Sean Reid's M8 Part 3 Review

[robsteve]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi Rob,

 

Similar FOV but different DOF which greatly complicates things. I'll add a section explaining this in the article but I'm moving more towards testing same focal length lenses for comparisons that are looking at the cameras themselves.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

Sean, I hadn't thought about the depth of field issue. Probably relavent for the table top still lifes like your fruit and vegetable shots, but not to the train shots. The box car side is relatively flat, so if you focus on the side of the box car and shoot at the distances you were shooting DOF probably doesn't come into the picture.

[M'Ate]

Sean,

 

Whilst the Part 3 Review was well done, an in-depth comparison with the RD-1 was wasted on me and maybe the majority of Leica owners. The Epson owners would have enjoyed it no doubt.

 

Similary, how the M8 reacts to a wide range of lenses is just navel gazing. Once you've done a 50mm Summilux and a 24mm Elmarit the rest will fall into line and follow the quality trends that these 2 samples display. CV and Zeiss - just passing interest if there's a Leica equivalent. 12mm, 15mm will be interesting though.

 

What I really want to read is an in-depth review of performance compared to my current Leica FILM equipment and a comment on the print output that they are both capable of, and what the differences are at the intermediary print sizes - 8x6; 10x8; 12x10 .... to the limit.

 

Realise that's a fair bit of work, but I suggest that is where the crux of this M8 issue lies and nobody appears to be addressing it. Doing various lens tests is a waste of your energy, IMO.

 

Am I alone in this ?

 

Can we look forward to such a review of old versus new?

 

Not a criticism of what you've done already.

[johnll]

For me the "other" lens tests are very useful. I'm particularly interested in CV 15, 21, 28. I'm already convinced the longer stuff will work just fine.

[gurtch]

I particularly like the comparison of other MFg's lenses. I have 4 ZMs and 3 CVs in addition to a Leica 24mm ASPH. Nice job Sean. I would like to hear someone's sharpening routine with the M8.

Dave

[lxlim]

Sean,

 

Thanks once again for the work put in. I realised in going through your article there are portions of your text hidden behind the pictures. I using a mac on 10.3.9 with the latest flash plug-in.

 

I notice from your articles so far there is no mention of any chromatic aberration. Is it for a future article or simply because you were not able to detect any. I have some issues on my Canons though fortunately for myself my usage of ultra wide angles is moderate.

 

Alex

[Rolo]

For me the "other" lens tests are very useful. I'm particularly interested in CV 15, 21, 28. I'm already convinced the longer stuff will work just fine.

 

 

I'm with John on this for the lenses outside the Leica range. I enjoyed the RD-1 review, but, M'ate is on the button with what I'd like to see coming next. There's too much Leica mainstream stuff to comment on before getting stuck in the margins.

 

Great reviews Sean, keep pushing them out.

[sean_reid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sean, I hadn't thought about the depth of field issue. Probably relavent for the table top still lifes like your fruit and vegetable shots, but not to the train shots. The box car side is relatively flat, so if you focus on the side of the box car and shoot at the distances you were shooting DOF probably doesn't come into the picture.

 

Hi Rob,

 

It's certainly true that it has more effect on subjects that have depth (physical space from closest to furthest) but I've come to realize that it even has an affect on subjects that don't seem to have much depth. What I've decided to adopt is a camera testing method where the vantage point (hence the perspective) is consistent and the focal length is as closely matched as possible (for consistent DOF). I used to work the other way but I've come to feel that this newer way, ultimately, makes more sense to me. I'll explain more when I revise that section but the change is motivated by a deliberate set of priorities.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

Sean' date='

 

Whilst the Part 3 Review was well done, an in-depth comparison with the RD-1 was wasted on me and maybe the majority of Leica owners. The Epson owners would have enjoyed it no doubt.

 

Similary, how the M8 reacts to a wide range of lenses is just navel gazing. Once you've done a 50mm Summilux and a 24mm Elmarit the rest will fall into line and follow the quality trends that these 2 samples display. CV and Zeiss - just passing interest if there's a Leica equivalent. 12mm, 15mm will be interesting though.

 

What I really want to read is an in-depth review of performance compared to my current Leica FILM equipment and a comment on the print output that they are both capable of, and what the differences are at the intermediary print sizes - 8x6; 10x8; 12x10 .... to the limit.

 

Realise that's a fair bit of work, but I suggest that is where the crux of this M8 issue lies and nobody appears to be addressing it. Doing various lens tests is a waste of your energy, IMO.

 

Am I alone in this ?

 

Can we look forward to such a review of old versus new?

 

Not a criticism of what you've done already. [/quote']

 

Thanks for the comments on the article.

 

Well, people are different. Many have written to say that the R-D1 comparison is exactly what they wanted. I disagree with your lenses comments (save the 12 and 15) but I understand your POV.

 

I will not be doing a film vs. M8 comparison but perhaps you should. There are far too many variables involved and other tests (especially the upcoming lens tests) are much more important, from my perspective. If you decide to do that kind of comparison, I'd be curious to read it though. I appreciate that it's important to you and I'll bet that if you don't do it, someone will.

 

Thanks for the thoughts.

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

For me the "other" lens tests are very useful. I'm particularly interested in CV 15, 21, 28. I'm already convinced the longer stuff will work just fine.

 

I agree that the wides should get first priority and they will. I place a high priority on lens testing.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

I particularly like the comparison of other MFg's lenses. I have 4 ZMs and 3 CVs in addition to a Leica 24mm ASPH. Nice job Sean. I would like to hear someone's sharpening routine with the M8.

Dave

 

Barely any sharpening needed....default sharpening in the C1 conversion.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

Sean,

 

Thanks once again for the work put in. I realised in going through your article there are portions of your text hidden behind the pictures. I using a mac on 10.3.9 with the latest flash plug-in.

 

I notice from your articles so far there is no mention of any chromatic aberration. Is it for a future article or simply because you were not able to detect any. I have some issues on my Canons though fortunately for myself my usage of ultra wide angles is moderate.

 

Alex

 

Hi Alex,

 

E-mail me off-list about the Flash thing and we'll look into it.

 

I haven't been seeing CA at all. It will be a topic for the lens tests but no red flags yet.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

 

Similary' date=' how the M8 reacts to a wide range of lenses is just navel gazing. Once you've done a 50mm Summilux and a 24mm Elmarit the rest will fall into line and follow the quality trends that these 2 samples display. [/quote']

 

BTW, in case you've misunderstood... The lens tests that are coming are not designed to test the M8. Rather, the M8 is the testing vehicle for the lenses. At any given focal length, there is no such thing as a best lens. There couldn't be because photographers won't ever all agree on exactly how they want a lens to draw (and they shouldn't). Every lens has it's own way of translating the subject into an image on the sensor. What I want to know in each article is "How does lens A, B, C etc. perform on the M8? How does it draw?"

 

If you get a chance, read some of the other lens reviews I've written so at least you understand what I'm after in that kind of review. It may not be important to you but it is important to many other photographers who read RR. I know because I get e-mails, forum comments, etc. Lenses have always been important.

 

Film vs. digital comparisons (as I think Guy Mancuso also pointed out a month or so ago) are full of potential confounding variables: which film, which ISO rating should be used for that film, which processing, lab quality, scan method, scan software, scan quality, scan resolution, etc. A thorough comparison would have to take into account all of those things and variations on each would have to be tried.

 

The two mediums are very different. If one is scanning film, every picture is second-generation, essentially one photographs the subject with the film and then photographs the film with the scanner. A scanner is nothing more than a very specialized macro camera. Every test of a film camera that ends up in digital form is really a test of a lens, a specific film, a primary camera, a developing process, a secondary camera (the scanner) etc.

 

That's the main reason I don't do film vs. digital tests.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[M'Ate]

Apologies Sean, I'm reading RR as a comprehensive test of the M8. Report titles threw me a little - Leica M8 Part 2, Part 3 ......

 

Fully aware of the variations in processing and scanning film, but kind of you to list them.

 

My proposal was founded on the precept that many potential M8 buyers will already be Leica M users with an existing set of lenses. ( Of course they might need a new wide angle because of the crop ). They may new to digital and and a digital v film comparison at best of each would put a stake in the ground and define what can be achieved if they buy into the M8 compared to what they do now with Velvia, or Portra whatever.

 

As an MP user and RR subscriber I've read your reviews on the Leica products with interest and been influenced enough to buy a 24mm Elmarit. So no problem with what you do Sean, I'm only suggesting what more I'd like to see reviewed. It's your call and I hear what your response is.

 

However, your enthusiasm to defer the discussion on the 'TEXAS Leica' until you got your reviews published, encouraged readers, me at least, that you would substantiate your reference with tester's evidence, rather than a passing comment.

 

A statement from a renown tester that the M8 is the equal of a 'TEXAS Leica' heralds the dawn of a new age in digital cameras and I took it that we had arrived at a point where MF had finally tumbled. I can't tell you how much I welcomed your words. For the comment to be unsupported, even abandoned, does take something away, perhaps everything.

[sean_reid]

 

1) My proposal was founded on the precept that many potential M8 buyers will already be Leica M users with an existing set of lenses. ( Of course they might need a new wide angle because of the crop ). They may new to digital and and a digital v film comparison at best of each would put a stake in the ground and define what can be achieved if they buy into the M8 compared to what they do now with Velvia' date=' or Portra whatever.

 

2) However, your enthusiasm to defer the discussion on the 'TEXAS Leica' until you got your reviews published, encouraged readers, me at least, that you would substantiate your reference with tester's evidence, rather than a passing comment.

 

3) A statement from a renown tester that the M8 is the equal of a 'TEXAS Leica' heralds the dawn of a new age in digital cameras and I took it that we had arrived at a point where MF had finally tumbled. I can't tell you how much I welcomed your words. For the comment to be unsupported, even abandoned, does take something away, perhaps everything.[/quote']

 

1) I think that since you believe in the importance and validity of this kind of comparison, you should do one. I don't say that facetiously. It's obviously important to you to see this information and so it's worth pursuing.

 

2) My enthusiasm is called an NDA. I agreed not to discuss file quality until I had a production sample to test. That was the agreement all reviewers were supposed to stick to. I didn't realize that you didn't know that.

 

3) I never said that the M8 has "toppled" medium format. I don't even think in those kinds of terms. You are looking for me to approach this as you would, through your "lens", so to speak, and your sense of "proof". That's why it really would make sense for you to do this test yourself. I'm with Voltaire myself: "Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd". What I've said, and what I believe from looking at thousands of M8 files, is that the M8 draws like a Texas Leica. I've since heard from many photographers who also have extensive experience with MF and who concur. But this isn't a jousting match between the M8 and film.

 

What I've presented (and what is now widely available on the web) are examples of what the M8 can produce. You have your own ideas about wanting to see proof of this in direct comparisons with film, which you believe have validity. I question the validity of film vs. digital tests in general. But since this is so important to you, by all means do the tests in whatever way you feel is valid and see what you find out.

 

But don't necessarily expect me to think about and approach this as you would. We begin, apparently, with a very different set of assumptions and we clearly think very differently.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

Sean:

 

When you are shooting an ISO series, I assume you shoot a fixed subject with 1/3 stop bracketing, and decide which is "best." But with cameras with the dynamic range of the M8 and the 5D, working in RAW, just what determines "best?" Or do you match up their histograms? You could do that with the M8 and RD-1, but the lens differences between 5D and M8 would seem to rule out that approach.

 

If you've explained that already in an earlier article, my apologies, but I don't remember seeing it spelled out.

 

regards,

 

scott

 

Based on your e-mail, I realize that you and I were talking about two different things. By "ISO series" you meant the ISO accuracy tests. Those are done working from middle grey on all cameras. I thought you were talking about the file quality comparisons made at various ISO levels.

 

Sean

[M'Ate]

1) I think that since you believe in the importance and validity of this kind of comparison, you should do one. I don't say that facetiously. It's obviously important to you to see this information and so it's worth pursuing.

 

 

3) I never said that the M8 has "toppled" medium format. I don't even think in those kinds of terms. Cheers,

 

Sean

 

 

M'Ate said:

 

Now taking Sean literally, and appreciate it may be wrong to do so, can we expect the M8 to replace traditional MF landscape film cameras, or will they forever lack the smooth tonality and detail ? I'm thinking scanned MF here guys.

 

 

Sean said:

I'll be talking about just this idea in an article about the M8 that I hope to publish soon. So, if you can hang tight for awhile longer, we can discuss it at length.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

 

You didn't write: " What I've said, and what I believe from looking at thousands of M8 files, is that the M8 draws like a "Texas Leica"."

 

You later wrote in your 2nd review and I quote: "It really is the TEXAS Leica",

 

and both of us know that a TEXAS Leica is a Fuji 67/69, or similar. Presume that remains your view and what I'll discover for myself when my M8 arrives.

 

Cheers to you and let's stop this here.

[scott kirkpatrick]

I agree that you can match two cameras either by comparing response at the right hand edge of the histogram or by 50% grey response, and I found an earlier article of yours in which you described the absolute measurement. I was puzzled by the apparent fact that dialing in 1,2,3 stops higher ISO lets you cut the exposure for highlights and midtones alike by the same 1,2 or 3 stops. But that is a place in which digital is simpler than film. Since the characteristic response just goes up until it cuts off, instead of having an S-shape like film, the increased gain that accomplishes an ISO increase can affect them equally. I spent some time this afternoon shooting a ColorChecker at various ISOs and looking at the grey patches to convince myself it really works. But that's not in the spirit of the kind of test based on actual practice that you have been presenting.

 

scott

[sean_reid]

M'Ate,

 

See what you think when your M8 arrives and then post back on your impressions relative to MF. It will be good for everyone to read multiple perspectives on this.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

I agree that you can match two cameras either by comparing response at the right hand edge of the histogram or by 50% grey response, and I found an earlier article of yours in which you described the absolute measurement. I was puzzled by the apparent fact that dialing in 1,2,3 stops higher ISO lets you cut the exposure for highlights and midtones alike by the same 1,2 or 3 stops. But that is a place in which digital is simpler than film. Since the characteristic response just goes up until it cuts off, instead of having an S-shape like film, the increased gain that accomplishes an ISO increase can affect them equally. I spent some time this afternoon shooting a ColorChecker at various ISOs and looking at the grey patches to convince myself it really works. But that's not in the spirit of the kind of test based on actual practice that you have been presenting.

 

scott

 

Hi Scott,

 

Just to be clear, then. The ISO accuracy tests are based on middle grey patches, as described in past articles. The exposures for the comparisons of file quality are made using manual exposure according to actual (vs. nominal) ISO. The base exposure is set so that the highlights come almost, but not quite, to the right side of the graph. No doubt there are many way to do any tests but this is how I do these.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[scott kirkpatrick]

OK

 

scott