enboe Posted October 29, 2006 Share #1 Posted October 29, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Now that the M8 demos are making the rounds, I would like to request that someone shoot the same scene with a coded lens with the coding detection on and off, requested images to be shot in the RAW format at a minimum, please. A side-by-side controlled experiment will help me to determine the benefit of coding against the cost. (Tongue in cheek - don't take the next item seriously unless you're at Leica) I also noticed the official pictures of the Chrome M8 variant have a black preview lever. Clearly this is not acceptable! Do I have to wait for M8 a-la-carte to get chrome hardware on my chrome M8? By the way, I received my 28/2.8/asph Friday and shot some Kodachome yesterday. Amazingly similar to the 35/2.0/asph from a handling point of view. Won't have images back for a couple of weeks, but who's really worried about Leica creating a dud. Eric Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 29, 2006 Posted October 29, 2006 Hi enboe, Take a look here Request code/no-code samples & a deal breaker. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
marknorton Posted October 29, 2006 Share #2 Posted October 29, 2006 Eric, I think those publicity pictures of the chrome camera were done early - the chrome cameras at Photokina had a chrome lever. So you can rest easy on that score. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted October 29, 2006 Share #3 Posted October 29, 2006 I thought that apart from slotting the focal length into the Exif information the coding had no effect on RAW files. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Raucher Posted October 29, 2006 Share #4 Posted October 29, 2006 I think Sean is planning to include code/no code tests in future M8 reports. Stan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted October 29, 2006 Share #5 Posted October 29, 2006 I thought that apart from slotting the focal length into the Exif information the coding had no effect on RAW files. Steve, the vignetting correction is applied to the RAW files if lens detection is enabled, not if it is disabled. What we don't know is whether if lens detection is disabled but the lens code can still be read, the cameral puts the focal length in the EXIF. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Arias Posted October 29, 2006 Share #6 Posted October 29, 2006 I also noticed the official pictures of the Chrome M8 variant have a black preview lever. Clearly this is not acceptable! Do I have to wait for M8 a-la-carte to get chrome hardware on my chrome M8? Eric Hi Eric, take a look at http://www.outbackphoto.com/reviews/equipment/leica_m8/Leica_M8_review.html to see the final version of the chrome M8 - of course with a chrome preview lever. Your're absolutely right: it looks much better so. regards Herbert Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
enboe Posted October 29, 2006 Author Share #7 Posted October 29, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thanks for photographic evidence of the right cosmetics for the body. As for processing of RAW, I admit I do not know what they are doing in their baseline firmware. There must be some processing, as the saved files are about 1/2 the size of other manufacturers' RAW files for 10Mpix. Lots of fodder for the techogeek-outcast like myself to ponder. Thanks for the pointer on the side-by-side, but isn't Sean's review one you have to pay for? Maybe I'm confused there too. Oh well, one day closer to being an M8 owner. Eric Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
truando Posted October 29, 2006 Share #8 Posted October 29, 2006 There must be some processing, as the saved files are about 1/2 the size of other manufacturers' RAW files for 10Mpix. The file is 8-bit, that's why... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted October 30, 2006 Share #9 Posted October 30, 2006 We the believe the file is 8 bit, but it ias not 8 bit linear coding, which is not the same thing. This has been coveredto death elsewhere but I think it's beeter to judge the camera by its IQ not the techno-babble which lies behind it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 30, 2006 Share #10 Posted October 30, 2006 I think Sean is planning to include code/no code tests in future M8 reports. Stan Yup, I've actually been writing that section today. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 30, 2006 Share #11 Posted October 30, 2006 Steve, the vignetting correction is applied to the RAW files if lens detection is enabled, not if it is disabled. What we don't know is whether if lens detection is disabled but the lens code can still be read, the cameral puts the focal length in the EXIF. Hi Mark, It's either/or. Lens detection on brings the features, off is as if the lens was not coded. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 30, 2006 Share #12 Posted October 30, 2006 Thanks for photographic evidence of the right cosmetics for the body. As for processing of RAW, I admit I do not know what they are doing in their baseline firmware. There must be some processing, as the saved files are about 1/2 the size of other manufacturers' RAW files for 10Mpix. Lots of fodder for the techogeek-outcast like myself to ponder. Thanks for the pointer on the side-by-side, but isn't Sean's review one you have to pay for? Maybe I'm confused there too. Oh well, one day closer to being an M8 owner. Eric I'm seeing that misunderstanding several places on the web. I don't sell reviews. I run a subscription web site that includes a lot of articles, including reviews. There are also plenty of free review sites out there that are writing something about the M8. Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.