M8 Image Quality Expectations

[Rolo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Many existing Leica M owners eagerly await the launch of the M8, but I don't recall having read anywhere the writer is seeking an image 'quality' improvement from this latest camera.

 

We read frequently that digital has surpassed 35mm film as a medium for recording images. Is anyone here going the M8 route for better quality, or can 10 mpix not match PanF, EFKE, Velvia and Tri-X. Is 16 mpix necessary to match film ?

 

Is progress all about convenience, instant gratification and cost saving ? Don't mis-understand, I want convenience big time, but not at the expense of image quality.

[Guest stnami]

You have been wearing that helmet too long....

[frc]

Imagequality is a thing we all want. Comparing two different techniques however in a way as if the one would replace the other is no mesure. Seen on itself digital imaging has definitely come a long way and can be considdered to have more or less matured nowadays. Knowing what quality the professional digital camera gives us ( I believe the future M8 will equal or surpass this level ) I find the images convincing enough for average use. Abandoning slidefilm is not going to happen, the to pieces of equipment will have to live side by side.

[earleygallery]

I think the answer to your question is a given - we expect (or hope depending on viewpoint) that the M8 will deliver excellent image quality, otherwise what's the point?

 

As regards to it being 'better' than film thats a whole different issue. For me its a case of different mediums. I won't stop using film. I doubt if many current M users are considering an M8 purchase on the basis of it producing better quality results than say a Velvia slide or hand printed enlargement, or a B&W print.

 

As a digital alternative to an M film camera, the M8 needs to produce images of equal quality to other high end digitals (medium format digital backs excepted).

[marknorton]

Most of the time I currently use a D2X and I'm expecting the M8 to produce image quality at least as good as that, probably better, thanks to the excellent glass.

 

In all our discussions, outstanding, class leading image quality is taken as read. We're really discussing what colour the icing on the cake should be.

 

What's interesting of course now is that the image quality is entirely within Leica's domain - there isn't the variable of film to consider - and they can fine tune the whole process to produce the image quality they want.

 

It's an incredibly important product for Leica.

[erl]

Currently, I am in the middle of a six day shoot. Stage/theatrical work. It is something I have specialized in for years, using all sorts of gear including Blad's, Nikons, and latterly, Leica M's for the last 5 or 6 years. This current assignment is the first time I have shot digital (RD1) for this type of work. It was an economic decision. After 2 days shooting, I am totally convinced that the images are definitely superior to that which I would have produced with film, which would be no slouch anyway. Shooting RAW and using good post shooting software has made the job a breeze, and more profitable, by maybe $1000!

 

I can't wait to get an M8 for this work to replace the RD1, which is great, but with known problems that I work around. So, I already am convinced of 'digi' quality behind Leica glass. All I need now is Leica 'capture' behind the glass. This will not replace my 3 current M bodies. Merely complement them. I expect the qualities to be obviously diffent, but very complementary to each other.

 

Like every good craftsman, I will approach the new tool with enthusiasm and respect, but ultimately, the image is up to me.

 

Cheers,

Erl

[marknorton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Good to hear an endorsement of M-mount digital used in a professional application. I fully expect that once you are up and running with an M8, you'll find the case for using digital in more assignments overwhelming.

[grober]

Of course, the main problem with the M8 is that you'll eventually want another.

 

Then there's all the computer infrastructure I need to beef up too, both h/w and s/w...

 

"This is our last new Leica purchase, dear," our hero was heard to mutter. Right.

 

-g

[jrc]

Imagequality is a thing we all want. <snip> Abandoning slidefilm is not going to happen, the to pieces of equipment will have to live side by side.

 

I'm increasingly pessimistic about slide film. I really want it to stay, and as more than a niche. It'll be years and years, if ever, before digital still projection catches up with slide projection in terms of sheer image quality. But try to buy slide film at any place other than a pro store -- you just about can't do it. Not even WalMart or Target carry it anymore. And for good reason. I shot a roll of Kodachrome last week and shipped it off to the last Kodachrome processor in the states. The film cost about $7, the processing at Dwayne's, with return post, cost $17 (including $4 for a video disk; I want to see what they're doing in terms of quality on scans, but I don't expect much) and it cost me a buck or so (with envelope and postage) to send it. Deducting the video disk, that's 21 bucks and a week of waiting for a single roll of film. In other words, for the price of two rolls of film a week, you could pay for a D200, and get all of the other advantages of digital (like knowing that you actually got the shot and that it's well-exposed.)

 

Also, does anybody still make slide projectgors? I recently bought two used ones, figuring that'll take care of me essentially forever, but I'm not sure they're even made anymore.

 

JC

[Rolo]

So "image quality is taken as read..." It needs to be the equal of its competitition....

 

Is it commonly accepted that a 10 mpix crop from Canon/Nikon can out perform a Leica on the printed page? This isn't my opinion, but my experience is limited to 6 mpix and kit lenses, so don't give it too much weight. I have seen 16 mpix files from a 1DS that sing.

 

I'm testing a D200 this weekend to gain a better understanding of what 10 mpix can do, but the first shots around my garden haven't caused any surprises.

 

"... otherwise, what's the point", ..... convenience and cost maybe? If it's cheaper to operate, and it is 100% as good as film, then my new MP will have no value for me and it will be sold to buy a second M8. One for B&W, one for colour.

[earleygallery]

 

Also, does anybody still make slide projectgors? I recently bought two used ones, figuring that'll take care of me essentially forever, but I'm not sure they're even made anymore.

 

JC

 

Have you heard of Leica?

[robbegibson]

So "image quality is taken as read..." It needs to be the equal of its competitition....

snip..... I have seen 16 mpix files from a 1DS that sing.

 

I'm testing a D200 this weekend to gain a better understanding of what 10 mpix can do, but the first shots around my garden haven't caused any surprises.

 

:

 

Megapixels aren't everything. I've seen the 10 mp DMR sing louder than the 16mp 1Ds2.

 

If you want to see what the D200 is capable of, you should use the 28mm f1.4 or the 85 1.4 or the 70-200 2.8. A kit lens, even the 18-70, won't get there.

 

My 2 cents.

 

Have a good weekend,

 

Robbe Gibson

[adan]

Rolo: I'm someone who has been shooting various digital + Leica M film for the past 30 months. I have used 2 10 Mpixels cameras - a loaned DMR, and my own Sony R-1. My 'darkroom' is all digital, so I have been comparing scans of varous 35mm films to the 10Mp cameras - trying to find a way for my film Leicas to compete.

 

My short answer would be that 10 Mpixels easily matches or surpasses scans from 35mm film, at least with any scanner that costs less than the Leica digital solutions (proposed M8, DMR). I use a Nikon 5000ED, which can scan up to 18Mpixel equivalent file size.

 

In more detail:

 

Even the Sony generally equals the resolution of scanned Velvia 100F, with better shadow detail, and equals the tonal range of scanned color negs, with better resolution and significantly less grain.

 

Its resolution is roughly comparable to scanned Pan F, but with less grain (although the Sony/Zeiss zoom is obviously a limiting factor) - and, of couse, no dust or scratches to deal with. It produces a MUCH cleaner image at ISO 400 than any B&W 400 film scanned - although its limited aperture (f/4.8 at the long end) does not make it as good a low-light camera as a Leica with f/2 or f/1.4 lenses.

 

Can't speak to Efke (ISO 25?) or Tech Pan comparisons, or to silver printing, or to slides projected (none of which apply to my work - print photojournalism)

 

I guess my summary would be: even the lowly Sony replaced my Leica film Ms and Velvia for the past 9 months - and I cannot WAIT to get back to using my Summicrons and Elmarits again in front of a 10 Mpixel sensor, come October!

[stunsworth]

My short answer would be that 10 Mpixels easily matches or surpasses scans from 35mm film, at least with any scanner that costs less than the Leica digital solutions (proposed M8, DMR). I use a Nikon 5000ED, which can scan up to 18Mpixel equivalent file size.

 

That's my experience too using a Canon 5D and Coolscan V. I would add though that they look different - especially scanned b&w, so while the digital camera may produce 'cleaner' results, there are times when I miss the look of FP4 or Tri-X.

[Rolo]

Interesting stuff. Thanks for the input.

 

Must admit that I was hoping that the opinion of this group was that Leica M couldn't be matched by 10 mpix digital to justify my continuing approach with film scanned and then worked in PhotoShop.

 

After 12 months of shooting a D70/18-70 I was really stunned by the first image off my Leica M & lenses. They vibrated off the page. Couldn't believe how rich and smooth and apparently sharp they were and have continued to be. Every bride that views them just goes 'wow' and my wedding business is growing. Changing out to digital needs to be 100% for me if it is better (maybe I'll keep the M3), to have consistancy in appearance in a 2 lenses mounted at a time kit.

 

There seems to be general confidence that the lens attributes will come out of the Leica digital files ( resolution/sharpness and clean images are secondary to overall feel/glow). Digital is different, so what do we expect to sacrifice with M8 images? Did the RD-1 provide an indication of what can be achieved ?

[pascal_meheut]

Same happened to me where I shot with a Canon 350D and a Leica M and scanned Astia 100F and Provia 400F.

The Leica M pictures were better. Maybe less resolution (but who cares for a wedding ?), less details in the shadows but the colors were much nicer, the skin tones more natural and globally, the images had "something" the digital one had not.

And of course, I do not compose the same pictures with a rangefinder than with a SLR.

 

But I now have a DMR and clearly, the images are better than scanned slides. I still like shooting film and the final printed result is not to be ashamed of. But I'm almost sure that once the digital M is available, I'll stop shooting slides. Maybe still B&W.

 

And should I want the same colors and grain with my digital files, I'll use the AlienSkin's Exposure plugin.

[earleygallery]

On the point of wedding photography, I can see film becoming a fashionable thing for customers to request in the (near) future, just as B&W came into fashion for weddings a while back "we've got a 1960's open top Bentley.......and we've booked a photographer who uses film cameras and they are proper photographs not inkjet prints!"

 

So I wouldn't give up on the film just yet!

[Guest stnami]

Weddings parties and everything retro is still around, the 20 odds are buying film cameras

[lct]

..Digital is different, so what do we expect to sacrifice with M8 images? Did the RD-1 provide an indication of what can be achieved ?

Yes in that it shows that M lenses can still make great pictures on a digital camera.

Also the R-D1 demonstrates that vignetting is bearable due to the crop factor and proves quite easy to correct with post processing.

Now the R-D1 is not the sharpest camera around due to its anti-aliasing (AA) filter.

We can then expect that the M8 will be sharper than the Epson due to its lack of AA filter.

As to sacrifice, we'll have to use 15 and/or 75mm lenses if we like 21 and/or 100mm fields of view.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[corkflor@iol.ie]

John wrote:

 

Yes in that it shows that M lenses can still make great pictures on a digital camera.

 

Why should we be surprised? The characteristics of Leica glass are what it's all about. In the end the M8 is still only a very sophisticated light-tight box.

 

Though I'll get the opporunity to use the M8 at the Leicaschule in early October, I doubt whether, as a serious amateur, I could justify the cost/benefit equation against my film Ms. And I certainly wouldn't sell a couple of them to get an M8.

 

Like many others here, I've gone the Nikon route for digital. The D200 body does everything I want very well, and will mount nearly every Nikkor I own. Nikkors tend to be much more variable in their characteristics compared with Leica glass, but the best of them (the 85/1.4 has been mentioned) will give Leica glass a run for its money.

 

Best

 

Alex