sdai Posted September 16, 2006 Share #21 Posted September 16, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) No disrespect at all but, Erwin is getting old, like most Leica afcionados ... perhaps it's not in focus at all? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 16, 2006 Posted September 16, 2006 Hi sdai, Take a look here Erwin Puts review. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
FastFashnReloaded Posted September 16, 2006 Share #22 Posted September 16, 2006 It's hard to mis-focus an RF patch. Maybe the M8 'finder is out of cal though. (lol) Preproduction, ya never know... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rvaubel Posted September 16, 2006 Share #23 Posted September 16, 2006 That's correct. Leica has asked all of us not to publish on file quality until we can test cameras with production level firmware. And I think that's quite reasonable, in fact. Cheers, Sean I may be in a minority here, but I thought the comparision test with the 5D was informative. I would say that the M8 did fine considering that the only software available was the beta version. While its true the color moire pattern needed some software help, is this surprising in a camera that does not have a low pass filter? As for noise levels, I would be happy if the M8 is competitive with the best camera on the market. It is true that Irwins test photos leave a lot to be desire. They look to be poorly done with his rush to be the first one to violate the agreement with Leica. Still, even with the poor examples, it looks to me that the M8 is within striking distance of at least equaling the best FF camera on the market. And in a rangefinder body! Yipeeeee!! Rex Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
waterlenz Posted September 16, 2006 Share #24 Posted September 16, 2006 I presume the firmware he used for the 'test' had no noise reduction nor moire' correction whereras the canon software was fully implemented. Firmware versions for each cam should have been specified. Tom Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest agnoo Posted September 16, 2006 Share #25 Posted September 16, 2006 Oh dear, Mr Puts, don´t forget how to test more objective! What about the very early firmware-version we had to deal with? Especially the JPEG-thing was/is? not the final state. I would better wait with these conclusions (which firmware-version did you play with? 0.23 or something like that? Haha). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastFashnReloaded Posted September 16, 2006 Share #26 Posted September 16, 2006 I presume the firmware he used for the 'test' had no noise reduction nor moire' correction whereras the canon software was fully implemented. Firmware versions for each cam should have been specified.Tom Do you have moire without a lp filter? Sorry if that's a stupid question. -Dana Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveYork Posted September 16, 2006 Share #27 Posted September 16, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) I suspect the M8 is mostly marketed toward existing rangfinder users who have an investment in M mount lenses. I can see it also attracting digital users who want a smaller package. But I don't see it attracting a lot of folks who have never used a rangefinder in the past. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JHAG Posted September 16, 2006 Share #28 Posted September 16, 2006 More to portrait Zidane in a nicely lit hotel room than firing him on the stadium ;-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
waterlenz Posted September 16, 2006 Share #29 Posted September 16, 2006 Do you have moire without a lp filter? Sorry if that's a stupid question. -Dana Yes!! The LP filter gets rid of it, or at least reduces it. Leica plans to it electronically with programming, which may not be implemented in the firmware yet. Hence, the 'test' was not valid. Canon not only has a strong AA filter, but then uses sharpening to recapture some of the resolution that was lost. I suspect in the end Leica will have fewer artifacts and will be more up-res'able. Tom Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
waterlenz Posted September 16, 2006 Share #30 Posted September 16, 2006 I suspect the M8 is mostly marketed toward existing rangfinder users who have an investment in M mount lenses. I can see it also attracting digital users who want a smaller package. But I don't see it attracting a lot of folks who have never used a rangefinder in the past. Roger that!! Folks with only AF-AE-SLR experience could have significant difficulty. Tom Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest flatfour Posted September 16, 2006 Share #31 Posted September 16, 2006 i don't know what others think but the photo of the eye shows a much better quality picture withthe Leica M8 but the other pictures varied with Leica worse in some. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted September 16, 2006 Share #32 Posted September 16, 2006 Erwin Puts and Hans Christian Anderson must have drank out of the same cup!!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
waterlenz Posted September 16, 2006 Share #33 Posted September 16, 2006 i don't know what others think but the photo of the eye shows a much better quality picture withthe Leica M8 but the other pictures varied with Leica worse in some. Hard to tell with low-res on-line pix. This reminds me of an old article (from the 60's) by Zeiss showing stained glass windows dealing with contrast and resolution. One has to blow up a low contrast high res pic to see the details, which can't be done too well on-line. Digital post-processing may be able to bring up these details, however, if they are there. Tom Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
humanized_form Posted September 16, 2006 Share #34 Posted September 16, 2006 i really like his "history of Leica" type articles and his lens reviews, but wow...i'm kind of suprised he would post those images at this point, it just seems so unprofessional. why create a bad vibe about the M8 before the image processing is even finalized? now we are going to read all over the web about how "noisy" the high ISO is as compared to the 5D etc.... ugh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted September 16, 2006 Share #35 Posted September 16, 2006 I agree with Rex, the M8 is quite an achievement and it proves that Leica can really do something instead of buying cheap Panasonics and glue a red dot on it. For the determined M shooters ... nothing else really matters. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted September 16, 2006 Share #36 Posted September 16, 2006 Kevin, I suspect that the M8 with the final firmware will still be noisier than the Canon 5D. _However_ it will still be far better than film shot at ISO 1600+, so personally I will not worry about it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChipNovaMac Posted September 17, 2006 Share #37 Posted September 17, 2006 I had a play with a pre-release DMR and was asked not to post any images. As you say this seems perfectly reasonable given that the last thing Leica want is for flaws in the pre-release software being interpreted as flaws in the camera itself. I wonder if Puts has burned some bridges by posting these pics? From what I saw of his images, this really makes the M8 look like a dog. Definitely will wait till real images from the shipping cameras are posted. There's a story behind this for sure but I don't what it is yet. I honor my agreements so I can't talk about where I think Erwin is wrong about the M8 but I will say that my own conclusions (having worked with two different examples of the camera) are not the same as his. This is not the first time he and I have come to very different conclusions about digital cameras. I love the Olympus E-1 but he's made claims for it's abilities that just don't mesh with my experience. I respect Erwin's technical knowledge about lenses and sometimes quoted him, in fact, when I was writing for LL. But we disagreed on his analysis of the R-D1 and it looks like we're going to disagree on the M8. I will publish on file quality as soon as I'm allowed to. Cheers, Sean Have seen your comments, and some others, and was totally disappointed by the Puts images. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChipNovaMac Posted September 17, 2006 Share #38 Posted September 17, 2006 Unless I got a bad page, it looks like the sample images have been taken down.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted September 17, 2006 Share #39 Posted September 17, 2006 I wonder if Puts has burned some bridges by posting these pics? I'm almost certain that he has. His site was down for a while and then reappeared without the comparative shots. For that to happen on a Saturday evening he must have been leaned on by the guys in Solms. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
abrewer Posted September 17, 2006 Share #40 Posted September 17, 2006 I got to the party too late to see them, too. The text doesn't sound particularly antagonistic toward the M8 at all, in my reading of it. Thanks. Allan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.