M8 Iraq field test - ouch...

[Vieri]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Back to the topic at hand - what are his points actually?

 

...

 

Low light capability - I agree that a higher ISO would be nice but ISO 2500 is useable if neccesary (esp. B&W), no fast & wide lens OK we need one. The 28 cron is fast and wide but not wide enough for some.

 

The 28 mm becomes a ~38 mm FOV equivalent on the M8, at f2. He uses the Canon 24 mm f1.4, 14 mm wider & quite faster. On the M8, the 28 is IMHO something between a moderate wide and a standard lens, while the 24 Canon is a very fast WA on the 5D. I can see how he feels about the difference.

 

I am not a Canon user, on the side of my Leicas I use Nikon gear, and until the D3 I was very bothered by the lack of a fast wide. Now, my 17-35 f2.8 just became wide again, and fast enough for the focal (17 mm f2.8 is ok by me), but with my D2x the 12-24 f4, though a good lens, was nothing spectacular (18-36 @ f4 vs. 17-35 @ f2.8, or 14-24 @ f2.8 with the new WA zoom). We definitely need a faster wide for the M8.

[SJP]

Agree, but whatever Leica comes up with to meet the demand, there will still be a an urgent need for noctilux (f/1) or faster across the board of focal lengths (135 f/1 sounds fun!, 90 f/1 was already made by Elcan so that one is easy). All less than $1000 of course. We will not stop complaining until that day.

[Vieri]

Agree, but whatever Leica comes up with to meet the demand, there will still be a an urgent need for noctilux (f/1) or faster across the board of focal lengths (135 f/1 sounds fun!, 90 f/1 was already made by Elcan so that one is easy). All less than $1000 of course. We will not stop complaining until that day.

 

indeed, do you think the 1/135 would at all block any percentage of the rangefinder? I think we might hope for a 2/24, or even for a 1.4/24 & 2/21, but that would hardly satisfy the user base with a 1.33x sensor & would be definitely a couple bucks over your set 1.000 US price mark.

 

To get back to where we were on a film M from the 2/35 mm down, we'd need:

 

- 2/24;

- 1.4/24;

- 2/21;

- 2.8/18;

- 2.8/15.5;

- 4/10.5 (to match the WATE used on a film camera);

 

but then again, if Leica will make these 35 mm compatible as they should, rather than 1.33x only, we'd need a 2/18, 1.4/18 to match the new 24s; a 2.8/12 to match the new 2.8/18, & a 2.8/10 for the 2.8/15.5... LOL we are on a never ending development pattern! Now, that should be fun to see

[SJP]

the 4/10.5 is obviously much too slow. Bad idea.

OTOH if you can also use it on a film M then than means we also need a 4/7.1 mm (and so ad infinium) :D

 

EDIT: oops as you point out it is even more complicated I had overlooked that, and I forgot to mention we need a 21-24-28-35-50-75-90-135 f/2 octocron

[sealsong]

Not sure if this has already been posted.

 

Leica M8 Field Test, Iraq

 

 

A field review by Michael Kamber.

 

Here is his site.

 

Michael Kamber Photojournalist

 

 

I hope Leica reads this.

 

Whilst he has a point, I honestly don't understand why he just doesn't use a D3 or some other all singing, all dancing DSLR which would give him all the things he needs instead of just bitching about what the M8 doesn't do! It really is that simple, stop comparing the M8 to other cameras because that's just not what it's about. Get over it's shortcomings and move on!

-charlie

[bill]

Welcome, Charlie. Nice to see you posting here. Hope you will share some of your M8 experience and images with us.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I do pics for my job on tankers, dry docks and the like, quite rarely in war zones fortunately, but i need reliable cameras anyway and i would never take an M8 (or a R-D1) for fear of losing pics i must say. Now if i did otherwise i would not loose my time and that of my readers by explaining how stupid i am to have taken the wrong camera.

[AlanG]

...Now if i did otherwise i would not loose my time and that of my readers by explaining how stupid i am to have taken the wrong camera.

 

He wasn't stupid - He was cautious as he did have other cameras with him so that he didn't have to depend on the M8.

 

Why should anyone think it was the wrong camera?

 

From Leica's web site regarding the Ms and M8:

 

"Stripped to absolute functionality. Every component engineered to perform with ultimate reliability."

 

"For Leica, image quality is not only a byword, but a value attained by optimising all the links in the performance chain:"

 

"Concentration on the exposure. Not on the controls.

 

A lot of care, many years of experience and extensive knowledge about how photographers work have gone into the operational concept of the M8."

 

"But what if your camera's action is less than precise, less than perfectly responsive? The consequence could be profound, too.

The moment could escape."

 

"Think scalpel. Evolved for a single purpose, constructed using the most advanced metalurgy, built as if life depended on its performance."

[ho_co]

The 28 mm becomes a ~38 mm FOV equivalent on the M8, at f2.

Remember to apply the M8's 4/3 crop factor to aperture as well: Image performance (i.e. field of view and depth of field, not exposure) of a 28/2 on M8 is the same as that of a 37/2.7 on full frame. Depth of field is greater with cropped sensor than on FF.

 

 

 

To get back to where we were on a film M from the 2/35 mm down, we'd need:

...

- 4/10.5 (to match the WATE used on a film camera);

?? You're trying to sneak something in here, Vieri !! 10.5 * 4/3 = 14mm.

 

CV already has a 12mm f/4.5, which covers the same fov on the M8 as a 16mm on FF.

[charlesphoto99]

Whilst he has a point, I honestly don't understand why he just doesn't use a D3 or some other all singing, all dancing DSLR which would give him all the things he needs instead of just bitching about what the M8 doesn't do! It really is that simple, stop comparing the M8 to other cameras because that's just not what it's about. Get over it's shortcomings and move on!

-charlie

 

Because he already shot film M's and owns the lenses. I don't think he was comparing at all, except maybe his long time experience with film Ms. There are things we dislike about every camera - these are the ones about the M8. Ultimately I would love to use my M8 for everything, as I did my M7. But I don't because it's just too damn unreliable, and all of the other things he said (poor framing, shutter needs double push to come on -yes, I've missed shots, weak jpeg buffer performance, and so on). So it's become a wonderful, very expensive p&s for me. I love it for that.

 

Okay, maybe the image example of crop vs FF was a bit unfair, but there are a lot of digital shooters out there (Canon mostly) who have never used a cropped sensor before so it's something new to get their heads around. Those of us migrating from Nikon DX not such a big deal.

 

I've also pointed out on another forum this review was aimed at other working pj's and not rich gearheads shooting their family cat, flowers, hotel lobbies, car shows etc etc. Big difference in needs. One person suggested if he was going to shoot with an M8 he should have three of them! What, on a NYTimes pj pay!!!???

 

So it's a perfectly fine camera for 75% of the people that can afford it (and the lenses) and for 75% of most uses. It's that other hard 25% of usage that Leica failed to speak to, and unfortunately it's that 25% that could use it the most. I would say that a large portion of the pics I see taken on this forum could have been just as easily been made (and probably sometimes better) with a dslr or even a p&s.

 

But in a war zone it's portability and stealth one needs the most and the M8 should be perfect for that. According to Mr Kamber, it's not and I tend to agree with him. It's too bad because I think with an extra bit of effort on Leica's part they could have brought out the perfect camera. Maybe have given a couple of early r&d models to some pj's in Iraq instead of just doodling about the German countryside with them. That would have been some true feedback. More and more I see where Leica's head is at and I truly hope they pull it out soon.

[Vieri]

Remember to apply the M8's 4/3 crop factor to aperture as well: Image performance (i.e. field of view and depth of field, not exposure) of a 28/2 on M8 is the same as that of a 37/2.7 on full frame. Depth of field is greater with cropped sensor than on FF.

 

 

 

 

?? You're trying to sneak something in here, Vieri !! 10.5 * 4/3 = 14mm.

 

CV already has a 12mm f/4.5, which covers the same fov on the M8 as a 16mm on FF.

 

Depth of FIeld is greater, but speed is not - especially considering the average performance of the Kodak sensor in low light; we need speed not just for shallow DOF, but also for shooting in low light...

 

Indeed, sorry about the wrong math A propos, just to be precise, CV has a 12 mm f 5.6, not f 4.5. It has, though, a 15 mm f4.5... anyway, we are talking Leica lens here, I deliberately omitted all Zeiss, CV, Konica, FSU offers from my list (2.8/15, for instance).

[ho_co]

Depth of FIeld is greater, but speed is not - especially considering the average performance of the Kodak sensor in low light; we need speed not just for shallow DOF, but also for shooting in low light...

My point exactly. The 28/2 behaves like a 37/2.7 as far as the image goes, but its speed remains f/2 for exposure purposes.

 

... A propos, just to be precise, CV has a 12 mm f 5.6, not f 4.5. ... anyway, we are talking Leica lens here, I deliberately omitted all Zeiss, CV, Konica, FSU offers from my list (2.8/15, for instance).

Understood.

 

And you're right, I inadvertently gave the CV 12mm a speed boost. Pure wishful thinking.

[sbelyaev]

Do you think that the author of the article is using M8 as a tool in brining your/community attention to his website/photography?

[luigi bertolotti]

Do you think that the author of the article is using M8 as a tool in brining your/community attention to his website/photography?

 

No, I do not think so... from his bio, he seems to be a freelance with good editorial customers... don't see the will to bring the attention of private individuals to him.

For me, his review proves a pair of things of which, personally, I was already considering by myself:

1) M8 is not, today, a camera for hard environments.

2) For many pro users, it cannot be their principal tool

But we must also consider, also, that the pro community has not been a specific target for Leica with the introduction of M8: is a market that I do not know if Leica will try to attack with some future products... a very difficult task. By the other side, regarding super harsh photo environments, many pros still continue to take with them some mechnaical M body as a sort of ultimate backup (or, even a Nikon F, probably).

[plasticman]

Do you think that the author of the article is using M8 as a tool in brining your/community attention to his website/photography?

 

Yes this was probably the reason - he got tired of being nominated for Pulitzer prizes, and decided what he really needed in life was being excoriated by members of this forum.

[SJP]

If he wanted to draw attention to his inability to review camera's then he has succeeded admirably. Clearly some of the points he raises are valid and others are not. No doubt 99.8% of internet will take all of his remarks at face value which is a real shame, both for Leica and for the potential customers which may decide not to buy one based on this. Both deserve better.

 

His photos are impressive enough that much is clear. So .... no I do not think he wanted to draw attention to him/his website by posting this review.

[Vieri]

My point exactly. The 28/2 behaves like a 37/2.7 as far as the image goes, but its speed remains f/2 for exposure purposes.

 

Indeed - which, still leaves us without fast Leica wide lens under 37 FOV equivalent, on the M8... I hope Photokina will fix this, at least some of it.

[SJP]

28/2 on sensor (COC = 20 micron), 5m, Depth of Field = 3.96 - 6.77

37/2.7 on film (COC = 31 micron), 5m, DoF = 3.82 - 7.23

 

So I do not agree 37/2.7 is too small an aperture.

 

The equivalent on film is: 37/2.28, (COC = 31 micron), 5m, DoF = 3.97 - 6.77

 

So.... yes you do lose some DOF if you consider the same frame/perspective as the governing principle. But even this is not clear cut or unambiguous, if you take crop as 'cutting the edge off the picture' then the M8 has a shallower DoF with the same 28/2 lens (28/2 on film, COC = 31, 5m, DoF = 3.56 - 8.40) to get the same DoF as with the sensor you would need a 28/1.2 (i.e. from the DoF point of view on the M8 a cron is better than a lux is on film).

 

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

[ho_co]

Yes this was probably the reason - he got tired of being nominated for Pulitzer prizes, and decided what he really needed in life was being excoriated by members of this forum.

<g>

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[ho_co]

Stephen, if you're addressing me, I'm not sure where you're coming from, and I'm not disagreeing. I agree that Leica needs some faster wide angles. And I was off base, thinking Kamber was using the 28 instead of the 21. Just not paying attention.

 

Leica lens designer Peter Karbe is the first one I know of who pointed out the need of multiplying both aperture and focal length by the crop factor when comparing lenses on different size imaging elements. His presentation was described in LFI 3/2006, pp 43-47.

 

The idea has since been accepted as a given in such places as Luminous landscape, and I don't believe it has been contradicted, though Rubén Osuna and Efraín García presented a lot of new considerations on the topic at Do Sensors "Outresolve" Lenses?.

 

 

As you said above (http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/55821-m8-iraq-field-test-ouch-12.html#post583380), Kamber is comparing apples and oranges, but what he's saying is real enough:

 

Kamber's example comparing the 24 Canon with the 21 Elmarit is a good illustration of a difference of focal length as well as DoF. Notice that his perspective is different with the wider 24mm. It's a faster lens shot from closer to the subject. To get the same perspective (i.e. shoot from the same distance) with the M8 he'd have had to use the 18mm WATE, which would still have had greater depth of field because Leica's 18 is f/4. Kamber knows what he likes and the M8 didn't deliver it, but in this case his explanation implies that he hasn't recognized all the technical issues involved. (Here we're comparing the DoF of a 24/1.4 with that of a 24/5.3 equivalent. In Kamber's example, he's comparing the DoF of a 24/1.4 with that of a 28/3.7 equivalent, which he's necessarily shooting from a greater distance with different perspective, greater DoF and a less pleasing image.)

 

That is 'apples and oranges' because he's comparing images shot with two different focal length equivalents. But from his point of view, the fact is that the Leica couldn't deliver the picture he wanted, because he didn't have (and Leica doesn't have) the fast wide angles that would put them back in the ball game. And that's back to your point.