Guy:
since that 15 comes with a dismountable M-adapter, I'm thinking I could machine in the coding depressions, to be filled in later should Sean determine the wides can benefit from it...assuming a suitable code could be applied to the 15. interested?
Sean,
In lower ISO settings, the 100% crops of the M8 appear sharper than those generated by the 5D. Like you mentioned, probably it is due to Canon's internal tweaking of their RAW files. The "full" image of the M8 at ISO 1250 seems to be fine, even the 100% crops are not bad....
Not to put too fine a point on it, but is this a promotional post, given that we have to subscribe to your website to see what you are talking about? Or am I just looking in the wrong place?
sreidvt wrote:
I've added two sections to the article since it was first published. One is a set of croppings from an ISO 1250 file and the other (just now added) is a set of croppings from an ISO 160 file. For those of you who are following the review series, I highly recommend taking a look at both.
BTW, while many people on this forum are subscribed to RR, I realize that some people prefer not to. No doubt, DP Review and the other sites will eventually have reviews of the M8. In fact, Michael Reichman's review should be up within a week, I think. I'll be happy to discuss the other reviews as well as my own, as time allows. ...Show more →
Lotusm50 wrote:
Not to put too fine a point on it, but is this a promotional post, given that we have to subscribe to your website to see what you are talking about? Or am I just looking in the wrong place?
Let's let the moderators or Fred handle this. I'm sure there is no problem in that direction.....
Sean I subscribe to your site and value your input on specific questions on FM . Considering the amount invested in the M8 and a set of lens , I appreciate both the detail test shots ..but also your subjective evaluation. If the M8 matches or exceeds the 5D files most of us need to start working on something else . Using leica or zeiss lenses ..it will not be the camera /lenses combination thats the weak link. How about those magnifiers!
Certainly not everyone in this thread is reading your site and it is unlikely that "most" are as well. This is a very active thread with wide participation. How about just posting the particular images you are refering to? (I am certainly not suggesting that you post substantial chunks of your reviews here. This is a public forum and you are essentially carrying on a private conversation in a public forum about private commercial services you are providing. Of course, it is not my call to make, but it seems that it not the intent of the forum. It would seem to me that it would be a common courtesy in a public forum to share what you are talking about with the forum. I think here we should strive to be inclusive rather than exclusive, to bring everyone into the discussion not just those who have paid you a fee.
Further, from a more subtle promotional vein, posting a sample of what you are talking about may actually induce more people to subscribe to your site. They may want more of something they can see as worthwhile (rather than having no idea whether it is worthwhile or not). I personally have no doubt that it is of value, but people need to make that decision for themselves.
The noise levels are ok but not very impressive. Yes, it's better than DMR but I would have hoped that it was going to be better than the D200. Doesn't look like it is that from the samples. It has a bigger sensor, is about one year ahead and is 3000 USD's more expensive.
I'm sure it's a brilliant camera though and I don't mind a little noise for B&W. I like that the noise is more fine grained than from the DMR which is pretty blotchy in the shadows at higher ISO's. But as I said I hoped for a little bit more. But I still have mine on order.
Bill, Allen, et. al.,-
I wasn't suggesting that Sean not post, just that I think he should try to be a little more inclusive in his posts and provide a little bit of what he is talking about. There are alot of people in this public forum that do not subscribe to his site, but are interested and participating in this thread. Sean post are worthwhile, but the posts in question are now only worthwhile to the few that subscribe to his site -- the rest of us in this public forum that are excluded but we could be contributing to the discussion.
1) When I was subscribing for Seans site some months ago I was not sure if it makes sense to spend money for a review site since there are many on the net for free. However I have found that Seans reviews are different from many others, for me much more usefull. Others shoot test targets and are very technally, Seans reviews are much more giving a full picture and (to me) say much more about how usefull a camera is as a photographic tool.
2) Yes Sean, please keep on posting here
3) I still find that it would be nice that you would include images/information etc. in your posts when you refer to your review site.
I completely understand where Lotusm50 is coming from, and am glad (to this point at least) that all have remained calm and pleasant .
I have only recently subscribed to Sean's site myself, because I wanted to read some of the reviews that are not readily available elsewhere. I think Lotusm50 is simply voicing a frustration that 'some' people have access to information that 'others' don't, and the only consolation I can offer is that the situation should get easier with time, especially when the M8 starts shipping. You can bet that this thread will double in size within a few days of people getting their sweaty paws on one .
It is also very hard to be 'inclusive' when there may be some NDAs in effect, and all he can do is hint !!
There are however many other times on these forums where posted links point to subscription sites (free or paid for), and I also get frustrated (from time to time) when the material is not available (either free or it requires registration that I don't want to do). It's no different to referencing (paper) magazine articles in a Magazine which I didn't buy, or worse still can't buy because it's not available in the country I live in. In those circumstances, I generally huff and puff for a millisecond or two then move on.
my own testing with my 5D has shown that the whole-step ISOs (nominal 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600) are less noisy than the in-between ISOs (160, 250, 500, 1250 etc). In fact I made a chart based on my test:
based on the info in the photoshop histogram window, from lenscap exposures at identical shutter and aperture settings.
A small point, but if that applies to all 5Ds, then by comparing nominally identical ISOs, the 5D is at a small noise handicap compared to shooting the next whole ISO step up.
I believe that the M8 does outperform the D200 with respect to noise. Did you get a chance to read the text of the article yet?
Cheers,
Sean
Edited by sreidvt on Oct 24, 2006 at 01:49 PM GMT
To be honest I haven't read all of it. Its' long! But good! It was just from looking at the samples. Reminds me a lot Nikon files in the shadows. It may outperform the D200 but probably by more than 1/3 at the most..
Lotusm50 wrote:
Bill, Allen, et. al.,-
I wasn't suggesting that Sean not post, just that I think he should try to be a little more inclusive in his posts and provide a little bit of what he is talking about. There are alot of people in this public forum that do not subscribe to his site, but are interested and participating in this thread. Sean post are worthwhile, but the posts in question are now only worthwhile to the few that subscribe to his site -- the rest of us in this public forum that are excluded but we could be contributing to the discussion....Show more →
Well, I personally think that the topic is worthy of discussion, although perhaps this is not the best spot for it. And I appreciate the constructive tone used to express your thoughts. However, my thoughts are these:
1- The desires of the forum owner/moderators will need to be respected. I suppose that this is really a privately owned forum, that they open to the public with certain rules designed to make it successful. The success of this site speaks well to their ability, I think, to balance the public/private thing.
2- When a published author or photographer wants to participate here, I welcome them. I personally would be OK with references to their published work, without their providing here the actual work for my review. If this bothered me, I wouldn't be able to participate. If there were too many non-participators, the site would suffer, so the owners might have something to say about it. See 1.
3- Sean's participation here does not feel at all to me like advertising. I find his contributions to be valuable and genuine. Does he want to get more subscribers? I would assume so. Is he running an infomercial? Definitely not, in my opinion.
. 
But good! It was just from looking at the samples. Reminds me a lot Nikon files in the shadows. It may outperform the D200 but probably by more than 1/3 at the most..