First Sean, and now Michael Reichmann -

[abrewer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It is great to hear the new voices on this thread.

 

They're not unexpected, as just about everybody has visited The Luminous Landscape. Lum Lam was one of my own "first stops" when I became interested in being a photographer only a few short years ago.

 

Just a reminder to everyone, please be mindful of the Forum rules about flaming and personal attacks. We can make our arguments without pointing them at another poster like a loaded gun. Try to go easy on the "You are..." and "You did..." and making things sound more personal than you really mean.

 

Thanks for your cooperation.

 

WELCOME to the Forum!

 

Allan

[Advertisement]

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

[Jamie Roberts]

... or claims by a couple of loonies, on this forum in another thread, that the M8 only delivers 8-bit images padded to 16-bits (!)

 

Hmmm. Yes, silly us, wondering about actual data instead of a marketing document or users' guide, which are never wrong

 

Andrew, just for the record, if you're going to call us loonies (Leica Loonies... hmmm... I sort of like that. My accountant would also agree), please get our disease more or less correctly diagnosed.

 

None of us ever, ever, ever said that the M8 *captures* 8 bits of data. That would truly be a joke.

 

What we have said is that it looks like the RAW file *stores* 8bits of data in a LUT with only about 12 bits of resulting precision (which puts the raw file right up there with Canon's).

 

That's a very, very different thing altogether, and might have no bearing whatsoever on the majority of M8 files. I've seen some wonderful 8 bit files--including many of Micheal Reichmann's wonderful prints. It's how you get the 8 printing bits that matters.

 

I have no doubt that the M8 samples high bit (16 bits about). But it produces something smaller. OK, that's not a tragedy--but it's not the same as the DMR. Oh--and most of us Loonies have DMRs and are buying M8s.

 

Not least of which because Sean's review, and resulting pictures, are outstanding. I have to chime in too--the DNGs I've seen to date on the production (or near production firmware) are so damned good that I'm trying to buy my way up in my local queue right now.

 

But I still don't know if they're writing a 16bit DNG file, and neither do you.

 

Sean--what was your's and Michael's conclusion, other than, "so far, it doesn't matter, because the files look so good."

[Guest stnami]

I am not a big fan of LL( ludicrous landscape), essentially he is a landscape guy who loves big prints and high end camera stuff and LL is his baby I am not beyond a read......

[sean_reid]

Jamie,

 

I'm still waiting to get an answer from Leica about the RAW files. It's a very technical question so it's not one that they can reply easily and quickly to. I send reminder e-mails.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[marknorton]

I've thought about this a great deal, modelled it in a couple of computer programs trying different DAC word lengths, mapping mechanisms and so on and, personally, I'm completely comfortable with how I think it works.

 

Of course, some of us would like the option to have pure uncompressed 16 bit samples (even if those samples don't have full 16 bit precision - the sensor after all only goes to 12 bit) or lossless compression of the data. However, designing a camera with leading-edge performance and usability involves making compromises between conflicting requirements, just as lens design does, and we know that Leica are masters at keeping focussed on what matters.

 

For the camera, those conflicting requirements involve the RAW data format, the frame rate the camera can achieve, the computing horsepower available, the RAW buffer size, cost, size, weight and as I have mentioned before, battery life. For example, if you decided to definitely go for lossless compression, you'd need a faster processor because lossless compression is compute intensive. That processor would be more expensive, consume more power, shorten battery life, run hotter which would cause the sensor to become more noisy at high ISO. Are you better off, overall?

 

Just looking at Sean's ISO 800 crops just tells me Leica have got it more than right. It is, and I like the term he uses, an "honest" camera.

[truando]

we should write our own reviews and not buy equipment based on other peoples opinions. reviews are boring and you never know how biased a person is. even with no ads on their site.

[billh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

we should write our own reviews and not buy equipment based on other peoples opinions. reviews are boring and you never know how biased a person is. even with no ads on their site.

 

If you bother to look at “reviews” in some of the photo magazines, you often see photos which look like they were taken by someone’s child first using a camera. It does not seem overly skeptical to have doubts about the quality of the information presented, both from this perspective, and the fact that they exist on the money paid for ads by the companies producing the products they review.

 

If you read Sean, Michael, Puts, etc., you have the luxury of looking at their reviews of equipment you already own, and you can use these reviews as a basis for judging the accuracy of a review on equipment you do not own. Personally, I find the reviews on these three sites to be in lock step with my own opinions. The internet seems to encourage very strong criticism of these guys, almost always on other sites. Perhaps some people simply feel a need to vent, and others seek to build their own stature by criticizing these reviewers....whatever their reasons, I think there is already enough information on Sean’s site to make a decision to buy (or not). As far as writing our own reviews, that basically happens when people post their photos here. One thing that has always fascinated me is when the most vitriolic, critical people finally post a photo, they seem to be in a special league of their own. So, take a look at the pictures people post when you consider their comments, and look at previous reviews/tests and you’ll have a pretty good idea what to expect when (if) Leica releases a RAW file, or you actually get a camera in your hands.

 

To date, my feeling is ISO2500 is probably not going to be usable for me (Sean’s review), I would not buy the 28 f2.8 ASPH because of the performance wide open, which is already a bit too slow, given that I tend to use the Leicas indoors and I see ISO2500 as an issue - (Puts), The shutter sound is disappointing (sound file comparing M8 and M7 on DPreview), and while I found Sean’s review quite complete, MR has really tweaked my curiosity with his comments about the image quality from the M8 - he is, as in the old days, constantly looking for better image quality by looking at the lenses available for various systems, and going the proven age old route of larger formats. So, when he writes, “this camera is outstanding, producing some of the most remarkable image quality that I've ever seen from any camera, film or digital”, it made me quite curious to learn more about what he is seeing from this camera.

 

I am curious about the 10MP image quality compared to my 1Ds2. When I bought the 8MP 1D2, the files were cleaner at higher ISOs, but clearly lacked the resolution I was used to seeing in the 11MP 1Ds files. When the DMR was released, Dean and I looked very carefully at the files from it compared to the 16.7MP 1Ds2. I preferred the information (resolution) available in the higher MP file. Given that the old 1Ds files were certainly good, it seems logical to think the M8 will be at least equal in resolution, and better otherwise - so, I have at least a bit of an unknown to look forward to discovering when one arrives here.

 

(I’ll bet the photo posting part of this sire really lights up when these things begin arriving in the hands of their new owners)

[nrj]

If you bother to look at “reviews” in some of the photo magazines, you often see photos which look like they were taken by someone’s child first using a camera. It does not seem overly skeptical to have doubts about the quality of the information presented, both from this perspective, and the fact that they exist on the money paid for ads by the companies producing the products they review.

 

If you read Sean, Michael, Puts, etc., you have the luxury of looking at their reviews of equipment you already own, and you can use these reviews as a basis for judging the accuracy of a review on equipment you do not own. Personally, I find the reviews on these three sites to be in lock step with my own opinions. The internet seems to encourage very strong criticism of these guys, almost always on other sites. Perhaps some people simply feel a need to vent, and others seek to build their own stature by criticizing these reviewers....whatever their reasons, I think there is already enough information on Sean’s site to make a decision to buy (or not). As far as writing our own reviews, that basically happens when people post their photos here. One thing that has always fascinated me is when the most vitriolic, critical people finally post a photo, they seem to be in a special league of their own. So, take a look at the pictures people post when you consider their comments, and look at previous reviews/tests and you’ll have a pretty good idea what to expect when (if) Leica releases a RAW file, or you actually get a camera in your hands.

 

To date, my feeling is ISO2500 is probably not going to be usable for me (Sean’s review), I would not buy the 28 f2.8 ASPH because of the performance wide open, which is already a bit too slow, given that I tend to use the Leicas indoors and I see ISO2500 as an issue - (Puts), The shutter sound is disappointing (sound file comparing M8 and M7 on DPreview), and while I found Sean’s review quite complete, MR has really tweaked my curiosity with his comments about the image quality from the M8 - he is, as in the old days, constantly looking for better image quality by looking at the lenses available for various systems, and going the proven age old route of larger formats. So, when he writes, “this camera is outstanding, producing some of the most remarkable image quality that I've ever seen from any camera, film or digital”, it made me quite curious to learn more about what he is seeing from this camera.

 

I am curious about the 10MP image quality compared to my 1Ds2. When I bought the 8MP 1D2, the files were cleaner at higher ISOs, but clearly lacked the resolution I was used to seeing in the 11MP 1Ds files. When the DMR was released, Dean and I looked very carefully at the files from it compared to the 16.7MP 1Ds2. I preferred the information (resolution) available in the higher MP file. Given that the old 1Ds files were certainly good, it seems logical to think the M8 will be at least equal in resolution, and better otherwise - so, I have at least a bit of an unknown to look forward to discovering when one arrives here.

 

(I’ll bet the photo posting part of this sire really lights up when these things begin arriving in the hands of their new owners)

 

Bill very well said I think. Having just acquired an R-D1 I was interested in the comment about resolution. The R-D1 has 6mp but it produces some really nice pictures though I'm still experimenting.

 

 

Nik

[johnastovall]

It'll certainly be interesting to read Michael's review - but at the list price it's only of academic interest, so best not to salivate too much.

The more pertinent question is whether to spring for a D-Lux 3, but of course I'll still be reading the reviews of them both.

 

Then I guess we who have them on pre-order are academics?

 

I'm not salivating but rather foaming at the mouth for mine to arrive...

[Jamie Roberts]

{Snipped}

I am curious about the 10MP image quality compared to my 1Ds2. When I bought the 8MP 1D2, the files were cleaner at higher ISOs, but clearly lacked the resolution I was used to seeing in the 11MP 1Ds files. When the DMR was released, Dean and I looked very carefully at the files from it compared to the 16.7MP 1Ds2. I preferred the information (resolution) available in the higher MP file. Given that the old 1Ds files were certainly good, it seems logical to think the M8 will be at least equal in resolution, and better otherwise - so, I have at least a bit of an unknown to look forward to discovering when one arrives here.

 

(I’ll bet the photo posting part of this sire really lights up when these things begin arriving in the hands of their new owners)

 

Bill--as someone who worked extensively with a 1ds2 and 1d2, and now has a DMR (and a 5d, come to that), and having now seen and printed some Leica M8 DNGs, I think Sean and MR are right on the money.

 

It's not the resolution of the M8 (or the DMR) that makes me prefer it to the 1ds2. The 1ds2 has more resolution--no doubt about it. And the 1ds2 makes great pictures, too.

 

But the color transitions from the DMR are exceptional, as is the detail; it simply has more color depth to work with than the 1ds2.

 

I expect the M8 will be similar here, since it samples at a higher bit depth than the Canon. The few samples I've seen are fabulous. They remind me of the DMR's palette, but with even better tonal and colour transition.

[Guest Arias]

... and from now on Uwe Steinmüller as well: Leica M8 Experience

The first part of his M8-Diary includes a downloadable DNG-File straight out of his M8. I'm very curious about how his diary proceeds.

Greetings

H.