced price to members of the Forum to have a selected raw image made into a print by him.

 

I am trying to find such a digital neg to take advantage of his very kind offer.

 

Depending on the price of his prints, I would certainly be interested in printing one of those images on my large format printer and stand to be corrected if I'm wrong. I typically print very large prints of images taken from my MFDB and the results are exquisite. I will run, not walk to buy an M8 if I could get very large prints, of a very high quality, and tack sharp.

 

Richard

[peterv]

Nice shots!

 

I asked myself the same questions as you did ( and everyone else).

 

Now I'm not a wealthy guy, but I took the plunge, bought the M8 and some second hand lenses, and I'm certainly not dissapointed. To say the least...

 

Succes with your decisions!

[wparsonsgisnet]

Richard,

 

David Adamson requires that you supply him with the raw file. He does NOT say how he processes it. His recipe must be a winner, but he clearly states in the thread that it is his opinion that M8 negs are equivalent to scans of MF negs.

 

Check out his web site.

 

And I wish I have a large format printer. The camera is too damn expensive to allow this.

[wparsonsgisnet]

Jose,

 

Again, your photos are suberb. This camera would be a great asset to you.

 

If you are reading the threads, you are noting the satisfied owners' cheerfully rash statements about it.

 

Regards,

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jaapv]

Again with all due respect: When I see it, I'll believe it. And btw: I am a Leica owner and admirer but I do recognize it limitations.

 

Richard

I've been a Leica owner for nigh on 35 years- but I can only tell you through this limited medium - the M8 is a whole new ball game. Don't believe me - I'm just an old amateur, but do read the posts by such folks as David - and the host of top-of-the-line professional photographers on this forum. I don't think you'll find any of them saying differently from me. Surely that counts for something.