Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
egibaud

bye bye Love bye bye M8

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Let's see...Best optics in the world, or bread on the table.

Thinking.

Thinking..

Thank you for answer

In my profession,I sometimes work with instruments from Leitz (anatomopathological cut)

It is incontestable that it is better than Ni... or Ol....

It is what I determine every day !

Regards

Henry

Edited by Doc Henry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Riccis is correct, though... I want to caution you about AF, Canons, low-light and relying on the camera to focus.

 

I *always* had to manually focus my Canons (1d2, 1ds2, 5d) and my D3 in very low light. AF does not work, unless you are willing to send out a red-coloured focus assist beam while you shoot.

 

I'm not willing to do that, though that may be the wrong decision.

 

And heck--I use Pocket Wizards and remote lighting with my M8. I have no trouble working the M8 with flash. The key point, though, is that the rangefinder is always easier to manually focus, especially in near darkness, than an AF SLR.

 

Of course, dSLRs are great for working the edges of a shot, and for other things (higher ISO among them), but not for focusing in the dark.

 

Here's a shot I've posted before with the 35 Lux zone-focused at f 3.2 and a flash. I definitely would have missed this using AF and my 1ds2; it would have been trying to decide where and when to focus and the moment would be gone:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do we really need to catch 'everything' at the event, like a video perhaps, just record everything.

I know it makes sense commercially, though it's a shame to lose the art and quality of the Leica

I personally think one cracking shot from the Leica is somehow more precious than 10 good shots with the Canon lens

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a shot I've posted before with the 35 Lux zone-focused at f 3.2 and a flash. I definitely would have missed this using AF and my 1ds2; it would have been trying to decide where and when to focus and the moment would be gone:

 

[ATTACH]155149[/ATTACH]

 

You can also zone focus or pre focus a 1DS. I don't think there are many issue using a rangefinder with a normal or wide angle from that far away. Especially with flash.

 

"I personally think one cracking shot from the Leica is somehow more precious than 10 good shots with the Canon lens."

 

When it comes to high resolution cameras, I don't think it makes much difference if you are using a Leica lens or any other lens once you get down to lower shutter speeds shot hand held without flash. (They'll all be degraded by vibration and subject motion.)

 

High res sensors really push the boundaries of what we once considered sharp photos and adequate depth of field. (Of course if you don't print large or view at 100% this won't matter so much.) I posted this example elsewhere but it severs to illustrate how shallow accurate focus can be.

 

So if you are off a tiny bit on a photo like this, it won't matter if a Leica lens or a 20+ megepixel camera was used. (You won't be getting the absolute most out of it - and I rarely do when shooting hand held at lower speeds.)

 

The shot below was made at f11. If I had been shooting at a large aperture, maybe part of one eye would be perfectly sharp.

Edited by AlanG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest stnami
I personally think one cracking shot from the Leica is somehow more precious than 10 good shots with the Canon lens
........ yea but you are not a paying client

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can also zone focus or pre focus a 1DS. I don't think there are many issue using a rangefinder with a normal or wide angle from that far away. Especially with flash.

 

{snipped}.

 

 

Alan, in one way you're right of course, but the key difference to me is that *I can see what's happening in the rangefinder* in much darker conditions than I can with a dSLR, (especially a 1ds or 1ds2--the D3 is better, but still not as bright as the RF).

 

So the shot above is zone-focused, but composition--pros and cons, btw--and knowing when to push the shutter, was all due to the rangefinder system.

 

IOW, if you have to focus manually, or use zone focus, then you might as well use a system designed for that, IMO.

 

As for optics not making much difference, well, I beg to differ on that as well. They don't make much difference in focus, but in distortion, colour and contrast, not to mention the all-important (to me anyway) flare resistance, the Leica's can't be beat.

 

So the OP is suggesting that he's missing shots and a 5d2 AF will be better. Ok, that's fair enough--but don't count on it

 

Now, if we're talking higher ISO, that's an entirely different question.

Edited by Jamie Roberts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I want to caution you about AF, Canons, low-light and relying on the camera to focus.

I have a Canon 50D. I hardly ever know what the camera is going to choose to focus on.

I have a lot more luck focusing my M8.

 

But I do respect Eric's decision. If you are making a living as a photographer - I'm not - you have to use the tools that work for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a Canon 50D. I hardly ever know what the camera is going to choose to focus on. I have a lot more luck focusing my M8.

 

But I do respect Eric's decision. If you are making a living as a photographer - I'm not - you have to use the tools that work for you.

 

You are right if you do not use spot with only one spot to focus on, otherwise it is a nightmare, I use it as my M8, center sport for focusing and I reframe.

 

I still do not understand the need of 9 focus points or 51 such as Nikon... it is ok only if you area a F22 and infinity focus LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I still do not understand the need of 9 focus points or 51 such as Nikon

 

It depends on what you are shooting. The 51 Nikon points can be set to give you an active field of 9. This is what I use to shoot football (soccer) using a pair of D300s. The center spot of the 9 is where the primary focus is, and the surrounding 8 allow for the focus to follow the initial subject. You can dial in delays before the follow-focus activates. I started this approach with designated focus spots on a D200, though in that case I used 3 vertically aligned spots.

 

For my use (YMMV) the 51 spots just provide a field to choose from. Judging from the percentage of technical keepers (which is different form the percentage of keepers where something interesting is happening), the approach works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eric,

 

Whatever works for you. I'm not a pro so I don't depend on the M8 for a living but I do struggle sometimes with the decision to sell or not. I probably won't. I do want to get my hands on the new Canon 5D Mark II so I will sell my old 5D to get some of the cash for that. I've missed many shots on the M8 due to focusing issues but what I've gotten makes it worthwhile. I suspect the M9 won't be much of an improvement over the M8 so I probably won't bother with that. It will be sad to see the value of the M8 drop further when the M9 comes along.

Edited by wilfredo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for answer

In my profession,I sometimes work with instruments from Leitz (anatomopathological cut)

It is incontestable that it is better than Ni... or Ol....

It is what I determine every day !

 

Glad to be of assistance.

 

Though I am a bit confused as to why a professional photographer would want to shoot weddings with a microscope -- whatever the brand. (Isn't Leica Microsytems a completely different company from Leica Camera?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I'd keep one of your M8s and a lens or two. A small Leica kit is very useful and you'd miss it. Sell the other M8 and the Noctilux. That sale will pay for all the Canon gear you'll ever need.

 

I don't do weddings but I do use 4x5 and Nikons in the studio as well as Nikons in the air and on water. They just work better under some circumstances. Like they say: horses for courses.

 

Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
{snipped}

I still do not understand the need of 9 focus points or 51 such as Nikon... it is ok only if you area a F22 and infinity focus LOL

 

So here I am going to defend Nikon's stellar (and I mean stellar) AF. In *good* light it with 51 dynamic focus points a D3 / D700 will actually follow the action across the viewing field.

 

If I were a sports photographer, that's exactly what I'd need, and no manual focusing camera would do (unless I was Rob Stevenson, of course

).

 

However, since I don't shoot weddings that long (135 is my longest lens) nothing I've seen at a wedding comes remotely close to covering a football game (either variety) with a long telephoto; you need AF then. IOW, there are very good reasons to have a first rate AF camera, but missing shots at a wedding due to low light focusing isn't one of them, in my books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's when it comes to zone focusing I really wish the M8 was FF. The crop factor decreases the available DOF, which is kind of undesireable when you zone focus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's when it comes to zone focusing I really wish the M8 was FF. The crop factor decreases the available DOF, which is kind of undesireable when you zone focus.

actually it's the other way around ... as you end up using wider angle

lenses, with a cropped sensor, to obtain the same angular view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
actually it's the other way around ... as you end up using wider angle

lenses, with a cropped sensor, to obtain the same angular view.

 

But then the recorded picture is more compressed since the sensor is smaller, thus requirering a higher enlargement to achieve the same print size.

 

Higher enlargement = smaller perceived DOF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, according to Leica, both in the M8 manual and in the manual of the lenses, there is no difference in DOF....(I know this type of argument and am not participating -- just passing on this piece of information.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have to say I have huge respect for those of us (I am not one) who make a living from trusting they can catch never to be repeated moments with an M8.

 

I went to a wedding in a 13th century dimly lit church, upgraded M8, shiny new Noctilux, discreet mode. Lovely shots of the bride entering, lovely colour, well handled AWB but out of focus. Every one. I could not keep up with the bride walking towards me, and that's with the new Noctilux which is a lot easier to deal with than the old one. Meanwhile the gorgeous bride's even more gorgeous work colleague next to me nailed it, with a Lumix something or other.

 

Aside from the intrusiveness and foundation shaking noise of the D3, it would have nailed it too. AF-S 24-70 f2.8, ISO 3200, AF. No problem.

 

So I certainly understand the reason for switching to a safe option for things like weddings. The M8 is absolutely great if you have the time but if the pressure is on and you absolutely have to deliver, it would be Nikon for me every time.

 

Agree too with Jamie. The ability of the Nikon to track is uncanny; I don't do the biggest glass but I do do the 200/2 and the 200-400/4 and like the results, especially from the 200/2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, according to Leica, both in the M8 manual and in the manual of the lenses, there is no difference in DOF....(I know this type of argument and am not participating -- just passing on this piece of information.)

 

Still, that does not make sense. If you have a lens originally made for a FF camera and you have a croped sensor, then the DOF markings on the lens will eventually be wrong because the sensor image is more compressed.

 

When you enlarge the picture, the parts out of focus but inside the DOF will be more unsharp. Remember that everything inside the DOF is not actually sharp, it is just preceived to be sharp since the eye is unable to observe that it is slightly out of focus. When you enlarge it more it will be easier to observe that it is out of focus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue., Read more about our Privacy Policy