M8 and the Pogo Paradigm

[Guest malland]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There was a famous Pogo comic strip at the time of the Vietnam war in which Pogo says, "I've met the enemy and it is us!". I have a feeling something like this is the reason Leica has gotten itself into the present situation: basically, Leica tried to achieve with the M8 the image quality of medium format and, reading Sean Reid's reveiws, it seems that this is what they accomplished, even with the less than full-frame sensor, except that they foundered on the shoals of the magenta and streaking problems. Despite the fact that the M8 ISO 2500 (effectively 3200) images have less noise than Tri-x at 3200, in postings people here still want the image quality at high ISOs to be less grainy than film. That's what I mean by the "enemy is us".

 

It seems to me that it would be a lot easier for Leica to fix the magental/infrared problem if they were not going for the super fine-grain medium format look. (And I don't view the IR cut filter as a satisfactory solution.) Indeed, I would be quite happy with a solution that would result in the noise-equivalent of 35mm film. As I've stated elsewhere, I like the "35mm aesthetic" and am not looking for a medium-format look; and this is why I'm now shooting with a small-sensor camera, the Ricoh GR-D, the results of which you can see here:

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

[rfleica]

a lot of great pictures, mitch

[TimF]

It seems to me that it would be a lot easier for Leica to fix the magental/infrared problem if they were not going for the super fine-grain medium format look. (And I don't view the IR cut filter as a satisfactory solution.) Indeed, I would be quite happy with a solution that would result in the noise-equivalent of 35mm film.

Point taken, but if the alternative to the IR is inferior image quality I would still take the status quo. Noise/grain can be added post-processing to get the look that any individual might be after, but detail lost at the time of shooting can not be retrieved once it is lost. The principle surely is the same as that of nailing the exposure with film (or digital). If the information is present on your negs, then you can do with it what you will at the time of printing - include it, or ignore it. The interpretation can be altered according to taste any given time. As Saint Ansel said, "The negative is the score. The print is the performance".

 

PS. Yep, some very fine work on your flickr page.

[Guest malland]

Thanks, Tim. I don't think that detail is necessarily lost with grain or noise; think of Tri-X in Rodinal, for example: the grain is enlarged but the sharpness is still there. As for adding grain in post-processing: yes, it can be done; but that's not my preference because it adds to the artificiality of the exercise — and, although I do a lot of post-processing for "interpreting" the capture, I prefer to interact with the image with the grain in it.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

[davidada]

Tim , great Ansel quote!

[TimF]

Thanks, Tim. I don't think that detail is necessarily lost with grain or noise

Mitch,

Indeed. That wasn't what I was suggesting (well, in part anyway. Take a look at HCB's early work for proof of how excessive grain can place great restriction on what can be done with a photograph in terms of print size, though the fact that the films of those days weren't especially sharp to begin with doesn't help matters).

 

I think though that we are aware of how some Canon DSLRs give files which are quite soft out-of-camera, much of which is to do with the anti-aliasing filter in front of the sensor, and some (allegedly) to do with Canon's use of smoothing algorithims to combat noise. Finer detail in particular is inevitably going to be smudged or lost in such circumstances. Sharpening can retrieve some of the lost ground but not all.

 

Coming from a different angle, why do we buy into Leica, as opposed to any other system? After all, most lenses these days are well above the "quality threshold", and the Leica bodies are hardly at the cutting edge, even for a camera with only the basic controls. The answer has to be that the lenses have that extra, intangible 'something' - a touch of magic if you like, which makes the high prices compared to others seem unimportant. Leica's design decision was to optimise the M8 sensor to extract maximum performance from that glass, and I think rightly so. Compulsory IR cut filters (if Monday's announcement concludes they will be necessary) might be - or more correctly, are - an irritation, but surely sooner that than image files no better than can be had from a competing camera at 1/5th of the price or less.

[kamilsukun]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Mitch,

 

Excellent photography is exihibited at the link you provided. Thanks for sharing these superb images. And it looks like here is more Mitch than the Ricoh GR-D involved.

 

Congratulations.

[Guest malland]

...And it looks like here is more Mitch than the Ricoh GR-D involved.

Thanks, Kamil. One of the things that I like about the GR-D is that it's lead me to a "looser" shooting style: when I got the camera I though that I would use my external VC 28 and Leica 21 viewfinders, but after started using it, I found that I liked framing with the LCD much better, often just by holding the camera in one hand.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

[Guest malland]

...Coming from a different angle, why do we buy into Leica, as opposed to any other system? After all, most lenses these days are well above the "quality threshold", and the Leica bodies are hardly at the cutting edge, even for a camera with only the basic controls. The answer has to be that the lenses have that extra, intangible 'something' - a touch of magic if you like, which makes the high prices compared to others seem unimportant. Leica's design decision was to optimise the M8 sensor to extract maximum performance from that glass, and I think rightly so. Compulsory IR cut filters (if Monday's announcement concludes they will be necessary) might be - or more correctly, are - an irritation, but surely sooner that than image files no better than can be had from a competing camera at 1/5th of the price or less.

Tim, I think we're coming at this from different perspectives, as I tend to like some of the older Leica lenses more than the newer ones: the DR Summicrom, the pre-ASPH Summilux-50, the Summcron-35 v4.

 

If you read Osterloh's book on the Leica-M (the one before the current German edition) he states that Leica was not out to win magazine lens test but to produce lenses with overall good rendition; but now it seems that Leica does want to win lens tests, and the irony is that the company is producing lenses that, despite their better MTF test performance, have characteristics (bokeh, for example) that traditional Leica users may not like. I suppose that this makes sense from a competitive point of view: when years ago the there were substantial differences in lens quality between the major manufacturers Leica could afford to take the "overall look" approach; now, when all the major manufacturers produce great lenses and when differences among them are much narrower, Leica needs to differenciate its lenses by going to very high levels of correction, like that of the latest asphericals.

 

The newest Leica lenses are more highly-corrected than earlier versions and consequently have sharper transitions from in- focus to out-of-focus areas (translation: "bad bokeh"), but to me it seems like Leica has, to coin a phrase, thrown out the bokeh with the bath water in attempts, for competitive reasons, to produce lenses with the highest resolution and contrast. Look for example at the first picture in this thread, which shows an out-of-focus rendition of the Summilux-50 ASPH that one would never get with the Summilux-50: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00EFtA

 

I'm not trying to be contentious, but all this is to suggest that the quest for maximum resolution in the latest Leica lenses is matched by the approach to what Leica was trying to achieve with the M8. And in my view, the company would have done better not to go for the, to some people, dazzling, medium-format look.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

[sean_reid]

There was a famous Pogo comic strip at the time of the Vietnam war in which Pogo says, "I've met the enemy and it is us!". I have a feeling something like this is the reason Leica has gotten itself into the present situation: basically, Leica tried to achieve with the M8 the image quality of medium format and, reading Sean Reid's reveiws, it seems that this is what they accomplished, even with the less than full-frame sensor, except that they foundered on the shoals of the magenta and streaking problems. Despite the fact that the M8 ISO 2500 (effectively 3200) images have less noise than Tri-x at 3200, in postings people here still want the image quality at high ISOs to be less grainy than film. That's what I mean by the "enemy is us".

 

It seems to me that it would be a lot easier for Leica to fix the magental/infrared problem if they were not going for the super fine-grain medium format look. (And I don't view the IR cut filter as a satisfactory solution.) Indeed, I would be quite happy with a solution that would result in the noise-equivalent of 35mm film. As I've stated elsewhere, I like the "35mm aesthetic" and am not looking for a medium-format look; and this is why I'm now shooting with a small-sensor camera, the Ricoh GR-D, the results of which you can see here:

 

Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

 

Hiya Mitch,

 

If Leica is correct about why a thin glass cover (only) was needed for the M8 sensor/microlenses then the problems that might come with an IR filter wouldn't really have anything to do with noise levels. Instead, we might be seeing things like increased vignetting, decreased resolution in the outer zones, color fringing in the outer zones, internal reflections, etc. Those are, in my mind, very basic IQ aspects that the M8 needed to get right. Is it possible to perform well in those respects with a strong internal IR filter? I'm not an engineer so I don't know for sure but I expect that it was no accident that they came to this design despite the IR issues.

 

Again, I believe that the streaking is due to a design or manufacturing error that will be fixed. I don't think it was part of an IQ compromise at all.

 

A film camera with a good lenses and your GR perform fairly well right out to the edges, that's what the M8 needed to do (and does). Amount of grainy noise, overall resolution, etc. is a different kettle of fish.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[ho_co]

Just a correction to the missed quotation; check with We have met for the accuracy of:

 

"We have met the enemy and he is us."

 

 

If you're not aware, it's a play on what I learned as "We have met the enemy and he is ours," which is cited as "We have met the enemy and they are ours" at We have met the enemy, and they are ours: Information from Answers.com. The remark was made in the War of 1812 by the American commander Perry. I doubt that the English would have made the switch from the singular 'enemy' to the plural 'they.'

 

 

Respectfully,

--HC

[Guest malland]

Just a correction to the missed quotation; check with We have met for the accuracy of:

 

"We have met the enemy and he is us."

Thanks, Howard. I knew my version of the quote had a false ring to it, but I couldn't remember the exact words.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

[pico]

There was a famous Pogo comic strip at the time of the Vietnam war in which Pogo says, "I've met the enemy and it is us!".

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

 

An aside: The strip in which that frame appeared was addressing environmental pollution; the message was not about Vietnam.

[ho_co]

Mitch--

Sorry; I didn't intend to bash your thread. Just a matter of 'setting the record straight,' since that is also one of my favorite lines of all time. Thanks for reminding me of it. And the alliteration of the "Pogo Paradigm" is excellent!

 

Respectfully,

--HC

[j. borger]

If there is one thing Leica would not have gotten away with than it is higher iso noise than it has now ...... wether the grain look is filmlike or not ( i might add .. i like that too from time to time). There are only very few shooters out there (and mostly B&W shooters) who do not mind some grain!

I already see the threads: "m8 unusable at iso 640 and up ..... " because that is what most people conclude when seeing the slightest noise!

[TimF]

Tim, I think we're coming at this from different perspectives, as I tend to like some of the older Leica lenses more than the newer ones: the DR Summicrom, the pre-ASPH Summilux-50, the Summcron-35 v4.

Yes indeed. I went back to the older pre-aspheric 35mm Summmilux - despite the obvious superiority in many ways of the aspheric lens, the old one - to me - has that 'something' to which I alluded in my previous.

 

[blovitch]

>> I already see the threads: "m8 unusable at iso 640 and up ..... " because that is what most people conclude when seeing the slightest noise!

 

Whilst noise viewed as "actual pixels" is disturbing I do think that many digital photographers overplay its significance.

 

I recently had a number of images published in a UK car magazine all shot at ISO 1600 on the DMR. The images were noisy but in no way did it detract from the images, or the suitability for publication.

 

-Tim