majid Posted September 17, 2006 Share #61 Posted September 17, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Actually, just to keep us honest, the Canon 35/1.4L is excellent wide open. I have one nearly permanently mounted to my Rebel XT, and I tested my 50mm 'cron and Noctilux on a demo R-D1 at MacWorld SF. I'd compare the 35mm f/1.4L to the Noctilux in terms of performance wide open, but the Summicron on the R-D1 blows the Rebel XT and 35mm f/1.4L combo away at f/2 IMO. I was hoping Zeiss would have a digital Ikon at Photokina, but it looks like they are not going to have one anytime soon, so the choice is between the R-D1 and the M8. I will go with the M8, and fund it in part by reselling the 35mm f/1.4L Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 17, 2006 Posted September 17, 2006 Hi majid, Take a look here Erwin Puts review. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
TimF Posted September 17, 2006 Share #62 Posted September 17, 2006 Sometimes, yes. However, I just came upon this article on Erwin's site which is a nice corrective to the "digital slaps film in the face" brigade. Just a shame that most of the great slow films we've known and loved have been discontinued. FAQ topics Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted September 17, 2006 Share #63 Posted September 17, 2006 A 24x36 frame needs a x8 enlargement for a 8x12 (aprox. A4 print). Whether the sensor and lens resolve 40 lp/mm we will get 40/8 = 5lp/mm of real detail in the print. Just the amount of detail the human eye can resolve, at best, at optimum distance (25cm or more, depending on age). For a A3 print (12x16, aprox) and 5 lp/mm of real detail the sensor (film) need to resolve 80 lp/mm. There is no full frame digital camera with this resolution power (I think a 22MP full frame camera would be necessary). Only medium format cameras, mostly due to the smaller enlargement factor, can reach the necessary resolution for those prints. These requirements are increased for a cropped sensor. The M8 sensor has a crop factor of 1,33, and therefore 40x1,33 = 53 lp/mm and 80x1,33 = 106 lp/mm should be resolved in order to have 5lp/mm of real detail in those prints (A4 and A3). The 74 lp/mm of maximun theoretical resolution (Nyquist limit) of the M8 sensor -but less than that number of real maximum resolution-, means that the M8 is capable of gorgeous A4 prints, but other cameras actually in the market will provide visibly better prints at A3 sizes or bigger (I am thinking on the Canon 1Ds Mark II and Canon 5D, due to the bigger picture size -number of pixels- and smaller enlargement factor). I think the M8 could be comparable with a Canon 1Ds, in terms of detail resolved on paper, and maybe with a Canon 5D (due to the abscense of AA filter). The image quality will be very good, due to the optics, the abscense of low-pass filter and the (big) size of the sensor. I try to say that 10MP in the M8 are not like 10MP in other cameras with inferior lenses and smaller sensors. However, the full frame cameras with more pixels, specially if they work with good lenses, will provide higher resolution on paper. Color rendition, contrast, distortions and fingerprint of the lenses are another history... Leica lenses are hard to beat here. Erwin Puts' comments are fair, but he was using a camera with unfinished firmware. I don't expect such differences between the 5D and the M8. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pierovitch Posted September 17, 2006 Share #64 Posted September 17, 2006 Erwin has never written in mindless praise of leica mythology. I appreciate his technical knowledge and investigation of hard to define qualities of optics and imaging. Just be appreciative that there are still people who treat imaging technology seriously instead of a just a marketing game. If you need quality reference for the final production models the DMR results should be a good indication. Digital images will differ from silver based technology but great photos still possible with the technology. The M8 is a landmark in photographic tradition. For a product in a diposable society where some companies do not stock parts beyond a few months, Leica does support its M system customers in an extraordinary way. Enjoy the results Pierre Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan States Posted September 17, 2006 Share #65 Posted September 17, 2006 If only to repeat what I have said here and elsewhere: Erwin Puts is still testing buggy whips in the motor age. He has a fixation on resolution, but with little experience creating serious photography in the digital age he just doesn't get the concept of final print quality. To be testing resolution as some kind of gauge of final image quality in a time when $600 dslrs can out resolve your eyes up to 10x15" prints is pointless. The statement that the Leica M8 can not fully expoit the quality of the lenses is of course true at the same level as saying the same for people who shoot any other film than Tech Pan and Kodachrome 25 (note the fate of those films). That said, I can easily see the difference in lenses mounted on a pedestrian Nikon D200... I'll also note that this repeats Puts' tone on the DMR. Over time the DMR has proven to be a superlative tool, far more capable than the vast majority of it's owners. Finally, I think Leica is smoking crack when they turn over prototype equipment to Erwin. I understand their desire to pander to his audience on the net, but they need to understand that his need/desire for a strange kind of fame outweighs his ability to accurately test equipment. Relying on Puts' judgements of equipment is like reading a restaurant critic who only eats oatmeal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlm Posted September 17, 2006 Share #66 Posted September 17, 2006 it would have been of interest if Puts had compared the M8 and the DMR image quality Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted September 17, 2006 Share #67 Posted September 17, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) To post pictures and not say if they were from RAW or Jpeg is a fundamental flaw. If they were from Jpeg the differences could be explained by different levels of in camera sharpening. A guy of Rangefinder.com had a play with one of the M8 images adjusting contrast and sharpening and it looked at least as good as the 5D image. I use a 5D and think it's a great camera - despite what one or two people say here - but I'd want a comparison between it and the M8 to be fair, and I don't think that was the case here. As I said earlier Erwin is very good when it comes to lenses, but I sometimes think that he doesn't do 'digital' at all well. The M8 should be compared to the 5D when the production camera is ready. My article will compare it to both the 5D and R-D1. The 5D, 1DsMkII and DMR have the best technical file quality, in my experience, of any (135 mm form factor) digital cameras. The 5D is just a hair off its bigger brother. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted September 17, 2006 Share #68 Posted September 17, 2006 Erwin Puts' comments are fair, but he was using a camera with unfinished firmware. I don't expect such differences between the 5D and the M8. Hi Ruben, I disagree that they were fair. The M8 picture of the dress wasn't even focused properly. Am I saying that the crop of the bodice is of an out-of-focus section? Yes, I am. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertwang Posted September 17, 2006 Share #69 Posted September 17, 2006 Add the Voigtlander 35mm f1.2 M lens and you have something that knocks the L lens out the box too! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted September 17, 2006 Share #70 Posted September 17, 2006 Add the Voigtlander 35mm f1.2 M lens and you have something that knocks the L lens out the box too! Hi Albert, Actually, the CV 35/1.2 is a decent, but not outstanding, lens. The sweetie is the M 35/1.4 Asph. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
arget Posted September 17, 2006 Share #71 Posted September 17, 2006 Each opinion that is being posted has some value, negative opinions included. What has been posted by Erwin is usefull in that the reader has to evaluate the negatives he has stressed and compare these to other review commentaries that are far less negative, and in my non humble opinion are more objective. All cameras and systems have differences and related points of strength as well as weakness. As a result of my own evaluation I can only hope for timely shipments of the M8, I am ready and waiting to start using one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted September 17, 2006 Share #72 Posted September 17, 2006 Each opinion that is being posted has some value, negative opinions included. What has been posted by Erwin is usefull in that the reader has to evaluate the negatives he has stressed and compare these to other review commentaries that are far less negative, and in my non humble opinion are more objective. All cameras and systems have differences and related points of strength as well as weakness. As a result of my own evaluation I can only hope for timely shipments of the M8, I am ready and waiting to start using one. To be useful, it would be a good idea to start with pictures that are in focus in the areas cropped (unless OOF is what's being discussed). Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted September 17, 2006 Share #73 Posted September 17, 2006 If i ever listened to him about digital , than I would have never bought the DMR. What a mistake that would have been, same case here folks. He simply is out of his element and also was trying to scoop all the other press by going against a NDA of images from a pre-production firmware. His creditability hit the bottom of the can and that is how i look at his reviews and being so freaking wrong about the DMR ,this proves it. All this does is make me go buy a M8. Of course i know better because I have been shooting digital since it first came out many years ago, issue is folks that don't know better listen to this crap. I see the M8 on the same level as the DMR if not better because Leica has improved since the introduction of the DMR and also has added some very innovative technologies. Opinions are one thing and everyone has one but a flawed opinion is just that flawed. Let's move on Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted September 17, 2006 Share #74 Posted September 17, 2006 Hi Ruben, I disagree that they were fair. The M8 picture of the dress wasn't even focused properly. Am I saying that the crop of the bodice is of an out-of-focus section? Yes, I am. Cheers, Sean Well, I mean his comments were "within specifications" He said 1) lenses outresolve the sensor, and this is true for all good lenses and actual sensors; 2) other cameras with more resolution and bigger sensors could provide more resolution (this is obvious, but I doubt the Canon 5D surpasses the DMR or the M8 in this field); 3) the camera has visible noise (chromatic, luminance?) at very high ISOs (1250, 2500), and this is not surprissing (most cameras have a lot of noise at 1600 or even 800); 4) the camera has more noise than the Canon 5D at high ISOs, which is not surprising, because Canon is the leader in low noise digital photography (but I will wait to the final version of the M8, and I expect little differences). There are many parameters of image quality, and image quality on paper, that were not addressed at all in this first part. I think the problem was not what he says, but how he said it. The firmware was not finished, this is the more obvious flaw and motive of criticism. Many people also detect a (bitter) bias in the way he conducted the analysis (Title: "A small step for mankind, but a big step for Leica"), and (maybe) several mistakes (use of JPGs, focus errors?...). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted September 17, 2006 Share #75 Posted September 17, 2006 I had the 5D and the DMR at the same time. The 5D is a nice camera for the price and let's just leave it there. there not even close in area's that count. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted September 17, 2006 Share #76 Posted September 17, 2006 I'd love to know who pays his bills... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted September 17, 2006 Share #77 Posted September 17, 2006 Well, I didn't find dramatic differences between the Canon 1Ds Mark II and the DMR (http://www.uned.es/personal/rosuna/resources/photography/LeicaDMR/El_modulo_digital_R_de_Leica.pdf). Then, a year later, I found this webpage with surprising comparison of cameras (Canon 5D and DMR) and lenses (Canon and Leica R): Fotografia amb Leica DMR Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrc Posted September 17, 2006 Share #78 Posted September 17, 2006 Ruben, Thanks for that website -- that's got some fascinating stuff. A question for you. Some of the language on the website didn't seem to be standard Spanish; some of the verb endings seemed almost more like Latin. Is there some Catlan in there? Michael Reichmann on Luminous Landscape has suggested several times that lenses DO make a difference on high-end cameras, while Puts' review says that sensors are not good enough to exploit the difference, say, between a Leica and a Canon zoom. This website would seem to come down on Reichmann's side of the question, but without any manufacturer partisanship involved. JC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted September 17, 2006 Share #79 Posted September 17, 2006 A question for you. Some of the language on the website didn't seem to be standard Spanish; some of the verb endings seemed almost more like Latin. Is there some Catlan in there? It is Catalan, a language derived from the Latin (like the Spanish, the French or the Italian). It is spoken in Cataluña, Valencia and Islas Baleares (the East, Mediterranean, regions of Spain). I cannot speak it, but is similar to Spanish or French. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrc Posted September 17, 2006 Share #80 Posted September 17, 2006 It is Catalan, a language derived from the Latin (like the Spanish, the French or the Italian). It is spoken in Cataluña, Valencia and Islas Baleares (the East, Mediterranean, regions of Spain). I cannot speak it, but is similar to Spanish or French. That's fascinating. I could almost read it. JC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.