How good is the M8?

[Riley]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

 

it's a long-known fact. digital sensors are not as good as film at dealing with light hitting them at an angle. If you are not familiar with this forget any pretence for further technical discussion. You get softness, you can get fringing that looks like chromatic aberration, you can more easily get blooming, vignetting, light fall off, etc. The wider the lens the more apparent the problem. With some apertures are usually more sensitive to it than others.

 

A 35mm digital sensor does not work just like a piece of 35mm film. It has its own different issues. While one could say "its not the sensor", then ipso facto it must be the glass.... but that is ofcourse bunk. Yes it likely only occurs with wide glass, but in effect the problem lay with the sensor.

[wattsy]

it's a long-known fact. digital sensors are not as good as film at dealing with light hitting them at an angle. If you are not familiar with this forget any pretence for further technical discussion.

 

(You might want to drop some of your arrogant tone - this is meant to be a friendly forum.)

 

I'm fully aware of the theoretical issues regarding digital capture vis-à-vis film and the issue of oblique light rays, etc. My point was essentially that the technical discussion will take you so far but the reality often tells a different story. For mainstream '35mm' use, the current Canon full-frames provide superb results - even with fairly extreme wide-angles (I've never used anything wider than 17mm).

 

You get softness, you can get fringing that looks like chromatic aberration, you can more easily get blooming, vignetting, light fall off, etc. The wider the lens the more apparent the problem.

 

Again, I agree with your theory but the reality is that, in my experience, only vignetting/light fall-off come into serious play. I've had more noticeable chromatic aberration with many APS sized digital sensors. Whilst sensor induced softness may also be true I have found that inherent lens softness to be a more important factor (and one fairly easily rectified by stopping-down or using a better lens).

 

While one could say "its not the sensor", then ipso facto it must be the glass.... but that is ofcourse bunk. Yes it likely only occurs with wide glass, but in effect the problem lay with the sensor.

 

We could go around in circles on this but I take your point that it may be sensor limitations that are exposing certain lens weaknesses. However, to the extent that some lenses work much better than others on full-frame sensors, we can at least say that getting good results from full-frame digital capture is also a lens issue.

 

When all is said and done (and I prefer the doing, not the saying), the Canon full-frame cameras are superb tools. I've never had a client complain yet about any of the inherent deficiencies of full-frame digital capture and that, ultimately is all that matters to me (I never use the Canon for non-client work).

[Riley]

well forgive me Ian but

 

it is common knowledge that FF dont do wide very well

 

you ask me where I get that from

and make me go thru the whole thing, even tho at a guess I know you are aware of what Im talking about

only to have you tell me how aware of the technical issues you are

 

yes its a friendly forum, not dentistry

[jaapv]

well forgive me Ian but

 

 

 

you ask me where I get that from

and make me go thru the whole thing, even tho at a guess I know you are aware of what Im talking about

only to have you tell me how aware of the technical issues you are

 

yes its a friendly forum, not dentistry

 

I resent that:p My dentistry is friendly...

[Riley]

lol

jaap while I have your attention

if you see a rather beautiful redhaired artist around sluis named hiedi

and she asks you if you have seen Riley

you will be a nice man wont you

[sean_reid]

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.

 

 

Are you responding to Guy or myself? You included posts from both of us above your reply.

[blakley]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm at a loss as to the point you're trying to make, KM-25. All the out-of-focus areas in the photo you linked are feet away from the plane of focus. Those trees and lights would still be out of focus at f/2.8 - on either the 5D or the M8. As a point of rhetoric, I also don't understand how posting any photo from the 5D can support an argument that the M8 doesn't do something well...

[bebert]

Hi Jose,

 

look at the thread on the forum (http://www.leica-camera-user.com/digital-forum/13293-like-magic.html) where I posted some of my first pictures taken with the M8. It is a fantastic tool. And so easy to use! I also posted some other pics on Venice on the Photo Forum.

 

If only I could spend my days traveling and taking life pictures with this camera!

 

Bebert

[bill vann]

I got raked for the following several times on different boards and expect it again but here goes. it describes my digital evolution after determining i could leave film keeping my clients satisfied.

 

First "pro" cameras were Kodak SLR/c quirky difficult to work with poor low iso performance used all L glass primes / zooms (except 50 1.4) but magnificent images. when it died and was in for repair i decided to upgrade.

 

Got 2 5Ds easy to use, great high iso, same L glass but inferior image quality. less microcontrast, detail, and color subtlety

 

did a test

 

tripod - various subjects, both cameras various lenses. printed to the best of my ability on DJ130nr 8x10 13x19 16x20 20x24 24x36. (glad DJs are cheap to run!)

 

sujects included landscape, flowers, still life, product, archiecture, portraiture. I place them in a pile and let the clients choose which they prefered

 

i let clients review while i was working, i did not monitor them.

 

the clients neatly seperated the prints into 2 piles by preference. at 8x10 there was no statistically significant difference.

 

from 13x19 on up the clients picked the kodak prints ~85% of the time with the sole exception of portraiture where there was no difference until 20x24 where the kodak was marginally preferred.

 

I sold the 5Ds and kept the kodaks

 

just got the M8 and with very limited showing of work one client asked if i upgraded my lenses or camera. I also think the M8 files are the best i've ever seen and compare with my 6x7 and 4x5 scans

 

ymmv.

 

not the best scientific control but not a slop test either. i ascribed most of the kodak benefit to be the lack of an AA filter

 

I don't understand how anyone who understands what an AA filter does cannot scientifically recognize the negative effect it has on an image. the blured data cannot be recreated only approximated.

 

in any event, horses for courses and if not basically retired due to health i think i'd have both the M8 and some Canon SLRs in my working kit.

 

bill

[wattsy]

you ask me where I get that from

and make me go thru the whole thing, even tho at a guess I know you are aware of what Im talking about

only to have you tell me how aware of the technical issues you are

 

Not really. I was disagreeing with the assertion that full-frame sensors "don't do wide very well." Agreed (theoretical) technical issues aside, I think the present full-frame cameras seem to do a fine job (at least with the wide-angles I've used).

[jaapv]

lol

jaap while I have your attention

if you see a rather beautiful redhaired artist around sluis named hiedi

and she asks you if you have seen Riley

you will be a nice man wont you

No problem cobber, will do

[plasticman]

Wow - this discussion degenerated into abuse pretty quickly...

 

As someone who doesn't have the camera yet (i hasten to emphasize), i think the decision as to "how good" the M8 actually is, won't ever be determined by supposedly objective measures.

 

I have seen some quite frankly da*n awful snapshots taken with the camera on this (and other) forums, and people cooing over how wonderful they are - imo because they know the images were taken with an M8.

By the same token i've also seen some amazing images taken with the M8. And also plenty of amazing images taken with the 5D and all the other DSLRs that have a committed following - and all good in their own right, no doubt.

 

A summary of my reading over the last few months would be that the camera is indeed extremely good (in the right hands), but not as good as predicted before the release, but better than reported immediately after release, but not as good as some early adopters might like you to believe, while better than...

 

Yep - you get the picture - make your own mind up about the camera. ;-)

[blakley]

Very sensible, Mani. Happy New Year :-)

[sean_reid]

I got raked for the following several times on different boards and expect it again but here goes. it describes my digital evolution after determining i could leave film keeping my clients satisfied.

 

First "pro" cameras were Kodak SLR/c quirky difficult to work with poor low iso performance used all L glass primes / zooms (except 50 1.4) but magnificent images. when it died and was in for repair i decided to upgrade.

 

Got 2 5Ds easy to use, great high iso, same L glass but inferior image quality. less microcontrast, detail, and color subtlety

 

did a test

 

tripod - various subjects, both cameras various lenses. printed to the best of my ability on DJ130nr 8x10 13x19 16x20 20x24 24x36. (glad DJs are cheap to run!)

 

sujects included landscape, flowers, still life, product, archiecture, portraiture. I place them in a pile and let the clients choose which they prefered

 

i let clients review while i was working, i did not monitor them.

 

the clients neatly seperated the prints into 2 piles by preference. at 8x10 there was no statistically significant difference.

 

from 13x19 on up the clients picked the kodak prints ~85% of the time with the sole exception of portraiture where there was no difference until 20x24 where the kodak was marginally preferred.

 

I sold the 5Ds and kept the kodaks

 

just got the M8 and with very limited showing of work one client asked if i upgraded my lenses or camera. I also think the M8 files are the best i've ever seen and compare with my 6x7 and 4x5 scans

 

ymmv.

 

not the best scientific control but not a slop test either. i ascribed most of the kodak benefit to be the lack of an AA filter

 

I don't understand how anyone who understands what an AA filter does cannot scientifically recognize the negative effect it has on an image. the blured data cannot be recreated only approximated.

 

in any event, horses for courses and if not basically retired due to health i think i'd have both the M8 and some Canon SLRs in my working kit.

 

bill

 

Hi Bill,

 

That was a really interesting survey. Thanks for the post.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[Guest guy_mancuso]

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.

 

William the 1ds was the one camera they should have left alone. It has the best files of any of there line. They used a very weak AA filter and the detail and color and look of the files was there best. Frankly they screwed up after this camera in my opinion so i don't disagree here on the 1ds orginal version. The bad part was the noise was the issue and I think this is were the balance comes in on making digital camera's. For the look and feel of file I still to this day say there best camera was the 1ds and i made the silly mistake of upgrading to the 1dsMKII.