M8: Evaluative Criteria; Skeptism & Optimism

[mwilliamsphotography]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I will try to write this as carefully as possible so as not to offend anyone.

 

The only way to do that is state an opinion as forthrightly as possible without all the histrionics and enthusiasm that leads to over promise. I think this is important because many people take it literally, and then can be disappointed in reality. We should also remember that this new Leica camera can invite fresh users to the range-finder experience, which I have to believe is vital to the continuance of the marque.

 

The first question is what criteria do we set for this camera's performance? Of course this varies from photographer to photographer. However, a range-finder traditionally has been applied to candid situations, reportage, or as a highly portable recording tool (like for travel).

 

More specifically, Leica range-finder work has been primarily discrete, lower available light photography. A top shutter speed of 1/1000th, a paltry 1/50th sync speed, and high performance lenses that deliver at wide open apertures is testimony to that. In addition, most range-finders allow hand-holding at lower shutter speeds due to the absence of mirror slap.

 

The use of a new shutter in the M8 extends that application considerably. However, IMO, it doesn't alter the basic application of the M8 as a range-finder. Horses for courses is as true now as it ever was.

 

To compare this or any other smaller sensor 35mm style digital camera to MF is hyperbole ... or exhibits lack of experience with the current state of MF photography, film or digital. This sets up expectations the camera cannot fulfill. This opinion is based on extensive use of current MF digital solutions and MF film using a high-end scanner.

 

So, setting aside the M8 issues that have been flogged to the bone, how does this camera perform? What set of expectations can it meet, and how do they compare to other choices on the market?

 

Frankly, it stands alone. It is currently a digital range-finder with no parallel. The RD-1 can't match it ... an opinion based on having extensively used the RD-1.

 

Moving on, how does it perform in the areas that range-finders are traditionally used for?

Lower available light first comes to mind. Inevitably this leads to a comparison to the perceived high ISO industry leader: the Canon 5D.

 

At ISO 1250, properly exposed, they are pretty close to equal IMO (give or take some noise). However, at ISO 1250 practiced range-finder users can often shoot at least a full stop faster shutter speed than with the 5D. In addition, the M8 user has far better wide angle lenses at their disposal. This opinion is based on making thousands of exposures with a 5D using an array of L lenses. While the noise at 1250 is sometimes a bit more pronounced with the M8, the images are far sharper and exhibit less "digital plastic" than the 5D ... and especially the M8 files require less post processing sharpening.

 

The real criteria: while we all love to pixel peep on the internet, the final analysis needs to be made based on prints or press ready proofs. In addition, a personal criteria for me is the "pictorial" feel of the final product. How light is rendered, the sense of depth, separation of tones, etc.

 

I would offer this: do NOT judge anything based on what's posted on the web, or even what you see full resolution on your computer screen. The prints are a whole other matter. I discovered this when trying to evaluate scanned film images which unfavorably compared to digital files on screen ... until they were actually printed ... then the opposite became true.

 

I personally do not need 30X40 prints from this camera. I have cameras that I'd use for such applications that I've successfully printed to 6 feet wide. Again, "horses for courses". What is important is that one can pull a stunning 11X14 or maybe a 16X20 from a M8 file that works at normal viewing distances ... but in truth, for me a vast majority of images will be 8X10s to be viewed at arm's length in a book. Thousands of them a year.

 

As we now wait for Leica's solutions to the teething problems, we need to keep in mind what the M8 can and does do as it stands today. If using IR cut filters are needed to maintain the current strengths, then so be it. It'll be because it's a fact of life for a range-finder based on today's most current technology.

 

I would also add that despite valiant efforts in developing color profile band-aids, it isn't a solution I'd cotton to in the long run. I'd opt for the best file going in so each person can use the Processing Program they most want to use. For me right now, that's Adobe Camera RAW ... because it recognizes all my Camera RAW formats and keeps my work-flow streamlined and consistent. Commercially, it's directly importable to Adobe's In-Design as a RAW file, and my art director clients like it that way.

 

So, based on the prints I've been able to pull from the M8, I am leaning toward keeping it ... for all it's attributes as a range-finder camera. Only if Leica totally undermines it's current strengths in fixing the problems would I alter that purchase opinion.

[Guest stnami]

Sounds like you are resigned to the situation this is the camera, time to accept the camera for what it is

[chrism]

Skepticism and optimism? A timeline:

 

PrePhotokina: I'm so excited, I'm barely able to maintain continence.

Photokina: Oops, good thing these trousers are dark.

Late October: Please, please, please....

Early November: Ahh! Gorgeous!

2 Days Later: Oh no! What have they done?

The Next Day: The sky is falling!

Next Few Days: Sky still falling. They had better fix this!

Mid-November: Filters work. Tweaked profiles work.

Present: Understand compromises. They had better not fix this with more compromises.

 

And all avoidable with proper communication.

 

Chris

I'm not bitter that I don't have mine yet. Of course not.

[John Maio]

I would offer this: do NOT judge anything based on what's posted on the web, or even what you see full resolution on your computer screen. The prints are a whole other matter. I discovered this when trying to evaluate scanned film images which unfavorably compared to digital files on screen ... until they were actually printed ... then the opposite became true.

 

Fascinating observation. I've also observed that some of my scanned M7 prints have a quality that sets them apart from all digital prints. Won't even try to explain why, but I know what I see.

[moikle]

Fascinating observation. I've also observed that some of my scanned M7 prints have a quality that sets them apart from all digital prints. Won't even try to explain why, but I know what I see.

 

 

Agreed.

 

Mike

[Guest malland]

...While the noise at 1250 is sometimes a bit more pronounced with the M8, the images are far sharper and exhibit less "digital plastic" than the 5D ... and especially the M8 files require less post processing sharpening.

Maybe the 5D gives you digital plastic but my experience in putting together some 100 B&W prints taken with my M6 and with my Ricoh GR-D, about 50 prints each, is that the latter digital camera produces results that are so film-like that no one has been able to tell the difference.

 

I'd rather have the M8 produce files that have as much grain as Tri-or HP5 and not have to use IR cut filters for color.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

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

[sean_reid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Marc,

 

Interesting analysis but I have to disagree with you about how well the M8 files compare to drum scans of MF negatives. And that comment is not based on inexperience <G>. MF digital backs are a different matter. I think David Adamson may have some interesting comments about your conclusion as well and he's not inexperienced either. Your other points are well worth considering, I think.

 

Sean

[davidada]

I agree with your comments on MF digital - I have a phase one fx 4x5 digital that I use for studio and copy work. If any one saw the recent Chuck Close show that was at the museum of modern art we made photographic prints that were 66 x 90 inches by copying 20 x 24 polaroids with the phase one. This provided quality much better than 8x10 film - I know because we tried and compared. BTW we regularly have to use an IR cut filter on the Phase one because of IR sensitivity- no big deal use the tools you need.

 

A similar quality is exhibited by the M8 in its ability to punch beyond its weight, yesterday I printed a few more files from the M8. I took one particular file ( the orange truck I posted) and printed it as an 11x14, 16x20, 20 x24, 28 x40. What was very noticeable was that there is a preferred size for the printout, at the smaller sizes micro - detail was compressed and difficult to resolve ( for instance there is an old can stuffed into one of the bricks half way up the wall in the larger prints you can make out the text on the can) as we moved up in size the file was allowed to display its stuff, my preferred size in overall readability was at 20 x 24. The 28x40 was really good but it is exhibition size - meaning you have to stand back three feet to actually fit the image into your viewpoint. I would have no hesitation at all in using this size and with the workflow that I use I think the finished print would be assumed to be from an MF film camera.

[jlm]

from what I have seen, flatbed scanning of originals, stiched together if needed, can provide excellent quality digital files, perhaps surpassing shooting the originals with MF backs. Can anyone comment on this?

[robertwright]

I agree with your comments on MF digital - I have a phase one fx 4x5 digital that I use for studio and copy work. If any one saw the recent Chuck Close show that was at the museum of modern art we made photographic prints that were 66 x 90 inches by copying 20 x 24 polaroids with the phase one. This provided quality much better than 8x10 film - I know because we tried and compared. BTW we regularly have to use an IR cut filter on the Phase one because of IR sensitivity- no big deal use the tools you need.

 

Is this under strobe or tungsten? Also, how did you discover this, or was it a known issue. I work with two photographers, one uses phase, the other Leaf. The color rendition on the Leaf is pretty good, the rendition on the phase is not so good. I am wondering if I should show up monday morning with an IR cut filter....

[brucek]

Skepticism and optimism? A timeline:

 

Chris:

 

That's an accurate summary of what I've been feeling with the M8. :-)

 

Bruce

[davidada]

It is a known issue - Phase one never addressed it as a problem, also this is under tungsten.

[blakley]

I never even went through the phase of considering returning the camera. I shot it for a day before I found out about the true seriousness of the magenta problem (by reading about it here, not in use). I reproduced the problem, and it did annoy me. But I switched to B&W (assuming that Leica would come up with a fix). The B&W was simply incredible - files and prints. So I ordered some 486 filters. Only one's come in so far - a 49mm. So I used it on the 75/2 Cron, and confirmed that it does a good job at correcting magenta.

 

I have yet to encounter green blobs or banding/streaking.

 

From my point of view, therefore, it's a great camera (better than anything else I can get for the price), which takes my collection of great lenses, and has a fault which will need a repair.

 

In the past, when I've received a camera like that (I got a broken used Mamiya 6 once, and a malfunctioning new F100), what I did was had them fixed. In both cases the repair was covered (by the retailer in the first case & by Nikon in the second). In both cases the camera met & even exceeded expectations after the repair. So I'm going to do the same thing again. Never even considered doing otherwise.

 

The thing DOES need profiling, with or without the filters, and the auto WB is just flat unreliable. In my view those problems are at least as important in real use as working out the magenta problems. (Green blobs and streaking/banding just have to be fixed - they're unacceptable image defects and not really fixable in post-processing without huge effort). I'd love to be able to get RAW files which are close to right and JPEGs which need only a bit of contrast (and maybe global color cast correction) - but I don't get that today. I hope this is a high priority for Leica, and I hope that we also get new profiles installed in Capture One LE soon (ACR is also a priority).

[Bob Ross]

I

A similar quality is exhibited by the M8 in its ability to punch beyond its weight, yesterday I printed a few more files from the M8. I took one particular file ( the orange truck I posted) and printed it as an 11x14, 16x20, 20 x24, 28 x40. What was very noticeable was that there is a preferred size for the printout, at the smaller sizes micro - detail was compressed and difficult to resolve ( for instance there is an old can stuffed into one of the bricks half way up the wall in the larger prints you can make out the text on the can) as we moved up in size the file was allowed to display its stuff, my preferred size in overall readability was at 20 x 24. The 28x40 was really good but it is exhibition size - meaning you have to stand back three feet to actually fit the image into your viewpoint. I would have no hesitation at all in using this size and with the workflow that I use I think the finished print would be assumed to be from an MF film camera.

Hi David,

I found your statement about "preferred size for printout" interesting, because I thought this was the case in printing for years, but could never put my finger on it. A case of something my intuition was trying to tell me, put into words... Thanks

Bob

[Guest malland]

...What was very noticeable was that there is a preferred size for the printout, at the smaller sizes micro - detail was compressed and difficult to resolve ( for instance there is an old can stuffed into one of the bricks half way up the wall in the larger prints you can make out the text on the can) as we moved up in size the file was allowed to display its stuff, my preferred size in overall readability was at 20 x 24. The 28x40 was really good but it is exhibition size - meaning you have to stand back three feet to actually fit the image into your viewpoint. I would have no hesitation at all in using this size and with the workflow that I use I think the finished print would be assumed to be from an MF film camera.

David, print size is an interesting aesthetic choice: often some photographs don't look good when printed very large. I have a picture of a Buddha torso taken at the Musee Guimet that looks good at 12x18 inches but simply looks too large at 24x36 inches. This seems to be very image-specific, and I haven't been able to find a general rule, such as that pictures don't look when they are larger than life-sized. On the other hand, I like very large prints: a good example is a Moriyama Daido exhibition that I saw at the Sydney Biennale (Gallery of NSW), where he had 60 huge prints of 40x60 inch size (100x150cm).

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

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

[vic vic]

marc - great overview...

feels like a man who talks realistically and makes a great services to this wonderful and potential camera (m8).

[lxlim]

Thanks, Marc. This is a useful summary for a non-Leica user like myself and a thread of useful comments. Perhaps a sticky?

 

Alex