Overgaard Posted July 30, 2009 Share #1 Posted July 30, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) This is a bit old, but I thought some of you might like to see what Getty Images say on their website for contributors about the Leica M8. All major pro cameras are reviewed and approved or disapproved for use by Getty Images contributors, and this is the review of the Leica M8 from when it was released: Leica's digital rangefinder M8 - approved Overall rating: 4 out of 5 Preferred Supplier Pricing: Penn Camera: Calumet: £2999 File Size: 29.7Mb Color space: Adobe RGB 1998 ---------------------------------------------- Report by: Richard Newstead, Digital Editor, Getty Images: The Leica M8 shoots at 10.3Mp, which when converted from RAW produces a 29.7Mb TIFF file in 8 bit colour. It features a low noise CCD which was specifically designed for Leica and does not use an anti-alias filter which hugely improves on RAW image detail. We have recently tested the camera in a range of situations with very good results. The quality of the files is of a high standard, closely competing alongside SLR's with similar Mp specifications. The files we shot captured an impressive amount of information, with excellent interpretation of fine detail. The colour response was very good, but lacked the vibrancy or punch direct from camera which is normally expected with a camera at this price range. Shadow detail was excellent, the CCD suppressing noise incredibly well in darker areas. The camera shoots in the RAW 'DNG' format which is not specific to any camera manufacturer. The files we captured were processed with Capture One Pro. The camera is of typical Leica quality, with a solid 'no fuss' design that feels like it is built to last a lifetime. The controls are simple and intuitive with the 2.5" LCD display clear and bright. If you are a fan of Leica systems you will not be disappointed, the M8 is a lovely camera and retains the feel of quality which has long been associated with Leica. The ability to shoot such hi-resolution files on a camera so small and compact is a fantastic feat of technology. Travel photographers need never be without a camera in their bag again!! ---------------------------------------------- Report by: Nick Mullord, Production Manager, Getty Images: File quality from this camera is immediately impressive. Image detail is extremely sharp the clarity is striking; colours are warm and vibrant whilst retaining a true likeness in appearance. When capturing fine hair detail, the camera does a good job in interpreting these areas without some of the digital ill affects that can be very noticeable. After interpolation it is possible to see some level of softening - which can easily be remedied with the application of some minimal sharpening within Photoshop. It is possible for images from this camera to be interpolated to all of the files sizes offered through our Large Format File Service; although at the top end of the scale (300Mb) some digital issues are becoming apparent. Having said this when viewed at print size, the images are totally acceptable even at these billboard size proportions. What is remarkable about this camera is the lack of noise produced in the shadow areas, even after applying a considerable density correction in Photoshop, little noise is evident. Excellent results from this highly desirable camera. --------------------------------------------- Conclusion: A recommended camera albeit a little expensive when compared to SLR's. As always individual image files should be checked at 100% magnification in the event of any technical issues when resizing to 48Mb (softness or artefacting). Cropping of files should be restricted to about 20-25% depending on the quality of the original capture." Hope you liked it. I think it's interesting to see an outside viewpoint on this from someone who will be using the files but doesn't have any feelings as to the camera itself, as we as buyers would have. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 30, 2009 Posted July 30, 2009 Hi Overgaard, Take a look here Leica M8 approved for professional picture submissions. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
delander † Posted July 30, 2009 Share #2 Posted July 30, 2009 I would agree with all of that. What am I doing, confining my prints to A2 when I could be doing posters. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
noah_addis Posted July 30, 2009 Share #3 Posted July 30, 2009 I also agree. I need to provide 50MB files for my agency (not getty) and the M8 files look great interpolated to that size. What I notice most about the files is the consistency, good color and minimal amount of post processing needed to make the files look great. This is important since I often need to send large numbers of images at a time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
guidomo Posted July 30, 2009 Share #4 Posted July 30, 2009 Great, thanks for posting this. Indeed useful to see such independent opinion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
photolandscape Posted July 30, 2009 Share #5 Posted July 30, 2009 I'd agree with most of it, though not so much with their findings about noise in low-light situations. Even at 640, it isn't great. I contacted Getty about a year and a half ago, asking them when the M8 might make their list of approved digital cameras. They said they were working on it. Nice to see it is finally approved, 2.5 years after the camera was introduced! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted July 31, 2009 Share #6 Posted July 31, 2009 Well, my experience is that for a good enough image the camera it was shot on is ignored by the agency - I've certainly had M8 images accepted by international agencies without a query. That said, most agencies do suggest 'acceptable' cameras, but I'm sure that this isn't written in stone. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted July 31, 2009 Share #7 Posted July 31, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thorsten - thanks for posting. Nice to know that a personal evaluation coincides with this kind of professional assessment! Best ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overgaard Posted July 31, 2009 Author Share #8 Posted July 31, 2009 I'd agree with most of it, though not so much with their findings about noise in low-light situations. Even at 640, it isn't great. I contacted Getty about a year and a half ago, asking them when the M8 might make their list of approved digital cameras. They said they were working on it. Nice to see it is finally approved, 2.5 years after the camera was introduced! It's been there for a year or so. And in any case, I submit Digilux 2 files without any problems. Even did some Digilux 1 in the past ;-) I think it's a great deal a personal judgment. There's Canon 1ds Mark III users who can't even get it sharp with AF and 20 million pixels. So if I can get a Digilux 2 file to look like a 50MP Hasselblad studiolit file, I have no problem with it. And so don't they. But in the case of the M8 I think it's interesting to read their judgment of for example the noise level. The rumor is that Canon 5D II is great but the files I've seen haven't made me buy one. So they look at it from a user-perspective, and that's the interesting thing about it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scaryink Posted July 31, 2009 Share #9 Posted July 31, 2009 I'd agree with most of it, though not so much with their findings about noise in low-light situations. Even at 640, it isn't great. I contacted Getty about a year and a half ago, asking them when the M8 might make their list of approved digital cameras. They said they were working on it. Nice to see it is finally approved, 2.5 years after the camera was introduced! I have taken some very good shots at 2500 with the kit. I don't think you can blame the camera if the image is underexposed and is adjusted in post. I have found underexposure to be the only reason for unacceptable noise. Sometimes it is just plain to dim for shooting without flash - no matter the manufacturer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overgaard Posted July 31, 2009 Author Share #10 Posted July 31, 2009 I have taken some very good shots at 2500 with the kit. I don't think you can blame the camera if the image is underexposed and is adjusted in post. I have found underexposure to be the only reason for unacceptable noise. Sometimes it is just plain to dim for shooting without flash - no matter the manufacturer. Exactly right. Many of the shots you see to illustrate how well some cameras perform at high iso are concert photos with plenty of light to shoot 200 ISO. So of course any 6400 ISO will look great. Sensors are basically 100 ISO (or 200 ISO), so anything they can't see at that rate in the dark, the software has to figure out. You can use high ISO to add speed to your exposure. In dark you better set the iso low and the camera on a tripod. And I mean any camera. (When I say "you" it's used to refer to any person in general) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sisoje Posted August 3, 2009 Share #11 Posted August 3, 2009 I've had my M8 images with Getty's for almost 2 years... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted August 4, 2009 Share #12 Posted August 4, 2009 Nice of Getty to catch up. Hopefully they will allow the M9 sooner. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.