More M8 Hands-On Impressions

[rvaubel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hey Folks

Over on the thread "first M8 shots" there was a Japanese site listed that allegedly had a couple M8 shots from the show. I downloaded them (full JPEGs) and they look crediable to me. EXIF file identifies camera as an M8 with Leica like ISO values (1200 and 160)

 

I'm no forgery expert, so take a look

 

Rex

 

The Japanese site is very active and I lost the reference. Luckly, I downloaded the two files, one at 160ISO and the other at 1200 ISO

I think these photos are real . The EXIF data identifies the camera as an M8, The lens as 21mm with a 2.8 maximum aperture.

 

The file is a huge, full blown JPEG so I can't post. But I will send it to whoever wants it. However, its off to work I go for now.

 

Rex

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[jrgeoffrion]

Sean, Guy:

can you give a typical example of a situation where you would need to change ISO quickly while shooting? like a few others, I rarely change ISO, so maybe I am missing something.

 

Here is another example that happens to me weekly.

 

I shot weddings around the country and most of my work is in Midwest. The Midwest churches being relatively dark, during the processional, a typical exposure is about 1/60s, f/2.8 at 1600 ISO. On the other hand, the altar is roughly 1 to 2 stops brighter.

 

Using the DMR, which is noisy at and above 800 ISO, I use the ISO to lower my exposure once the bride arrives at the altar since I'm at the limit of my image quality threshold when shooting the processional.

 

Hope this helps.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

I finally made my mind up after major mental debate . I am getting one. My wife is going to string me up.

[jrgeoffrion]

Now let me put my plug in for a Post processing section of this forum again. We have thousands and thousand of these hitting the market and many will be new to digital, lets face the facts film is great but it is a dying art and many will switch but don't have the knowledge to do it. there are many like myself that have been on this road awhile that can provide the knowledge to help them and getting help from shooters that been on this path for awhile is the quick learning curve they need to be looking at.

 

With the M8 attracting a lot of photographers from film to digital, I thought that to start the post-processing section, I would share my workflow I have developed over the last several years.

 

This workflow was developed over 6 years while using a Nikon D1x, a Canon 1Ds, two Canon 1D mkII, two Canon 1Ds mkII, and two D2x. I moved back to Leica when the DMR was finally made available.

 

JR's Workflow (PDF)

[sean_reid]

Hi,

 

There are three different ideas here that we should be careful not to conflate.

 

1) Using EV compensation to correct a camera's metering so as to give a desired "correct" exposure

 

2) Changing ISO to increase or decrease a camera's sensitivity.

 

3) Intentionally under-exposing with plans to boost levels during RAW conversion.

 

There has, in the past, been discussion on the forum that underexposing and pushing exposure back up in RAW conversion works as well as boosting ISO in-camera. As a rule, I don't find that to be the case.

 

To be continued, gotta run...sorry

 

S

 

OK....I'm back. Various people on this forum have experimented with, for example, shooting the D2 at ISO 100 or 200 (usually in JPEG mode for speed) and then boosting the files in post. I have not seen comparison files but some felt that gave a decent ISO 400-equiv. file.

 

In general, however, "pushing digital film" is certain not the same as raising ISO in the camera. Perhaps someone who's interested in this could do comparison tests with an M8 (won't be me) but the two are quite different and, I suspect, will yield very different results (esp. in the shadows).

 

So...the digital ISO control exists primarily to vary sensitivity when one has shutter speed and/or aperture needs. Otherwise, we'd just keep increasing the shutter time.

 

EV usually is used to tweak a camera's metering response in a given lighting condition, etc. It's true that it can also be used to force deliberate under-exposure but I think that's a less common use.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[kidigital]

Excellent link JR. JR has helped a lot of people on FM and other venues with color profiles and work flow. Take a look at his site to what a great eye and attention to post processing can accomplish.

 

Kurt

[steve_l]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On the D2, I found that you could get an equal quality one stop increase either by pushing the RAW or by going to ISO 200....but for a two stop increase, using one of each was better than choosing ISO 400....

 

I always ride my ISO setting, using the lowest ISO I can for the desired depth of field and motion stop speed.....it was harder on the 1D/1Ds, which (for compatiblity with film) required three hands to change the setting....press two buttons while turning a knob.

 

Why not use the lowest noise (grain) setting whenever you can? Unless you are doing grain as an effect....

[rvaubel]

.

Why not use the lowest noise (grain) setting whenever you can? Unless you are doing grain as an effect....

 

Sean

 

I don't really understand why you think the ISO setting is such a great control tool. There isn't that much range, 4 stops at best on my RD1. For all practical purpose, I use 200 for good lighting (lowest on the RD1) and 800 when the light isn't so good. The only time I use 1600 ISO is when I don't have any choice. Its true I do change the ISO frequently but I don't have to change it "one the fly" like I do the EV.

 

BTW, one form of exposure compensation that I find useful is to lock the shutter speed and then compensate by dialing in a +/- Fstop on the lens. I rarely need more than 1 stop so the DOF doesnt change much.

 

I find I use the actual EV control on the Epson as more of a general "push" on the exposure. I generally have it set for +1/3 or +2/3 on the Epson to "expose to the right". I fine tune from there with the shutter locked, and tweak the aperture a little bit.

 

Works for me, but we are all different. I will be trying using ISO more as a exposure variable. That is a new concept opened up by digital capture

 

Rex

[sean_reid]

Sean

 

I don't really understand why you think the ISO setting is such a great control tool.

Rex

 

Hi Rex,

 

Well, I've tried to give some examples here and I believe a couple others have as well. I'm not sure what else I can explain about this.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[rvaubel]

Hi Rex,

 

Well, I've tried to give some examples here and I believe a couple others have as well. I'm not sure what else I can explain about this.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

I get it (I think) theoritically but the range is so short and the effects on noise so great that from a practical point of view, maybe one stop.

However, I will try your technique. One things for sure, not being able to see the ISO at a glance is a bummer. Shooting at the wrong ISO is my weak spot.

 

Rex

[sean_reid]

I get it (I think) theoritically but the range is so short and the effects on noise so great that from a practical point of view, maybe one stop.

However, I will try your technique. One things for sure, not being able to see the ISO at a glance is a bummer. Shooting at the wrong ISO is my weak spot.

 

Rex

 

Hi Rex,

 

The tendency of several digital pros to use ISO as the third exposure variable is also the reason that we're seeing more and more pro cameras being sold with 1/3 stop ISO settings. If you set a ceiling ISO (say 800 for a given set of conditions) you may find yourself regularly bouncing between 800 and 400 as the subject lighting changes. I like B&W with the R-D1 all the way through 1600 so I'm often moving between 400 - 1600.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[mfunnell]

I've found I use the ISO control a lot, especially with a dSLR that allows 1/3rd stop ISO increments and easy adjustment (press button, adjust wheel with thumb, ISO display in viewfinder and on top LCD). Examples:

 

I've been enjoying "street" type photography, and have found that the period around dusk often produces interesting juxtapositions as the daytime crowd in the city changes over to the nighttime crowd. As the light changes, I adjust the ISO to keep reasonable shutter speeds for my chosen apertures. I also find that adjusting ISO when moving between indoor and outdoor locations is very worthwhile.

 

I also shoot a lot of wildlife photos (dSLR long lens territory) and find that means lots of dawn and dusk shooting, and also moving between light and shade in woodland areas. Adjusting ISO on-the-fly is very handy in these situations.

 

Finally, I recently shot at an Australian Rules football match in really nasty stormy conditions. I was constantly adjusting the ISO value to keep reasonable shutter speeds as the squalls moved through. (While hiding under an umbrella with a towel around camera and lens, occasionally peeking out to take a shot.)

 

In the few days I've had a rangefinder camera (I blame Sean Reid for "encouraging" me to do this, through the quality of his writing on the subject) I've already noticed (after a long absence) the first rule of film speed: whatever film is in your camera, its the wrong speed! I'm so habituated to using ISO as the '3rd control" now that I really notice its absence.

 

...Mike

[sean_reid]

In the few days I've had a rangefinder camera (I blame Sean Reid for "encouraging" me to do this, through the quality of his writing on the subject) I've already noticed (after a long absence) the first rule of film speed: whatever film is in your camera, its the wrong speed! I'm so habituated to using ISO as the '3rd control" now that I really notice its absence.

 

...Mike

 

Hi Mike,

 

Thanks for the comments on the articles. I have that same feeling when I shoot with a film camera now (which is very rare). Taking ISO away from me now is like taking away the shutter speed dial.

 

Welcome to the forum, BTW

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[rvaubel]

Hi Rex,

 

The tendency of several digital pros to use ISO as the third exposure variable is also the reason that we're seeing more and more pro cameras being sold with 1/3 stop ISO settings. If you set a ceiling ISO (say 800 for a given set of conditions) you may find yourself regularly bouncing between 800 and 400 as the subject lighting changes. I like B&W with the R-D1 all the way through 1600 so I'm often moving between 400 - 1600.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

Sean

I think I see what your getting at. I was thinking of ISO as a gross control rather than tweaking control. Shifting the ISO values 1/3 or 2/3 of a stop to push your exposure to the right, makes sense. But doesn't the Leica require full stop changes? I know my RD1 requires full stops.

 

I sure wish the M8 would display rhe ISO setting in the viewfinder. Or at least, always on, somewhere. At least the RD1 had it always displayed even though small and reto. I actually liked the click stops on the ISO as I could tell by feel where I was at. The same goes for the EV, shutter speed and aperture. I really like the ergometrics of the RD1. It will be a long time coming before someone gets it so close on the first try.

 

Rex

[mfunnell]

Welcome to the forum, BTW

Thanks. Some of your writings on rangefinders (and writing by Mike Johnston, Michael Reichmann and others) have convinced me that I ought to at least take a look at this type of camera, the differences from SLRs (digital or not) and see whether RF cameras suit me for some kinds of work - or not. A digital rangefinder seemed a step too far (on my budget) for what, so far, is an experiment. I picked up a 2nd-hand Hexar RF last Saturday, and am now feeling my way into things. I'll see how I go.

 

In the interim, though, I'd like to thank you for your writings on rangefinders, and all kinds of cameras, over the last little while. I've enjoyed them, and I've learned a lot from them.

 

...Mike

[dfarkas]

Sean,

 

I've been pretty busy with Photokina (and the detailed daily reports of it on my blog), so I just got a chance to read your comments tonight. You are certainly correct on the ISO setting - I was merely trying to simplify the action description once you are in the SET menu, since for me, this only took about 3 seconds once I did it a few times. And, yes, I agree with you that "eye-to-the-finder" is the natural position for most M shooters.

 

Personally, I try to be somewhat discreet and usually carry the M around my neck, lifting it to my eye when the moment strikes. In the several days I had the camera, I probably changed the ISO about 10 times total. Most everything was shot at 160, and was changed to 320 when the sun went down. That's the true beuaty of fast Summiluxes, a camera with no mirror, and a steady hand. Most night scenes were shot at ISO 320, f/1.4, between 1/30 and 1/60sec and they were certainly sharp enough for me.

 

I believe the reason camera companies give us choices is because everyone's style of shooing and subject matter is different. There is no perfect camera, lens, or even technique - just the right one for the individual photographer.

 

Thanks for reading my review of the M8. I have enjoyed your writings on Leica over the years, and appreciate your honest feedback. Hopefully, when I go to Wetzlar later in the week, I'll be able to get my hands back on an M8 and post some images from the camera.

 

Auf Wiedersehen

 

David

 

--

David Farkas

Dale Photo & Digital

Personal Photography Blog

[Guest guy_mancuso]

David call me when you get home. :D

 

Have a liter of beer for me also. LOL

[sean_reid]

Thanks. Some of your writings on rangefinders (and writing by Mike Johnston, Michael Reichmann and others) have convinced me that I ought to at least take a look at this type of camera, the differences from SLRs (digital or not) and see whether RF cameras suit me for some kinds of work - or not. A digital rangefinder seemed a step too far (on my budget) for what, so far, is an experiment. I picked up a 2nd-hand Hexar RF last Saturday, and am now feeling my way into things. I'll see how I go.

 

In the interim, though, I'd like to thank you for your writings on rangefinders, and all kinds of cameras, over the last little while. I've enjoyed them, and I've learned a lot from them.

 

...Mike

 

Thanks Mike. I think buying a film rangefinder to start was a really good idea. I recommend that to people all the time as a less expensive way to get a feel for RF photography. Michael is excited about the M8 and I expect he'll buy one.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[sean_reid]

Sean,

 

I've been pretty busy with Photokina (and the detailed daily reports of it on my blog), so I just got a chance to read your comments tonight. You are certainly correct on the ISO setting - I was merely trying to simplify the action description once you are in the SET menu, since for me, this only took about 3 seconds once I did it a few times. And, yes, I agree with you that "eye-to-the-finder" is the natural position for most M shooters.

 

Personally, I try to be somewhat discreet and usually carry the M around my neck, lifting it to my eye when the moment strikes. In the several days I had the camera, I probably changed the ISO about 10 times total. Most everything was shot at 160, and was changed to 320 when the sun went down. That's the true beuaty of fast Summiluxes, a camera with no mirror, and a steady hand. Most night scenes were shot at ISO 320, f/1.4, between 1/30 and 1/60sec and they were certainly sharp enough for me.

 

I believe the reason camera companies give us choices is because everyone's style of shooing and subject matter is different. There is no perfect camera, lens, or even technique - just the right one for the individual photographer.

 

Thanks for reading my review of the M8. I have enjoyed your writings on Leica over the years, and appreciate your honest feedback. Hopefully, when I go to Wetzlar later in the week, I'll be able to get my hands back on an M8 and post some images from the camera.

 

Auf Wiedersehen

 

David

 

--

David Farkas

Dale Photo & Digital

Personal Photography Blog

 

Hi David,

 

I certainly agreed with the rest of what you said in the review (aside from the digital controls) and I also really love the camera and felt very comfortable with it. The differences in working style really connect to the key idea in this thread which is: "What, for a given photographer, is the definition of essential controls"? One's take on the M8's digital controls will depend a lot on one's answer to that question. That said, I think there's really little downside for Leica in treating ISO and EV as essential controls (displaying their settings on the top LCD and making the controls for them as fast and simple as possible). Those who need that information/control can use it and those who don't can easily ignore it. I've made suggestions for firmware changes that should improve these controls and Leica has been receptive - so we'll see.

 

Meanwhile, I'm also looking forward to being able to publish on file quality esp. since there's so much misinformation circulating about that right now.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[marknorton]

Though, presumably Sean, any firmware changes can only affect the sequences used to change the ISO and EV, the display has only a 3 digit display for the frame counter and limited "character set", so couldn't be used to provide an option to the user such as "What do you want to display on the top panel, memory, ISO or EV?".