blakley Posted July 17, 2007 Share #81 Posted July 17, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Yada, yada, yada, in my experience shooting thousands of wedding images in all kinds of light the M8 is no match for the 5D at 1250 and above, and I don't see smearing in the 5D files... nor any smearing in those from some of the top wedding shooters in the US using the 5D. What I do feel is the 5D is an awful camera to use, and it feels and sounds like a toy. I sold mine and kept the M8s ... where ISO 640 does the job a great majority of the time. So far (3 weddings done), the 1DMKIIi is even better than the 5D ... and, no, I do not have any of the MKIII fucusing issues reported. Let's hope future M8 development in software and firmware applications get it to a better ISO 1250 without a bunch of computer gymnastics, and I'll be a super happy guy. I've not used a 5D and don't plan to, but I agree with Marc here that 1250 is dangerous territory on the M8, and I basically don't use it. Luckily a combination of fast lenses and good handholdability at slow shutter speeds make 640 on the M8 look very good most of the time, but I sure wouldn't complain if 1250 improved a lot. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 17, 2007 Posted July 17, 2007 Hi blakley, Take a look here not impressed,,. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest Lotw Posted July 17, 2007 Share #82 Posted July 17, 2007 few examples with M8 and 35 Summilux wide open at 640 and 1.250 ISO respectively.. the last one (Tibetans) is from Canon (5D + 35L) (iso 3200) the first image is just not taken well in terms of exposure and it's a bad image. the second and the third are uncomparable; the third has more photogeneity to it, how can one evaluate this unbiased on technical aspects then? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted July 17, 2007 Share #83 Posted July 17, 2007 I'm fine with the M8 at 1250 for weddings. But that's the ceiling unless the client specifically wants a real grainy look. About the Canons, I've already commented. Cheers, Sean Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted July 17, 2007 Share #84 Posted July 17, 2007 This M8 image was shot at ISO 2500. I wouldn't call it useless, or even dangerous territory, particularly when comparing it to film shot at the same speed. On one occasion I was forced to shoot my 5D at ISO 3200. The results were less than acceptable in my opinion. 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! Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/29087-not-impressed/?do=findComment&comment=308319'>More sharing options...
carstenw Posted July 17, 2007 Share #85 Posted July 17, 2007 Brent, did you use a colour noise reduction tool on this image? I find ISO 1250 okay in a pinch, but I only use 2500 in B&W, otherwise it has too many colour sprinkles for my taste. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted July 17, 2007 Share #86 Posted July 17, 2007 Brent, did you use a colour noise reduction tool on this image? I find ISO 1250 okay in a pinch, but I only use 2500 in B&W, otherwise it has too many colour sprinkles for my taste. Carsten--No noise reduction was used on this. Some situations yield better results than others at high ISOs. Images with a lot of shadow area tend to not look as good as images with more even light. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic vic Posted July 17, 2007 Share #87 Posted July 17, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) mani and jaap......... i agree with you about all those personal abuses, and sometimes my not so polite way of expression may seem even more as a personal attack even if i have no intention to do it at all........... in alan's case.. well it is between us and it belongs to some previous thread clash.......... but from the other hand....... the truth is that it is so boring to be POLITE all the time, and i do think that for those who are open enough, a "cold water in the face" in all this illusiory and half faked interent talks would be great.............. i myself have fun, and if some body finds my postings productive to them , then , what more i can ask........ good for me and good for those who want to argue with me ...... really argue, wether agree or not......... brent....................... NO ..... i have never said that i am the only one who makes film, u try to present the thing in misleading way....... and i know most of the people here had film before i was even born......... what i dont like is the INFANTILITY of the digital small-talkers .......... when i say : "be brave enough" - i say that get out of this "stupid and blind digital box infantilness" .................. get out .. dont be blind ....... then u make dicision for yourself wether u want digital or not......... it is up to u......... i have no busness with your choices.................... and tell me ........... what the hell is this .. what exactly do u talk about :: "my clients say this my clients say that" .......................... beleive me - if i hear such a thing from one of my workers or partners for project i will stop working with him/her..... it equals to ---- "i have no opinion of my own.. and no clue what and how . my client my client... other will decide how i should do what i should do """" what the hell are those "proffesional" childish talks. ?????????????????? "my clients" want me.... and they will follow me....... they want my opnion my forces to drive things... and my teams opnion and work....... they trust that we will do what they need in the best way, but they pay money for our minds - for "creators" opinions.......... brent..... this is how it goes when one has a personal and singular signature, wether as photographer, director, busnessman producer, musician or whatever.......... and even engenners and alike.... creative perosnalities..... creative solutions.............. and - no, interent is not good for comparisons of such tools like high quality film, fine m8 files or fine cannons or great leaf files..... it is simply not that....... one doesnt hold m8/leaf/canon/etc for quality reasons and then compare it on the interent........ one uses the m8 quality cause it prints very well (more in my taste than canon full frames at least)............. so no............. interent quality comparisons are bulsheet and nothing more than that......... sorry........... and even more.......... most of interent pictures that are posted to show how good is this camera or that camera are completre crap........... and again.. u keep on posting over the interent your photographs to show us how good is m8 1200........ oh common................. hank............... this is the old mantra...... faster than 100 chromes are bad........ no man.. not any more........ provia 400 f and surely the new x are amazing materials..... the ilfochromes on it loook amazingly beautiful and strong......... true not astia "grain", not velvia100F "colours", but really amazing and so flexible........... and even on scytex/creo u should have no real problems to make good scan from those if oxygen is well operated....... ah... the cool casts of provia.... i suppose u mean the provia100F rite??.... good then take e100g/gx or astia if u dont like cool casts.... agree with u, im not big fun of cool casts myself usually............. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
teehas53 Posted July 17, 2007 Share #88 Posted July 17, 2007 OK, just for fun: ISO 1250, 28 Cron at f2. Quick, minor color NR in Lightroom, but no third party NR. Not as "clean" as the 5D at the same ISO, but it does have a nice "high-speed film" look - not at all objectionable. For bonus points, can anyone name the subject in this photo? Hint: he'd be slightly amused to know his likeness was posted on a rangefinder forum... T 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! Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/29087-not-impressed/?do=findComment&comment=308414'>More sharing options...
nerve Posted July 17, 2007 Author Share #89 Posted July 17, 2007 the first image is just not taken well in terms of exposure and it's a bad image. the second and the third are uncomparable; the third has more photogeneity to it, how can one evaluate this unbiased on technical aspects then? thats interesting, i wonder how you got the idea that it was not taken well in terms of exposure?? what is your measure or criteria for that, please explain?? ".. and it's a bad image.." oh well, i never claimed that its a great image or whatever.. looks like i am dealing with a real 'artist' who knows exactly what he is talking about(!?)... . cheers. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted July 17, 2007 Share #90 Posted July 17, 2007 OK, just for fun: ISO 1250, 28 Cron at f2. Quick, minor color NR in Lightroom, but no third party NR. Not as "clean" as the 5D at the same ISO, but it does have a nice "high-speed film" look - not at all objectionable. For bonus points, can anyone name the subject in this photo? Hint: he'd be slightly amused to know his likeness was posted on a rangefinder forum... T I don't know who that is, although he looks familiar, but I think I know the joke he is telling Is it Thomas Hoepker? No, he should be older by now... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted July 17, 2007 Share #91 Posted July 17, 2007 He looks like Jay Maisel to me. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
teehas53 Posted July 17, 2007 Share #92 Posted July 17, 2007 Bingo, Alan! Jay Maisel, the long-time heavyweight champion of the SLR, here on the Leica Forum... He saw my M8 and said something along the lines of "That's a bad camera you know." This was about the time all the early release problems were coming to light. It was a funny moment. Carsten, we all THINK we know the joke he was telling... T Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted July 18, 2007 Share #93 Posted July 18, 2007 brent.................... and tell me ........... what the hell is this .. what exactly do u talk about :: "my clients say this my clients say that" .......................... beleive me - if i hear such a thing from one of my workers or partners for project i will stop working with him/her..... it equals to ---- "i have no opinion of my own.. and no clue what and how . my client my client... other will decide how i should do what i should do """" what the hell are those "proffesional" childish talks. ?????????????????? "my clients" want me.... and they will follow me....... they want my opnion my forces to drive things... and my teams opnion and work....... they trust that we will do what they need in the best way, but they pay money for our minds - for "creators" opinions.......... brent..... this is how it goes when one has a personal and singular signature, wether as photographer, director, busnessman producer, musician or whatever.......... and even engenners and alike.... creative perosnalities..... creative solutions.............. and again.. u keep on posting over the interent your photographs to show us how good is m8 1200........ oh common................. Victor--Work in the business for a while before you go on these rants. You have no idea what you're talking about. Magazine editors want digital images, not because they necessarily look better than film, but because that is what their workflow is now. I just finished a magazine shoot of over 700 images. If I told the editor I was sending him 20 rolls of film to process and edit, he would tell me to stick the film somewhere unpleasant, then he would call someone else to do a re-shoot. These things are no longer negotiable. And back to the internet posts--I guess we should all give you our addresses because from now on you will be sending us prints rather than posting your scanned film images. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry Posted July 18, 2007 Share #94 Posted July 18, 2007 Victor--Work in the business for a while before you go on these rants. You have no idea what you're talking about. Magazine editors want digital images, not because they necessarily look better than film, but because that is what their workflow is now. I just finished a magazine shoot of over 700 images. If I told the editor I was sending him 20 rolls of film to process and edit, he would tell me to stick the film somewhere unpleasant, then he would call someone else to do a re-shoot. These things are no longer negotiable. And back to the internet posts--I guess we should all give you our addresses because from now on you will be sending us prints rather than posting your scanned film images. Brent, I can back you up on that. As an editor for a company that publishes 11 magazines, we have to be pretty desperate to accept film anymore. Mind you, I still use film for some of my personal work, but it's quickly becoming a dinosaur in publishing. Larry Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted July 18, 2007 Share #95 Posted July 18, 2007 If Beckham's missus changes her waist size or Brittany farts to the left all the magazines are out of date anyway. Digital is required just to keep up with the girls ................. ............ atleast Courtney Love no longer has to smear makeup over her face in a moment of upperansdowners come whichwayer ..... a canon will give her a natural smear:cool: Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted July 18, 2007 Share #96 Posted July 18, 2007 Brent, I can back you up on that. As an editor for a company that publishes 11 magazines, we have to be pretty desperate to accept film anymore. Mind you, I still use film for some of my personal work, but it's quickly becoming a dinosaur in publishing. Larry Need a shooter Larry. I travel the globe. LOL On the film issue, i simply cannot even think about going back it's been at least 8 or more years since i ran film, my clients are on to many deadlines for it and it is required to shoot digitally , I simply have no choice for 95 percent of them. That is just the way it is and i get hired because i am digital and my experience in it. Even on a personal note , I simply don't have the desire to deal with labs or darkrooms. Not to say i don't like film, I was in love with Kodachrome when that went away it hurt. And i loved Tri-X too. Business has changed a lot since those days and the demands are different Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic vic Posted July 18, 2007 Share #97 Posted July 18, 2007 oh brent.... i have no clue in "this proffession" cause i dont make 700000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 images at the assignment............ hahhha what the bulshit is this........ numbers of crap fotos....... 700000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 images that are made on assignment.............. tell me are u blind...... cannot u be a little more selective with clicking....... im sure steve wonder would need much less images to make 10 assignments )))))))) listen every young pro photographer..... the numbers are one big bulshit.......... it says that people photograph blindly.......... click and click............ when a man and woman make sex to make a child .... should they count hwo much time they were f***ing before that ??????????????????????? degenratography........ what a bulshit argumentation..................... proffesional inflantility................... tell me........ this is why u need super canon gun machine......... to be blind infantile that un-conscouslesly presses the shutter realease ??????????????????????????? DIGITAL INFANTILITY common......... relax ........ so u have some assignment......... good for u........ stop being nervous and neurotic and schizofrenic )))) relax........ concetrate ......... think what is this assignment about........ think about concept, about the conditions, about that dynamics that goes on....... think and then start taking photographs.............. no........ we.......... inflantile photographers should promote NUMBERS - 7000000000000000000000000000000000000000 pro is that inflatile act of clicking the shutter neurotically................... relax........ think , devote some time to the concept............. to repeat it again ?? u know what is this act of pressing 7000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 or pressing ........................................................................................................................................ or bressing : bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? it is like that neurotic schizofrenic act of pressing the shutter realease on digital camnera............................................................. wow WOW wowWOWWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO i have made 700000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 pictures............ what a proffesional photographer ????????????????? wowowoowowowowowowoo hahhahaha Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted July 18, 2007 Share #98 Posted July 18, 2007 oh brent.... i have no clue in "this proffession" cause i dont make 700000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 images at the assignment............ hahhhawhat the bulshit is this........ numbers of crap fotos....... 700000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 images that are made on assignment.............. tell me are u blind...... cannot u be a little more selective with clicking....... im sure steve wonder would need much less images to make 10 assignments )))))))) listen every young pro photographer..... the numbers are one big bulshit.......... it says that people photograph blindly.......... click and click............ when a man and woman make sex to make a child .... should they count hwo much time they were f***ing before that ??????????????????????? degenratography........ what a bulshit argumentation..................... proffesional inflantility................... tell me........ this is why u need super canon gun machine......... to be blind infantile that un-conscouslesly presses the shutter realease ??????????????????????????? DIGITAL INFANTILITY common......... relax ........ so u have some assignment......... good for u........ stop being nervous and neurotic and schizofrenic )))) relax........ concetrate ......... think what is this assignment about........ think about concept, about the conditions, about that dynamics that goes on....... think and then start taking photographs.............. no........ we.......... inflantile photographers should promote NUMBERS - 7000000000000000000000000000000000000000 pro is that inflatile act of clicking the shutter neurotically................... relax........ think , devote some time to the concept............. to repeat it again ?? u know what is this act of pressing 7000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 or pressing ........................................................................................................................................ or bressing : bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? it is like that neurotic schizofrenic act of pressing the shutter realease on digital camnera............................................................. wow WOW wowWOWWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO i have made 700000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 pictures............ what a proffesional photographer ????????????????? wowowoowowowowowowoo hahhahaha Geez, Victor. Thanks for clearing that up in such an articulate manner.. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertwright Posted July 18, 2007 Share #99 Posted July 18, 2007 you know his english is actually pretty good if you go over to his site... he seems to get an aneurism when he comes over here... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sirvine Posted July 18, 2007 Share #100 Posted July 18, 2007 "inflantile" is genius, though, if it isn't just a typo. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.