M8 stays in hotel room; shoots in Japan with Canon G9

[johnalex141r]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Flame on, brothers.

 

Come on Nick; I liked your review, and your other reviews.

 

Some *love* to read about numbers, I *love* to read about "just using it".

 

I found it informative, interesting, and encouraging. Sure, it is hard to swallow that a $500.00 camera is "almost as good as in some ways, or better than" a camera that maybe someone has sunk circa $10,000.00 in.

 

My M8 shines in certain ways; my Fujica 645s shine still, and I'm sure that my weeks old G9 will shine in others.

 

JohnS.

[wlaidlaw]

Nick,

 

I agree with a lot you say, particularly the inadequacies of the M8's metering. Some lenses seem to get it right almost all the time (WATE and Biogon 35), some others struggle (Summilux 50, Elmarit 90), often producing blown out highlights. However with those two lenses, I have found that if you set the EV to -2/3, there is so much detail in the shadows of the M8 images, that you can always pull up a decent picture, especially now in C1-4. I may be wrong but it seems to me that the faster the lens and the longer the focal length, the more the metering struggles. Where I disagree with you is the use of AF. Having gone back to MF after years of using AF on Contax cameras, I have loved this feature of the M8. It may be that the Canon images are much better than those from my Ricoh GX100 but they would need to be, to compare with the M8 ones. A light grilling from a Leicagnostic does us all good from time to time.

 

Wilson

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[johnwolf]

"The G9’s metering is superbly accurate. This was in stark contrast to the M8’s metering, which I find crude and unreliable....."

 

Having owned both, I agree with this statement, although "crude and unreliable" is too strong a phrase. The same can be said of AWB. Both are astonishing on the G9.

 

John

[terrycioni]

First off, I'm changing my handle to Srushdie.

 

Anyway, thanks for reading the article. Moreover, thanks for inspiring my next article, which has been working-titled "Tribalism in Photography: The Next Rwanda?"

 

It's a curious experience to learn that the same sets of one's photos are, variously, 'crap taken by a cellphone camera' and 'stunning' depending upon the camera owned by the viewer.

 

Many of you seem to have missed are that I am actually a Leicaphile, and really, really, really want to love my M8. But it has disappointed me. The so-called "IQ advantage" of the M8 is not massive. Given the size, nature and cost of the G9's sensor, it should be. But it isn't

 

*Under ideal, controlled conditions* the M8 will always produce a better image (like, d'uh!) But ideal controlled conditions exist rarely in the photographic world, and most particularly, exist very rarely in the type of photography for which an M8 is purportedly designed (spontaneous documentary work).

 

If you want to see a serious IQ ass-kicking, take a look at the Nikon D3. I thought this camera was pointless (12MP??) when it was announced, but having seen what it produces, I stand corrected. It produces what we all wish the M8 could, but doesn't. Hopefully, the next "M" will.

 

The metering on the M8 simply can't handle complex lighting. I am not alone in this conclusion. It has nothing to do with having the camera think for me. Frankly, (as with my Mamiya 6) I would probably do no worse in most cases guestimating the exposure by eye. Any camera can meter a 18% grey wall. Moreover, for the type of work an M8 should handle well, there is no meter-and-reshoot. The shot is usually gone.

 

For the record, I did have a 40mm f1.4 lens with me, and a CV15. I'm just sick of changing lenses when travelling. It's a great way to miss the shot. On a paid job, of course you pick and choose lenses. But on a paid job I will rarely be working with the M8, because the controlled setting allows use of cameras which offer much better IQ, more precise framing, etc.

 

And lastly, the G9 is cutting-edge technology compared to the M8. A small, 12MP, IS, 35-210mm camera, capable of working in almost ANY lighting or subject conditions, that produces RAW file: that's cutting-edge. Not necessarily in any one area, but as a package. And that's what counts. It offers greater artistic satisfaction in the context of travel photography, because it puts much less camera (and camera fiddling) between the subject and the photographer, which allows for better photographs, imho.

 

Flame on, brothers.

 

- N.

 

ps. Terry, if you once photo-edited the Calgary Herald, you do know me, as you allowed a snot-nosed high school kid to shadow your photographers one year, back in the dark ages. Blame Ray Smith for making me the iconclast I am....

 

Hi Nick,

 

Then I do know you and I cherish that high school pin to this day. Ray Smith taught many things to many of us . I would enjoy your next effort - a Tribalism In Photography essay

 

Nice making contact again and best regards to you. If you ever make it out to the coast let me know and do look me up. Nicely done.

 

Best Regards Terry.

[charlesphoto99]

There have been pros using M cameras for over fifty years esp for travel. How does the M8 differ that much? And missing a moment juggling lenses? Yes it can happen but not really that often. It was usually when the film ran out the moment then happened.

 

Anyway I think its great that people can have the option of a p&s to do most of their thinking for them but please dont compare to an M. Simple enough. I think that seems to be the main point here.

 

BTW I looked at a G9 and just wasnt impressed with the wide angle (if you can call it that) quality which is what I use most. But the build quality is nice. Hopefully there will be a digital equivalent of the Contax T2 or CM on the market at some point with a 35 f2 asph lens, good manual controls (MF focusing ala the Olympis XA perhaps) and no shutter lag. Then and only then will I be impressed with a p&s.

[Maggie_O]

Nick, thanks for an entertaining article and discussion. I have a single nit to pick, though. (Of course I do; this is the internet!)

 

The metering on the M8 simply can't handle complex lighting.

 

A more accurate statement might have been "I cannot get the M8 to handle complex lighting," or "I am unable to use the M8 in complex lighting," or even, "the way the M8 handles complex lighting does not work for me."

 

It is obvious, with, for instance, a perusal of Flickr, that many photographers are using the M8 in complex lighting situations with consistent success.

 

As such, your statement should be couched as an opinion or as an anecdote of personal experience and not as a fact.

 

In my opinion, the M8's metering is consistent and knowable, and as such, can be used in many different situations with a bit of experience and attentiveness. Since I have never so much as held one in my hand, I have no opinion regarding the Canon G9, aside from it looks attractive in photographs.

 

Oh, and I am most assuredly not your "brother."

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hopefully there will be a digital equivalent of the Contax T2 or CM on the market at some point with a 35 f2 asph lens, good manual controls (MF focusing ala the Olympis XA perhaps) and no shutter lag. Then and only then will I be impressed with a p&s.

 

Charles,

 

Don't remind me. I was the idiot who bought a Contax T Digital. You could time the start up with a calendar, the shutter lag was about 2 seconds, the noise at anything above ISO 100 was horrible and to cap it all, it was unreliable. Luckily, Johnsons Photopia lost it during one of its trips back to base.

 

Wilson

[charlesphoto99]

Nick, thanks for an entertaining article and discussion. I have a single nit to pick, though. (Of course I do; this is the internet!)

 

 

 

A more accurate statement might have been "I cannot get the M8 to handle complex lighting," or "I am unable to use the M8 in complex lighting," or even, "the way the M8 handles complex lighting does not work for me."

 

It is obvious, with, for instance, a perusal of Flickr, that many photographers are using the M8 in complex lighting situations with consistent success.

 

As such, your statement should be couched as an opinion or as an anecdote of personal experience and not as a fact.

 

In my opinion, the M8's metering is consistent and knowable, and as such, can be used in many different situations with a bit of experience and attentiveness. Since I have never so much as held one in my hand, I have no opinion regarding the Canon G9, aside from it looks attractive in photographs.

 

Oh, and I am most assuredly not your "brother."

 

Exactly right. I also think why some think the M8 can't expose properly is because the thumbnails and/or jpegs the M8 writes for chimping purpose are generally horrendous. Hopefully this will change some in 1.2. More and more I am going by the meter itself (in manual mode) as well as relying on the histogram and using chimping only for composition purposes. Once you get them into your RAW converter one realizes how good the metering in M's truly is.

[pascal_meheut]

The so-called "IQ advantage" of the M8 is not massive. Given the size, nature and cost of the G9's sensor, it should be. But it isn't

 

*Under ideal, controlled conditions* the M8 will always produce a better image

 

What a joke. Here are 2 crappy pictures I shot in far from perfect conditions, inside a Café. Light was a composition of window and artificial. 400 ISO, 1/4sec f/2.8 for the Canon, 640 ISO, 1/8sec with the 28/2 ASPH wide open for the M8.

Both in Lightroom with automatic WB, etc

 

Some of us will see a difference in colors, brightness, skin tones, DOF and so on between the 2 pictures. For me, the IQ advantage of the M8 is huge even here.

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!

[pascal_meheut]

Of course, if we look at the crops, it is even more obvious. Even if the G9 has a small disadvantage because the picture is "shaken". But of course, the M8 has access to f/1, f/1.4 and f/2 lenses. And has less noise at 640 ISO than the Canon at 400 ISO.

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!

[Maggie_O]

Also, the M8 photo appears to have gravy in it, and as everyone knows, everything is better with gravy.

[zlatkob]

Gravy, and a full plate of food! Way better!!

 

Judging image quality based on a 1/4 second handheld exposure with an apparently moving subject (or camera) doesn't really challenge Nick Devlin's conclusions.

[pascal_meheut]

Judging image quality based on a 1/4 second handheld exposure with an apparently moving subject (or camera) doesn't really challenge Nick Devlin's conclusions.

 

Because of course, a difference in colors, noise, DOF and so on is not important in photography.

BTW, you are talking about the conclusions Nick Devlin reached (as well as others here) without never showing a comparison between an M8 picture and a G9 picture ?

[sdai]

Let's start splitting/counting hairs ... what's the pro rate doing that?

[tom0511]

First off, I'm changing my handle to Srushdie.

 

Anyway, thanks for reading the article. Moreover, thanks for inspiring my next article, which has been working-titled "Tribalism in Photography: The Next Rwanda?"

 

It's a curious experience to learn that the same sets of one's photos are, variously, 'crap taken by a cellphone camera' and 'stunning' depending upon the camera owned by the viewer.

 

Many of you seem to have missed are that I am actually a Leicaphile, and really, really, really want to love my M8. But it has disappointed me. The so-called "IQ advantage" of the M8 is not massive. Given the size, nature and cost of the G9's sensor, it should be. But it isn't

 

*Under ideal, controlled conditions* the M8 will always produce a better image (like, d'uh!) But ideal controlled conditions exist rarely in the photographic world, and most particularly, exist very rarely in the type of photography for which an M8 is purportedly designed (spontaneous documentary work).

 

If you want to see a serious IQ ass-kicking, take a look at the Nikon D3. I thought this camera was pointless (12MP??) when it was announced, but having seen what it produces, I stand corrected. It produces what we all wish the M8 could, but doesn't. Hopefully, the next "M" will.

 

The metering on the M8 simply can't handle complex lighting. I am not alone in this conclusion. It has nothing to do with having the camera think for me. Frankly, (as with my Mamiya 6) I would probably do no worse in most cases guestimating the exposure by eye. Any camera can meter a 18% grey wall. Moreover, for the type of work an M8 should handle well, there is no meter-and-reshoot. The shot is usually gone.

 

For the record, I did have a 40mm f1.4 lens with me, and a CV15. I'm just sick of changing lenses when travelling. It's a great way to miss the shot. On a paid job, of course you pick and choose lenses. But on a paid job I will rarely be working with the M8, because the controlled setting allows use of cameras which offer much better IQ, more precise framing, etc.

 

And lastly, the G9 is cutting-edge technology compared to the M8. A small, 12MP, IS, 35-210mm camera, capable of working in almost ANY lighting or subject conditions, that produces RAW file: that's cutting-edge. Not necessarily in any one area, but as a package. And that's what counts. It offers greater artistic satisfaction in the context of travel photography, because it puts much less camera (and camera fiddling) between the subject and the photographer, which allows for better photographs, imho.

 

Flame on, brothers.

 

- N.

 

ps. Terry, if you once photo-edited the Calgary Herald, you do know me, as you allowed a snot-nosed high school kid to shadow your photographers one year, back in the dark ages. Blame Ray Smith for making me the iconclast I am....

 

While I understand that a Nikon Matrix metering delievers better auto results than a M8 I personally havent had that many problems with the M8s metering. I use AE mostly with -1/3 (except in snowy or foggy conditions).

If you say shooting in difficult conditions I would expect the M8 quit a bit better dynamic range and therefore easier to shoot. Maybe you have to correct the exposure in some situations, but if you just have more dynamic range and flexibility in the raw file compared to a small sensor camera.

 

I have used several small sensor cameras and I just cant believe that the G9 should be that much better than for example the GRD or the GX100 - which in my experience are great little cameras but tonality and DR of the images are not on the same level as larger sensors.

 

No doubts a zoom lens is more convenient than switching lenses, eventhough 35mm on the wide side would cut it for me.

 

I really like compact cameras, however I dont believe that they deliever the same IQ as cameras with larger sensors.

 

Cheers, Tom

Nothing against a G9,

[Jamie Roberts]

Nope, nothing against a G9 or a zoom, for that matter; I have a G7 and it's a nice enough camera.

 

Completely underwhelming device though, and while I appreciate the G9 has almost double the resolution, for the way I work and shoot (metering on M, thanks) I actually prefer the M8.

 

Now, when I go to the beach with my son and my dog and I know there's a good chance the camera could get dunked / sandblasted or suncreamed, then yeah, I love my G7 I also took it with me (before I had an M8) to Rome instead of a 5d or DMR and for the purpose, yep--it was fine. I wish, however, I had my M8 then, too.

 

And the IQ difference between them, especially above ISO 200 (where you'd have to shoot anyway) is on an order of magnitude in favour of the M8.

 

NOT--by the way, under ideal circumstances, but quite the opposite: in dodgy light, hard to autofocus times (like at night), and in tricky metering situations I can rely on the M8; the G series is always guessing what I think is important

 

Is the G9 that much better? Could be. But in low-light I doubt it.

 

Having said all that--it's always true the photographer matters more than the camera, when the cameras are beyond a certain level of technical prowess. I'd say the same about the photographer's comfort zone with any one style of camera. I've found out I'm a rangefinder guy through and through, for example (though there are times to use an SLR).

 

If I had to (as in DMR, 5d and M8 plus film Ms are all whisked away magically and I'm left with a G series camera), I could shoot most of a wedding with a G7, and I'm sure in a lot of regards the G9 is improved.

 

So it';s nice to know there are some travel alternatives.

[Kent10D]

I have a G7 as well, and there's at least one aspect in which it totally clobbers the M8 ... it can shoot movies!

 

Having made the requisite silly comment, I have to add that although it's smaller than the M8 (same size as the G9, of course), it's not quite small enough that the size advantage makes me want to leave the M8 at home. It's not quite compact enough to be comfortably pocketable, and frankly the M8 with grip handles a heck of a lot better. So that, coupled with the IQ difference, means the M8 goes along for the ride most of the time. The GRDII, on the other hand, really is pocketable and that raises it's value as an always-have camera tremendously IMHO.

 

Still, if your definition of "great camera" includes a large dose of "convenience" (i.e. retracting zoom, totally silent, movie capability, etc.,), then I can see why it might be preferred. But when it comes down to technical image quality, not a chance.

[okram]

Mr Devlin,

 

 

Comparing miniDV camera with full HD camera, and saying something is better to use (any of the two), in any situation, makes no sense.

The difference is too big. I am sorry that you left M8 at hotel.

[stunsworth]

If someone prefers one camera to another it's no big deal - as has been said elsewhere if quality was the only concern we'd all be shooting 10x8. However to draw universal conclusions from personal preference is arrogance of the first order.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Olsen]

The difference between G9 and the M8 is a typical one in the photographic world. It is just like comparing the WATE with Voigtländer 15 mm 4,5. The difference is marginal, one could argue, within certain areas, but the difference is there. And you have to pay for it.

 

Further; a light meter system in a camera can only make one choice for you. A scene could have several perfect exposure settings. It is the photographer that shall decide which one is the 'perfect'.

 

Further; this LL article is typical of the internet. It shows it's strong and weak side. If it can be found on the Net in writing, it is not neccessarily true. Nor is it if it is told by Fox News or The times. It's an opinion. Fair enough.