Well, it might interest some...

[sean_reid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I agree, fully agree actually .... the M8 is good, I enjoy it, I enjoy using it and I like the images it produces. There are better alternatives this is why overall the M8 is rated lower than most modern day cameras, I can live with that it's just the fact of turning the bottom stone upward to try and argue the opposite and this with arguments which might appeal to wall and newspaper photographing enthusiasts, but which actually have very little to do with actual photography, as in taking, pictures. And these specs are not the absolute reason for these discussions are they now..... take the human psyche into account, as you as a clever man will well know, and you will find these arguments tending to "defend" as opposed to "add". This is actually what I dislike about this whole discussion. It's not only this thread but any criticism on any Leica part or piece will at one point amount to lengthy and boring posts such as this one will undoubtedly turn into.

Why not just admit that the M8 is not as good as x, y or z, because it isn't but admit to the fact that you enjoy using it and that is the sole reason for spending/wasting your money .... I can easily admit that.... but all of this is probably a "man" thing!

 

don't get pee'ed off with me Sean I'm sure you know what I mean even if I am not able to communicate it well enough. ;-)

 

I'm not sure which part of thread is creating this reaction in you. I don't see much of an attack on, or defense of, Leica in this thread by maybe I'm focusing on different posts. The interesting part to me is the discussion of lens contrast and that isn't specific to the M8 or DXO. In any case, if you don't like the thread, you may want to skip it.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[Advertisement]

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

[stunsworth]

There are better alternatives this is why overall the M8 is rated lower than most modern day cameras...

 

With all due respect, that is a matter of opinion not fact. As someone who owns both an M8 and a Canon 5D I _much_ prefer the M8. Your opinion may of course be different, but it's just that, your opinion and you are entitled to it.

[Isabelle Lenatio]

With all due respect, that is a matter of opinion not fact. As someone who owns both an M8 and a Canon 5D I _much_ prefer the M8. Your opinion may of course be different, but it's just that, your opinion and you are entitled to it.

 

Steve, I know nothing about the 5D but the D700 is definitely "larger"

 

I tested the d700 with a 50mm sigma 1.4 and the results are very good, at fist glance on screen and of course on prints.

[pklein]

This is all very interesting. DXO's numbers have their place--as long as we realize that they are technical measurements of sensor performance. They may or may not translate directly into how pleasing a picture each camera will take under a given set of circumstances. For that, follow Tina's advice. Then see how good pictures taken with the tested cameras look to you, and compare your impressions with the numbers.

 

I would be very interested in DXO publishing these same tests using some commonly-used films, scanned at 4000 dpi. Velvia, Provia, T400CN, Tri-X, T-Max 100 and 400, Portra, etc. I would not worship these numbers or use them to prove that everyone else on the Internet was wrong . But it might be useful to compare them to some of my old film shots and my newer digital shots.

 

--Peter

[pgk]

There are better alternatives this is why overall the M8 is rated lower than most modern day cameras,

 

Why not just admit that the M8 is not as good as x, y or z, because it isn't but admit to the fact that you enjoy using it and that is the sole reason for spending/wasting your money .... I can easily admit that.... but all of this is probably a "man" thing!

 

We have two problems here. Firstly no-one has as yet here (or in any other forum) ever managed to define 'better' probably because whilst it is possible to evaluate sensor performance, the sensor is only a part of the photographic package (if it wasn't I assume that we'd all aspire to using the largest viable sensor available?) and so there are many parameters to evaluate rather than just one.

 

Secondly, the enjoyment factor - surely not as basically sexist as you suggest???! Yes I enjoy using my M8, but then I also enjoy my Canons - but I do use them for different purposes and often shoot material on one which I would not shoot on the other. It would be nice to think that people could simply accept 'difference' but apparently not...

 

Now discussing the effects of flare (strong or subtle) and contrast on an image is IMHO far more interesting and should be encouraged.

[peterv]

A thought experiment

 

Take a subject that shows zone 0 through zone 10

Take a camera-lens combination that renders the chart in exactly those zones. Assume it will have 100% noise in zone 0 and 0% noise in zone 10, thuse 18% noise in zone 5.

 

Replace the lens by a lens that shows no contrast.

The whole image will be exposed in zone 5 with 18% noise. Now take the part of the image that should be in zone 0 down to that zone 0 in postprocessing. It will have 18% noise instead of 100% noise.

 

For those puzzled... zone 0 is absolute black, zone 10 is absolute white and zone 5 is 18% middle gray.

 

Hi Jaap,

 

Shouldn't noise in your explanation be replaced by signal?

 

Noise is what shows up when you underexpose the signal.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Noise is a random signal that contaminates the (organized ) signal and shows up as soon as the signal/noise ratio passes the threshold of perception.

[AlanG]

...I would be very interested in DXO publishing these same tests using some commonly-used films, scanned at 4000 dpi. Velvia, Provia, T400CN, Tri-X, T-Max 100 and 400, Portra, etc. I would not worship these numbers or use them to prove that everyone else on the Internet was wrong . But it might be useful to compare them to some of my old film shots and my newer digital shots.

 

--Peter

 

I am not sure where you are going as testing film and scanning is not really their market. I think there were a lot of these kinds of comparison made in the past. DXO Optics (the raw conversions software) does have an optional feature (DXO Film Pack) that lets you simulate the grain and look from many types of films. DXO can even simulate cross processing. And it can be set to simulate any format from 35 to large format or custom looks. So DXO clearly has analyzed a lot of film.

 

Additionally, DXO has routines to make one camera simulate the look of another camera, so in my opinion, they clearly know what each camera is doing.

 

This is really a digression but here are some screen shots of the DXO controls from version 4 along with an example of a shot I made in Venice. (There is a newer version of DXO now.) I used a tiny p&s camera and added high speed grain to get sort of pointillist effect. The 24x36 inch print on canvas is stunning and a real departure from my usual style. It is kind of hard to judge the look on the screen. By the way, even though the M8 is not supported by DXO's raw processing, you can apply a lot of these effects to tifs and jpegs. (I used the camera's jpeg for this sample.)

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!

[sean_reid]

This is really a digression but here are some screen shots of the DXO controls from version 4 along with an example of a shot I made in Venice. (There is a newer version of DXO now.) I used a tiny p&s camera and added high speed grain to get sort of pointillist effect. The 24x36 inch print on canvas is stunning and a real departure from my usual style. It is kind of hard to judge the look on the screen. By the way, even though the M8 is not supported by DXo's raw processing, you can apply a lot of these effects to tifs and jpegs. (I used the camera's jpeg for this sample.)

 

 

That's a great way to use that color noise Alan. I have a good friend who does the same.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[Tina Manley]

Why not just admit that the M8 is not as good as x, y or z, because it isn't but admit to the fact that you enjoy using it and that is the sole reason for spending/wasting your money .... I can easily admit that.... but all of this is probably a "man" thing!

 

Well, I disagree that the M8 is not as good as x, y or z. For me and my kind of photography, the M8 is the best choice - in fact, the only choice. And, no, I don't think it is a "man" thing.

 

Tina

Tina Manley- powered by SmugMug

[peterv]

Noise is a random signal that contaminates the (organized ) signal and shows up as soon as the signal/noise ratio passes the threshold of perception.

 

I know that, that's why I .. Oh never mind

[lct]

Sure, I have several CZ lenses I use on the Canons and (as you may not know) I've tested R lenses on EOS bodies. But one loses auto-aperture stop down which is very important feature. The new ZE lenses are fully compatible...

Sure but those Zeiss lenses are very contrasty i guess no? Using R lenses manually from f/1.4 to f/4 is not a problem for me. Slower apertures will be for the R10 hopefully.

[mjh]

mostly when people talk about low contrast lenses, they actually mean lower contrast at high spatial frequencies - contrast is reduced in fine details, but not if you have large features. So a big black patch will typically remain a big black patch.

When you have below average contrast at high spatial frequencies but adequate contrast at lower frequencies, this makes for a slightly unsharp lens that still delivers good overall contrast (which might actually be acceptable if it is confined to the corners of the image).

 

What I define as a soft lens, on the other hand, would be a lens that delivered low contrast levels at low spatial frequencies without completely sacrificing contrast at high frequencies – i.e. your typical soft-focus portrait lens with under-corrected spherical aberration.

[barjohn]

In any system or system of systems it will never be better than the weakest link. Therefore if sensor performance is the weakest link on the M8, then it won't matter how strong the other system elements are, they cannot overcome the weakest one. As I see it the measure is a composite of various measures and if one only looked for performance below ISO 640 one might argue that the relative differences are either not perceptible or that other system factors such as the lens on other cameras might be the weaker link. The DXO database doesn't give us the kind of information needed to make that judgement. It does give what appears to be a balanced overall objective measure giving equal weight to shooting at high ISO as to shooting at low ISO but if your usage is heavily weighted in one direction or the other it tips the scale differently. If you are always shooting with great lighting like a studio then high ISO performance really isn't a factor. On the other hand if you are shooting in a nightclub or stage performes with difficult lighting and lots of movement you need the high ISO performance to keep the shutter speed up and you might want more depth of field to keep the subject in focus while moving.

[Guest stnami]

Lower contrast lenses have become my preference, mainly as here in Oz the light is harsh as buggery and that doesn't go well and good with highlights. High contrast lenses reduce your chances to PP an image (well in my way of doing stuff) and tend to dictate the path the result more so than their lower contrast cousins.

I ended up with a bunch of old canon lenses and some older screwed up leica lenses. These seem to give me the best starting point for my stuff, the VCs were great but just had too much bite, plus there are other ways of adding bite to images.

This all brings me to my reluctance to go to all things canon despite that they make superb cameras, which is a pity .......... no matter film converted to digital has its rewards as well

[sean_reid]

Lower contrast lenses have become my preference, mainly as here in Oz the light is harsh as buggery and that doesn't go well and good with highlights. High contrast lenses reduce your chances to PP an image (well in my way of doing stuff) and tend to dictate the path the result more so than their lower contrast cousins.

I ended up with a bunch of old canon lenses and some older screwed up leica lenses. These seem to give me the best starting point for my stuff, the VCs were great but just had too much bite, plus there are other ways of adding bite to images.

This all brings me to my reluctance to go to all things canon despite that they make superb cameras, which is a pity .......... no matter film converted to digital has its rewards as well

 

Hi Imants,

 

That's an interesting point about opening up the path options.

 

If you decide to add a DSLR to the R-D1 kit, you might want to think about either one of the Pentax bodies or one of the Nikon bodies that works with MF lenses. As I'm sure you know, there are lots of older and lower contrast lenses available for those two systems. And a lot of those lenses are pretty inexpensive as well.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[Guest stnami]

What a staring point does is give a sense of balance to one's thinking as well as takeing a heap of technical considerations out the process as you know where you stand. But this only means something to the PP mob

 

I suppose for some a service that analysed ones particular camera and the lenses they use would be usefull to some. Say drop your camera and lenses in and come back in a day or so and get the results.

[pgk]

This all brings me to my reluctance to go to all things canon despite that they make superb cameras, which is a pity ..........

 

Stnami

 

Depending on your way of doing things have you considered using older R lenses on a newer Canon body? Admittedly, manual focus and aperture control are not viable for everything but if this isn't a problem then there are many older R lenses which are available at prices even below Canon lenses (especially 1 or 2 cam in less than mint condition). I have an older 19mm R which is of decidedly lower contrast than my Canons (and a bit flarey too). Adapters are quite cheap now.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[tomasis7]

Stnami

 

Depending on your way of doing things have you considered using older R lenses on a newer Canon body? Admittedly, manual focus and aperture control are not viable for everything but if this isn't a problem then there are many older R lenses which are available at prices even below Canon lenses (especially 1 or 2 cam in less than mint condition). I have an older 19mm R which is of decidedly lower contrast than my Canons (and a bit flarey too). Adapters are quite cheap now.

 

if one affords to purchase two systems, why not.

 

I rather live with crappy 6mpx RF than have a 100mpx DLSR with world's best lenses

 

Long live RF, rd1, m8!

[sandymc]

When you have below average contrast at high spatial frequencies but adequate contrast at lower frequencies, this makes for a slightly unsharp lens that still delivers good overall contrast (which might actually be acceptable if it is confined to the corners of the image).

 

What I define as a soft lens, on the other hand, would be a lens that delivered low contrast levels at low spatial frequencies without completely sacrificing contrast at high frequencies – i.e. your typical soft-focus portrait lens with under-corrected spherical aberration.

 

Michael,

 

Yes, I'd agree with that - I think that most of the Leica lenses referred to as "low contrast" fall into the first category rather than the "soft" category.

 

Sandy