jaapv Posted June 20, 2007 Share #101 Posted June 20, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Whoa- Sean, you were the -even did not see - in my post! As you know full well I tend to praise your review and site! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 Hi jaapv, Take a look here "A Reviewer's Responsibility" Michael Reichmann reflection on his M8 Review. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
sean_reid Posted June 20, 2007 Share #102 Posted June 20, 2007 jaap.. they said best camera in the world.. they said better than medium format... they said so many things.... Who said best camera in the world? Speaking for myself, I wrote only that it was (for my work) the best digital camera I've ever used. It still is. That's not at all the same as universally "best". Who said better than medium format? David Adamson and I have argued that the files remind us of the quality of scanned medium format film. And they do indeed. But I don't recall anyone saying the files were "better" (whatever that may mean) than medium format. Listen, Vic, you don't care for the M8 and you're less impressed with its file quality than are some of us. Why not leave it at that? I assume you've made large prints from M8 files for reference and found them lacking. So be it. You've made many, many posts criticizing both the camera itself and those of us who are enthusiastic about it. Why spend all that energy? Why not just concentrate on the tools you do like? We don't all have to agree on what cameras work best for us *as individuals*. It's not important that everyone agree on the quality of a given camera. There are many cameras to choose from and each person may have different priorities. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted June 20, 2007 Share #103 Posted June 20, 2007 Whoa- Sean, you were the -even did not see - in my post! As you know full well I tend to praise your review and site! Hi Jaap, I know and appreciate that. I'm just clarifying factual information because some people, probably unintentionally, have some facts mixed up. Best, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic vic Posted June 20, 2007 Share #104 Posted June 20, 2007 sean.. dont worry about my energies as person or photographer. really no needs to worry about that. and dont worry about my tools too... and dont turn the conversation fromreally important things to a kitsch and empty personal evaluation of somebody who talks not so comfortable things to m8 forum. this is nice rhetoric move, but not sure how well it works.. surely not on me ) as i told you.. nothing personal to you... so dont get boiled too much.. it is no personal.. honestly, i do agree with you.. as far as i remember, among many, you were the finest reviewer for sure (even for m8, not to mention other things).. (if "fine" can be said about the reviews and cheap aggitations that was there and then....) and once again.. different "non-comformist" opinion is usually as important as the mass stream... "mass opinion tight control" - it leads to nothing... and by the way.. it is important for m8 too.. for next m8.. for people who will be more demanding, and the camera that will have no way, but to improve more and more... it is part of the dialog...... very helpful in the long run.... JS.MILL - on liberity... a basic lesson on comuniction in liberal comunity. i have arguments.. answer them.. dont turn it to personal exchages between me and you.... no - you didnt say that it was best camera in the world.. but you did about medium, and in that mood and state of affairs you joined the cheap aggitation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted June 20, 2007 Share #105 Posted June 20, 2007 Let's try to get down to some useful conversation then. Have you worked very much with the M8 yet and, if so, have you made many large prints? If yes, in what ways have they disappointed you? What concerns do you have with the M8 that you feel have not been addressed and discussed already in this forum? What David Adamson and I have said, and stand by, is that M8 files compare very well to scanned medium format film. (That's not "better than" or "the same as", it is "compare well to"). David is a very well respected digital printer and I was at one time an exhibition printer myself. Both of us have worked professionally in photography for many, many years with small, medium and large format film cameras. David actually feels that the M8 files can compare well to scanned 4 x 5 for some print sizes. If, by chance, you have not yet seen high quality large prints from the M8 - try to see some if you can. You've made clear that you do not believe the files can compare well to scanned MF film. Others disagree with you. If you've seen large prints from the M8, then we will have to agree to disagree on what the camera is capable of. If you haven't yet, you might want to look sometime. If others reading this thread have made large prints from M8 files, I'd be curious to read what their thoughts are. How much work have you done with an M8 so far? What subjects, what size prints, etc? Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hofrench Posted June 20, 2007 Share #106 Posted June 20, 2007 Sean Reid wrote: Let's keep this clear because several things are getting mixed up. I published about everything I had experienced with the M8 as I experienced it.... [and then added] ...I both contacted Leica for a response *and* published about it. My comments on IR sensitivity and possible solutions were published long before most people had published on the M8 at all (several still have not published at all). Since then, I have done extensive testing and writing related to that topic. I've also been deeply involved with finding solutions to these various problems. Sean, I am not complaining about your reviews. I am simply asking that you engage this question at the level of proper standards. If you behaved as you described above, and I appreciate that you did, then perhaps you would agree that your handling of the M8 issues that you encountered was dictated by certain principles, namely that it is right and proper to report on problems that one encounters. It doesn't help clarify matters in the least, though, to insist that others missed M8 problems, or that some people pretending to be thorough made mistakes. There have been mighty effortsby MR's defenders to make allowances here and sometimes to obfuscate or otherwise change the terms of discussion, but there's really no wiggle room here. Reichmann, by his own admission, saw problems and decided not to mention them at least in part on the basis of Leica's advice. He has himself written a labored essay on this very subject, which is indeed how this subject came to be discussed. Having asked us to read him, his supporters on this issue can hardly complain when readers find his arguments wanting. In the final analysis, this is all about credibility and trustworthiness, and personally I can't imagine how one conserves these attributes when carrying on in the way that Reichmann did with his handling of the M8. HF Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hofrench Posted June 20, 2007 Share #107 Posted June 20, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) I can certainly agree with Sean on the print quality issue. In B+W my M8 approaches and sometimes equals my medium format (Rolleiflex) in print quality. The title of this thread, though, deserves to be recalled. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastFashnReloaded Posted June 20, 2007 Share #108 Posted June 20, 2007 From MR's comments: If I want a serious product review, I'll turn to DP Review... who WILL bore me to tears - but at least they cover it in depth. It takes them a while, and they'll publish previews, but they'll identify them as non-reviews. DPR has issues and biases too, but I've forgiven a lot of the site's quirks since the E-410 received an HR. :-) Nobody likes a critic, you know that. Michael is a fanboi with bucks, and maybe he's a wee bit over enthusiastic, and he is definitely a gearhead. So take his info with a grain of salt, balance it with the many other reviews on the 'Net, and go from there. Most importantly, form your own darn opinion based on your own darn experiences. When Star Trek the Motion Picture came out, a local reviewer here in Indy said it would have been better if Gamera the flying turtle had been in it. I liked the movie anyway. Still do. If we all were to take other people's opinions for things we would end up with someone like George W Bush for President. Thank the goddess that's never going to happen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic vic Posted June 20, 2007 Share #109 Posted June 20, 2007 sure sean.. lets go for some nice conversation.. but dont ignore my main points as you still do... me first.. i will answer your questions.... let me see your text once again... ok... 1. sean.. im not against m8.. never have been.. i will repeat it once again.. never ever have been.... i am just a little amazed on the quality and quantity of the nonesenses that are related to endless m8 talks... and no, they dont neccessarly come from you, but you, as a person with prestige, follow it, and feed it. it might not be your intention as that, but this is what hapenes. what we see here is this : LITTLE BOY TOY M8 and alot of talks.... alot of nonesess... none of them about photography that much.... now i ask you... what is M8 for you, sean? what is leica digital future (at least the great M future that i myself is one of the fricks of it?... is it in the BOY TOY small talks?? what is it? rollex watch.. ok then be it rollex watch.. damn with that photography.. it is rollex. ah by the way.. i myself have super watch as much as rollex, it is pilot's watch (though minimalistic design version), and im not pilot at all..... if you say that M8 is not neccessarly rollex BOY TOY, if you say that it is fotographic tool, then we have to see it beyound BOY TOY and small tech talks.... that was about your question of what about m8 and all my statements.... you see, i answer nicely this time ) now about the quality.. oprtunity to have many clicks with it (mates camera) in long trip as well as some other oprtunity (studio control play a bit). -the feel.. not really mp..... but so the m7... that is ok.. too digital, not puristic and libarative, but it is digital, and no other digital has to offer better purism i guess.... -the pics... too much colour problems.. the files simply are not coherent (not in my hands and not in expert digi m8 hands). you simply cannot get even close to the coherency of astia fujichrome, not even the coherency of provia or velvia 100f.... the profiles may help from time to time, but only as a starting point, and they are so not coherent with different conditions at all. "some of them work only sometimes"... -b/w.. sorry, that is not b/w.. too plastic.. too plastic.. too plastic like look... even the tmax100 kodak looks amazing compared to it. it is ok, even the much better leaf digi back doesnt look like b/w not to mention other things like canon nikon. dont tell me that it is different.. i know it is different..... b/w is film, and digital is not b/w.. give respect to real photography.. give respect to traditions and heritage of photography.... digital b/w in its b/w photographic aspects is boring in the eyes... that is it. well this is really short, cause im not reviewer here... about printings... i am fine printer myself, so i know very well how it looks....... really know how it looks... again... film looks more coherent, more integrated... surprising.. with all the control with the digital, at the botton line, with analog print you have much more eassier and coherent work with the range of control you can have in darkroom colour work... the feeling of richness and "substance" (in impression) of the print reaches the high quality limit at about 30x40 cm print, while astia colour film or pan-f or acros can go slightly more. m8 doesnt go much beyound it too.. not at all... the moment that astia film says go back forom the print, that is about the moment when m8 file asks it too.. and still, astia looks like film and m8 looks digital plastic a little bit. one thing was really nice.. m8 file, when the colour work processing is done, is much better and coherent and organic than the really plastic and washed/polished prints that i see form canon super guns of my friends... in fact, m8 has more a look that you would expect from digital medium format, and is not that far from film photograph like the canon/nikon files can be.... so that is great indeed. and i will tell you.. that is imressive, and enough to say that this is fantastic camera in this regard.. but.. it is not medium format - not even close.... not to mention big format... ah, and if i really want to make huge analog 30x40inch print..?? well.. still the same story.. you have to go back to see the substance of the print... the coherance... on astia, pan-f - i dont like to do those things in small formats, but with apropriate elnarger head (lamp type and contruction) and dedicated huge enlarging lens you can do huge huge prints too ) again.. i will repeat it..... it is not about resiolution resolution profile profile... it is about coherancy, about the substance that the print have..... dont talk resolution.. i can give you examples of films that do better than any m8 or digital.. but honestly .. who cares.. i am not map or areal photographer.. i dont mind about those resolutions that much. those resolution films look just as boring as the digital b/w fotos in aesthetic terms ) hofrench.... what rolleiflex do you use????? the current new one? sorry but this is probably the best medium format photography in practice you can get... non reflex camera with zeiss 80 plannar lens and rollei top lens coatings... what i said about prints of mp/film vs m8 ... the same about medium digital medium and digital film more or less.... note.. i was speacking about high quality fully analog process when talking about film... also note... that any scan you make reduces the quality compared to fully analog process.... you need a really top quality archival scan to meaintain the most qualities and characteristics of the film you scan in any format. the aggitation process in all digital small-talks is that they make comparison while they suppose that people knowledge is limited to junky scans and 1hour labs. and another agitation is that alot of archival scan cost alot of money.. that is one big joke.. cause one makes archival scans on selected works.. not all the stuff that was recorded on the film..... take a look at michael richmans aggitations again.... sean, it has nothing to do with you now.. he says that he makes thousends of pictures.. and then he calculates the archival scans and prints of his works and then it is very expenssive.. better to have digital super expenssive BOY TOY and BOY TOY REVIEW website...... tell me.. do you really belive that a person makes that much pics a year that require archival top scans???????????????????????????????? what is he.. a super photographer that can make more a year than steiglitz and bresson etc lifetime collection ???????????????????????? think about it.. read between the lines............ hahaha .. so cool and exiting.... i have new leaf for review, new phase one, new canon, new leicca new nikon... new new review new tool common BOYS i will tell you every thing you want to hear about all the TOYS.... and even more and more ...... and more and more TOYS im a BOY sean.. you see what i mean.. it is in capital letters )) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
canlogic Posted June 20, 2007 Share #110 Posted June 20, 2007 Vic why don't you please just go away. You obviously don't have a clue when it comes to the M8. We have all heard your blathering shpeel about it and I think most are probably pretty tired of your posts. I don't post on Nikon forums because I don't have one, why do you post on an M8 forum when you don't have one? Perhaps a little jealousy over those that do and those that can write about them like Sean etc.? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic vic Posted June 20, 2007 Share #111 Posted June 20, 2007 oh tim.. you got the point.. oh.. hwo jelous i am... oh you cannot imagine... well time.. even on leica forum the life is not perfect.. just like the photography of like photographers that are not perfect with their perfect m8 cameras... but how jelous i am... can you please send me for awhile the camera at least to hold in my hand ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
like_no_other Posted June 20, 2007 Share #112 Posted June 20, 2007 What can be the reason to compare a digital cameras' output with the output of a film camera if not influencing readers in a subtle way? I know that it makes sense to compare a digital camera with another digital camera if the sensors have aprox. the same size. To compare Leica's small sensor with the big sensor of a MF digital back would have been unfair because the larger sensor has the better physical data and will therefore win. To compare the M8 with another digital camera let's say Canon 1D2/3 one has to use at least an UV filter on the Canon's lens because of M8's handicap (IR filter that is degrading optical quality of a lens like each filter is doing that). Otherwise the comparison test would be unfair again. But trying to influence readers with comparisons of M8 and MF film cameras which implies that there is no objective way to descibe the differences raises a laugh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wparsonsgisnet Posted June 20, 2007 Share #113 Posted June 20, 2007 ... trying to influence readers with comparisons of M8 and MF film cameras which implies that there is no objective way to descibe the differences raises a laugh. : You may not have read the postings from the persons who have "made this claim." What they said was that images from the M8 could be used to print 40-inch prints that rival those from digitized MF negatives. This statement was made by persons who have printed professionally and/or still print professionally. ********* Note: I vote to close this thread. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
like_no_other Posted June 20, 2007 Share #114 Posted June 20, 2007 You may not have read the postings from the persons who have "made this claim." What they said was that images from the M8 could be used to print 40-inch prints that rival those from digitized MF negatives. This statement was made by persons who have printed professionally and/or still print professionally. ********* Note: I vote to close this thread. Sure I read what they write in this thread. Many 10MPIX DSLR's with a good lens could rival prints from film then. The significant diffences are a question of different technologies (film/sensor) if they exist. If they don't exist then the different technologies are not important for the comparison. VIC , what do you think about this? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry Posted June 20, 2007 Share #115 Posted June 20, 2007 ********* Note: I vote to close this thread. I second the motion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted June 20, 2007 Share #116 Posted June 20, 2007 Close! , because you don't like the direction it's going? There is no need to close it, don't participate or read if you don't like it. The points that Vic brings up are quite important as those of Sean and others let it run its course, Really Tim that jealousy rant was childish in this context. I do see the point that the M8 along with the other high end digitals producing superbly detailed prints, but to what avail, for commercial work that is sterile in nature yes it has a role. Yea you guys are caught up in the camera and photography takes a back seat, all this historical connection with the past is mumbo jumbo, film is film and that's what the guys of the past used, you want to emulate them use film. Digital........ go and look at what the new generation is doing with it , there are your directions and new platforms of communication, wake up there is a world of change out there, even the general PJ are struggling with the new role of the photographed image Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry Posted June 20, 2007 Share #117 Posted June 20, 2007 Imants, I think the points you're making are very interesting and would be a great thread. Why don't you start a new thread to discuss these issues? I simply believe that the "lets flog the reviewer" thing has been done to death. Everyone has repeated themselves at least four times. Also, why is it that as Vic becomes more obtuse, you become less arcane? Larry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootist Posted June 20, 2007 Share #118 Posted June 20, 2007 ********* Note: I vote to close this thread. Concur!!!!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted June 20, 2007 Share #119 Posted June 20, 2007 David Adamson and I have argued that the files remind us of the quality of scanned medium format film. And they do indeed. But I don't recall anyone saying the files were "better" (whatever that may mean) than medium format. I spent most of my day today looking through my photos to update my web site. Very few of the 6x9 scanned images look as good as the images that I've shot with my digital camera. Some of it was my fault - rushing the scans, not the best scanner, lack of color management at the time, etc. As for you vic. Your posts are very insightful. Not insightful about the M8 but insightful about you. I think most people who buy Leicas know why they buy them. (I don't own any now, but I've had an SL2, an M3, and a IIIf in the past.) If I ever buy an M8 it will because I've found a role for it in my photography, not because I was necessarily looking for the best price/performance ratio. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic vic Posted June 20, 2007 Share #120 Posted June 20, 2007 philip..i dont know what is the reason to compare.. i only know that some people satrted the camparison... not me.. in those comparisons there were alot of lies and misleading informations and so on... my comparison is far more balanced... real comparison of real outcomes while things are in their natural way as they intend to be... analog in analog (or at least with top quality archival scan) and digital in digital work... no i dont say which is better for you and your work/needs.. it is up to you to choose which one you prefer and feel comfort... ah actually i know why those misleading statements about analog digital.. becasue some want to get more and more people into the range of the mases of sheeps and make them bigger consuming force....... MASSES OF SHEEEEEEEEEEPS......... and ya.. this is what i think about different technologies...... MASSES OF SHEEEEEEEEEEEEEPS..... more consuming power..... no bill............ i know a little bit about PR, public opinion shifts etc etc...... the m8 vs medium format statemnts were agitations to shift the opinion..... they were misleading....... as many misleading things about digital...... wow larry.. iteresting argument.. very interesting...... kindergarden. alan ????...... what 6x9 format.... i have old voigtlander 6x9 films from dad and grand dad..... yes.. sure m8 has more resolution and clearanse etc etc.... but what about 6x9 roll back with apo-symmarL and super-symmarXL in front ....... still not so so quality.......... man if something like this or close to this, then change scanner, put the film on light table and take a loop )) ah.. who was talking about price/performance???????????? read the stuff before answering......... ah.. and improtant thing........ as imants says........... study a little bit about the scene of current photography...... what is photography.. where is the digital photography new expression.. the multi-media the cross media art (that is then used in commercial feilds too)..... but as i can see it here .... we have mainly TOY BOYS....... that need not only some exposure to modern photography and the digital medium but also a studies of classic photography........ intensive studies of photography...... the real photography ......... the NON-TECH-BOY-TOY........... and by the way..... all the people with sofisticated childish answers attacking me.. where are your super photos????? common... put the card on the table........ lets see if we have something real to play with .............. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.