Thanks Sean for posting those ISO crops. Really does seem that the M8's Achilles Heel is limited to the ISO 2500/3200 and maybe the ISO 1250/1600 and even those are (my guess) not bad for a sub-full-frame sensor.
I like your idea of the M8 being an "honest" camera and when your various lens comparatives come out, it wll be interesting to see if any lenses still don't make the grade expected of them. Leica, Kodak and Phase 1 have obviously done a great job with the camera in general and the sensor/software in particular.
It's all good news from the people who have had access to this camera.
I don't know if I have to thank you for those crops... I'm now even more anxious to get the damn camera!!
Seriously, impressive image quality.
And the CV 28/3.5 shows that with the M8 you don't have to spend a fortune on lenses to achieve medium format quality.
I am sure the IQ is quite good, but I do not think Phase would have worked with Leica if they thought it would hurt the sales of Phase backs! :-)
Sean,
BTW, really quick response on the M8and you are hitting the right issues for the skeptics!
anyway, I am on order for months and havent even worried. At 63 I've seen enough to knowwho follows through and who doesnt (though I confess I had an old Kodak back!)
Sorry forthe ".." but did it just for page turn
i'll takeoff now (we who do this should to save page space)
gogopix wrote:
I am sure the IQ is quite good, but I do not think Phase would have worked with Leica if they thought it would hurt the sales of Phase backs! :-)
That would be true if they targeted the same market, but I doubt there is really that much overlap. I doubt that Phase One see the M8 as a threat to their 39MP digi backs
Sean, I really appreciate your efforts to find less expensive lenes that will do the M8 justice. That approach will help some of us get in the game at a lower overall cost and then aquire the more desirable lenses at a later date..
I have started narrowing down my lens choices. From what I have read so far, there are some great lenses ranging in price from $500 to $1500. At those prices one can get two of the bargain lenses for the price of just one of coveted Leica lenses.
However, I will admit that it doesn't seem right to get a M8 without some Leica glass -- that s the main attraction. I am looking closely at the Leica 28 f2.8 Elmarit for its convenient focal length and price point. By the same token, I may have to pass on the Leica 50 Summilux for a less expensive alternative in the begining and work toward the lux later.
Hats off to you Sean, you are doing excellent work with all of your testing...especially as you relate it to real world shooting which is what rangefinder shooting is all about.
Even though you have worked to remain unbiased it's a fun to see your enthusiasm about the M8 show through. IMHO, too many critics become critical just to have something to say.
Also, by showing how well other manufacturer's lenses will work on the M8, you are helping broaden the appeal of rangefinder shooting as viable solution to film and digital photography. Nice job.
sreidvt wrote:
Added some ISO 640 crops to the review that may be of interest.
Cheers,
Sean
Great. Period.
You're really tempting me to sell the whole Canon 5D outfit with lenses and all.
If it weren't for macro and long tele shooting...
But I guess my cherished Contax Distagon 21/2.8 will be on ebay pretty soon..( "brother" ZM Biogon 21/2.8 will replace it. ).
I was away for 3 days and there are over 20 new pages on this thread.....
The M8 maybe really great and the M lenses are awesome but I am not getting rid of my SLR system though, at least not right now.
Guy, rather than renting an M7, why don't you buy one and sell it after you have received the M8. If you buy one at a good price, there is a good chance you won't be loosing money at all.
MadMan2k wrote:
What does it matter if it was your dad's? I wasn't trying to say you shouldn't keep it, I was just saying that I don't like them very much. Not responding to any particular post, just commenting because the topic came up.
My point was that the quote related to memories of his fathers camera ..had nothing to do with recommending it as a solution. Your comments are just plain offensive and provide no value to anybody reading them.
DaveEP wrote:
That would be true if they targeted the same market, but I doubt there is really that much overlap. I doubt that Phase One see the M8 as a threat to their 39MP digi backs
Agreed, the M8 won't compete with MF backs, my comment about "medium format quality" relates to medium format film and to the comment by Sean who sees the M8 images more MF than R-D1's which renders more like the 35mm film.
I saw what the new 39 backs are capable of at Photokina... ahem... better not to even start comparing with this little, though excellent, Leica, at least as far as absolute resolution
ClubShooter wrote:
Received my 135/2.8 and hmm, I think I made a mistake here. The thing is huge, it's a long draw, not a tele (the auction listed it as a tele), and really too big for me I think. So back to searching for a Tele-Elmar 135/4...
For several reasons, I think 90mm is a good place to stop when using a Leica RF. Long lenses lenses like the 1st-version Elmarit 90 are highly-regarded, even when compared to the successor Tele-Elmarits (fat and thin). I have the long Elmarit and Elmar 90 in M mount, and find them easy to handle. I do have a 1X external VF for my framing comfort, since .72X gets a bit squinty.
