http://web.mac.com/kamberm/Leica_M8_Field_Test,_Iraq/Page_6.html

in his comparison claiming flat m8 images he compares M8 21mm with Canon 5D shot by EXIF 1/640th F1.6 iso 320. The uncoded 21 (seen as F1 in the EXIF) on M8 is shot at 1/125 sec, meaning it would be fully 2 1/3 stops closed down, or F3.5 v/s F1.6 on 5D.

Is this guy seriously making a comparison on dof ?

Being a highly regarded photographer is not neccessarily a guarantee for being a good reviewer.....

One of the issues with Kodak sensors is that high ISO eats up the DR, we see this with MFDB and DPreview messured the same thing with the m8 sensor.

However, the biggest problem to take a leica for travel is IMO that it would be difficult to find a replacement if your own camera is damaged or stops working. I mean, if you go with a Nikon or Canon you can buy the cheapest body around and you will still be able to use your lenses with a cheap entry camera. With the M8 you dont get many chances to find immidiately an affordable body.

No problem- I travel with two bodies

Jaap - loved your pictures, but couldn't bring myself to go through many of them because of site navigation. In case you get it redone in the future, the moving thumbnails are a nuisance as one has to chase them with the cursor. They move too slowly for scrolling, and unnervingly fast when you want to pick a picture. And maybe I'm being stupid, but I assumed the big white arrows were to see the next picture. Instead, they take no click input, meaning that you have to keep moving on to them to scroll, and then off them to stop the scrolling, and then click an image to view it. A 'next image' link would be a real boon, especially if it were in a fixed position and stayed under the pointer where it is left. I'm afraid the whole experience made me leave the site much quicker than I would have if I could more easily have accessed your excellent photos.

I know- it will be changed in the coming weeks.

let us know - i want to look through all your stuff...

Rob - I think the exact point the reviewer was trying to make was that F/1.6 was available to him at 24mm with the Canon setup. The crop factor and lenses available with the Leica setup do not allow for this.

Jaap. Some really nice shots - particularly the African people shots. Great travel photog! However, since no EXIF are available, I have no idea what ISO you were using on any of the darker shots in the other galleries. Also, I agree that a "next" or "slideshow" option would have made the viewing experience even more pleasurable.

I would also like to say that being a highly regarded photographer does at least mean that you have plenty of experience and know quite clearly what makes a good camera and a not-so-good camera. I have to say that I for one respect his opinion. Additionally, all of the points that this reviewer made are important to me. How he chooses to present that opinion is another factor that determines how good or bad a reviewer he is. Again, I liked the style of this review, and found it to be refreshingly unencumbered by corporate tie-ins. This guy makes his money from selling photos, not selling reviews or advertising space on review pages

To the leica "devotee" who challenged the relevance of this review to anyone not working as a combat PJ.... oh dear.... This review assessed many of the features and pitfalls I would be interested in if I were to buy an M8. Even though I would not be shooting it under combat conditions, I would still value responsiveness, reliability, high ISO ability, fast wide lens availability, and price to performance ratio. If you don't, that's fine.

Stu Warner wrote: I would also like to say that being a highly regarded photographer does at least mean that you have plenty of experience and know quite clearly what makes a good camera and a not-so-good camera.

Possibly, for his particular working conditions. I also know a Pulitzer prize recipient who make a very lousy equipment reviewer in part because he does not recognize that there are working conditions other than his own, and in part because he frequently jumps to conclusions without considering another point of view. Last I knew he was making portraits that were deliberately out of focus and passing them off as "art". My experience with him led me to question the Pulitzer standards.

Sounds like success went to his head a little.


But seriously, for travel and street shooting, I think that urban combat PJ work in Iraq is a good, if pretty rigorous test.
I would also have liked to see comments after use on freezing mountains at 6,000m and humid rainforests where I have used cameras ...

they do this for every camera comparison, and it's one of the reasons i don't think dpreview is anywhere near as good a review site as a lot of people seem to think.

that and comparing using jpegs that have been processed using the camera's default, whatever that may be, rather than finding consistent settings between manufacturers (though, notably, they did extensively test olympus's variable image quality settings).

it's like the guy on some lexus forums who caused an internet stir by hooking up a 1DIII and a D3 to a telescope and taking a picture of a dictionary page halfway across the house, without moving the position of the telescope or resizing. of course the 1DIII was sharper, it had smaller pixels and a narrower field of view!

brainiac wrote:
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.

Stu Warner wrote:
I would also have liked to see comments after use on freezing mountains at 6,000m and humid rainforests where I have used cameras ...

Tina Manley has been in Honduras with 2 M8 bodies for several days now:

http://leica-users.org/v37/msg07558.html
http://leica-users.org/v37/msg07626.html
http://leica-users.org/v37/msg07797.html
http://leica-users.org/v37/msg07858.html

Thanks for the links telyt.That sounds like one hell of a trip!
I am simply amazed that the M8s have survived minutes of submergence.... I didn't think any modern cameras would survive that!!! How on earth did the electronics survive that

For river fording, and in extensive downpoors, I place my camera gear within a dry-bag within my camera bag. I think this is a sensible precaution, regardless of how weatherproof your camera is. The dry bags look like this:
http://www.nevisport.com/subcatlist-4-subcatlist1_id-78-subcatlist2_id-125-subcatlist3_id-350
It weighs almost nothing and takes up very little space when not in use, but is always worth bringing along on backpacking trips - especially in the tropics or the UK . They fold over at the top several time, then clip shut with a quick-release bukkle. They are 100% waterproof, even when submerged. I also use larger versions for down sleeping bags, spare clothes, etc. Also perfect for canoing and rafting trips.

Alternatively, my wife carries a Nikon compact with a 30m dive housing if we are expecting lots of moisture...which obvioulsy does the job just fine, but is lacking in image quality and ergnomically a PITA.

I ought to get a dry bag for kayaking with my camera, the kayak had been fantastic for getting close to elusive water birds:

telyt wrote:
Another data point:

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



I don't think you understand the word "anecdotal"

I understand the word perfectly. It's as valid a viewpoint as a single person writing about his experience in Iraq, but less verbose, and I've known Mr. Wulff long enough to know that his testing and analysis is as rigorous as anyone's. It seems that your problem is that Mr. Wulff isn't a well-publicized 'superstar'.

Mr Kamber's analysis has some significant flaws:

He's using outdated firmware in the M8

He's judging image quality from in-camera jpg files, which is equivalent to testing lenses by comparing machine prints.

He's interested in a specific 'look', wide-angle selective focus. The photo with more DOF is just as news-worthy.

Nobody else using an M8 has been able to duplicate the inadvertant ISO changes Mr. Kamber has reported. Independent confirmation of results is critical to a rigorous analysis, and Mr. Kamber's reports fall short by this measure.

OTOH numerous M8 users who also own the Canon 5D have independently concluded that when working from raw files the M8's files hold more detail have more dynamic range and have better color quality.

If you wish to use only jpg files, use outdated firmware in the M8 and wish to imagine that you'll need to secretly swap memory cards while dodging bullets, Mr. Kamber's report is perfectly valid.

Nice bird shot Telyt. Getting close to wildlife is certainly easier in a canoe or on horseback - dosen't say much about how well regarded two-legged creatres are by other animals

I had another play with an M8 this afternoon. The difference in camera size is small but significant compared to an SLR body. The real benefit is clearly the smaller lens size and the fantastic rangefinder focusing system that works well in the dark but isn't great for off-centre subjects. I have to say that I am tempted, but plunging for an M8 would mean selling all my Canon and OM stuff. I am still concerned about high ISO, lack of spot metering, and no macro or telephoto ability. I'm trawling the web for high ISO samples right now. What do you M8 users do for macro/close-up shots?

There are not many macro options for the M8.
You can use the Macro-Elmar 90mm.

Stu Warner wrote:What do you M8 users do for macro/close-up shots?


On a recent trip, Tina Manley (still in Honduras) ditched her Canons and used a Visoflex on her M8 for telephoto and macro. Lenses for the Visoflex are quite old but a few are good even by modern standards. Not Leica APO good, but still quite credible; for example the 560mm lens I use for my kayaking photos can be found in a Visoflex mount.

For macro, you can also look for a Visoflex III and a Bellows II. I have such a setup and it works fine with a variety of lenses. However, if you are concerned about losing tele, macro, spot metering and high ISO, the M8 is the wrong camera for you. None of these is a strength of this camera. If you really like the camera and want to get it anyway, I would strongly recommend keeping an SLR/DSLR for other tasks, at least until you are sure that you won't miss them. Save a little longer.

Thanks Hans, Talyt, and Carsten for your thoughtful replies.
My passion is travel photography. Portraits, street, and landscape have increasingly become my focus. Macro is certainly also important, but only to the extent of close-up shots of flowers and frogs
Autofocus is not a requirement as I don't shoot sports, but I think spot-metering would be very useful in high-contrast conditions. I've never actually had that luxury before, but I do like the idea of metering off small areas of midtone, checking highlights and shadows to see what the dynamic range of the scene is in more planned shots. Having said that, I seem to do just fine with the centre-weighted metering and matchstick display in my OM1.
The real question, as ever with Leica, is the price. For at least the first few years after buying an M8, I would have to use a mixture of Zeiss, Voigtlander, and perhaps a single slow Leica lens. I very much like the results I've seen online from the Leica glass (I am used to L primes or macro lenses), but it is expensive and/or has a smaller max aperture than I'm used to. My question is.... how good is the much cheaper Voigtlander glass
I don't want to sell my heavy but good Canon stuff and pick up am M8 if I am going to have to use reduced quality optics. Small size is important to me, but the reason I use SLRs instead of compacts in the first place is because I have an overwhelming desire for fine opics, manual control, and shallow DOF shots. Using my Canon Ls as a benchmark, will I be happy if I can only ever use Voigtlander and maybe some old Zeiss

brainiac wrote:
let us know - i want to look through all your stuff...

Should be better now

Stu, what I do with the DMR when I have a high-contrast situation is use the camera's meter as a starting point and fine-tune the exposure by reviewing the histogram, adjusting as necessary to avoid clipping highlights or shadows. This had made it possible to retain detail in both white and black plumage, which was nearly impossible to do with film (560mm lens again):

Very nice!

Stu, basically I feel that the spot meter is far more important for film than for digital. The near-instant feedback is a huge help in fitting the highlights and shadows within the camera's dynamic range. I used the Leicaflex SL spot meter and swore by it for many years but I'm getting better exposures from the DMR because of the feedback.