Thinking about getting an M8 - need information

[herbet]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've been thinking about getting rid of my D700 and lens in order to get an M8. I currently have an MP with a summicron 35 ASPH and a summilux 50 pre-ASPH. I love the D700 but due to size, it usually stays home and lately I've come to the realization that I enjoy my rangefinder more than any other camera (even the almost flawless d700). consolidating in 2 Leica bodies (M8 + MP) with a set of lens would not only make economical sense but also allow me to really concentrate in developing my technique with one single system. before I make the move though I'd like some input in how much post processing is needed for the M8 images. do images such as these come straight out of the camera or require a fair amount of post-processing TAKAHASHI-DESIGN/BLOG: 63 LEICA M8 ƒA[ƒJƒCƒu

[jaapv]

ANY digital capture needs digital postprocessing to get the maximum result, just as ANY analog negative needs darkroomwork - and even slides to get to prints. How much? It depends on the original shot, the desired result and your level of expectation.

Having said that, the M8 seems to need a bit less work than most DSLRs, slightly more than the DMR, however. Forget about "out-of-camera". Even if the Jpeg-s were ideal, which they are not, there is still some processing needed to get them above Wall-Mart level. The RAW-conversion actually makes postprocessing faster and easier, as the original file you work on is better.

I might add that the images on the site you point at are not my idea of ideal post-processing (others may differ;))

[Advertisement]

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

[stunsworth]

I can't say that the M8 needs any more post-processing than files from my Canon 5D. If anything it needs less as I don't bother t osharpen M8 images before posting to the net.

 

From memory I'd say that the automatic white balance from the M8 is now at least as good as that from the 5D. I say at least as good as I haven't used the 5D more than once or twice since buying the M8 a couple of years ago.

 

I'd think it would be easy to replicate the shots on the web site you provided a link to. You just need to under-expose by a stop or two.

[pgk]

I post process my M8 files slightly less than my Canon dSLR files, but really your question equates to "how long is a piece of string'! It really all depends on your requirements and how/what you shoot. If you are used to shooting raw then I doubt that your workflow will lengthen but it might differ. As Jaapv says the out of camera jpegs are rarely ideal, or why would anyone shoot raw?

[herbet]

I should've clarified that I always shoot raw and intend to do so. even though it might not be everyone's cup of tea, in the website I pointed out several pictures resemble the look of chrome film (December 10 and September 27 for example). I too can get that look from my d700 but it takes me a bit of effort for each picture. I'm wondering if the so called film-like look from the M8 is there out of camera or one needs a considerable amount of post-processing to get at.

[enboe]

Having shot digitals heavily since the Nikon 950 came out (2000), I haven't found one, professional or consumer, where a little post-processing doesn't help. Whether it's a little warming or cooling of white balance, an extra quarter of a stop of exposure correction, unsharpen mask, spot retouching, red-eye removal, or simple cropping, every print gets my hands on it. It's just like using a darkroom, only without the vinegar smell from the stop bath. I find it relaxing, and immediately rewarding.

 

When I view the pictures of competing photographers in the venues I frequent, they never take the time to touch their images, and it shows. At best, they will set the camera to maximum saturation and the motor drive to high, resulting in websites with thousands of mediocre pictures where all the subjects look like they just had a bad visit to the instant tanning salon. Orange is not a standard human skin color! At least they sometimes screen the pictures to eliminate upskirt shots, sometimes.

 

In all of this rambling, it is also worthwhile to discuss the (digital) darkroom. I have invested in a decent computer (Mac), monitor (Mac), and printer (Epson Photo). I have splurged on photography software and can give good marks to Aperture, LR2, CS4, PSE6, C1PRO, and Capture NX2/View NX. Qimage was also quite useful when I used the PC. Of this list, if you had to start cheap, I would use the C1LE that comes with the M8 or Dlux 4 and PSE6, adding Aperture after that if on Mac. I haven't started the color profiling race yet, but I will probably do so in the future, just for the enjoyment.

 

So, my experience is to make the handling of images after the shoot as much fun as the shoot itself.

 

Eric

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I always process my M8 files quite a bit, but would do so, or more, with any brand of camera, so maybe the M8 needs less than most. Having said that, and other posters have commented similarly, I do find that the colours out of the M8 are reminiscent of Kodachrome by nature. I have even seen it called "Leicachrome" fwiiw.

[Double Negative]

I shoot RAW/DNG only. Compared to my Canon 1D Mark IIn files, the M8 requires roughly the same or less post processing. Sometimes there's a white balance adjustment, a tweak of contrast and saturation during the RAW/DNG import. In Photoshop I might tweak the curves further then resize. This is where they differ; with the Canon files I almost always need to apply USM to compensate for the AA filter. With the M8 files, more often than not, I don't need to use USM. Either way, the Canon files require more USM than the M8. After that, it's a watermark, flatten, 8-bit and finally convert to profile and save as JPG. I have most of this latter part automated in an action assigned to a function key.

 

In the end, invariably, the M8 files look sharper. Without the AA filter softening the image from some nice Zeiss glass... There's no contest, IMO.

[giordano]

I seem to get a higher proportion of images from the M8 that need little or no tweaking than from the D200 or more recently the D700. (At least for RAW files; I've given up using jpeg capture for pictures I care about.)

[Guest Luis D]

I'm wondering if the so called film-like look from the M8 is there out of camera or one needs a considerable amount of post-processing to get at.

 

From what I have read, the wording "film-like look" is often used to spin in a positive way the M8's noise at high ISO speed. It is true that in B&W this noise recalls somewhat the grain of Tri-X film. But in colour, it looks just digital noise. If you shoot high ISO for colour you must be prepared to expose very carefully (and if possible, good ideal to bracket). For some people that is enough, others want to use noise reducer software. It matters your taste I believe. For me I don't understand this need to digital looks like film. But again it is matters of taste. Maybe some people would like their automobile to smell like manure and make sounds like hoofs hitting the street

[herbet]

I too have seen mention to Leicachrome referring to the look of the M8 files. Truthfully the similarity of signature of the camera IQ combined with Leica glass when compared to what I get with film is the main driver for me. hence my question. Also, would appreciate if someone can share some out of the camera DNG files. the ones posted at the Leica site are not very helpful.

[stunsworth]

Not sure if this helps, but this is full frame straight out of the camera, with only a curves adjustment.

 

M8, 28mm Elmarit

 

[ATTACH]121434[/ATTACH]

[Guest noah_addis]

I think you'll end up doing about the same amount of post as you do with your D700. Only difference is the noise.

 

I'm not into formal camera testing, but from my early results it seems like the D700 at iso 3200 has a similar amount of noise as the M8 at 320.

 

But, at 320 and below, the M8 files are beautiful. I don't find that either camera needs a lot of post production really, though I found the Canon 5d needs more to get the files to my taste.

 

I wish I could have the D700 sensor and processing in a rangefinder.

[herbet]

thanks for bringing that up Noah. turns out I went to a local dealer today to have a look at the camera and shoot some DNG files. although I really like the camera I'm not sure I can live with the noise above ISO 400 after being spoiled by the D700. I guess I'll hold off for a while.

[vikasmg]

I find I need less post-processing on M8 files than those from an Olympus E-3 and IMHO the latter is in fact quite a good camera. I think your D700 is probably much better so I'm not sure how that would compare. The blog you point to seems to have many pictures shot with a "borrowed" M8 or M8.2 so maybe by now you have a good idea yourself?

 

Most of the pictures on that blog are no what I think you would naturally ge out of any camera without post processing and if that's the end result you are looking for there probably going to be a lot of post processing regardless of the Camera.