Guest guy_mancuso Posted August 24, 2007 Share #61 Posted August 24, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Guy, are you talking yourself into "needing" an SLR again, or do you really need it? As far as I have understood from your posts in the last few months, the M8 covers your needs... Of course, we all *want* to have an M8 and an R10, but need is something else No , I really don't need it . The M8 is really doing a great job in print as much as others have said otherwise it has been working great. Frankly there is not a DSLR out there i would want more than the M8 except the DMR Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 24, 2007 Posted August 24, 2007 Hi Guest guy_mancuso, Take a look here HE-llo! Whole new ballgame!. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
hankg Posted August 24, 2007 Share #62 Posted August 24, 2007 How about 35 1.4L on 5D in a two page spread ad in this month's Robb Report that brought in over 18K?...I would call that plenty of support. I don't think a case can be made for justifying the M8 on the basis of some advantage in image quality or the magic of Leica glass. Not because the glass and IQ isn't excellent but because there are cheaper systems (if you can work with an SLR) that have better support networks and options like widely available rentals with similar quality (I won't get into which is 'best' as that is a useless exercise). I'm using the M8 because of the ergonomics of the RF platform versus a DSLR. For the range of 35 to 90 I prefer working with a compact RF with a simple interface and the M8 is the first digital camera that allows me to do that. While I prefer the M8 in terms of the files I am getting I would have just stuck with the 1Ds and the 35/1.4 L and 135/2 L if were not for the fact that I never really warmed to the ergonomics of the Canon and I just prefer RF. While I never really liked using the Canon DSLR camera's I did very much like the lenses and the 135/2 remains one of my all time favorites. I have not experienced the highlight problems. I always underexpose -2/3 EV with this camera as I don't like the results in the highlight end of the scale exposing to the right. I'm not sure that this would be the camera I would pick if I had to supply raw files to a client as the way I expose often requires more post production (and not just global adjustments) then I would want to turn over to a customer. I am about to start shooting about 350 cosmetic swatches. A lot of the smears of lipstick and concealers, etc., will have specular sparkle throughout, sort of like metallic paint. Being sans DSLR at the moment I'm using a Viso, bellows and Rodenstock Rodagon-D enlarging lens. This will be a good test of speculars my preliminary tests are looking excellent. I'll see if I can post something next week. Maybe we should have a thread about highlight and specular issues. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgcd Posted August 24, 2007 Share #63 Posted August 24, 2007 At ISO 400 the image quality is severely deteriorated. Ruben - Are you referring to the DMR? If so I beg to differ. I mostly shoot at 400 ISO... Cheers, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted August 24, 2007 Share #64 Posted August 24, 2007 Daniel, could you post some crops of the blobbing? I am still not quite sure what you mean, and I don't recall having seen this difference between M8 and 5D myself. I had a 5D for a year before I switched to the M8. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/31287-best-m8-dng-converter.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted August 24, 2007 Share #65 Posted August 24, 2007 The technology has evolved, and now the only reason to use large CCDs is because Canon or Sony don't manufacture them. Kodak is manufacturing small CMOS now, and the trend is clear. To be frank, Ruben ... one major reason why all major Japanese fabs switched to CMOS is because of the patent issue with Kodak. Most of the critical ones regarding CCD are in hands of Kodak, DALSA and some other US/European powerhouse. Canon/Sony have no better choice if they want to avoid either a huge amount of royalty fee or a ridiculous settlement amount in a legal battle. Anyways, Sony's latest APS-C size 12.5MP CMOS sensor is on sale for 425 dollars each ... anyone can buy it. Will Leica fans get satisfied? let's start a poll I'm sure 99% will say no! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted August 24, 2007 Share #66 Posted August 24, 2007 Actually, I've tested the 35/1.4 on the 1DsMkII and the 35/1.4 R on the R9/DMR (in the Leica DMR review) and the Canon lens compared very well. One thing to remember about the Nikons is that they can also use Zeiss ZF lenses. That's a real asset. I've tested the ZF 50 on the D200 and over the next year I want to test all of the ZF lenses (vs. Nikkors) on the FF Nikon. Cheers, Sean Hmmm...Now this is interesting, as I build up my Nikon glass again, I am looking at putting the 85 1.4 back in the line up. if the ZF 85 is a good bit better than the Nikon one, I will very much consider it. Of course, wide open is key... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted August 24, 2007 Share #67 Posted August 24, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) One thing to remember about the Nikons is that they can also use Zeiss ZF lenses. That's a real asset. I've tested the ZF 50 on the D200 and over the next year I want to test all of the ZF lenses (vs. Nikkors) on the FF Nikon. Sean, Don't forget these ZF lenses can always be adapted to EOS bodies ... it would be a shame to see these high performance optics made for Nikons yield MUCH BETTER results when used with Canons. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted August 24, 2007 Share #68 Posted August 24, 2007 http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/31287-best-m8-dng-converter.html As I mentioned to you in another thread, your best solution would be to move to lower contrast lenses for high contrast subject lighting. If one is not willing to do that, the highlights are going to push right off the edge of the scale sometimes. You are, if I recall correctly, working with high contrast ASPH lenses and this is one of the downsides of doing that. Horses for courses. It's true that once highlight levels push past a certain point in the M8 files, the detail dissappears abrubtly. So the task is to pull that contrast range in a bit before it reaches the sensor. And, yes, I would like to see 16-bit RAW files from the M8. Despite the amount of energy you've previously put into insulting my work on this forum, I'm willing to share whatever experience I can with you. You're new to digital rangefinder cameras but many of us who began with them in 2004 have come to appreciate the role lens contrast plays in this. One can fuss with RAW converters all he or she wants but if the highlight info. isn't recorded in the RAW file, it just isn't there. I think that the funky highlight artifacts you're sometimes seeing are related to blown highlights. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted August 24, 2007 Share #69 Posted August 24, 2007 Sean, Don't forget these ZF lenses can always be adapted to EOS bodies ... it would be a shame to see these high performance optics made for Nikons yield MUCH BETTER results when used with Canons. But...one loses auto aperture stop down (as discussed at length in the DMR review) and that can be A Big Deal for handheld work with the Canons. I shoot with several EOS bodies but I can see the advantages of Nikon all the same. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted August 24, 2007 Share #70 Posted August 24, 2007 Hmmm...Now this is interesting, as I build up my Nikon glass again, I am looking at putting the 85 1.4 back in the line up. if the ZF 85 is a good bit better than the Nikon one, I will very much consider it. Of course, wide open is key... It is interesting and the 50/1.4 I tested on the D200 was excellent. I'm looking forward to trying the others on FF Nikon. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted August 24, 2007 Share #71 Posted August 24, 2007 But...one loses auto aperture stop down (as discussed at length in the DMR review) and that can be A Big Deal for handheld work with the Canons. But, you have to pay big bucks for Nikon's top dogs to have auto metering with manual lenses. Even the lowest end Canon can enable stop down metering with any manual lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted August 24, 2007 Share #72 Posted August 24, 2007 The Zeiss ZF 85/1.4 has been disappointing so far in all reviews/previews I have seen. The ZM also. I wonder how it will end up? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted August 24, 2007 Share #73 Posted August 24, 2007 But, you have to pay big bucks for Nikon's top dogs to have auto metering with manual lenses. Even the lowest end Canon can enable stop down metering with any manual lenses. What? I think that all Nikons starting with the D80 can do this, no? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted August 24, 2007 Share #74 Posted August 24, 2007 The Zeiss ZF 85/1.4 has been disappointing so far in all reviews/previews I have seen. The ZF 50 and ZF 100 are absolutely winners in most regards ... again, it serves as a prime example to show that when cost is not an issue, anything can be done. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted August 24, 2007 Share #75 Posted August 24, 2007 What? I think that all Nikons starting with the D80 can do this, no? Starting from D200. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted August 24, 2007 Share #76 Posted August 24, 2007 Starting from D200. Okay, but the D200 isn't a top dog for big bucks. It is a high mid-range camera. Anyway, this is off topic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted August 24, 2007 Share #77 Posted August 24, 2007 But, you have to pay big bucks for Nikon's top dogs to have auto metering with manual lenses. Even the lowest end Canon can enable stop down metering with any manual lenses. The D200 is big bucks? I suppose its a matter of opinion. Look, as I said, I've shot professionally with EOS for a long time but Nikon takes the lead when it comes to working with manual lenses. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted August 24, 2007 Share #78 Posted August 24, 2007 The Zeiss ZF 85/1.4 has been disappointing so far in all reviews/previews I have seen. The ZM also. I wonder how it will end up? Which ZM? Do you mean the 85/2.0 I tested? It was the second copy of that lens made. I want to test a production copy before coming to any conclusions. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted August 24, 2007 Share #79 Posted August 24, 2007 The D200 is big bucks? I suppose its a matter of opinion. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. Bottom line, to gain metering capability for manual lenses, you have to pay 1499 US (D200, B&H price) for a Nikon, while less than 1/3 the Nikon price will do for a Canon (350D@480 US, also B&H price). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted August 24, 2007 Share #80 Posted August 24, 2007 It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. Bottom line, to gain metering capability for manual lenses, you have to pay 1499 US (D200, B&H price) for a Nikon, while less than 1/3 the Nikon price will do for a Canon (350D@480 US, also B&H price). What one considers expensive (aka your phrase; "big bucks") is indeed a matter of opinion. I find $1500 to be a very reasonable price for a DSLR with the capabilities of the D200. In any case, we risk going way off topic here with a discussion that really deals with individual perceptions. If one plans on economizing with a DSLR body and then shelling out a much larger investment for Zeiss lenses, I suppose the D200 might seem too expensive. We all have our own take on things. I liked the D200 so much when I tested it that I nearly bought one despite being heavily invested in EOS stuff. I hold with Voltaire. "Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd." Expensive is in the eye of the beholder. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.