bebert Posted August 10, 2008 Share #1 Posted August 10, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hello every one, Just a basic question (I am not an engineer, but read with a lot of interest about the debates which relate to 8-bit vs. 16-bit, CCD vs. CMOS, etc...): if I compare pics taken with an M8 and other cameras with comparable capacities (such as D3, D200), I must admit (even on the screen but mostly when printed on A4/A3 papers), that each time, pics from the M8 look "less digital" than with other high end digital cameras: a portrait with the M8 seems each time less flat (I would say more natural with less treatment). Same when I ask friends who have a photograph feeling in front of prints taken with the M8 and others shooted with a D3. Just a question, but would the CCD sensor not be the cause for that? I understand that this type of sensor requires less electronic treatment. Bebert Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 10, 2008 Posted August 10, 2008 Hi bebert, Take a look here Why looks M8 pics less digital than competitors?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest stnami Posted August 10, 2008 Share #2 Posted August 10, 2008 If stuff wasn't digital your screen would be blank ..................how can it be less digital on a screen it's all digital! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chocy0924 Posted August 10, 2008 Share #3 Posted August 10, 2008 Bebert is saying it looks less digital. And I agree. I had 4 Canon digital Bodies and M8 and M8 print especially always have that small uump. Is it the extra texture? Is it the vivid color? I donno but I LIKE IT!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sm23221 Posted August 10, 2008 Share #4 Posted August 10, 2008 I'll try to give you an intelligent answer rather than a derogatory remark. I believe the "look" has to do with the system as a whole that includes the lens, sensor and electronics. I hope that helps. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amoment Posted August 10, 2008 Share #5 Posted August 10, 2008 That's what your paying for. Good isn't it. Stuart Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitnaros Posted August 10, 2008 Share #6 Posted August 10, 2008 Bebert, Most people who claim a "less digital" look probably just try to justify their $10k investment into Leica M gear. Frankly, I often see images where people claim "ah, that Leica look or glow", and its a mediocre shot of their cat or flower pot. Here is my speculation: Leica M8 images exhibit: More noise, very good sharpness, and potentially shallow DOF if you use large apertures. The combo noise/sharpness provides definitely good texture. Shallow DOF allows you to differentiate from point-n-shoots. I can't see anything special on the color side; I was actually wrestling for quite a while to get good color (despite custom whitebalance, color-managed screen and printer etc.), particularly with incandescent light. Peter Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted August 10, 2008 Share #7 Posted August 10, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) The scientific answer is here Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted August 10, 2008 Share #8 Posted August 10, 2008 It is not just marketing! Yes, it is a combination of sharpness and noise. I admit that the M8 is noisy in the shadows. However, that noise looks very film-like compared to other digital cameras, especially smaller sensor ones. The absence of noise in some of the new DSLRs gives some images a plastic look that is smoother than what we were used to from negative and even slide films. I used to shoot with a Canon 5d and felt a strong need to add grain using the Alienskin Exposure Plugin. I still use this technique when printing from the M8 files. Our eye perceives this texture positively and it adds to the tonal transitions as an abstraction from reality. It is the same reason why we perceive such beauty in viewing masterful paintings in a museum, where you can see the texture of the brush strokes. I don't care whether people agree with me or not, but I find it incredibly rude of some people to answer a serious question from a fellow forum member in such condescending ways. If you don't have anything to say, why don't you just not post. Another way of saying that you don't think the M8 prints are better is to just say that the M8 is a grainier camera, but there is definitely a difference. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert4321 Posted August 10, 2008 Share #9 Posted August 10, 2008 I think it may be because the M8 has no AA filter, which make the images look less plastic comparing to some other dSLRs have strong AA filter. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chocy0924 Posted August 10, 2008 Share #10 Posted August 10, 2008 Well, when you use everything the same (ie, monitor, RAW converter, Printer) and just the camera and lens are different (Canon with L primes, vs, M8 with other lenses) It really isn't just the system. I am not saying M8 is better (film like doesn't mean better) but the file does react more like film's characteristics. Yes It can mean the software or image processing of Leica rather than the sensor. But Does that matter? I think not. I know I like (not because of the price) what I get out of M8 and I know it is clearly different than my lost 5D (sometimes I do prefer 5D and miss it) I wouldn't easily mark it off as coming from a marketing sucker... Scientific?? Aren't we photographers? As an artist, what you like better is better. Simple as that. And yes you can like anything Canon, Nikon, Sony or whatever. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotomiguel Posted August 10, 2008 Share #11 Posted August 10, 2008 I agree. My leica m8 files look less less digital than my nikon D300 files. Editing the files is more easy and natural. 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! Quote 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/59916-why-looks-m8-pics-less-digital-than-competitors/?do=findComment&comment=625005'>More sharing options...
plasticman Posted August 10, 2008 Share #12 Posted August 10, 2008 I don't care whether people agree with me or not, but I find it incredibly rude of some people to answer a serious question from a fellow forum member in such condescending ways. If you don't have anything to say, why don't you just not post. Another way of saying that you don't think the M8 prints are better is to just say that the M8 is a grainier camera, but there is definitely a difference. For goodness sake you people have absolutely no sense of humor whatsoever, have you? Get off your high horses for once. Incidentally, fyi the scientific study I quoted was not simply about 'marketing' - the study seriously examined the relationship of value-perception and the excitation of pleasure areas in the brain. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 10, 2008 Share #13 Posted August 10, 2008 Why looks M8 pics less digital than competitors? Why do M8 pics look more digital than it's sole competitor's? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isabelle Lenatio Posted August 10, 2008 Share #14 Posted August 10, 2008 ... It doesn't, depending on what you consider competition..... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted August 10, 2008 Share #15 Posted August 10, 2008 Editing the files is more easy and natural what's the more natural part of the process? BerndReini ? By the way my cat looks more dog like than your dog looks like a dog.......... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted August 10, 2008 Share #16 Posted August 10, 2008 Some of my images from the M8 please me. Some of my images from Canon 5D or 1D2 or 40D please me. I've just submitted photos for the UK National Portrait Gallery competition - one was with the 5D + 85 1.2 L, the other was with the M8 + 35 Cron Mk IV. Neither looked plastic. There's also the reality that of 2745 images in my 2008_04 to 2008_08 Lightroom catalog 1259 were taken with M8 bodies, 1116 were taken with Canon 5D and usually with the 85 or 70-200 L lenses, 338 were taken with 40D (all 70-200) and 32 were taken with the Ricoh GRD 2. Just back from a day at the coast. The camera I carried? The M8. Next week involved in a documentary project of men in their 60s. What will I carry? The M8. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackal Posted August 10, 2008 Share #17 Posted August 10, 2008 teh whole non-digital thing is all to do with Leica glass and the way it works I'm no technical expert but I think you'll find that Leica achieves its look and its sharpness though a different methodology than say Canon or nikon. Leica glass produces sharp images for sure, but that sharpness is acheived though high microcontrast traded in exchange for a slight loss in resolution. If you look closely the actual detail borders and tones are soft... so leica glass always has that soft yet sharp rendition to it and I think its this quality that is a major factor to the non-digital look.... that and the fact that they are often used in available light and wide open which will give abscence of field thus amplifying the 3d/filmic look. In addition, the 3d look is further enhanced by Leicas design principles of microcontrast/macrocontrast. Again I'm no expert but I remember reading lots of stuff about this some time ago so well worth looking it up if you're interested. I've never owned canon L glass but have owned some of the best lenses Nikon have ever made and whilst they are very sharp lenses, they are also very harsh and do not have the smooth softness that leica glass has whilst retaning the detail. The macrocontrast can also be way OTT. The nikon shots are brutally sharp and crisp ... fine on film but transfer that to the already harsh linear environment of digital and it all starts to look a bit ugly. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
offshore Posted August 10, 2008 Share #18 Posted August 10, 2008 My SWAG on it is fewer and thinner filters over the sensor and the relation of the rear element to the sensor requiring less in camera processing than other brands. A typical AA and IR filter soften an image which has to have a good processor to sharpen and color correct it that is why you do not see Leica ads touting their processor and all the DSLR manufacturers making sure that they announce their new processor technology with every new camera. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
microview Posted August 10, 2008 Share #19 Posted August 10, 2008 [quote name=and its a mediocre shot of their cat or flower pot. [/quote] Or both...... 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! Quote 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/59916-why-looks-m8-pics-less-digital-than-competitors/?do=findComment&comment=625320'>More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted August 11, 2008 Share #20 Posted August 11, 2008 Fantastic shot what film did you use Tri-X, perhaps?............. very film like, was the camera a IIIDF red(digital) Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.