I think sean's input is more valuable than the thread which promoted the hartblei stuff.
As I understand there is no problem sean beeing here and providing information, though refering to his commercial site might be the problem for fred. If somebody asks anybody can give the link to his site anyway.
I would say everybody would unterstand that there must be a limit to commercial use of the forum. Other sites don't allow i.e. _bay links in general. I think FM ist the most open forum I know off. I appreciate this but I wouldnt agree coming people from canon, hasselblad or zeiss here to post
Yeah- I see you would not mind Leica
Btw Despite rumours and contrary posts (perhaps someone sold his tester) on the LUG site, Leica is, as was told to me today by my Dutch contacts, orchestrating a coordinated introduction worldwide with events - camera's, demo's, little presents and snacks- at major dealers. The idea being that the camera is available to the general public immediately after.
I'm looking forward to that Wednesday. My dealer has a midday and an evening session with Leica reps attending and my camera all packed in a plastic carrying bag......
My gut says that you may be very much right about that Guy. Most of the M lenses that I've used on the RD-1 seem to be a bit sharper than their R counterparts. And, that's with an AA on the RD-1. I can imagine how nice they are going to perform on the M8....at least I'm hoping.
kidigital wrote:
My gut says that you may be very much right about that Guy. Most of the M lenses that I've used on the RD-1 seem to be a bit sharper than their R counterparts. And, that's with an AA on the RD-1. I can imagine how nice they are going to perform on the M8....at least I'm hoping.
By the way, as always, nice shots.
Kurt
I've had the chance to play with a couple of files from the M8, Kurt, and they are very impressive from ISO 160-640. Unfortunately, my budget prevents me from committing for another 5-6 months. It's a shame, because I already own most of the lenses I want for the M8.
Hey, for me it is very simple - I'll read any site that Sean posts in. And I'll probably drift away from those he doesn't post in, because they will tend to have a higher flame and ignorance content over time. And I'd bet that I'm not alone. Many of us also watch Leica, and RFF, and others, and can get most of the content there if needed, if that is where he posts.
Sean is a great asset to any site, and if he really gets booted from this one, that says a lot about the rest of the community - and the owner. I know that it is difficult to manage a site fairly, and making people into a "special case" is a bad precedent.....
But, put simply, Sean *is* a special case. It is time to realize that, let him in, and move on.
According to Michael Reichman the files from the M8 are not 16-bit, in fact he sais there are no true 16 bit files :
"16 Bit
Leica has published that the M8 is a sixteen bit device. As soon as the first raw files became available though there were postings online that the files were only 8 bit. To get to the bottom of this I once again turned to Dr. Know. ("It's OK Michael, this won't hurt a bit"). What he told me is that the M8's DNG files are definitely 8 bit, not 16 bit. They may be 16 bit somewhere upstream of the DNG file, but the output file is in 8 bit format. I asked if there were any true 16 bit files from any camera. he said that he had never seen one (and he's seen them all). He said that files from Phase One backs are 14 bit (they too claim to be 16 bit), Canon raw files are 12 bit, and that various other cameras range from 8 to 12 bits.
What the implications of this are isn't clear. If I get a clarification on what Leica means when they write in their brochures that the M8 has "16 bit color resolution" I'll let you know. "
This has been discussed nearly to death on for instance DPR. I personally cannot see Leica making a spurious claim. On the other hand I feel this "issue" is wholly unimportant, as 99.9% of the users (me included) won't care one bit () what number is in the software, as long as the files are exceptional, which they appear to be. Nor will anybody but a real expert (me emphatically not included) understand the meaning of the number of bits, at which point, how, what algorithm etc.
jaapv wrote:
This has been discussed nearly to death on for instance DPR. I personally cannot see Leica making a spurious claim. On the other hand I feel this "issue" is wholly unimportant, as 99.9% of the users (me included) won't care one bit () what number is in the software, as long as the files are exceptional, which they appear to be. Nor will anybody but a real expert (me emphatically not included) understand the meaning of the number of bits, at which point, how, what algorithm etc.
I agree 100%. I don't care if it's 64bits or 1bit. I've seen images which look like a Leica and I want it for the style of shooting it will help me do.
We've all cried for years for a digtial M to use the lovely lenses on now we get it and we worry about the little bits.
Let's worry about our work and not the camera. Heck, I have a Holga and it's is just 1 bit and does just fine for what I want it to do. The M8 will do just fine for me.
Michael Reichman is very impressed with the IQ of the M8
I thought one of the reasons for the high IQ of the Leica sensors was because they are 16-bit. I am just suprised that this is not the case. I was hoping someone on the this forum could elaborate on this.
I am a bit confused about the bits issue, after all I can compress my DMR files with the dng format to half original size which is what I thought was happening within the M8 and is how the smaller file size is explained.
As correct as Michael and Mr Know of Michael's site seem to think they are could they be wrong? If Michael is reading this it is not an attack so no counter attacks or pre-emptive strikes please.
