p.4 #1 · canon DSLR vs Leica M8 for extended traveling
"Hilarious. Has this got enough pop for you?"
Not really. It's typical of the characteristics of what can be done with close focusing APS SLR's. And what was the depth of field on this? A hell of a lot more than what you would get on 35/1.4 on a FF, if you could even focus that close. Depth of field on APS lenses covers focusing error - so what!
p.4 #2 · canon DSLR vs Leica M8 for extended traveling
"The 450D's viewfinder craps on the M8's viewfinder in the following ways:"
Did not sound like it was serving the cause of neutral objectivity that you now claim.
Jul 21, 2008 at 07:18 AM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.4 #3 · canon DSLR vs Leica M8 for extended traveling
wolfloid wrote:
"Hilarious. Has this got enough pop for you?"
Not really. It's typical of the characteristics of what can be done with close focusing APS SLR's. And what was the depth of field on this? A hell of a lot more than what you would get on 35/1.4 on a FF, if you could even focus that close. Depth of field on APS lenses covers focusing error - so what!
It was taken on full frame with a 35 f1.4. You can focus that close without an extension tube. That depth of field is the depth of field you get with a 35 f1.4 on full frame at that distance. If I had wanted an even narrower d.o.f., I could have opened up to f1.4. In fact, I shoot like that quite often so I can say with some confidence that this shot is 'typical of the characteristics of what can be done with close focussing' full frame SLRs.
Edited on Jul 21, 2008 at 07:49 AM
Jul 21, 2008 at 07:43 AM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.4 #4 · canon DSLR vs Leica M8 for extended traveling
wolfloid wrote:
"The 450D's viewfinder craps on the M8's viewfinder in the following ways:"
Did not sound like it was serving the cause of neutral objectivity that you now claim.
I accept that 'craps on' isn't the right technical term. However, on many of the points, the M8 simply has no equivalent, viz. autofocus, liveview etc. etc.. It's not like M8 AF is bad. It simply doesn't have it at all. With that in mind, you might think that 'craps on' was quite mild.
p.4 #5 · canon DSLR vs Leica M8 for extended traveling
If you can have access to a store or someone that has one, try on an M8. you'll know right away if you hate it or not. the shooting style is sooooo different than a DSLR, that it on itself will be the driving factor to use it. Most LEICA M, RF and DRF shooters (including myself) are drawn to the style before anything else.
Erwin's article, while mechanically correct, it is academic in the field: I went through a shoot with a LUX 75mm 1.4 on my RD1, in very low light conditions (inside, at night, a stage show). This lens is the equivelant of a 105 1.4! I could focus it really well probably 8 out of 10 times; given that the RD1 has one of the shortest RFBs out there, this is commendable. RF has its limits, but where it works, it really works!
I like to shoot wides. I can put my 21mm (32mm equiv.) on, scale focus for f.5.6, set manual exposure and go. I am on the street with a very capable camera, that requires no focusing, not metering and no shutter lag in a package smaller than all the DSLRs I have come across, including the PENTAX with the pancake on it. People tend to either not be intimidated, or not take seriously this camera; this is an added bonus if this is your shoting thing
p.4 #8 · canon DSLR vs Leica M8 for extended traveling
Without any intent of becoming part of any flamewar here is just a note:
tennclay wrote:
I had the M8 and 5D together for several months and did some testing. My conclusion, based on printing, was that the image quality was basically a toss up. Both produce outstanding files.
For most people, this statement is actually enough to make a case against M8. The impression which is created during various leica related discussions is that you would get much better image quality using leica gear. If the image quality is just about the same then for most people there does not seem to be any reason to think of buying the M8 (even if funds are no issue). Dont get me wrong, I am sure those who own an M8 have good reasons for buying it and get the most out of the money spent. It is also clear that there is more to a camera than just IQ. But this just tells me that us ordinary mortals are not missing out on some exotic out-of-this-world image quality which we can only dream about but never own .
And the DSLR technology is improving rapidly. Even better high ISO is there (D3, D700), things like Live View open up many new possibilities, autofocus capabilities are improving as well and are critical in some situations, etc etc. Chances that leica would improve at any rate even closer to that are rather remote.
p.4 #9 · canon DSLR vs Leica M8 for extended traveling
rhameed wrote:
And the DSLR technology is improving rapidly. Even better high ISO is there (D3, D700), things like Live View open up many new possibilities, autofocus capabilities are improving as well and are critical in some situations, etc etc. Chances that leica would improve at any rate even closer to that are rather remote.
Why?? None of the things you mention are exclusive to SLR's. Live View, in particular, is much more easily implemented on a rangefinder. You can put the same chip you put in a DSLR can be put in a rangefinder. Rangefinders can even autofocus (i.e., the Contax G).
Sure, there are things that rangefinders will never be much good for, but there are a lot of things that they are great for. Digital rangefinder will advance as quickly as DSLR's. Leica will adopt those advances that benefit its clientele -- I suspect that auto-focus might not be among them, but higher ISO performance, Live View and other development certainly will.
I just hope that Leica accelerates it's traditional product development and shortens its product life cycles, or we might not see any developments in an M8-successors for at least 10 years. Hopefully they have adapted to the realities of this market, rather than one from 50 years ago.
p.4 #10 · canon DSLR vs Leica M8 for extended traveling
Lotusm50 wrote:
I just hope that Leica accelerates it's traditional product development and shortens its product life cycles, or we might not see any developments in an M8-successors for at least 10 years. Hopefully they have adapted to the realities of this market, rather than one from 50 years ago.
yeah thats the big thing to me
typically 2nd or 3rd iteration cameras iron out the issues, thats a design session i'd love to take part in.
sincerely, despite the 'yet another bun fight coz its a leica' mentality that certainly has costed here in the past. The shooting regimes are so different there isnt really a comparison.
Anyone who figures that M wides can be substituted on an average SLR has rocks in their head, they offer the fastest and widest range of top quality glass, not all of it super expensive (although you wont be chasing an M8 with the average photogs earnings).
cheap way to find out if the hat fits is to pick up a film M mount and have a check ride on RF shooting, ymmv of course.....
p.4 #11 · canon DSLR vs Leica M8 for extended traveling
I agree to whatever you said. However I didnt mean that Leica is not capable of introducing these changes, it is rather a question of whether we could expect shorter product update cycles from them or not. Digital SLRs at this point have become pretty much a consumer electronic item like a cell phone. The economy of mass production and the willingness of the consumers to buy an "upgrade" with just a "few more features" allows the SLR manufacturers to introduce new models and new features pretty rapidly. And with every new model they can fine-tune the features from last model. Leica M8 on the other hand is a rather specialized product which meets the demands of a relatively small group and it does not seem likely that they could have a similarly aggressive "upgrade" cycle. But its just my impression, I could be totally wrong.
Lotusm50 wrote:
Why?? None of the things you mention are exclusive to SLR's. Live View, in particular, is much more easily implemented on a rangefinder. You can put the same chip you put in a DSLR can be put in a rangefinder. Rangefinders can even autofocus (i.e., the Contax G).
Sure, there are things that rangefinders will never be much good for, but there are a lot of things that they are great for. Digital rangefinder will advance as quickly as DSLR's. Leica will adopt those advances that benefit its clientele -- I suspect that auto-focus might not be among them, but higher ISO performance, Live View and other development certainly will.
I just hope that Leica accelerates it's traditional product development and shortens its product life cycles, or we might not see any developments in an M8-successors for at least 10 years. Hopefully they have adapted to the realities of this market, rather than one from 50 years ago.
p.4 #12 · canon DSLR vs Leica M8 for extended traveling
wolfloid wrote:
"Most folks here use AF confirm chips when adapting lenses"
This makes no difference to the inherent limitations of SLR focusing of wideangle lenses, since the AF is throught the lens and is limited in accuracy by the EFB. In otherwords AF focusing with wide angles is very inaccurate, unless a separate rangefinder mechanism, which is not through the lens is used. (which, as far as I know, none do use.)
congratulations, you are the first who discovered that AF is completely useless for WA lenses.
Jul 21, 2008 at 03:14 PM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.4 #13 · canon DSLR vs Leica M8 for extended traveling
dasrocket wrote:
If you can have access to a store or someone that has one, try on an M8. you'll know right away if you hate it or not. the shooting style is sooooo different than a DSLR, that it on itself will be the driving factor to use it. Most LEICA M, RF and DRF shooters (including myself) are drawn to the style before anything else.
In some ways you are right, but OTOH it's easy to romanticise it, buy the camera, and then find that you come face to face with unforeseen limitations. That's why it's a good idea to start with a Bessa or an Epson, and that's why I go to the trouble of pointing out some of the problems of rangefinder which may come as a surprise to people who haven't used one extensively, and have just tried one in a shop for an hour or two.
p.4 #15 · canon DSLR vs Leica M8 for extended traveling
wolfloid wrote:
This makes no difference to the inherent limitations of SLR focusing of wideangle lenses, since the AF is throught the lens and is limited in accuracy by the EFB. In otherwords AF focusing with wide angles is very inaccurate, unless a separate rangefinder mechanism, which is not through the lens is used. (which, as far as I know, none do use.)
Andi Dietrich wrote:
congratulations, you are the first who discovered that AF is completely useless for WA lenses.
No - the idea comes from Erwin Puts, the guy who compared 100% crops from a 5D with a zoom and an M8 with a prime, failed to allow for the extra 3 megapixels, declared the M8 to be superior, and then retracted it all when someone pointed out to him that he was effectively comparing different sized prints, and needed to uprez the M8 file to 13 megapixel before comparing at 100%. The guy who has spent years writing great long technical articles about the the unassailable superiority of all things Leica, despite not understanding the difference between a 100% crop from a 13mp camera and a 10mp camera. That Puts.
Edited on Jul 21, 2008 at 07:49 PM
Jul 21, 2008 at 07:43 PM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.4 #16 · canon DSLR vs Leica M8 for extended traveling
telyt wrote:
Here's another data point for 'brainiac':
He's entitled to his opinion, but a data point would be an actual published comparison of the two cameras' output in identical circumstances. Like Jack's.
p.4 #18 · canon DSLR vs Leica M8 for extended traveling
joan leslie wrote:
Traveling with a 40 D and L glass adds up to WEIGHT. Has anyone tried the Leica M8 and leica lenses to lessen the load? Do you have any advice on the idea? thanks joanlvh
The quote above is the OP so I will try to address it rather than the merits of a dSLR over a range finder or vice versa.
Before the Leica M8 was introduced my travel kit was a Canon 5D, 24-105 f4 IS L, 70-300 IS DO, small Metz flash in a Crumpler 5 million dollar bag which is a relatively small kit albeit heavy. Since the M8 came out, my travel kit has been the M8 plus a variety of lenses which has changed and grown over the last year 20 months which fit into a small Domke bag (smaller than the Crumpler). I have been to NYC, Caribbean, San Francisco, Toronto, Germany, Alaska, Hawaii, London (3x), and Washington DC among other shorter weekend trips during this time frame and have been very pleased with the M8 kit. I have not once been compelled to travel with the 5D kit (I still own it) since getting the M8 kit. I am not really sure why that is because the actual kit sizes and weight are not as much different as I would have thought. I guess it comes down to image quality and shooting style - I believe the M8 images are better than the 5D (my opinion, maybe not yours) and I also find the rangefinder shooting style great for travel.
I don't think I would consider others suggestions to use smaller Oly lenses on a 450D or 40D as a way to save kit size/weight. I believe manual focusing with the crop sensor viewfinders (I have a 20D and 40D so I have a clue) is much more difficult than with the M8. To me the advantage of a dSLR kit for travel is the use of zoom lenses and autofocus.
p.4 #20 · canon DSLR vs Leica M8 for extended traveling
Telyt, you can go on linking to opinions posted on leica-users.org, but to be honest, I don't think that is going to build a very objective picture, partly because the M8 is probably the most propagandised camera available, as corroborated by Leica's hobbling of online reviewers including Michael Reichmann et alia.
Why not show us some real comparisons which demonstrate that "The M8 files hold more information, both in dynamic range and detail" instead of linking to some bloke who says so? Otherwise it's just a lot of brand-jingoism. Your username is a trademark of Leica, too, so that doesn't help.
We have seen some actual comparison data on this thread, from Jack Flesher and myself. Although the quest for reasons to dismiss that data continues, what the data suggests is that the people you are linking to haven't properly compared their equipment, or don't know how to assess image quality (usually because they compare 100% crops from cameras with different numbers of pixels).
The M8 has unique features, and is a fine camera which many people are happy using. However, the unusual reverence for the Leica brand doesn't mean that misleading comments about the M8's image quality should be offered as advice without support by demonstration. That's how myths grow up, and hard-earned money is misspent.
