SR's review of the M8

[Guest stevenrk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've just started to really read Sean's article (I skimmed it last night) and -- very simply -- it is one of the best reviews I've ever read of a camera and how it relates to the act of taking photographs. There is so much info -- in the sense of real food for thought as well as technical info -- that's it's a more than one sitting article.

 

Be interested in what others think of the article and the conclusions Sean draws. I'd like to start with one of the photographs in the article. The shot of the couple embracing, shot with the M8 and the 28 encoded (new 28?), is a wonderful shot. It expresses what the M8/RF is really all about when used well.

 

And to anyone who'se reading this that hasn't signed on to SR's site, hope the discussion will present ideas that give you a good sense of why the article comes to the basic conclusion it does -- that the M8 and the quality of the files it is capable of producing will give those who want to work with an RF camera images that go beyond 35mm. A camera that basically does for RF what Leaf and POne did for MF (my take on the bottom line of the review, leaving out the subtleties).

 

Food for thought.

[Advertisement]

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

[sean_reid]

Hi Steven,

 

Thank you very much. I worked very intensively on that article and I'm glad that you liked it. The 28 is indeed the new 28/2.8 and it's a wonderful little lens.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[manolo]

It is very valuable and I like that it concentrates on one issue (noise). Also valuable is the fact that it is the camera he will work with and we will continue to get specific subject (and subjective) reviews.

[John Maio]

I too had to read it several times to get the most out of it - and I gleaned some new tidbits each time.

 

Sean makes no bones of the fact that he loves documentary photography and that the Leica M series is a well suited - if not the perfect - tool for that kind of work, with the M8 a worthy progeny to the line.

 

But he is also fair. I also own the Canon 5D and it really is in a "class by iself" for high ISO work, and Sean did not once try to spin the M8's extreme high ISO performance. He treated it fairly.

 

I also complemented him for at least opening the door to the cost factor in owning Leica. Not everyone can afford one or justify one as a business tool and Sean clearly gives the photographer interested in RF cameras some lower cost alternatives.

 

I just don't think you'll see much of that kind of reportage on a site that soley depends on advertising dollars for its existence.

 

Having said all that - I can't wait for mine to come in, hopefully late next month.

[johnll]

I'd like to second that ... the article is very informative and balanced. For its pixel size - significantly smaller than the 5D - it seems the high ISO noise is well controlled. Better than 35mm film of comparable speed, as we'd have expected, and quite good enough for most purposes up to 1250 (1600 real). I'd guess that with Noise Ninja or similar and a moderate sacrifice of detail resolution we could get away with 2500 (3200 real) when we really need to.

[jrc]

One side effect of the review was to impress me with how good the Canon 5D is at high ISO, and I am not a Cannonite. If you're an art historian, archaeologist, ect., who shoots a lot in museums, a 5D would seem to be the answer.

 

JC

[sean_reid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It is very valuable and I like that it concentrates on one issue (noise). Also valuable is the fact that it is the camera he will work with and we will continue to get specific subject (and subjective) reviews.

 

Thank you. If you get a chance to reread the article, I hope you get a chance to consider the other aspects it covers. Noise is just one piece of the puzzle.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

I too had to read it several times to get the most out of it - and I gleaned some new tidbits each time.

 

Sean makes no bones of the fact that he loves documentary photography and that the Leica M series is a well suited - if not the perfect - tool for that kind of work, with the M8 a worthy progeny to the line.

 

But he is also fair. I also own the Canon 5D and it really is in a "class by iself" for high ISO work, and Sean did not once try to spin the M8's extreme high ISO performance. He treated it fairly.

 

I also complemented him for at least opening the door to the cost factor in owning Leica. Not everyone can afford one or justify one as a business tool and Sean clearly gives the photographer interested in RF cameras some lower cost alternatives.

 

I just don't think you'll see much of that kind of reportage on a site that soley depends on advertising dollars for its existence.

 

Having said all that - I can't wait for mine to come in, hopefully late next month.

 

Thank you very much. You hit on several key points that were important to me as I was writing that article. Your precis of some of the key points tells me that several things hoped would come across did.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

John and JC, thanks very much.

 

I'm happy to discuss the articles and the M8 here with anyone who is interested? I may not always have time for a thorough reply but I'll do my best.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[LADP]

I just signed up/subscribed to SR's site yetserday, and I'm almost finished with part 1 of the M8 review. I already feel like I've gotten my money's worth. I look forward to finishing part 1 and reading the rest of the series, as well as all the rest of the great articles posted.

 

Kudos on a great job Sean. I appreciate the thorough analysis and review you have taken on the burden of tackling. I'm new to this forum, but not to photography and cinematography. I look forward to reading more of your informative posts and threads in the coming weeks and months.

[gib_robinson]

Sean,

 

I'm still absorbing the information from part II. It's a substantial piece. There is one issue I hope you can cover in part III: lens coding. Did Leica provide you with some coded lenses? If so, I would hope you could make some comparison with uncoded WA lenses so those of us who own older lenses can figure out whether the time & money for coding are worth it. I would expect coding to make sense for 28mm and wider but I would certainly like that confirmed.

[sean_reid]

Thanks Anthony and Gib,

 

Yes, I have coded lenses here (including the 21) and that kind of comparison certainly is planned for Part 3.

 

In the meantime....! I've added two sections to the article since it was published. One is a set of croppings from an ISO 1250 file and the other (just now added) is a set of croppings from an ISO 160 file. For those of you who are following the review series, I highly recommend taking a look at both.

 

BTW, while many people on this forum are subscribed to RR, I realize that some people prefer not to. No doubt, DP Review and the other sites will eventually have reviews of the M8 up. In fact, Michael Reichman's review should be up within a week, I think. I'll be happy to discuss the other reviews as well as my own, as time allows.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[stevme]

It strikes me that there is another way to look at the reviews of the M8, this by Mr. Reid, and others that are to follow.

 

Suppose he had reported high ISO performance equal to the 5D, not somewhat less, as he actually reported. Where would that leave photographers thinking about the M8 purchase?

 

I think the answer is that some would still say they would not purchase the M8, citing the strenghts of SLR photography -- auto focus (albeit with its known problems), zoom and telephoto lenses -- ideal for nature or sports photography. In other words, the decision would be made not on the basis of "noise" but on the basis of the uses to which the camera would be put.

 

Now return to the real world. The M8 has excellent to acceptable performance, without any tweaking by graphics programs, up to 1600 ISO (actual). Considered at this level and below, the M8 offers the strengths of rangefinder photography -- photo composition that is not through the lens, immediacy of response to the decision to capture the precise moment, an instrument less intimidating to the subject, and lighter weight and compactness -- which SLR photography cannot rival.

 

So the choice boils down to type of photography one undertakes and the instrument most suited to it, not the technical issue of "noise" at high ISO levels. It would be better, of course, had the M8 equalled the 5D in this respect. But even had it done so, the choice would still be made on a more fundamental basis -- the suitability of the camera for the work to be done.

 

The digital aspect of the M8 should introduce a whole new cadre of photographers who have abandoned film to the strengths of rangefinder photography. In the process, it will win over those photographers who need those strengths in their work. This is the real significance of the digital M. Those newly introduced photographers will also have, as a bonus, some of the most marvelous lenses ever made.

 

Steve

[sean_reid]

So the choice boils down to type of photography one undertakes and the instrument most suited to it, not the technical issue of "noise" at high ISO levels. It would be better, of course, had the M8 equalled the 5D in this respect. But even had it done so, the choice would still be made on a more fundamental basis -- the suitability of the camera for the work to be done.

 

Steve

 

I think that's absolutely true and that's why the R-D1 is the main file quality comparison subject in my next article and was the comparison testing subject for the functional testing in Part One. The challenge is that there are only two DRFs in the world and so one must, necessarily, look to DSLRs as reference comparisons. But I strongly agree that the nature of a rangefinder system (pros and cons) is the most important aspect to consider first when looking at the M8. The differences between DRFs and DSLRs are the reason why I've done so much of my professional work over the past two years with two R-D1s even though I also own Canon FF DSLRs.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[johnbuckley]

Sean - you have addressed this before, but I'd like to come back to the low ISO setting of the M8. If, as your calibrations show, the ISO 160 is really an ISO 200, how should someone whose idea of a perfect setup in color photography is his M7 with Velvia 50 anticipate color saturation in the image? In my experience, Velvia 50 slurps up color and I love the unique combination of a sharp Leica lens with a softness to the film. I have no reservations about the M8; am eagerly awaiting my dealer's November deliveries; and of course hang on every word about its arrival. But I am apprehensive that it will take a considerable amount of Photoshop tweaking to deliver the kind of richly saturated images I routinely expect from film. Based on your testing, is my concern warranted?* JB

 

* I know there is no comparison, but my D2 at 200 was simply unsatisfactory to me, and I use it exclusively at 100.

[manolo]

NOISE as just another quality in the picture that you have to put in the equation; as opposed to something that you have to avoid was a good enough lecture for me in that article and I welcome further discussions on how to deal with it. Dynamic Range was clearly left out.

 

"Rangefinder" is a vast world.

 

Geronimo

[sean_reid]

Sean - you have addressed this before, but I'd like to come back to the low ISO setting of the M8. If, as your calibrations show, the ISO 160 is really an ISO 200, how should someone whose idea of a perfect setup in color photography is his M7 with Velvia 50 anticipate color saturation in the image? In my experience, Velvia 50 slurps up color and I love the unique combination of a sharp Leica lens with a softness to the film. I have no reservations about the M8; am eagerly awaiting my dealer's November deliveries; and of course hang on every word about its arrival. But I am apprehensive that it will take a considerable amount of Photoshop tweaking to deliver the kind of richly saturated images I routinely expect from film. Based on your testing, is my concern warranted?* JB

 

* I know there is no comparison, but my D2 at 200 was simply unsatisfactory to me, and I use it exclusively at 100.

 

Take a look at 100% crops of the ISO 160 file and see what you think.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

NOISE as just another quality in the picture that you have to put in the equation; as opposed to something that you have to avoid was a good enough lecture for me in that article and I welcome further discussions on how to deal with it. Dynamic Range was clearly left out.

 

"Rangefinder" is a vast world.

 

Geronimo

 

As I said in the article, DR will be dealt with in Part 3.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[albertwang]

One side effect of the review was to impress me with how good the Canon 5D is at high ISO, and I am not a Cannonite. If you're an art historian, archaeologist, ect., who shoots a lot in museums, a 5D would seem to be the answer.

 

JC

 

:mad:

[jrc]

So the choice boils down to type of photography one undertakes and the instrument most suited to it, not the technical issue of "noise" at high ISO levels. It would be better, of course, had the M8 equalled the 5D in this respect. But even had it done so, the choice would still be made on a more fundamental basis -- the suitability of the camera for the work to be done. Steve

 

The difference in noise levels for the M8 and 5D is, for me and I suspect for almost everybody else, trivial. It comes into play only in the most extreme circumstances -- however good the 5D noise control is, most 5D shooters wold probably prefer to shoot at 400 or 800 than at 3200, and most of the time, that's easily possible. What rangefinger people were hoping for is what they got: very good noise control. The fact that it is not as good as the 5D, by a stop or two, has to be held up next to the fact that most lenses used with the M8 are a stop or two faster than most lenses used with the 5D (which are mostly zooms.) Sean Reid also suggests that at slow speeds, you can hold an M8 at perhaps a stop or two slower speeds...so overall, there's not much practical effect.

 

But: as you say, the 5D and M8 are essentially different cameras. That can't be emphasized too strongly. Many SLR users would hate them -- not for image quality, but just for different handling, for the lack of zoomable lenses and auto-focus, the lack of very long lenses, the difficulty with macro, and so on.

 

They are *different.*