See it another way ( from leica's point of view?) Leica did not set out to design a new compact digital RF from a blank sheet of paper - the M8 is a compromise. It is designed to enable current M users to move to digital with their collection of not inexpensive glass and to do it with a camera body that is as close as possible to their experience and expectations of how an M camera should be. Within these constraints the M8 must be seen as a total success even with the current flaws.
I just want to say that I regret that this thread has become so abusive. I really wanted to see nitty gritty here: lots of images and lots of analysis, but it hasn't happened yet, and probably won't now. This is the 'hands-on M8' thread.
If it's possible to put Larry's comments into less inflammatory language then I think it is fair to say what follows:
(1) Certain people have promoted the Leica brand with great and enjoyable enthusiasm on this forum.
(2) Certain people have no special commercial relationship with Leica, as shown by their late acquisition of M8s, so their enthusiasm for the brand is a genuine result of their pleasure using a DMR and the excellent Leica lenses.
(3) Reviewers' enthusiasm for the DMR led them to make great claims for a very different camera before it was available, which was not very objective on their part, and probably contributed to what might be called slightly hysterical crowd excitement.
(4) Reviewers, for unknown reasons, but probably out of reverence to one of the greatest brands in the history of photography, obeyed the manufacturer's wishes to withhold important information in a public review, and therefore failed to meet their obligations as reviewers.
(5) The camera emerges onto the market with problems that would probably kill any other product stone dead.
(6) Consternation ensues, and buyers are told to buy expensive filters to fix one of the problems with their new $5000 cameras while the manufacturer searches for a more satisfactory solution, if one is feasible.
(7) The same people who unobjectively told us that the future M8 would be the best camera ever, continue making that claim, but use the camera's problems as an excuse not to do fair comparison tests against cheaper cameras.
Like another, I do feel that a number of influential people have failed to apply basic critical judgement to this camera, and they should recognise that they are playing with other people's hard-earned money because of their influence. No matter how much we want Leica to survive, and I do, there is no justification for encouraging large numbers of people to subsidise it by paying twice the market rate for half the market product. Frankly, I think some of those influential people should recognise the situation for what it is, rather than continuing in denial, and they should apologise for their critical failure to the justifiably angry victims who have spent so much and felt such disappointment as a result of this mass delusion.
Michael Reichmann has almost apologised, although he tries to squirm out by saying he bought the camera. He should understand that many of us working photographers are not so into collecting also-ran camera equipment as he is.
No camera "must be seen as a total success" when it produces image quality half as good as a mainstream camera that costs half as much. Today it's important to spend as little as possible on cameras because we are still at a point in digital camera history where a kind of Moore's law applies. The argument that Bresson and Frank used Leicas despite their inferiority is a complete fallacy. They were simply using the best portable camera available at the time. Today, the M8 is not the best portable camera available, as far as we can work out with so little honest comparison, and I don't think it's very likely that Bresson would choose one if he were 30 years old now.
Most importantly let's not be abusive, but stay level headed and speak openly.
And show us some M8 pictures please! :)
Edited by Jeff on Nov 14, 2006 at 09:55 AM GMT (Reason: Removed personal references)
Well said - but I take issue with the opinion that the M8 produces image quality half as good as a mainstream camera that costs half as much. Lets be realistic - the M8 produces state of the art imagery for it's sensor size in all but a few situations.
I take issue with the opinion that the M8 produces image quality half as good as a mainstream camera that costs half as much. Lets be realistic - the M8 produces state of the art imagery for it's sensor size in all but a few situations.
Show me.
All I have to go on in the pepsi challenge is Michael Riechmann's train display image. I see the 5D at 3200 considerably outresolving the M8 at 1250. Nobody has put forward an M8/5D comparison at iso 160. I don't know why.
The few pictures that forum members have kindly uploaded here show inaccurate colour, noise hurting dynamic range, and less than stellar resolution. And that's not even mentioning the black=magenta IR problem, streaking which renders the shot unusable, and IR filters giving cyan corners with wideangles despite not fully solving the IR problem.
Where is your evidence for "state of the art"? It seems more plausible that the M8, as has been reported elsewhere, is on a par with the Canon G7 ($540), except at higher iso's where the G7 probably wins.
I may well be wrong, but why is nobody putting forward actual hard results to show me?
I've downloaded and processed several RAW files from the M8 and I can only go on my experience of what other cameras RAW files look like. The samples I have seen look as good if not better than anything I have seen from other cameras with similar MP counts but with an extra film like quality which most DSLR's can't emulate without extra post production. Saying the M8 is 1/2 as good is hysterical.
brainiac wrote:
The few pictures that forum members have kindly uploaded here show inaccurate colour, noise hurting dynamic range, and less than stellar resolution. And that's not even mentioning the black=magenta IR problem, ?
Thanks. Which of the three is (are) wrong with mine on page 29?
shirozina wrote:
See it another way ( from leica's point of view?) Leica did not set out to design a new compact digital RF from a blank sheet of paper - the M8 is a compromise. It is designed to enable current M users to move to digital with their collection of not inexpensive glass and to do it with a camera body that is as close as possible to their experience and expectations of how an M camera should be. Within these constraints the M8 must be seen as a total success even with the current flaws.
I personally would have prefered if they started on blank paper, the only must would have been that the camera uses the current lens-lineup
t_streng wrote:
I personally would have prefered if they started on blank paper, the only must would have been that the camera uses the current lens-lineup
They have to contend with idiots like me that want to use things like Visoflexes and goggled lenses......
I personally would have prefered if they started on blank paper, the only must would have been that the camera uses the current lens-lineup
Actually, when you think about it, the lens lineup is a major part of the problem. The lenses are designed for 35mm full frame and often have very short rear element to film plane distances. This means that they have more acute angles of light incidence in the corners of the sensor. Designing the camera from scratch doesn't allow you to move the film plane further back from the lens.
I may not have handled a M8 but this is my opinion. The M8 is a success. Period. The M8 is Leica's very first digital rangefinder. Without the M8 there's the Epson R-D1 who else? None. There isn't a single digital rangefinder that can replace them.
The M1 isn't as good as the M4 right? Else there won't be a M6. The M8 image quality may not be as good as the top dog but it works very well despite the flaws. For Leica, the M8 proves a great technological improvement and success. Finally making the transition to the digital world. Five years from now, can you imagine how good will M9 be?
Look back at the very first digital Canon, Nikon, Leaf, Contax, Kodak. Do they work as well as the Leica M8? So please go buy one if you own some M lens, so Leica has enough funds to work on M9. I hope it will be 3 years wait instead of a decade.
So, if they would just put an AA filter on the sensor, then that would mostly solve this problem right? I guess that would take away the DMR image look they are looking for though. Well, I hope they get it figured out for everyones sake, because it really seems to have caused some riffs between people here. If we could just get Canon to make another rangefinder with the 5D or 1D sensor, that uses the M mount, then everyone would be happy again. People could use their M lenses, Leica could sell them and Canon could sell the bodies. Just a thought. Good luck to all you M8ers.
> Which of the three is (are) wrong with mine on page 29?
I have seen what I can only describe as quite consistent non-linear colour innacuracy in both M8 and DMR shots. Green typically looks too olive and skies look too turquoise. Since I was not there Jaap, I am not in a position to say whether your page 29 (url 28) picture's colours are as innacurate as virtually all of the other DMR/M8 images I have seen, but I have to assume that such colour rendition is a feature of the camera. I take this issue seriously and the other day I had a good long look at a blue sky to make sure that I wasn't imagining this effect.
On page 27 (https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/470256/26) is an example of the green problem provided by Guy Mancuso, presumably someone we trust to get the best results from this gear. Surprisingly he seems happy with the result because it is 'just like a DMR'. Again, I wasn't there, but the greens just look plain wrong.
In your page 29 (url 28) picture there are some green leaves in the background on the far left. It may well be that they look more olive than they did. Of course there will be many pictures where particular aspects of a camera's performance are not tested. That doesn't exempt it from fair criticism of all aspects.
Your picture on page 29 is very nice, but it does nothing whatsoever to suggest that your M8 is capable of accurately capturing greens, just as it does nothing to deny the sky colour problem, the noise problem, the wideangle light fall off problem, the streaking problem, and the IR problem.
As a matter of fact in this case the colours were true to nature,down to the purple stems and olive coloured leaves, but I freely admit that I managed to take a decent photo of a black cat on my wife's lap wearing black trousers for the first time in my life
brainiac wrote:
I have seen what I can only describe as quite consistent non-linear colour innacuracy in both M8 and DMR shots. Green typically looks too olive and skies look too turquoise.
Accurancy is one thing, pleasing color not automaticly the same. How many people did shoot films which were not very accurate?
Now some may argue they would prefer a natural image in the first step which they can tweak to their liking.
But this implies 1) that you really get it that way 2)it needs additional time
In case of the DMR it gives me very often in the 1 step colors and tones I like. In comparison the d2x often gives me a hard time to get the greens the way I like them, the 5d IMO is not that easy to handle regarding orange and red saturation.
To me the DMR colors look a little bit like kodakchrome but somewhat more saturated. I hope the M8 shows the same chracter.
Good for thoselike this color character, bad for those who dont like it.
Cheers, Tom
I think we all would appreciate it if this thread would concentrate on user reports from those who own or who have used the M8, as well as subsequent questions in regard to the above experiences. Personal comments in regard to other FM.com members should be reserved for PM, and not aired in public in the forums.
As I don't own an M8 nor am I likely to I will not contribute anymore to this thread - please also ignore any opinions or information I have posted as they are no longer relevant.
I will post the best results I can from the 5D and M8 when I get my M8 back. I am just as interested to know as you are, not because I want to see the M8 "win", but because I want to know that trading one for the other isn't a huge mistake.
Hardly anyone has the camera yet. Please be patient.
Sorry about the interjection, Jeff. I promise to be quiet now.
Amen! That is the professionals point of view. For the amateur it is a very good tool already and will be an excellent camera when the bugs are ironed out. For the time being I am perfectly happy that the pros share their fixes and workabouts as that can only benefit me and other less expert users.
That's not so easy because of cost and availability. I can't afford to buy one as an experiment. This forum, and your contributions to it, Guy, have been really helpful to me in the past, and I am here because it was the place where I was expecting to see the best results. I will try to be less impatient.
