rsh Posted October 24, 2006 Share #21 Posted October 24, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Sean: Two things. Originally I had not planned to add another lens, but your comments about he 28 f2.8 are leading me to possibly rethinking that decision. Gievn my current lens lineup, what do you think. Sceondly, how inportant do you feel the coding is going to be. I really do not want to send my lenses off. Thanks. Richard Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 24, 2006 Posted October 24, 2006 Hi rsh, Take a look here SR's review of the M8. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
sean_reid Posted October 24, 2006 Share #22 Posted October 24, 2006 Well, you don't seem to have a 28 and that is a good little 28. I wouldn't bother sending your lenses in for coding until/unless you see the need to. I don't think most of the lenses need it for vignetting. *But* I haven't done the formal coding/non-coding tests yet, this is just my gut sense so far. Cheers, S Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 24, 2006 Share #23 Posted October 24, 2006 :mad: I know Albert and I feel for you <G> but facts is facts. I'll own both cameras. Cheers, S Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 24, 2006 Share #24 Posted October 24, 2006 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.* The importance of the ISO performance depends so much on the photographer. The M8 gives us a good ISO 1600 which will be plenty for many people. I'll be shooting the two side by side for prof. work and will switch to the 5D when I need fairly clean 3200 (which in my world does come up). But the Leica does a bit better at 1600 than the D200 and better than or equal to, I believe, most other DSLRs except the Canons. Not bad, methinks, since this is only Leica's second time out of the gate with pro digital in this format. Cheers, S Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MP3 Posted October 24, 2006 Share #25 Posted October 24, 2006 Dear Sean Your Part 2 review is again 'spot on' various crucial areas of image qualities, providing us with a fair and detail info as viewed from a real RF photographer. I'm sure it is a reading we very much appreciated. Of particular interest is your findings on how M8 handles and holds details in high ISOs. In this regards, I believe we all will be very interested in the recommended M8 workflow and the relevant workflow tools in future. BTW, what is the firmware version of the M8 on test? Cheers Matthew Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 24, 2006 Share #26 Posted October 24, 2006 Thanks Matthew. The firmware is 1.06. More on the workflow later. Cheers, S Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
manolo Posted October 24, 2006 Share #27 Posted October 24, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Call me sentimental but I am starting to like those ISO 2500 Leica crops. Specially the B&W Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 24, 2006 Share #28 Posted October 24, 2006 I like them too but then I did a lot of shooting on TMZ which has a lot more grain than that even at ISO 1600. I kind of like honest and grainy (once the color noise is pulled) but many won't care for it. Cheers, S Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertwang Posted October 24, 2006 Share #29 Posted October 24, 2006 Actually, I can't wait to see a test photo of the M8 with the Noctilux. Low light will be an interesting test. Particularly if you can get a gradient of shadows, say, a table lamp illuminating a blank wall or something abstract, so that we can see the "grain" up close. Color is a wonderful testing ground. Honestly black and white, I bet the M8 has no trouble with. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
manolo Posted October 24, 2006 Share #30 Posted October 24, 2006 So the combination of all this M lenses and ISO 2500? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterb Posted October 24, 2006 Share #31 Posted October 24, 2006 Sean, Just read part zwei. In a word! Superb Sean. Your findings are what I was expecting (and hoping for) and then some. Particularly your remarks of how the M8 at lower ISOs 'draws' with the detail and precision of a medium format. Oscar Barnack's dream is fullfilled. A smallish camera that captures incredible detail of the world we see. While the jpegs were jaw-dropping, I cannot wait to see actual prints produced by this machine. In the meantime, you've made it painfully clear (financially) what I now must do: sell my children for medical experiments. Regards, P Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stevenrk Posted October 25, 2006 Share #32 Posted October 25, 2006 Sean, Just read part zwei. In a word! Superb Sean. Your findings are what I was expecting (and hoping for) and then some. Particularly your remarks of how the M8 at lower ISOs 'draws' with the detail and precision of a medium format. Oscar Barnack's dream is fullfilled. A smallish camera that captures incredible detail of the world we see. While the jpegs were jaw-dropping, I cannot wait to see actual prints produced by this machine. In the meantime, you've made it painfully clear (financially) what I now must do: sell my children for medical experiments. Regards, P Peter, nicely said, and what I find particularly thought provoking about the article and hope that Sean will comment on is the combination of the way the M8 draws images and how differently it draws in terms of how subjects react to it. I thought particularly interesting was Sean's point about how an M8/RF simply evokes a different response from people than pointing a 1Ds or a MF camera at them -- short of professional models. Not quoting, but expressing the point Sean makes, it's not that people don't see the M8 but their openness to the experience of being photographed by it is simply different than it would be with another camera that produces images of similar quality (film or digital -- the Texas RF analogy). I found that connection in the review illuminating. and I think for anyone who is not shooting people under a completely controlled setting, presents a whole new world of possibility. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stevenrk Posted October 26, 2006 Share #33 Posted October 26, 2006 Seems that Michael R is thinking the same thing that Sean is about the camera, and is what impressed me about Sean's review: in terms of the M8 creating a new world of possibility, not just being a bit more of something we already have at hand. Quoting MR: "I mentioned last week that my field review of the Leica M8 would appear this week. Because the M8 is such a rich product (no pun intended) testing is taking longer than I had expected, and so I now plan on publishing my full report next Monday. What I can say at the moment is that this camera is outstanding, producing some of the most remarkable image quality that I've ever seen from any camera, film or digital. Much more next week. " Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 26, 2006 Share #34 Posted October 26, 2006 Peter, nicely said, and what I find particularly thought provoking about the article and hope that Sean will comment on is the combination of the way the M8 draws images and how differently it draws in terms of how subjects react to it. I thought particularly interesting was Sean's point about how an M8/RF simply evokes a different response from people than pointing a 1Ds or a MF camera at them -- short of professional models. Not quoting, but expressing the point Sean makes, it's not that people don't see the M8 but their openness to the experience of being photographed by it is simply different than it would be with another camera that produces images of similar quality (film or digital -- the Texas RF analogy). I found that connection in the review illuminating. and I think for anyone who is not shooting people under a completely controlled setting, presents a whole new world of possibility. Hi Steven, I find that to be a general property of small-format rangefinder cameras. In this day and age, many people have come to see a "serious" camera as being one with a large SLR body and large lens. I think that the little rangefinder cameras look, to much of the public, much like "snapshot" cameras. Or the cameras just look old to them. Whatever it is, RF cameras really don't seem to bother people as much as large DSLRs. That can indeed make one more free. The M8 really is a new kind of camera. It's not just that's its a digital version of the M. To my knowledge, there has never in the history of photography been a camera this small that produces pictures of such high technical quality. It's an exciting combination. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stevenrk Posted October 26, 2006 Share #35 Posted October 26, 2006 Hi Steven, I find that to be a general property of small-format rangefinder cameras. In this day and age, many people have come to see a "serious" camera as being one with a large SLR body and large lens. I think that the little rangefinder cameras look, to much of the public, much like "snapshot" cameras. Or the cameras just look old to them. Whatever it is, RF cameras really don't seem to bother people as much as large DSLRs. That can indeed make one more free. The M8 really is a new kind of camera. It's not just that's its a digital version of the M. To my knowledge, there has never in the history of photography been a camera this small that produces pictures of such high technical quality. It's an exciting combination. Cheers, Sean Sean, thanks for elaborating. Agree to a point. Although don't think the point and shoot analogy is on point. Have found that -- in film -- a Nikon F and a Leica (which I've used as the same time) evoked pretty similar reactions. It is not that people mistake the camera for a point and shoot, just that the camera/lens are not intimidating. The 1ds and MF breed simply are. Not saying that is a bad thing, and it can be easily be overcome or used to advantage, but different. Your point that the Leica can regain the intimacy or casualness that a small professional camera offers -- my words -- and at the same time provide a file of a quality equal to what the best of DSLRs now offer -- that's what I find great to hear. It really does offer up a new world of possibility in terms of how we shoot digital, rather than just another camera with a bit more or a bit less of this or that _____ (fill in the technical detail). If the RAW files are what you, and now MR, describe -- and no reason to doubt it -- that's a tremendous leap. Not sure I'd even describe it as forward, as much as a leap somewhere new (even back in terms of digital) that may make a real difference to photographers who care about finding emotion, tone and viewpoint through images of people -- who are not professional models or from the same vein. In other words much more than just something that is a bit cuter, will fit in to a smaller camera bag, or be a bit easier to hold than the professional level digital we have available to us now. (And the RD-1 wasn't that because the files -- although nice -- couldn't match up when you threw them on a printer at anything much beyond letter size.) Best, Steven Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 27, 2006 Share #36 Posted October 27, 2006 BTW, just added a new section on moire. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stevenrk Posted October 27, 2006 Share #37 Posted October 27, 2006 BTW, just added a new section on moire. Cheers, Sean A review that continues to get better! Look forward to part 3 and your views of the RD-1 compared. Best, Steven Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
petermcwerner Posted October 27, 2006 Share #38 Posted October 27, 2006 I find that to be a general property of small-format rangefinder cameras. In this day and age, many people have come to see a "serious" camera as being one with a large SLR body and large lens. I think that the little rangefinder cameras look, to much of the public, much like "snapshot" cameras. Or the cameras just look old to them. Whatever it is, RF cameras really don't seem to bother people as much as large DSLRs. That can indeed make one more free. The M8 really is a new kind of camera. It's not just that's its a digital version of the M. To my knowledge, there has never in the history of photography been a camera this small that produces pictures of such high technical quality. It's an exciting combination. It looks like I shall be the one discordant voice in this thread. I greatly appreciate Sean's work, but on me it had rather the effect of putting doubts in my mind about the adequacy of the M8 for my kind of photography. I am definitely not a "street photographer"; I do mainly macros in nature, architecture, landscapes, travel photography. I have a long RF experience with the IIIb, M3, and M4. I have made quite a few macros with the IIIb and the NOOKY attachment on Kodachrome 25 - it was not a good solution, nor is the current Macro Elmarit for the M series. When I could finally afford it, I swapped the IIIb for (in chronological order) Exakta, Alpa Reflex , Nikon F, F3, F100, F5), although I also kept an M3, later M4, which have mainly been sleeping on a shelf. I was one of the first to get an R9+DMR in July 2005 and I love the results but not the weight and bulk. Now I was one of the first on the bandwagon to pre-order an M8, pushed by the general enthusiasm on this and other fora (mainly RFF and Guy Mancuso's "M8 bible"). My present equipment is R9+DMR, Digilux 2 and FX01 aka c-lux as carry-always and a Nikon D200 when I need auto focus). I now wonder whether the M8, good as it may be technically, will offer more to me than my present equipment. By now I am accustomed to zoom lenses and the D2 with its 2.0/28-90mm lens seems ideal when I do not want to carry the weight and bulk of the DMR system. I do not need high ISO performance, I learnt to use Kodachrome 25 and super fine grain document film for maximum resolution: ADOX KB14 (25 ISO) thin emulsion ultra high resolution, Agfa Dokupan (10 ISO) developed to a gamma of 0.7-0.8). Now I use the digitals mostly at ISO 80-100 to get the best results. I am not sure that the M8 was really the good choice. Do others have the same sort of doubts? Cheers Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 27, 2006 Share #39 Posted October 27, 2006 Only you can really know whether or not the M8 would be right for you. It will give you more than the file quality of your DMR in a much smaller, lighter and quieter package. But is a rangefinder right for your pictures? Again, only you can say. Maybe you'd want to start by thinking about what's been most useful to you with your current equipment and where has it fallen short. What are the aspects of the M8 that concern you? BTW, if you ever sell all of those R lenses, you can probably buy a small island somewhere. <G> Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
waterlenz Posted October 27, 2006 Share #40 Posted October 27, 2006 II am not sure that the M8 was really the good choice. Do others have the same sort of doubts? Cheers Peter Rangefinder and SLRs are not mutually exclusive cameras types, one needs both to cover all bases! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.