M8 review now up on dpreview

[innerimager]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

he downgraded this because of the JPG engine. I believe he would have given a "10" for the Raw images. And this is what we all have been saying.....Peter

[farnz]

... The fianl rating breakdown listed the M8 image quality at an "8". Cripes, I wonder what 35mm camera he thinks is higher? ...

Lloyd,

 

It looks like the M8 was also marked down on features because it deliberately doesn't have a mind-numbing array of gadgets for handing control over to the camera, which I think many M8 owners would see as desirable. Unfortunately this skews the results in our 'all-automatic' obsessed climate.

 

In the last words of the outlaw Ned Kelly as they prepared to hang him: "Such is life."

 

Pete.

[rosuna]

The problem with Phil reviews is that all cameras seem similar to any other camera in the end. Nikon cameras appear much better than they effectively are. I can say the noise performance of the Canon 5D is much better from ISO 400 than the other two cameras, for instance. People can think the D200 provides similar quality images than the M8 or 5D, and this isn't true. The tonal gradation of the M8 is much better (14 bits against 12 bits). The JPG cannot be an important issue for a camera so expensive. It is interesting to note it, but it doesn't make sense to give it so much importance. I never take JPGs. Mute colors can be easily tweaked in Lightroom, and Leica and Kodak had a particular film point of reference in mind. On the other hand, a camera is a camera system. A more detailed comment about the M line of Leica lenses would have been welcomed. The M8 seems to be able to provide the same real resolution than the 5D and D200 (the D200 provides less detail in my experience), but the resolution charts show a different thing.

 

I like the review, but many points were stressed too much, and others aren't in the review. Phil method tends to equalize the differences between cameras too much. My eyes see evident differences in real life pictures between a 5D and a D200. In any case, the review is very informative and interesting to read.

[Kent10D]

The JPG cannot be an important issue for a camera so expensive. It is interesting to note it, but it doesn't make sense to give it so much importance.

 

I agree for the most part. I'm sure that JPGs are important to some users of high-end cameras like the M8, but Phil's reviews always place great emphasis on JPG quality, whether it's a P&S camera that only produces JPGs or an expensive pro camera that most people will only use to generate RAW output. I guess that's at least partly because he needs to standardize his review process to make comparison meaningful. But of course there's very little point in comparing a P&S camera with the M8, or 5D, or any other pro camera. Perhaps some kind of tiered review structure would be better.

 

Nonetheless, it is a decent review, and it's quite obvious that the reviewer has fallen for the Leica Magic in a big way.

[pierovitch]

The tests support the M8 being capable of outstanding results. The rest is just personal preference. There are not many optics capable of equaling these results on other cameras no matter how many pixels they have.

 

Although technology like shake reduction, noise filtering and autofocus may help minimise the limitations of operator skills, they do not improve the ultimate optical transfer limitations of the system.

 

I photographed a function last week with a heavy cold and I needed help from autofocus for blurred vision and shake reduction for shaky hands. Sometimes its whatever get the job done.

[cme4brain]

Lloyd,

 

It looks like the M8 was also marked down on features because it deliberately doesn't have a mind-numbing array of gadgets for handing control over to the camera, which I think many M8 owners would see as desirable. Unfortunately this skews the results in our 'all-automatic' obsessed climate.

 

In the last words of the outlaw Ned Kelly as they prepared to hang him: "Such is life."

 

Pete.

 

 

Thanks for the comment. I believe you are right. The DPReview evaluation even notes that the RAW images and resolution tests are much higher than the jaggy JPEG ones, yet the final conclusion seems to be based (downrated) on those JPEG images. I want to be objective in my views and realize that since we all spent big $$$ on our cameras, we want to believe the best of it. However I have never seen such images from other digital sources (I am not a professional) or shown better images (other than medium format). It was a fair review, but that site is not a specialized one. It evaluates the M8 and P&S. I value the opinions on this forum more valuable for Leica information.

[teehas53]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

... with the Nikon D200, and I think all Nikon's of recent vintage, you can set sharpness, contrast and saturation in the camera for RAW, NEF, files and ... those setting are carried over and use to displayed the image.

 

I don't know all the under-the-hood workings of the D200, and am not really interested in getting into that discussion.

 

My point is, ANY in-camera processing takes away one's options for maximizing the full range of image data available from the camera's hardware. JPEGs by their nature reduce bit-depth and introduce at least some artifacting as a result of compression.

 

Leica (and others) may, for marketing reasons, feel it is important to have their cameras produce good looking JPEGs. I acknowledge there are cases where it's a convenient to have them available right out of the camera. For those who want to go this way, more power to you. Each user has to decide whether they want to control the final look of the images in post, or let the camera do it.

 

However, it is now pretty much universally accepted that for BEST image quality, you need to convert from RAW. I think there is still the misconception in some people's minds that a really nice JPEG is just as good. It ain't so, and the overwhelming weight of professional opinion (photographers & software developers alike) supports this - it's really no longer a debate.

 

So again, my point is this: When we're talking about a camera like the M8 which has the potential to produce extremely high quality files, it's important that people who may not be in the mainstream of digital photography technology not be misled into thinking that they will get the BEST out of that technology when using an 8-bit, lossy-compression file format, no matter how "good" they look.

 

And hence my original comment on Phil's emphasis on JPEG quality. It applies much more to a point-and-shoot user than someone likely to invest in an M8. That said, I do appreciate he's writing to a broader audience than we have here...

 

T

[giordano]

I am sure that if Phil had been born 20-30 years sooner he could have easily trumped all of the magazine-based reviewers of the 1970's and 1980's.

 

Easily trumped? You can't have read the reviews Geoffrey Crawley was doing for the BJP in those days. His report on the Nikon F3 was so good and thorough and interesting that it was reprinted in book form. I used to own the book , but couldn't afford an F3 in those days Crawley's reviews in AP nowadays are IMHO pale reflections of past glory.

 

John

[ho_co]

Geoff Crawley was unequalled. So, in a different way, was Norm Goldberg, who wrote for Popular Photography while it and Herb Kepler's Modern Photography were separate entities.

 

He kept abreast of developing technology and was, for example, incorporating the ideas of MTF in his reviews not long after Leica began looking to MTF measurements in its designs.

 

Norm Goldberg was something of a cross between Erwin Puts and Mark Norton. He understood both optics and mechanics, and in reviewing the camera didn't refer to such nebulous ideas as "build quality." Instead, he disassembled the camera and looked at the finish of each piece. He returned the camera to the supplier in pieces.

 

--HC

[dfarkas]

Not to nitpick someone I respect, but I don't agree with the comments about the color saturation. Images from Canon, in my opinion, are far too flat and undersaturated. I always have to boost the contrast and saturation when processing. With the M8 through C1 (and with my own custom profile), I never have to adjust saturation and only ever do minor contrast adjustment. The colors from the Leica just pop off the monitor. This is one of the things I like best about Leica and least about Canon. Nikon files fall somewhere in the middle for me.

 

I've enjoyed Phil's reviews for many years. I'm glad he was able to give the M8 some attention.

 

David

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Have to agree with you David , if anything with the raws i may go in and pull back on the saturation and i know all about the Canon files being flat and lifeless. I think he is referring to jpegs but not sure though. Jpegs don't exist on my camera's i ripped them out:D

[sdai]

Phil probably just apply the same standard review template to just about every camera he has played with ... now JPEG is only one of those checkboxes, he may also write a simple script to average down the scores in each department as well. There really should be no nit pick.

 

I'm a little surprised that he gave a 10 to build quality ... well, doesn't the battery sudden death syndrome count as part of build quality?

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Not really Simon , I would call that more a fluke or glitch than anything else. You just can't test every circuit and get a product out. Most companies do a random spot test on individual parts but not every circuit.

[ustein]

>Jpegs don't exist on my camera's i ripped them out

 

Me too.

 

Would still be interesting how many M8 users use it with JPEG only.

 

Uwe

[ho_co]

Apropos JPG usage:

 

Mike Johnston posted what I guess he assumes is a provocative link. See T.O.P. for July 30, where he recommends that we:

... check out the lab plot of Canon's standard color palette vs. that of the Leica M8 in the Color Transformation Database (KammaGamma » Articles » Color Transformation Database).

 

I guess his feeling is that both M8 users and 1D Mk III users will be shooting JPG only.

 

BTW, note that KammaGamma lists only two color spaces for the M8, even though they claim to show all the various color spaces a camera offers.

 

--HC