jtharvie Posted September 15, 2006 Share #1 Posted September 15, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Please no disrespect intended but when it comes down to image quality, how does either of the Leica products compare to say a Contax 645 with a Phase One back. There are quite a few +9 645 cameras and lense on sale at a variety of reputable stores and by my calculations, a P20 or H10 would be a lot cheaper than a new M8 and say the New TriMar, 35 'Lux, 50 'Lux and a 75 'Lux. I realize they are completely different systems but my question is on image quality. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 15, 2006 Posted September 15, 2006 Hi jtharvie, Take a look here M8 / DMR vs Phase One??? . I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
marknorton Posted September 15, 2006 Share #2 Posted September 15, 2006 If Phase One is the company I am thinking of, they have worked on the image processing algortihms of the M8. I'm staying with the M8! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted September 15, 2006 Share #3 Posted September 15, 2006 John-- I can't answer directly because I haven't any experience in the field. Sean Reid has said a couple times that the DMR produces the same quality as medium format film. M8 should do likewise. Leica is an ongoing system. Zeiss/Contax may be good equipment, but it's no longer in production. (You might say, 'there is a reason it's less expensive.') For more specific comments, you might nose around at http://www.luminous-landscape.com/. Reichmann et al have had a number of comments on various medium format digital products. I think I remember that he said he was disappointed at the quality of the Zeiss lenses on the digital back. I know that he has had a fair amount to say about Phase One. Personally, I would go with M8 if the range of lenses fits your needs. Enjoy! --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted September 15, 2006 Share #4 Posted September 15, 2006 Having a DMR the only logical step i would take to upgrade would be to a 39 mpx back otherwise i just don't see a big enough jump from the DMR to the 22mpx back. At least not enough to warrant the money for it plus i still contend overall given there intended medium leica makes the better glass. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted September 15, 2006 Share #5 Posted September 15, 2006 If Phase One is the company I am thinking of, they have worked on the image processing algortihms of the M8. I'm staying with the M8! Phase One or Jenoptik? Why is Leica so silent about this question? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrc Posted September 15, 2006 Share #6 Posted September 15, 2006 Phase One or Jenoptik? Why is Leica so silent about this question? Well, they're not, if I understand your question. They've announced that a C1 (Capture One) software package will accompany the camera. C1 is made by Phase One, and is widely used, especially by medium format photographers. No secret there. JC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted September 15, 2006 Share #7 Posted September 15, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) I am asking for the partner in the M8 development. The use of Capture One LE does not implies that the partner was Phase One. Capture One is an application that is sold separately to users of Phase One backs or to users of other digital cameras. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted September 15, 2006 Share #8 Posted September 15, 2006 Phase did not do the firmware. A German company did. this maybe a NDA issue not sure so i won't say Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted September 16, 2006 Share #9 Posted September 16, 2006 It is not only a question of firmware: internal processor, design and manufacture of electronics, assembling... I think it's Jenoptik... but Leica does not confess it... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrc Posted September 16, 2006 Share #10 Posted September 16, 2006 I am asking for the partner in the M8 development. The use of Capture One LE does not implies that the partner was Phase One. Capture One is an application that is sold separately to users of Phase One backs or to users of other digital cameras. Ah. Sorry, I misunderstood. All I have is what I've read on a lot of forums, and that is that Jenoptik was involved. But that's just rumor. JC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pascal_meheut Posted September 16, 2006 Share #11 Posted September 16, 2006 Did you read luminous-landscape reviews? You'll find an answer there. If you want top image quality, buy a MF digital back indeed and top lenses. But you have to be aware of the limitations (Weight, Contax discontinued, 100 ISO only...) and be sure you enlarge enough to see the difference. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
khun_k Posted September 16, 2006 Share #12 Posted September 16, 2006 Did you read luminous-landscape reviews? You'll find an answer there. If you want top image quality, buy a MF digital back indeed and top lenses.But you have to be aware of the limitations (Weight, Contax discontinued, 100 ISO only...) and be sure you enlarge enough to see the difference. I have been useing P25 on my Contax 645 and upgraded to P45 in April and have gone thru more than 5,000 captures with P45, along with Canon 1Ds Mark2 and 5D. You really do not need to enalrge to see the difference, the P45 image simply more punchy, visibly greater detail even copare to P25, cleaner and more vibrant color, not to mention 1Ds Mark2 or 5D. No, I do not think M8 will outperform even 5D, but I have no doubt it will also produce excellent image. And excellent image is not just about the size and resolution of the picture, it is the mind behind the lens and the lens helps you to interpret it. A god picture is a good picture. In museums, you get to know who shoot it, care less what camera and lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgcd Posted September 16, 2006 Share #13 Posted September 16, 2006 I have been useing P25 on my Contax 645 and upgraded to P45 in April and have gone thru more than 5,000 captures with P45, along with Canon 1Ds Mark2 and 5D. You really do not need to enalrge to see the difference, the P45 image simply more punchy, visibly greater detail even copare to P25, cleaner and more vibrant color, not to mention 1Ds Mark2 or 5D. No, I do not think M8 will outperform even 5D, but I have no doubt it will also produce excellent image. And excellent image is not just about the size and resolution of the picture, it is the mind behind the lens and the lens helps you to interpret it. A god picture is a good picture. In museums, you get to know who shoot it, care less what camera and lens. The DMR outperforms the 5D, no ifs or buts about this, I bet the M8 is more than likely to do the same. But I do agree that viewers could not care less about what equipment was used for a good image. Cheers, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotobug Posted November 20, 2006 Share #14 Posted November 20, 2006 Hello All, I am a film-based photographer with Leicas (III, IIIb, and M3), Mamiya RB67, and Calumet 504 4x5 studio cameras. My professional interests are in architectural and industrial photography -- and I would like to do as much of it as possible using film. Had my first experience assisting a local photographer the other day. Shooting smallish, notebook binder-sized, products. He was using a Canon 5D, Canon 75mm lens, tethered to a whizbang Mac running PhasOne software. Now here is my question: Does anyone here make a living shooting commercially with Leica R8/R9 with or without the DMR unit? If I were to go the digital 35mm route, I would want to do it the Leica way. But, if I can't find any empirical data to support that argument, then...well maybe I'll have to bite into the Canon/Nikon bullet. I don't want to do that because at least half of what is on and in those cameras and lenses is 'stuff' that I don't want to use, and don't want to pay for. Any Illumination you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted November 20, 2006 Share #15 Posted November 20, 2006 Please no disrespect intended but when it comes down to image quality, how does either of the Leica products compare to say a Contax 645 with a Phase One back. There are quite a few +9 645 cameras and lense on sale at a variety of reputable stores and by my calculations, a P20 or H10 would be a lot cheaper than a new M8 and say the New TriMar, 35 'Lux, 50 'Lux and a 75 'Lux. I realize they are completely different systems but my question is on image quality. Okay, based on IMAGE QUALITY: first let me be clear, I am as big a Leica nut as anyone on this forum. I have a DMR/9 and array of ROM ASPH and APO lenses from 21mm through 180APO for it. I am getting used to the M8, and have a M7 and MP3 with lenses from 24/2.8 ASPH through 135/3.5APO. The Leica digital cameras are wonderful alternatives to other 35mm type DSLR offerings because of the somewhat unique look and file qualities they produce compared to the competing DSLRs. However, in no way does the image quality of these cameras (or for that matter the Canon 1DsMKII, 5D, Nikon whatever) compete with MF digital ... ANY current MF digital including the 16 meg versions ... in fact, IMO they cannot even compete with the older 16 meg Kodak Pro-back 645H, 645M or 645C (which I used prior to moving up, and some pro associates of mine still use). The Pro-Back 645C is totally portable (no tether needed) and offers ISOs from 50 to 400 BTW. I am currently using a 16 meg Hasselblad CFV on a 503CW, Hasselblad H2D/39 with both HC and Zeiss glass, and 33 meg Leaf Aptus 75 on a Mamiya RZ (which provides ISOs from 50 to 800). Prior to that my H2D was a 22 meg version ... and absolutely nothing in my 35mm arsenal could even come close to it. My experience with Phase One backs is quite similar, but confined to working with various well known commercial photographers shooting national ads for companies like Unilever and Johnston&Johnston ( my real job is Creative Director for an ad agency and if you live in the US or UK you probably have seen some of our ads in major magazines or on billboards ... I mention this because "credentials" seemed important on other recent threads : -). Unless the ad calls for spontaneous type work better shot with a fast acting DSLR (like lifestyle type shots), all the food ads, product shots, studio and location set-ups are shot MF digital ... either with a 645 AF camera or with the back mounted on a view camera to access tilts and shifts. Having shot with about 30 top LA, Chicago and NY based photographers in recent years, they all had one thing in common ... none of them used Leica digital (one lifestyle shooter we hired used a R9 film camera with a R180/2) , but all of them had MF digital capabilities ... either in-house or rented. The difference isn't in the processing programs either. Imacon Flexcolor can be used to process DMR DNG files as can ACR and according to Guy, so can Phase One's C-1. The Leaf MOS files can be directly processed in ACR as well as the Leaf programs. It's just physics. The current crop of sensors are almost 645 in size (1.1X), so the pixel sizes are enormous compared to those of a DSLR, not to mention there are more of them. This translates into a greater tonal range and separation and the recording of detail that is mind boggling. As to the DMR outperforming MF film, that's a debate better avoided here as it has nothing to do with the question you asked ... except to say it's a lot easier to switch to MF film than it is to remove the DMR back and use a R 8 or 9 to shoot film ... and the MF film shots will kill those shot with a film based 35mm anything, Leica or not. In short, IF image quality is the criteria, once you enter the MF digital arena, you'll be hooked and there will be no going back. Here's the very first shot I took with the H2D/22 with a HC/300/4 ... a severe crop with the full image inset to show how severe the crop was ... 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! 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/5309-m8-dmr-vs-phase-one/?do=findComment&comment=98931'>More sharing options...
john_r_smith Posted November 20, 2006 Share #16 Posted November 20, 2006 Absolute quality aside, what most of these discussions wilfully ignore is the purpose to which the camera system will be put. Yesterday I was doing a series of colour shots of a local artist's paintings, under controlled studio conditions. The last thing I would want to be doing is squinting through the viewfinder of a Leica M8 (or any other 35mm camera) for this kind of job. It's either MF or LF on a tripod, with all the bellows, hoods and whistles that you need for critical copy camera work. Equally, if I was headed down to the pub in the evening and wanted to shoot available light candids of the darts match I would be grabbing the Leica M8 (if I had one, you understand) and a fast prime. I certainly wouldn't pick my Hasselblad for the pub gig, quality notwithstanding. You use the camera that's best suited to the job in hand. John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted November 20, 2006 Share #17 Posted November 20, 2006 That's what I just said John. Basically, horses for courses. But the question was: Based on image quality alone, all other obvious considerations aside. Here's a shot from the 16 meg Hasselblad CFV that I took while on vacation and giving the back a shake down cruise before using it for weddings. I stripped down my Hasselblad 503 until it was as small as a Canon or DMR (and actually lighter) and just walked around with it. Inset: the full file content, Full posted pic is a severe crop indicated by the red box in the inset. This back is amazing a lot more people than just me. 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! 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/5309-m8-dmr-vs-phase-one/?do=findComment&comment=98994'>More sharing options...
gogopix Posted November 20, 2006 Share #18 Posted November 20, 2006 I have the M8 and Contax 645 P45. Before upgrading I had a chance to also check against P25 First here is a 100% of a M8 I am really impressed 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! 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/5309-m8-dmr-vs-phase-one/?do=findComment&comment=99006'>More sharing options...
gogopix Posted November 20, 2006 Share #19 Posted November 20, 2006 But it cant copare to Phase backs Hereis full shot then the P25, finally the P45 THATisdetail that you are only going to get from 39MP 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! 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/5309-m8-dmr-vs-phase-one/?do=findComment&comment=99010'>More sharing options...
johnjs Posted November 20, 2006 Share #20 Posted November 20, 2006 Marc, Your example Post#15 pretty much sums it up, I think, based on the criteria of image quality alone. If I was a professional, I wouldn't even consider anything other than the new crop of digital/MF equipment for work. From what you've stated, you and most of your peers have drawn the same conclusion. That's not to say that the unique rangefinder handling and the superb quality of the M-system lenses isn't desirable for many in their quest to get the digital version working. As you stated in another post, though, you didn't have to do anything out-of-the-box with your MF backs - they're good to go and on what, the 7th generation of development (a guess)? Also, I believe the other thread which closely compared the performance of the 5D, D200, and M8 demonstrated that there really isn't any dramatic difference between the resolution of the three cameras, from an image standpoint. Sure, you'll get a different looking file from each camera, but they're all going to be files generated from roughly similar sensor sizes. At that level, it seems to me it really comes down to handling, lens choices, and basically just what one likes. Thank you for injecting a dose of reality into the discussion, on this thread and elsewhere in the forum. -John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.