telyt wrote:
Here's another data point for 'brainiac':

http://leica-users.org/v37/msg07609.html

That's not a 'data point' it's an expression of opinion from a guy whose website event portfolio looks like this:
http://www.imagist.com/photo/pg4_event.html

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.

Sorry braniac, your conclusions seem to be based on weak research and testing that make a mockery of your handle.

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.

FWIW,
Mark

Another data point:

http://leica-users.org/v37/msg07623.html

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.

Well, Brainiac, now the dust in the thread seems to have settled a bit, I have a feeling there has been a lot of cross-talk. It may well be that there are better files than the M8 out there - personally I think my DMR -about the same sensor specs and even one generation further back- produces "better" images than my M8, without scientific testing btw. The real question, however, is to relevance. Photographs are not taken to be viewed at 400% on a monitor, but to be printed and displayed. If respected and capable photographers report that they prefer those prints, side by side, to the ones they make for instance with the 5D, that is more relevant than a pixel comparison.
To descend to pixels nevertheless, I think your noise-reduction theory cannot hold. All cameras use pre-output noise reduction, and CMos sensor cameras more than CCD cameras, for the simple reason that a CMos sensor has a higher noiselevel than a CCD sensor - the pixels are smaller, leaving space on the sensor for noise-reduction on the deepest level. Canon has done this so well that they can produce CMos sensors with lower noiselevels than CCD sensors on the output level - at least they could until Nikon got their act together....
The fringing effect you notice (although I have seen no evidence in practical use) may well be due to the specific microlens layout on the M8.



Edited by jaapv on Jul 22, 2008 at 10:22 AM GMT

Richard, do you believe that the opinions of photographers who make their living at this craft and who are heavily invested in both systems and have made thousands of photographs with both systems are to be discounted in favor of an opinion based on a few test snaps? I think you've got too much emotional investment in your equipment admit that you may have been mistaken. In any event your opinion is far from universal.

perhaps a more neutral stance is in order, i hope its ok to post this

DR
from dpreview, phil askey on DR between M8 and 5D, self explanatory but for this, dp's method often undervalues cameras disposed to shooting to the left of grey, (sorry png wont post)
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/leicam8/page14.asp
http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/LeicaM8/Samples/DynRange/m8_iso0160_wedge.png
http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/LeicaM8/Samples/DynRange/IMG_9967_wedge.png

Noise (note that M8 indicated iso is less than actual)
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/leicam8/page13.asp
"From ISO 160 (200 equiv.) to 1250 (1600 equiv.) the flat area noise profile (gray and black patches) of the M8 is fairly similar to that of the EOS 5D and D200, however the M8 does maintain detail better than the D200 at ISO 1600, this apparently due to less (or better) noise reduction. At ISO 3200 the EOS 5D delivers the most detail with the M8 image affected mostly by chroma (color blotching) noise. The graphs below support this, what's interesting is that the M8's profile is very similar to that of the D200 but as mentioned it doesn't suffer the same degradation of detail at ISO 1600 and 3200 (equiv.)."

Studio scene comparison, M8/5D
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/leicam8/page16.asp
"The EOS 5D strides confidently into this comparison with a 432 vertical columns by 288 horizontal rows (2.4 million pixel) advantage, and to be fair that can be seen, in places, although honestly it's not as big a leap you would think, above eight megapixels the law of diminishing returns takes over. The M8's color response is clearly more muted than the EOS 5D. The lack of an anti-alias filter (low pass filter) on the M8 affords its processing systems more per-pixel detail than the EOS 5D and in some instances this can be seen although as you will see later for this to be truly obvious you really will need to shoot RAW."

and this page is interesting, not least for the RAW results
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/leicam8/page18.asp
rather than increas one file size against the other dp chose to make both files 17Mp, heres how it went

"Seventeen megapixels anyone?
Just to see how well both camera's images interpolate to larger sizes we processed both RAW's through Adobe Camera RAW using the seventeen megapixel output option (no sharpening and then 80% unsharp mask applied, as above). A single crop of the results can be found below and you can if you wish download these images and examine them in more detail. You will see that the M8's images interpolate very well (again thanks to a sharper starting point than a camera with an anti-alias filter) although some moire is visible on black & white high contrast detail."
M8 100%

I totally agree with everything you say Jaap. If someone says "image quality on 5D and M8 is about the same", I think that's good advice. The problem is that comments like "The M8 files hold more information, both in dynamic range and detail" always appear on threads about the M8, when that is in fact demonstrably untrue, and real image data is never put forward to support it. If people would stick to championing the M8's strengths instead of going misty eyed and making unsupportable claims, then it would make it easier to assess it. I nearly bought one, partly because certain people who used to frequent this forum made very tall claims about it before it had even been released. I would like to give the benefit of the doubt to those who were making the tall claims, and say that it was just unbridled enthusiasm, but, at Leica's request, reviewers also kept quiet about the various problems they encountered with the camera. Frankly, I'm glad I didn't spend $20k on an M8 outfit, and I don't like people being encouraged to do so on false pretenses.

You don't have to make stuff up to sing the M8's praises:
it's the best portable digital rangefinder
some prefer rangefinder focussing
at lower isos M8 IQ is roughly as good as the 5D
it's a bit lighter and smaller than a 5D
it's noticeably quieter in operation than a 5D
the lenses are very nice and very small
it has compatibility with a large range of Zeiss and Cosina lenses as well as Leicas
the viewfinder is very bright
focus on a well calibrated camera, with most lenses and central subjects, is accurate

Equally, someone shouldn't get jumped on for openly discussing the M8's weaknesses.

I'm sorry to have to say that while I normally think Phil's tests are excellent, both at this link
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/leicam8/page16.asp
and at this link
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/leicam8/page13.asp
you can clearly see that the 5D image has more magnification. What on earth is the point of printing one camera's result to one size, cutting out a square inch, then printing another camera result TO A DIFFERENT SIZE, cutting out a square inch, and then examining noise and sharpness in those square inches? It's not a comparison, it's a scientific way of handicapping the camera with more pixels. Phil normally gets this stuff right. Maybe Leica gave him a call. What's amazing is that if you actually look at the crops of the African globe and the Queen's head, the 5D still holds more detail and less noise, even though it has been handicapped by nearly 3 megapixels. Ultimately Phil's test agrees with Jack's and mine even though he doesn't quite say so in the article.

The oak trees in the crops above show that the 5D captures more detail, not less, than the M8. The 5D crop here is overexposed compared to the M8 crop. They need different curves. And ACR isn't necessarily the best choice of raw developer for 5D files.

brainiac wrote:
Ultimately Phil's test agrees with Jack's and mine even though he doesn't quite say so in the article.

fwiw i dont see him agreeing with you at all, the differences have been firmly and fairly identified.

1/ some evidence of moire and moire processing, perhaps some of which is what you think is NR
2/ on occasion more per-pixel detail, on others less,
3/ more noise at high iso, but then its about a half stop less due to the crop and undereads the actual iso
4/ askey also observes "You will see that the M8's images interpolate very well (again thanks to a sharper starting point than a camera with an anti-alias filter)"
which as i recall it, is the essence of what jack said too.
5/ Similar DR range to 5D

i think if you like how a RF shoots and you are more disposed to WA/MF and RAW processing, you would enjoy M8.

If not,(and in the huge variance of photographic missions that is the most likely case), then its a choice between several FF cameras depending upon your needs, in the usual way.

I am another guy who switched from 5D to M8. In the beginning I had both, although I was almost immediately committed to selling the 5D. My main problem was the size and weight of the 5D, combined with the fact that I did most of my shooting with just a few focal lengths, and that the options for the M8 in this range were better (albeit much more expensive). I also prefer the results I get from the M8 by a noticeable margin, although if I fiddle enough with the 5D images, I could almost always get similar results, and it does hold a slight resolution advantage, which, as Brainiac's example shows, on the edge can make a big difference. My conclusions are as follows:

- Euro for Euro, the 5D cannot be beat by the M8. You must be willing to invest significantly more in the M8 to get similar results. Getting Voigtlaender lenses can offset this somewhat, but the camera itself is just so damn expensive.

- Overall, the results are quite close. There are some specific differences, and if your preferences or needs match one of these differences, it can swing your decision. In Brainiac's case, resolution is very important, so the small real difference to me is a large difference to him.

- At low ISO, I much prefer the M8's colours. They are not necessarily more accurate, but I get the WOW factor much more often with the images straight out of the camera or slightly tweaked, than with the 5D. With some more time invested, the 5D can pull close, but for me it could almost never pass the M8's results. All very much IMO, but I see this opinion echoed in many other 5D->M8 switchers. This is at least partly due to the lenses.

- Above ISO 640, I don't like the colour results of the M8 that much, so I either don't do that and just accept slightly soft images, or I convert to B&W, where I prefer the M8's grain quality to the 5D's grain quality.

- The M lenses are awesome. Imagine an entire stable of L lenses, all about as good as the 85L, and you are on the right track. Many of Leica's M lenses are just awe-inspiring. The 50 Lux Asph is my very favorite lens, and probably one of the best lenses ever made. The results take my breath away, again and again. Of course, it costs about 3000 Euro.

- I don't use features such as live view and long telephoto lenses, so the M system's focus on wide-to-short tele lenses is perfect for my uses. I occasionally miss a more serious macro setup, or tilt-shift lenses, and may buy a D300 or D700 one day for such uses.

- I don't miss the Canon system at all, and would never buy into one again. This is very personal, but somehow it never really clicked for me. Even before I sold the 5D system, I was down to 1 Canon lens (17-40/4) and the rest were all Leica R lenses. If I were to buy into a DSLR system again, it would almost certainly be either Leica or Nikon. At the time I bought the 5D, I had too little money to consider the Leica R system, and Nikon's system was not to my liking. Things have changed on both those fronts now. Anyway, it won't happen soon.

Some of my results with the M8 can be found here: http://throughthelensdarkly.com/blog/

I have owned both cameras, the 5D with Canon L lenses as well as the M8 with Leica lenses.
Thus I have used both cameras, or rather systems, on a dayly basis.
I don't own any of the cameras anymore, so I have no reason to be biased to something like "my own gear" in this discussion.
My findings were these:
My 5D with three L lenses provided me with more pixels than the M8 system.
My M8 with two Leica lenses provided me with nicer pixels than the 5D system, nicer perceived colors and better perceived sharpness (acutance), at least to my eye. Except at high ISO where the 5D wins.
If I preferred pixel quantity over quality, I would go with the Canon 5D system.
If I preferred pixel quality over quantity, I would go with the Leica M8 system.
Some of it might be due to the difference in glass, some of it due to the difference in AA filter (the M8 not having any).
I even used different RAW converters so I was actually not comparing just cameras but two completely different systems.
Nothing scientific, just my 2 cents straight out of my own experience with practical use of both systems.
Each to their own.

You know, the M8 is a funny camera...

I had a 5D and moved into an early SN M8. I really enjoyed shooting the M8 and sold the 5D. However, I had problems in highlight and shadow areas with the M8, so I sold it too... And decided to try Nikon for fun.

I purchased a D300, and I really enjoyed the IQ and the colors. A different look than the Canon, to be sure, but a great dSLR. But I missed the "fun" factor of the M8. So I recently purchased a used but LATE serial number M8. I know it may be hard to believe, but the newer model is a subtly different camera. The problems with the shadows and highlight areas are gone. The shutter is much quieter.

I have done side by side tests with the M8 and D300 (obviously with different lenses, but equivalent focal lengths). It's a toss up in IQ. The Leica files take less post, the Nikon is a more robust, more bells and whistles camera, and you can't compare the flash possibilities and low light perfomance.

Dollar for dollar, you can't beat the offerings from Nikon or Canon. You can put a little Voigtlander pancake on the Nikon with a Katz Eye -- small package, great IQ, relatively affordable.

However, I am at work and on my desk is: A small bag with the M8, a tiny Voigtlander 35 skopar on it, and a Leica 21 Elmarit for backup. Awesome.

I took both the D300 and the M8 on vacation for 10 days with the family last month. Currently I am picking the best pics to put in the Blurb photobook... 90% of the 200 "keeper" images, M8. 10% Nikon. Both made outstanding pics, Leica just that much more fun to shoot.

An M8 might not be the latest, greatest or cheapest, but as Ferris Bueller would say: "It is so choice. If you have the means, I highly recommend picking one up."

I would LOVE to try shooting the M8 with three or maybe four small prime lenses.
However, I read these 7 pages and decided that the cost was absolutely not worth the level of performance/functionality delivered at this time:

http://web.mac.com/kamberm/Leica_M8_Field_Test,_Iraq/Page_1.html

It's a real life field study by a better photog than any of us, and it highlights the severe deficiencies of the M8 compared to a FF Canon with 24/1.4L.

I am quite sure that at some time during my life I WILL shoot with a dRF as I think it would really meet my main requirements for a photographic system, but right now the balance between cost and technology is far, far more to my liking with dSLRs. It's a shame. I think if the cost and technology were the same for both systems, I would already have gone down the dRF route with a spring in my step. For reference, I don't need AF, but I do need high ISO ability and small (or fast) prime lenses. At the moment that is acheived by a Canon body with a mixture of L primes, a macro prime, and several adapted Zuiko primes. I am waiting until October before I decide on my next body choice. I am curently pricing a Leica/Zeiss/Voigtlander RF lense sytem, and waiting to see if Leica or anyone else produce a "cheap M". I also want to see if Canon can reduce the size of the 5D. The weight difference between the 5D and the M8 is not that large, but the size of the M8 is an advantage. The Zu lenses are approximately comparable in size to the RF lenses, but with the advantage of no crop factor.

Rob Chisholm wrote:
You know, the M8 is a funny camera...


Yes, that's probably a good assessment. I've wanted to buy one and came close on a couple of occaisions. But ultimately I found that it is too "funny" (not funny, "ha ha", if you get my drift). Too many issues, and not enough relative advantages to justify it's price

As others have suggested, I'm waiting for the second generation of the M8, hoping that they will have fully addressed all those funny issues and quirks. I only wonder when that might be. of course, this plan could be shattered if Zeiss get's its act together and produces a digital Zeiss Ikon. rangefinder in the interim.

Zeiss get's its act together and produces a digital Zeiss Ikon
ANy chance of a g3?

Stu Warner wrote:
I would LOVE to try shooting the M8 with three or maybe four small prime lenses.
However, I read these 7 pages and decided that the cost was absolutely not worth the level of performance/functionality delivered at this time:

http://web.mac.com/kamberm/Leica_M8_Field_Test,_Iraq/Page_1.html

It's a real life field study by a better photog than any of us, and it highlights the severe deficiencies of the M8 compared to a FF Canon with 24/1.4L.



Hah! You are a war reporter too?

Most "issues" he had related to his extreme job in Iraq, there were some factual errors too ( startup time is not 3 sec, but 0,7 sec the camera is not "sluggish"but very responsive, AWB is very good, if you load the latest firmware, etc.)
And his conclusion was that it was a good camera, but not suited to his particular needs. Which is fair enough, but not very relevant if your worst problem is focussing on the kids in play.

And his conclusion was that it was a good camera, but not suited to his particular needs. Which is fair enough, but not very relevant if your worst problem is focussing on the kids in play.
That's not what I read. He seemed to love Leica Ms and the way they worked. Indeed, he claims they worked well for him for 23 years. The issues he highlights are genuine flaws with the camera rather than simple matters of preference, though whether they have been resolved I have no idea.

I like the idea of a digital rangefinder, but I don't think, based on what I've read, the M8 doesn't seem like a very good digital camera, despite the fantastic lenses.

If the next gen is better, or in the unikely case that someone brings out a G3, I'd be all over it, if it could be my high quality camera body. At the moment, my high quality camera/lens kit is a 5D with Zeiss, Leica and Olympus lenses.

Well, if you do some further research, and look past internet hypes, you'll find it is an excellent camera for less extreme use, with a digital quality that is equal to any other high-end 135 camera,with the ądded advantage of being a rangefinder, admittedly with the drawbacks of a rangefinder as well, so there lies the choice.
Yes- some do break down, but not many, although it generates an incredible amount of posts,and to be realistic, all cameras break down. In what proportion- there are no figures.

Having just read the review again, even the totally objective points, like changing exposure compensation, seem bad (to me). The overall negativity of his review has got very little to do with the specifics of his habits as a combat photographer IMO. Combined with his comments that ISO 640 is only just barely useable (for PJ work!), and there's no chance whatever the M8 would be a camera I would pay as much as a 5D costs, let alone 2.5x that.

Lenses are great, operation of lenses is fine with me, but as a digital camera, based on that review and a few others I've seen (from a guy who knows his stuff), I wouldn't go near it. I'd love a tiny high quality camera (I'd sell my whole kit for a FF digital G3), but this doesn't seem to be it, to me.

Most users use it fully manual, and it works exactly like the M6, so exposure compensation, which is indeed in menu, does not come into play. His comment on ISO 640 was simply incorrect. There are many, many examples of excellent 640 ISO shots around. Users with the 5D as second camera have posted that it is coparable to the 5D at ISO 800. What is true, however, that due to the DNG compression algorithm used, the file cannot be underexposed. That produces noise. If you look at his shots, they were indeed underexposed. In fact, I find 1250 very usable (= canon 1600) It is my preferred setting for black and white work.

As for reviews, I prefer to see for myself. You cannot really believe any of them...

Edited by jaapv on Jul 23, 2008 at 01:26 PM GMT

His comment on ISO 640 was simply incorrect.
That's not what his pictures say. Though perhaps you could argue he doesn't know what he's doing. Looks to me like he does, though. Anyway, long and the short - I won't be buying an M8, and I wouldn't advise anyone else to buy one, either.

Justin D wrote:
His comment on ISO 640 was simply incorrect.
That's not what his pictures say. Though perhaps you could argue he doesn't know what he's doing. Looks to me like he does, though. Anyway, long and the short - I won't be buying an M8, and I wouldn't advise anyone else to buy one, either.


Have a look at my site - www.jaapvphotography.eu
80% was taken with the M8, the rest the DMR. Not all are labelled yet, sorry. I've been shooting M8-s for 18 months now - I couldn't be happier.

Justin D wrote:
Lenses are great, operation of lenses is fine with me, but as a digital camera, based on that review and a few others I've seen (from a guy who knows his stuff), I wouldn't go near it. I'd love a tiny high quality camera (I'd sell my whole kit for a FF digital G3), but this doesn't seem to be it, to me.

There are also a number of very positive reviews (more, I would say, including another photographer who went to Iraq), but you have either not found them, or you only listen to the negative ones. I would recommend somehow getting some personal experience with the camera before dismissing it so finally.