How good is the M8?

[sean_reid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Let's not get carried away. The M8 produces a really good file, and the M lenses are superb, and there are certainly many "rangerfinder" shooting advantages. But that said, a Canon 1Ds mk2 with Canon's prime lenses out performs it in MOST "commercial", "photo shoot" situations. The Canon 35mm 1.4, 50 1.2, 85 1.2, 135 2.0 are outstanding lenses. The full frame 17mp sensor with these lenses simply capture considerably more detail. Period.

Try shooting a "studio lit" group photo with a M8 and a 1Ds side by side at ISO 160. The Canon image CLEARY has more detail because the the sensor is very good AND it's17mp. I love my M8 and will probably buy a second one for travel and "rangefinder" shooting situations. But when it comes to producing the best quality commercial work to feed my family, I'll always grab the 1Ds. The M8 is a lot of fun and a really good 10 mp, but it doesn't "blow away" all competition. Let's hope the next digital M is a 20 mp.

 

People have different tastes and different priorities as to what constitutes "quality" output from a camera. That said, I will add that I worked professionally with the 1Ds for several years and continue work with Canon bodies for some work. But at low ISO, I much prefer the files from the M8, whether it has a Leica, Zeiss or CV lens mounted. In fact, I prefer the M8 to the 1Ds at all ISO levels and I say that having a healthy amount of respect for the 1Ds.

 

As to the comparisons between Leica and the current FF Canons...I tried to look at that systematically in my review of the Leica DMR. At lower ISO, I prefer the DMR files, especially when the lens system is considered. I believe the M8 produces even higher quality than the DMR (by my quality standards). I currently use a 5D and M8 side by side for many assignments.

 

As to the larger question of "How good is the M8?"...I've written many articles so far that try to answer that question systematically. It's my favorite digital camera yet made and the one I use most except for commercial architectural work (where a DSLR and TS lenses are still quite useful to me).

 

Cheers,

[Advertisement]

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

[richardhagen]

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.

 

Thank you. I will explore this further. I would love it to be the case that I could get very large, very high quality prints from this format.

 

Richard

[sean_reid]

True, but the same is true for the M8, put on an inferior lens and it won't look as good as with the leitz lens

 

That is, assuming that the given lens is "inferior" to the Leica lens. Leitz lenses haven't been made for a long time but I'm sure many of them will work beautifully with the M8. I'm going to have to keep chipping away at the myths about non-Leica RF lenses.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

Thank you. I will explore this further. I would love it to be the case that I could get very large, very high quality prints from this format.

 

Richard

 

If possible, then, make a trip to David Adamson's studio in Washington D.C. to see proof in the pudding.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[bill vann]

That is, assuming that the given lens is "inferior" to the Leica lens. Leitz lenses haven't been made for a long time but I'm sure many of them will work beautifully with the M8. I'm going to have to keep chipping away at the myths about non-Leica RF lenses.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

 

I'll say. having sold off much equipment as i must keep a very light kit for my reconstructed back, i bought, almost on a whim, Voigtlanders in 15, 21, 28, 35, 50 and 90.

 

i sold my 50 Elmar and kept the Nokton, the 28 is better than the pre asph can't say re the asp, 35s are closer than i could imagine ultron v cron.

 

deciding a kit is tough, likely get a tri elmar to walk with in daytime and the CVs for when i need the speed.

 

point of reference i'm coming from L glass on both canon and Kodak ff SLR/c and have shot professionally for almost 40 years.

 

Sean i really enjoy your balanced look at cameras and glass, i think your site is a genuine bargain

 

kindly

 

bill

 

all the current rf lenses i've tried embarass my canon L glass.

 

bill

[bsmith]

J

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.

.

 

I'm not sure I understand your chart, I do know that those DOF Master "acceptable focus" areas stats in real life situations are not even close. Try some of the given combinations with your M8 and tell me if those very blurry backgrounds are "acceptable sharpness" ,..they're certainly are not to me. If you put a 35mm on a 1Ds next to a M8 with a 28mm (approx 37mm) and focus at 20 feet , the M8 shot will have CONSIDERABLY more DOF because even though it's a 37 on the M8, it's still a 28mm lens. It's not the same focal length, it's only a cropped view.

[bsmith]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

That is, assuming that the given lens is "inferior" to the Leica lens. Leitz lenses haven't been made for a long time but I'm sure many of them will work beautifully with the M8. I'm going to have to keep chipping away at the myths about non-Leica RF lenses.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

Sean your missing the point, it has nothing to do with " chipping away at myths" I'm saying that a Canon 35mm 1.4 resolves better than a canon zoom lens ie 24-70L , (it's very easy to see this with the 1Ds) so when trying to compare quality between the 2 cameras , one must use a lens comparable to the Leica glass. If you were to put a lower quality lens on a M8 , it would not perform as well just like the Canon zoom. I didn't mean old Leitz lenses were poor in general. If you think the M8 has more resolution than the 1Ds fine, some people think Rebel images are the best. I own both and shoot thousands of images each week and the 1Ds clearly has higher quality than my M8. I make my living shooting, not testing lenses, but it's easy to see the differences on high end monitors. Leica's glass does not make up the difference in mpixels. Their prime lenses are pretty darn good. Cheers

[mjh]

If you put a 35mm on a 1Ds next to a M8 with a 28mm (approx 37mm) and focus at 20 feet , the M8 shot will have CONSIDERABLY more DOF because even though it's a 37 on the M8, it's still a 28mm lens. It's not the same focal length, it's only a cropped view.

Because of the cropping, the smaller image the M8 captures will be enlarged by 33% compared to an image captured by a full-frame sensor. Circles of confusion will be similarly enlarged, which counteracts the effect of the shorter focal length, at least to some extent. So while there will be more DOF than you would get with a 37 or 35 mm lens on an EOS 1Ds, it will still be more shallow than the DOF a 28 mm lens would deliver.

[sean_reid]

Sean your missing the point, it has nothing to do with " chipping away at myths" I'm saying that a Canon 35mm 1.4 resolves better than a canon zoom lens ie 24-70L , (it's very easy to see this with the 1Ds) so when trying to compare quality between the 2 cameras , one must use a lens comparable to the Leica glass. If you were to put a lower quality lens on a M8 , it would not perform as well just like the Canon zoom. I didn't mean old Leitz lenses were poor in general. If you think the M8 has more resolution than the 1Ds fine, some people think Rebel images are the best. I own both and shoot thousands of images each week and the 1Ds clearly has higher quality than my M8. I make my living shooting, not testing lenses, but it's easy to see the differences on high end monitors. Leica's glass does not make up the difference in mpixels. Their prime lenses are pretty darn good. Cheers

 

Again, there's no objective and universal standard for file quality. It's a personal call. Resolution is only one piece of the puzzle. As you probably have read, I also have been very impressed with the Canon 35/1.4L. So, I suppose I should ask, by way of clarification, what lenses, as examples, are you thinking of when you talk about "lower quality" lenses on the M8?

 

As for the importance of megapixels, if you ever get a chance to look at the comparison pictures in my DMR review, let me know what you think. Do outstanding lenses and the lack of an AA filter make up for fewer megapixels? I'd say yes, based on having done careful comparisons. But, again, all that really matters in the end is what works best for a given photographer and there can be no absolute measures for that.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

I'll say. having sold off much equipment as i must keep a very light kit for my reconstructed back, i bought, almost on a whim, Voigtlanders in 15, 21, 28, 35, 50 and 90.

 

i sold my 50 Elmar and kept the Nokton, the 28 is better than the pre asph can't say re the asp, 35s are closer than i could imagine ultron v cron.

 

deciding a kit is tough, likely get a tri elmar to walk with in daytime and the CVs for when i need the speed.

 

point of reference i'm coming from L glass on both canon and Kodak ff SLR/c and have shot professionally for almost 40 years.

 

Sean i really enjoy your balanced look at cameras and glass, i think your site is a genuine bargain

 

kindly

 

bill

 

all the current rf lenses i've tried embarass my canon L glass.

 

bill

 

Thanks very much Bill. Leica has made many outstanding lenses and no one, least of all myself, would reasonably question their quality. But from time to time I read references to non-Leica lenses as being "lesser" optics and while that may be a comforting myth for some, it isn't always (as you know) born out in the reality of side-by-side comparisons or long-term use. I imagine you might agree that we photographers don't (and will not ever) have universal agreement on what kind of lens drawing is "best" for all photographers. Of course, there is no such thing. Inasmuch as we have individual styles and approaches as photographers, we also will have individual tastes in how we want our lenses to draw.

 

Moreover, if a photographer wants to work with an M8, I'd rather that he or she do so with some excellent, and fairly inexpensive, CV lenses than avoid the system all together because of the cost of modern Leica lenses. And if it lightens the camera bag as well, that's great too. As most people would have guessed from my writing, I have no interest in Leica as a status symbol and I hope Leica never forgets that they were makers of good tools before their cameras became status symbols.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Again, there's no objective and universal standard for file quality. It's a personal call. Resolution is only one piece of the puzzle. As you probably have read, I also have been very impressed with the Canon 35/1.4L. So, I suppose I should ask, by way of clarification, what lenses, as examples, are you thinking of when you talk about "lower quality" lenses on the M8?

 

As for the importance of megapixels, if you ever get a chance to look at the comparison pictures in my DMR review, let me know what you think. Do outstanding lenses and the lack of an AA filter make up for fewer megapixels? I'd say yes, based on having done careful comparisons. But, again, all that really matters in the end is what works best for a given photographer and there can be no absolute measures for that.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

 

I can confirm that MPX in some cases is some what meaningless when it comes to the DMR and a camera with AA filters . I did do a huge test awhile back on this with the 1dsMKII and the same Leica lenses on it and the DMR proved it's worth very much .

 

MPX in a general sense is also marketing, just because you buy a 12 mpx camera does not automatically mean a 9 mpx is worse. people need to realize there is much more to a file than Mpx, yes it may have more overall resolution but that does not mean there is more detail or a better file either and a sharper clearer file can make up for the resolution.

[blakley]

Canon's are the only cameras that allow to shoot with a wide angle lens in low light conditions using the powerful 1.4 apperture that give you the beautiful bokeh M8 and other crop-cam users will miss forever.

 

Really?

 

[AlanG]

Why debate when it can be calculated?

 

This site has a depth of field calculator:

 

Online Depth of Field Calculator

 

When focused at 3 feet:

 

A 35mm 1.4 on a full frame 1Ds MkII will have .18 feet depth of field with a circle of confusion of .03

 

A 28 f2 on a 1D MkIIN (similar sensor size as the M8) will have .31 feet depth of field with a circle of confusion of .023

 

When focused at 10 feet they will have 2.1 feet and 3.66 feet depth of field respectively.

 

Hyerpfocal distance is 94.8 feet for the 35 1.4 full frame vs. 56 feet for the 28 f2 on a 1D MkIIN (very similar for the M8)

 

The M8 is not listed on this calculator.

 

Note the smaller sensor needs a corresponding smaller circle of confusion to compensate for the additional enlargement required to make the same size print as the full frame camera.

 

Personally, I like a lot of DOF. Selective focus is rarely important to me. I generally like including the subject in the context, not isolating it.

Note that the 4/3rd system has some very fast lenses. This will make up for their shorter focal length if minimum DOF is your thing.

[bsmith]

MPX in a general sense is also marketing, just because you buy a 12 mpx camera does not automatically mean a 9 mpx is worse. people need to realize there is much more to a file than Mpx, yes it may have more overall resolution but that does not mean there is more detail or a better file either and a sharper clearer file can make up for the resolution.

 

 

Yes, you seem to have also learned that there's more than just Mpx to file quality. That said and agreed upon,.... I still say the 1Ds files (providing you use "prime lenses" ) are still better in resolution, detail, sharpness, clarity, noise etc, etc., than the M8. While I'm not a self professed "guru", I know what I'm seeing (with 35 years of experience and digital cameras since Kodak/Canon's $20,000 DCS-1 and everything in between) on my Sony Artisan and Apple 30" display. And yes it's because of Mpxs in this case. It's not like saying a P&S is better since it's 8mp not 5. The 1Ds has a very technology advanced chip and software from a premiere company with experience and knowledge unsurpassed in the digital market today. The M8 is closer to the 5D.

When someone disagrees with you don't assume they are misinformed, or haven't done "careful comparisons" We simply just disagree, I own both cameras and shoot commercially with them everyday and probably look at more files a week than you. My opinion is the 1Ds has a better file. Just because I don't test 1968 Nokton 1.9 lenses it doesn't mean I don't know what I'm looking at. I have more or at least the same invested in M lenses as you Guy. My experience and testing, have visually told me that even great Leica lenses and no AA filter CANNOT make up for a physically larger and denser chip in the 1Ds. I do feel the M8 is the best 10 mp file I've ever seen, and I do wish it looked as good as my 17mp 1Ds. It's just my very experienced opinion, your is obviously different, that doesn't make me wrong.

[carstenw]

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

...

 

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.

 

I am not sure that I know what you are trying to do here, but keep in mind that the lens has no clue what camera it is attached to, and so a given lens at a given distance will always have the same depth of field. The only reason you are seeing different depths of field here is that you used separate CoCs. If you are trying to compensate for the different crops, don't forget that in the real world, these three cameras would not be used at the same distance. You really need to figure out at what distance the cameras would be to give the same crop of the main subject, and then calculate the depth of field there. When you do that, I think that the CoC should likely remain the same for each camera, since the image captured is the same over the whole frame.

[KM-25]

Canon's are the only cameras that allow to shoot with a wide angle lens in low light conditions using the powerful 1.4 apperture that give you the beautiful bokeh M8 and other crop-cam users will miss forever.

 

Really?

 

 

Yeah, really..

 

[Riley]

strange to see the canon armed ownership so offended by this

when it is common knowledge that FF dont do wide very well

if it was that easy, the M8 would be FF

its not like kodak dont have a FF sensor ready to roll is it

its not like leica customers wouldnt accept FF is it

leica did this because it performs better, particularly in wide angle

[jaapv]

I am not sure that I know what you are trying to do here, but keep in mind that the lens has no clue what camera it is attached to, and so a given lens at a given distance will always have the same depth of field. The only reason you are seeing different depths of field here is that you used separate CoCs. If you are trying to compensate for the different crops, don't forget that in the real world, these three cameras would not be used at the same distance. You really need to figure out at what distance the cameras would be to give the same crop of the main subject, and then calculate the depth of field there. When you do that, I think that the CoC should likely remain the same for each camera, since the image captured is the same over the whole frame.

 

Sorry, this flies into the face of theory.DOF is not a characteristic of a lens or focal length, it is solely the product of the relative enlargement of the subject on the final print and the aperture. It SEEMS to be tied to focal length, as that changes the enlargement of the subject, given a certain format of the receptor. A change in sensor size implies a change in final enlargement, thus changing the COC.

DOF is the same for each lens regardless of the format, provided the distance to the subject does not change and the enlargement does not change.(But that will change the crop as the size of the receptor changes. As the product of a smaller format will be enlarged more to gain the same size of print the COC must be set at a different value. Just consider the print from a 50 mm lens on a 135 camera versus the same lens on a 645. The crop changes, the FOV changes, and the COC hence the DOF changes, despite the same focal length. What you are doing is changing the camera-subject distance to keep the FOV the same, introducing an extra parameter. That one would normally not do as that changes the perspective. A lens change is more logical.Then my table comes into play.

If you look at Hyperfocal Distance and Depth of Field Calculator - DOFMaster, you'll see that the different values of COC are normal practice.

 

 

Edit: I found this post later. Thank you for summarizing correctly

Because of the cropping, the smaller image the M8 captures will be enlarged by 33% compared to an image captured by a full-frame sensor. Circles of confusion will be similarly enlarged, which counteracts the effect of the shorter focal length, at least to some extent. So while there will be more DOF than you would get with a 37 or 35 mm lens on an EOS 1Ds, it will still be more shallow than the DOF a 28 mm lens would deliver.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[wattsy]

it is common knowledge that FF dont do wide very well

 

I'm not sure where this comes from. I have both Canon full-frame and an M8 so have no axe to grind either way. I've used the Canon as wide as I can get it (17mm) and the resulting files are superb. The limiting factor with Canon full-frame are the wide lenses not the sensor.

 

Getting back to the original question in this thread, the original poster should ignore some of the ridiculous statements made in support of the M8 and ask himself which system would suit him better. Despite what you read here (and elsewhere), the differences in image quality between the higher-end '35mm' systems are slight and a relatively minor consideration within the overall context of taking a decent picture (what is in front of the lens is always more important than what is behind it). Choose the camera on the basis of what system suits your style - reflex and rangefinder cameras offer pretty distinct ways of shooting and it's pointless using a camera that you may think has the best inherent image quality but which you find awkward to use.

[jaapv]

Have a look at Fritz Polkings book Digitale Naturfotografie in der Praxis, page 24-25.There he prints a high-quality comparison between various sensors. For this application (admittedly harder on IQ than print for display) the 16.7 MP sensor does slightly better than the 8.2 MP sensor and slightly worse than the 12.8 Mp sensor. Given those numbers, it is not hard to guess at the camera's involved and it seems the full-frame sensor does not bring the advantage one would expect.