Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
egibaud

bye bye Love bye bye M8

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

HI Eric

I think you'll regret your decision.

If it's really because of focusing, you might want to get rid of everything and go Nikon (d700 I guess).

 

But I think there is a real need for two systems. I do weddings occasionally, and for some things a fast dSLR is needed, but for other things it's much better to be able to be low profile and discreet. My experience is that nobody minds you pointing an M8 at them, but lots of people hide under the table when you approach them with a big camera and a big lens with a big noise.

 

The trouble with leica stuff is that if you sell . . . then getting back in again is even more expensive! (oh woe is me who sold my nocti and my MATE

)

 

Think long and hard - and if you really are consolidating for focus reasons, consider Nikon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 If you have a lens originally made for a FF camera and you have a croped sensor, then the DOF markings on the lens will eventually be wrong because the sensor image is more compressed.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.

Tell Leica, not me. Btw the word compressed throws me. It suggests one would somehow minimize the picture on the smaller sensor to get the same angle of view. Which is obviously not the case. The image is cropped.

 

<rant starts>

It does not do to use simple reasoning on DOF The actual formulas taking all parameters into consideration are quite complicated, so much so that there are simplified approximations as well.

 

Having said that, the whole idea of a mathematically defined DOF is (except for one exception) utterly ridiculous. The whole thing is an optical illusion, determined by the photographer's idea of acceptable unsharpness in the final print. That depends on technical considerations in part, but far more on the emotional impact, subject matter, visual impact, composition, standards of the photographer and suchlike things.

The only way to use DOF is to LEARN how the individual photographer experiences his own images and apply that knowledge to future photographs. A DOF scale is a crutch or mnemonic, nothing more.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: DOF is in the eye of the beholder.

<rant ends>

 

In digital photography there is one objective DOF though. That is when the COC is equal to or smaller than the Airy disk. Enlarged to pixel level there is a constant field of sharpness between the plus and minus values of that point, instead of a plane of sharpness.

Edited by jaapv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 fully agree with Mark that there's an issue here - which is to do with using the right tool for the job. Case in point is exemplified below. I used a 5D + 70-200 + monopod for the shot of the bride and an M8 + 28 cron asph for the shot of the group back home. Both were the right tools for the job.

 

Isn't the best decision business-wise to keep both? If you're really strapped, sell any longer Leica glass you might have but at least keep an M8 + wider lenses...

 

I regularly depend on having BOTH systems (Canon 5D/D2 and the Leicas). Typically I use f2.8 16/35 + 70/200 and f1.2 85 Canon L series glass on the DSLRs and might spend all day with the 28 Cron asph on the M8. VERY often I just work with the 85 1.2 on a Canon and the 28 on the Leica. I use this for weddings, documentary, events and it's a killer combination.

 

Hope you make the right decision for you though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am going to start selling my Summilux 75 and 1 M8 body, with this I buy a second 5D MKII and a couple of lenses. Then I'll see how I get on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HI Eric

I think you'll regret your decision.

If it's really because of focusing, you might want to get rid of everything and go Nikon (d700 I guess).

Think long and hard - and if you really are consolidating for focus reasons, consider Nikon.

 

I already have a Canon 5D MKII and I have tried Nikon D3 and D700 in real work (wedding), I did no like Nikon results even at high ISO. Also in a mix kit M8/ SLR I need similar images, the 5D MKII pictures are far closer to what I get from the M8 than what I got from Nikon.

 

I honestly think that when looking at my pics from my 5D MKII and compare to the Nikon D3.... well a lot of money difference for very similar results. I think Nikon are very good cameras but results difference are not as obvious as magazine and tests say. Comparing noise must be done in real work, similar exposure etc. not shooting at a grey card.

 

I think it is all question of tastes, I was not impressed by the D3 / D700 but I do understand and respect that some people will prefer them.... and if there is one thing I really DO NOT LIKE from Nikon, is this ridicoulous red V line on the grip, it looks as cheap as a tunned car, never liked it and never will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But isn't that actually what you do? You have an object you want to photograph. To be able to do that you fill the frame with the desired object. If you have a FF sensor then you fill the whole full frame with the object. If you have a smaller sensor, you don't crop part of the picture, you use a wider angle lens or move backward to fill the smaller frame. Thus you end up with a more compressed or somehow minimized "negative" of the same object.

 

Then, when you enlarge it, at some point objects that apears sharp starts to apear unsharp. The larger "negative" you start with, the larger print you can make before sharp objects start to look unsharp.

 

On the other hand, the change to wider lens or moving backward will have an counteractiv effect on since this will broaden your DOF.

 

The result of this is that if, say you wanted to use a 35mm if you had a FF camera and you change to a 28mm the get the same photo with your smaller sensor, you will end up with approximately the same DOF as shown on your 35mm lens, not the DOF showed on the 28mm you actually are using.

 

Amazing? :-)

 

And of course, what actually will be perceived as sharp in a photo will allways depend on how large prints you make, the nature of the object being photographed, the viewer and the viewing distance.....

 

 

 

 

 

Tell Leica, not me. Btw the word compressed throws me. It suggests one would somehow minimize the picture on the smaller sensor to get the same angle of view. Which is obviously not the case. The image is cropped.

 

<rant starts>

It does not do to use simple reasoning on DOF The actual formulas taking all parameters into consideration are quite complicated, so much so that there are simplified approximations as well.

 

Having said that, the whole idea of a mathematically defined DOF is (except for one exception) utterly ridiculous. The whole thing is an optical illusion, determined by the photographer's idea of acceptable unsharpness in the final print. That depends on technical considerations in part, but far more on the emotional impact, subject matter, visual impact, composition, standards of the photographer and suchlike things.

The only way to use DOF is to LEARN how the individual photographer experiences his own images and apply that knowledge to future photographs. A DOF scale is a crutch or mnemonic, nothing more.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: DOF is in the eye of the beholder.

<rant ends>

 

In digital photography there is one objective DOF though. That is when the COC is equal to or smaller than the Airy disk. Enlarged to pixel level there is a constant field of sharpness between the plus and minus values of that point, instead of a plane of sharpness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yup- and a smaller format will have a wider DOF at the same angle of view than a larger format. So how do you you balance the effects?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yup- and a smaller format will have a wider DOF at the same angle of view than a larger format. So how do you you balance the effects?

 

The balance lies in the fact that if you fill two different sensors of different size with the same object, the picture from both sensors will have the same DOF.

 

 

 

 

But, since you either change lenses or your position to achive this effect, the DOF scale on the lens will not be correct for that sensor size since the scale on the lens is calibrated for an other sensor size.

  1. If you change lens to compensate for a smaller sensor, then the new lens will tell you that you have a wider DOF, but the increase in enlargment needed to make a certain size print compensates for that, returing you to the DOF of the original lens
  2. If you move backwards to compensate for a smaller sensor, the DOF scale on the lens will tell you that you will get increased DOF, but again the increase in enlargment needed to make a certain size print compensates for that, returing you to the DOF at your original distance

Edited by adli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, to be truthful the only time I use a DOF scale is when I do IR photography. I line up the focus to the f 5.6 mark. For the rest the effects are stored in my head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, to be truthful the only time I use a DOF scale is when I do IR photography. I line up the focus to the f 5.6 mark. For the rest the effects are stored in my head.

 

Well, that is ok if you have a lot of experience. I am just a humble amateur :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The balance lies in the fact that if you fill two different sensors of different size with the same object, the picture from both sensors will have the same DOF.

 

 

 

 

 

But, since you either change lenses or your position to achive this effect, the DOF scale on the lens will not be correct for that sensor size since the scale on the lens is calibrated for an other sensor size.

  1. If you change lens to compensate for a smaller sensor, then the new lens will tell you that you have a wider DOF, but the increase in enlargment needed to make a certain size print compensates for that, returing you to the DOF of the original lens
  2. If you move backwards to compensate for a smaller sensor, the DOF scale on the lens will tell you that you will get increased DOF, but again the increase in enlargment needed to make a certain size print compensates for that, returing you to the DOF at your original distance

 

Yep, I remember a similar discussion lot of time ago... (it was me to originate it... I decided to shot a macro pic with a 50 instead of 135 lenshead to "achieve more DOF" but then wondered if it was a logical assumption) : the thread made all the math involved to emerge: the "balancing effect" above quoted is basically correct, even if, if I remember well, computations showed that there was indeed a difference in DOF... but of a magnitude level completely negligible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glad to be of assistance.

Hi LJClark

I would like to speak of course and only about the quality of optics unbeatable for sharpness

.... microscope as you said or even in opthalmology's surgery

Please see links:

 

Products by Leica Microsystems - Leica Microsystems

Leica Microsystems Holdings GmbH: Information from Answers.com

 

I agree that it is not the same division but optics comes from Leitz

Regards

Henry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Eric,

 

I'm sorry to hear that you are parting with your M8. I'm even sadder to report that I may be parting with mine soon too. I've used Leica cameras for many decades, and have never had any trouble with one before, but the M8 is just not proving to be reliable. 3 weeks after I bought it (Feb), I noticed the dreaded glowing green spots, and had to send it back to Solms for a month to be repaired. Then I discovered the awful colour moire effects on bright/white areas, but I've learned how to minimise those. And now, (the last straw,) the glowing spots are back. This time they are bright red ones, at all ISO settings. It really isn't good enough. I've not had the camera 6 months yet. (And due to health reasons I haven't even been able to make as much use of it as I would like too.) Yet it has developed two serious faults in this short time. I've written to Leica about this, and I've asked for my money back. Hopefully I'll live long enough for them to be able to produce a quality M camera, because I love using a rangefinder and I'm very saddened by this experience with my M8.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Eric,

 

I'm sorry to hear that you are parting with your M8. I'm even sadder to report that I may be parting with mine soon too. I've used Leica cameras for many decades, and have never had any trouble with one before, but the M8 is just not proving to be reliable. 3 weeks after I bought it (Feb), I noticed the dreaded glowing green spots, and had to send it back to Solms for a month to be repaired. Then I discovered the awful colour moire effects on bright/white areas, but I've learned how to minimise those. And now, (the last straw,) the glowing spots are back. This time they are bright red ones, at all ISO settings. It really isn't good enough. I've not had the camera 6 months yet. (And due to health reasons I haven't even been able to make as much use of it as I would like too.) Yet it has developed two serious faults in this short time. I've written to Leica about this, and I've asked for my money back. Hopefully I'll live long enough for them to be able to produce a quality M camera, because I love using a rangefinder and I'm very saddened by this experience with my M8.

 

Well regarding green buld "echos" I can tell you that the Canon 5D MKII and the Nikon D3 are worse. I was surprise to read complains about the M8 and then when using Nikon and Canon specially in a church I could find all the small candles echoed... What I did not get is the green stripe when lighting is hitting the edge of the sensor.

 

There is clearly no universal tool. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A fullframe DRF will not be as temperamental with framing as the M8. The different magnification allows wider tolerances, both in the mechanism and in the user. The theoretical considerations have been confirmed by testshooting a prototype. So we need not despair

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well regarding green buld "echos" I can tell you that the Canon 5D MKII and the Nikon D3 are worse. I was surprise to read complains about the M8 and then when using Nikon and Canon specially in a church I could find all the small candles echoed... What I did not get is the green stripe when lighting is hitting the edge of the sensor.

 

There is clearly no universal tool. :-)

 

Hi,

The 'glowing spots' I describe aren't echoes, or lines, from point light sources. They are glowing pixels, first green ones, and now red ones, that appear in the same places on nearly all photographs at all ISO settings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi LJClark

I would like to speak of course and only about the quality of optics unbeatable for sharpness

.... microscope as you said or even in opthalmology's surgery

Please see links:

 

Products by Leica Microsystems - Leica Microsystems

Leica Microsystems Holdings GmbH: Information from Answers.com

 

I agree that it is not the same division but optics comes from Leitz

Regards

Henry

Yes- but the optics do not come from Leica Camera, like our lenses, they come from Leica Micro Systems, a completely different company and are probably originally made in China.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nicole - sorry you've had problems. Red dots? Not seen those - are you referring to reflections off the filter - it can happen especially with night shots... This can happen, and it's an annoyance, but surely not the end of the world. Could you post an example?

 

I do have to say that although I've had some rangefinder alignment problems and suffered the dead pixel stripe on one body, I've continued to be hugely impressed by the overall image quality of the M8 and wouldn't want to be without a digital M. My mass-produced Canon's have been rock-solid over the years - less quirky shall we say - but the M8's nevertheless a tool I'm happy to rely on...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yet it has developed two serious faults in this short time. I've written to Leica about this, and I've asked for my money back. Hopefully I'll live long enough for them to be able to produce a quality M camera, because I love using a rangefinder and I'm very saddened by this experience with my M8.

 

Hi Nicole

I'm sorry to hear about your troubles. I've got two M8's one of which is 2.1/2 years old, the other nearly 3. Neither has caused any problems over tens of thousands of pictures in rain and wind and dust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is all question of tastes, I was not impressed by the D3 / D700 but I do understand and respect that some people will prefer them.... and if there is one thing I really DO NOT LIKE from Nikon, is this ridicoulous red V line on the grip, it looks as cheap as a tunned car, never liked it and never will.

 

HI Eric

well, I sold all my Nikon gear this time last year and got an A900 . . . I was conferring the conventional wisdom rather than my personal feelings.

 

Last wedding I did, 60% was on the M, 40% with the Sony and the Zeiss 135 f1.8. A good combination, but of course the Sony focusing isn't as fast as the Canon - BUT it's pretty always spot on.

 

I still think you'll regret it.

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...