I sure would like to buy such a fine instrument even though, at issue, it seems a little bit "behind" some other cameras or systems. But, sadly, in 5 years, when the M9 is released the other camera companies will have jumped ahead 2+ generations and the Leica will be either a little or a lot behind-as usual.
The foundry was Israeli. The chip design came from a Belgian outfit called FillFactory, which is clever wordplay on their main feature, maximum light-gathering. The sensor has no microlenses, yet claims a high acceptance angle. FillFactory was bought in 2004 by Cypress:
Pondria wrote:
Kodak makes the sensor for Leica. Kodak has not been successful for their own cameras. What makes us believe that they can do it right this time ?
Perhaps because Kodak makes the sensors for Phase One? Now could we please keep on topic here and not use this thread for bashing a camera you don't have any intention of owning or using? Thanks.
Pondria wrote:
Kodak makes the sensor for Leica. Kodak has not been successful for their own cameras. What makes us believe that they can do it right this time ?
Apologies, Jeff, if you feel discussion of the M8's sensor is OT, but it does have a bearing the M8's performance, and there are still very few posts of actual M8 captures. However, I am about to go and test one today!
> The leica is not behind. ...state of the art sensors... ...slow to market...yes.
Isn't that SoundHound's point? Pick any two: 'sensors', 'state of the art', 'slow to market'. Perhaps he should have said "behind to market"? ;-)
In a few years' time advances in sensor development may have plateaued (speling?), but right now it is thrillingly fast. The M8's sensor might just have been state-of-the-art two years ago, but surely not now. Now it is perhaps state-of-the-art for a consumer compact. The result is that Michael Reichmann has said about the Canon G7 (10 megapixel, $540) and M8 that "several technically knowledgeable and experienced photographers [each took] close examination to tell the cameras apart simply from the [A3] sample prints, and even then not always."
I think we can expect a 20-25 Mpixel 24x36mm or APS camera in the next year, but probably not for M lenses, although it's not impossible (Epson? Zeiss/Sony?).
BTW, the G7 has a chunky, hard clicking metal wheel on the metal top-plate just like an M. Shutter speed? No, it changes iso, a feature that many feel the M8 should have. I think those of us who don't yet have M lenses should check out the G7 as a way of palliating M8 lust.
"the G7 has a chunky, hard clicking metal wheel on the metal top-plate just like an M"
"The M8's sensor might just have been state-of-the-art two years ago, but surely not now. Now it is perhaps state-of-the-art for a consumer compact"
Sorry, but those statements are ridiculous.
The M8 has the best build quality available in this segment, only comparable to other high-end-products like Alpa or Linhof. Even the shutter-wheel on the top-plate is probably as expensive in production (brass, CNC-milled, >10layer-chrome-surface, engraved and painted) as the whole G7...
The M8-sensor is the latest technology Kodak has to offer. This technology is also used in 39MPixel-backs. Neither Canon, Sony, Foveon or Dalsa can deliver an overall better quality. In some aspects they're ahead, in others Kodak is better. 6,8mikrometers pixel pitch is a good compromise for people who want good resolution AND usable high-iso (up to 800ASA the M8 is on par with the best on the market).
Of course you can compare build- and image quality of the M8 with cheap 10MP-consumer-cameras, but then, a 1DsMarkII is also just a faster G7...
Make a M8-picture with a Leica-wideangle(16-21, 21Asph, 24Asph, 28Asph)-lens, even at open aperture and compare it in terms of IQ (also resolution) to a 2kg, >8000$ 1DsMarkII+Canon WA-lens-combo in the outer zones of the image (or do you use your WA just for the center?)... Or take the 35Asph, 50Asph and make a shot at open aperture and compare it to any Canon or Nikon...
THEN you judge about the M8.
By the way, you can perfectly use those expensive lenses on every M you have ever bought and that ever will be - maybe Canon changes the bayonet again, just to force people to buy new (cost-optimized) lenses again and again while even a 18Mpixel-M9 (when they don't change the pixel pitch) will perfectly match the lenses you can buy now ...
georgl wrote:
Make a M8-picture with a Leica-wideangle(16-21, 21Asph, 24Asph, 28Asph)-lens, even at open aperture and compare it in terms of IQ (also resolution) to a 2kg, >8000$ 1DsMarkII+Canon WA-lens-combo in the outer zones of the image (or do you use your WA just for the center?)... Or take the 35Asph, 50Asph and make a shot at open aperture and compare it to any Canon or Nikon...
THEN you judge about the M8.
Let's not start WA discussion until M8 has Full Frame. We are talking about "wide" for all fairness, right ? Let's also be reminded that Zeiss and Leica and many other "Alternative" lenses CAN be mounted on 1DsII. Ask Guy about it. He is an expert on that subject. It is actually pretty sad that the superior ( corner-to-corner ) Leica lenses cannot be fully utilized on its own native mount.
brainiac wrote:
Thanks for the tip. Unfortunately Leica gave me a "no way" on that one, but they did give me a dealer who will let me try, so am going there today. The dealer said that all 5 pros at open day yesterday preferred the M8 files to 1Ds2 files, so expecting great things. Will take 5D to do some kind of comparison which I aim to post here.
Looks like you might have some sun tomorrow to do your tests.
Even if you don't have sun, a tripod in the dim light will still produce decent images between the two cameras.
AGeoJO wrote:
Woody, is it my monitor or am I seeing only a part of the Horse Shoe Bend? It looks like the left side is missing.....
Joshua
Nothing is missing. I took many other images of the Horseshoe Bend showing the entire view of the bend. Trouble is those images are a dime a dozen since everyone who has ever gone there shoots it. I was walking all around the front side of the bend and found this composition which I loved. I particularly loved the little yellow bush still surviving in spite of growing straight out of the rock outcropping. So this shot is not intended to be a "record" shot of the Bend.
brainiac wrote:
Apologies, Jeff, if you feel discussion of the M8's sensor is OT, but it does have a bearing the M8's performance, and there are still very few posts of actual M8 captures. However, I am about to go and test one today!
Isn't that SoundHound's point? Pick any two: 'sensors', 'state of the art', 'slow to market'. Perhaps he should have said "behind to market"? ;-)
In a few years' time advances in sensor development may have plateaued (speling?), but right now it is thrillingly fast. The M8's sensor might just have been state-of-the-art two years ago, but surely not now. Now it is perhaps state-of-the-art for a consumer compact. The result is that Michael Reichmann has said about the Canon G7 (10 megapixel, $540) and M8 that "several technically knowledgeable and experienced photographers [each took] close examination to tell the cameras apart simply from the [A3] sample prints, and even then not always."
I think we can expect a 20-25 Mpixel 24x36mm or APS camera in the next year, but probably not for M lenses, although it's not impossible (Epson? Zeiss/Sony?).
BTW, the G7 has a chunky, hard clicking metal wheel on the metal top-plate just like an M. Shutter speed? No, it changes iso, a feature that many feel the M8 should have. I think those of us who don't yet have M lenses should check out the G7 as a way of palliating M8 lust....Show more →
Pretty much a waste of time since the G7 shoots only JPEG's. No raw files if you can believe that. Wonder which marketing genius made that decision.
Nothing is missing. I took many other images of the Horseshoe Bend showing the entire view of the bend. Trouble is those images are a dime a dozen since everyone who has ever gone there shoots it. I was walking all around the front side of the bend and found this composition which I loved. I particularly loved the little yellow bush still surviving in spite of growing straight out of the rock outcropping. So this shot is not intended to be a "record" shot of the Bend.
It's called "Whack-A-Mole", and it is an incredibly apt description that I've long used in reference to the forums.
As far as my 'guiding' the discussion goes, I really don't have time for it, I don't think you guys have a need for it, and, quite honestly, you all are in control of the content of your board and the threads contained within it. By example, if you all really don't want to talk FF in this thread, then when someone addresses it, you can just choose to ignore the comment, and move on. The 'community' is in more control than they might think they are, and how we collectively react to 'problems' is what sets the tone here at FM.com. I only get involved when I feel I have to. I will, however, try to lend some perspective when threads (especially behemoths) start to go way off-topic, or get personal.
I think you all can take care of yourselves, for the most part.
I think the FF topic is very relevant here.
You Leica folks, Not me or any other Canon folks, keep bringing up the comparisons with 1DsII or 5D. OK, let's do that. I'm just entering the door that you opened up. Then, in the comparison, cropping factor is relevant to the overall image or print quality assessment. You are comparing cars with 8 cylinders and 6 cylinders. Would it be fair to turn off the 2 cylinders to make things "equal" ?
Let's also be reminded that Zeiss and Leica and many other "Alternative" lenses CAN be mounted on 1DsII. Ask Guy about it. He is an expert on that subject. It is actually pretty sad that the superior ( corner-to-corner ) Leica lenses cannot be fully utilized on its own native mount.
)