cmb_ wrote:
Nice images David. Did you also shoot the game?
I wish. I was fortunate to have an all area pass and just having some fun. Here's a shot of the real pros. Most of the guys shoot Canon but not all of them.
Guy said: Cindy the hot shoe is tight just like the DMR , I filed down the plactic foot on the Metz 54 a little. Little trick on the SF 24 push down while removing
Thanks, Guy. I already took the file to it this afternoon. You are right, there are two little clips that you need to press down on, but I'm telling you I almost broke the SF 24 off taking it off. Now that I've filed it, I will be OK. I need to do it to the Metz if you can tell me what foot I need for the 54-4?
Guy,
Great shot with the 50 lux. I was shooting that lens today and really enjoyed it. Sharp as a tack stopped down outdoors and still gives you the flexibility to move inside open it up. It's a keeper for me.
An attempt at some controlled comparison shots between a 1DS & M8.
1DS - 24L, f/5.6, ISO100, exposure normalized by histogram, composition to control for subject area size within frame, light USM applied the same for both, RAW convertion in ACR
Overall, I like what I see from the M8 though the 1DS held up pretty well. The bit of extra detail is nice from the M8 but what impressed me more was the amount of DR I'm seeing with the M8. The colors (though a little oversaturated in the reds) was more accurate and also more to my taste from the M8. I also confirmed the extra DR of the M8 in a seperate test and there was quite a wide margin here. Tried to get the Leica colors from the 1DS file in post processing and got closer but not the same. The 1DS definitely doesn't have the DR or the resolution of the 5D so that comparison will have to be done by someone else. I imagine Sean Reid is working on it as we post.
Update: this post was drafted before KJ's 1Ds/M8 comparison was uploaded. Thanks KJ - very interesting.
>You seem sort of hell bent on convincing us that the M8 isn't nearly as good as the 5D
1) I came to this thread to find out if the M8 was superior to my current equipment and by how much, because it is part of my job to know
2) I chose this forum especially because there has been so much useful hands-on information here about other systems including MF, DMR, Canon and alternative lenses, contributed by members who are always helpful, interesting and willing to share
3) unlike some previous threads which I have benefitted from, this thread has contained very few examples of the M8 in action, fewer crops, and little fair direct comparison between M8 and other competitive cameras
4) after questioning why so little informative image data was appearing, someone suggested I do the comparison myself
5) I offered to put my comparison on another thread because some suggested that would be more appropriate
6) the thread owner declined that offer with a quote from the original post of this thread, which had invited comparison between M8 and other equipment
7) I went to a little effort to try the camera and upload results
8) the results have been dismissed, but without presenting much in the way of contrary data
9) I was careful to draw attention to the inadequacies of my test and be 100% honest about them
10) if I felt they had showed better results for the M8 than the 5D I would still have uploaded them and criticised them in an objective way, and been considerably more enthusiastic about the M8
11) I did this test for myself, not to convince anyone else of anything
12) I posted them here for the benefit of others in my situation, in the spirit of this excellent forum
13) I appreciate that my opinions are not enjoyed by some visitors to this thread, but despite instances of mild rudeness to me, including one ridiculous threat of legal action by PM, I have not reacted irrationally or emotionally
I am sorry if you think I have been detrimental to this thread. I did not mean to be. I felt that hard data was lacking here, but my efforts to change that may have been inept. I take the point that my attitude is not welcome here, although I have still enjoyed chewing the cud with you all.
I am going to compare the M8 to the 5D again and get right the things that members have explained I got wrong, but I will find or start a more appropriate thread in which to discuss it.
Richard (I peeked at your site; I like to know people's names),
I have also felt from time to time that you were looking for negatives for the M8, but I don't feel that you have let this seep into your testing on purpose, so carry on; I look forward to the next test. Maybe the slight bias against the M8 that I and others detect is simply your wallet hurting in advance (or your wife channelling you?) I think that the noise and arguing we have here is under control, and compares to what was in the DMR thread once upon a time. There were also some false starts there, with tests which needed improving, personal biases, and so on, but it all worked out, so I have high hopes for this thread too. I would like to keep M8 testing in this thread, personally.
I do not expect the M8 to beat your current equipment. I expect it to be roughly as good, with a different set of compromises. With a decent IR filter, the M8 could be the killer wedding camera, for example, because it is so small and anonymous. It has great colour, perhaps a bit too strong, beautiful sharpness (but not superiour to the 5D), and a choice of some of the best lenses in the world. It is light and you can carry a lot of lenses without breaking your back. It cannot beat the 5D for resolution though, so for your wedding panoramas, you will need another camera. It might make more sense to use a medium format camera with film, a great wide-angle lens, and a slow film for this, and then to scan it.
As much as I look forward to more tests from you and others, I look more forward to getting my M8 back It seems that Leica is intent on fixing the streaking at the same time, hence it is taking a little longer than I expected.
Well, at this point I would just like to repeat my statement about people picking up a Rangefinder for the first time, and hoping to get as good a result from it as they get from their trusty DSLRs.
If you think that you are better with an SLR than (say) a beginner is, ask yourself 'why?', then apply the same rules to the Rangefinder.
There is much experience to be gained by using one, and until you are as competitent (read: using it like second nature) with a Rangefinder as you are with an DSLR, it's an unfair comparison IMHO. Thinking that it's a simple camera, and you just twist this bit for focusing and press this button to take the shot is a rather over simplification of the whole thing. Your body is holding/viewing the camera in a different position for a start. You are viewing things 'differently' through the 'different' view finder, and the size and grip are also different (though the weight may actually be similar).
I realised this when picking up a Rangefinder (M8) for the first time in 20+ years (I have used an M3 quite a bit in the past). My Rangefinder skills need polishing quite a bit, and that can't be done in an hour at a dealer.
Brainiac/Richard, I appreciate you taking the time to do you tests, even though they were as flawed as mine (for which I also took some stick ). I also appreciate your input, even though I may not agree with 'everything' you say, I absolutetly defend your right to think and say it (as long as it's not offensive ) not only because I beleive in free speech, but because I like to evaluate things from lots of different perspectives. I am not a wedding photographer (and have no aspirations to be one), so really, I can't hope to know your requirements inside out.
Almost without exception, who ever posts some 'test' comparing one camera/lens to another will have people who disagree with their finding for one reason or another, so people should not take the negativity to their post personally. Photography is not an exact science, and there is no one 'right answer' to all requirments.
Regarding the comments (from some else) about why there are so few pictures here.... perhaps it's because so few of us actually have our hands on one at the moment. As deliveries pick up, I expect more pictures to be posted.
It's not unreasonable to speculate (If I may be allowed to as a non M8 owner?) that a 10mp camera is never going to significantly outperform a 12.7mp camera in resolution terms even if it has certain advantages in optics and sensor design. I've been following this thread passivley and am at a loss as to why people are really expecting anything else and further more are going to the trouble of finding out. Any tests we can expect to see here (or anywhere) will be very close in resolution terms and any that show significant differences can obviously be dismissed as flawed. Issues of colour, tonality, that special 'leica look/glow etc' etc are another matter but are notoriously subjective and even more difficult to display on the web. The reasons for choosing an M8 are not because it's going to produce a class leading revolution in reslolution. If people need significantly more resolution in their working tools than that offered by current 10-16mp sensors (of whatever origin) then they should look at MF digital.
Edited by shirozina on Nov 20, 2006 at 12:43 PM GMT
KJbruin - Thanks for the comparison between 1Ds and M8!
I'm mostly lurking here in this forum but in the case of 1Ds colour rendering using ACR I feel inclined to make a small comment. In my experience ACR doesn't do a good job on 1Ds files. I have tried using calibrated settings for ACR, obtained using the ACR calibrator script, which did improve on things but in the end I prefer Capture One. Below the same shot using different raw converters and different settings. Since I was there myself to take the picture I would say CO (standard 1Ds profile) comes closest to reality colourwise. Most people would probably bump up the saturation a bit to produce something similar to the middle picture (or use Magnes profiles). But in the end, when we state that a camera has good colour rendition, aren't we in fact in most part praising the raw converter/profiles? And even when using the same raw converter we cannot compare colours from different cameras since we might in fact be comparing profiles?
Now, back on topic, I would like to see more M8 examples and comparisons!
There seems to be more aliasing in the M8 image - look at the cubic maze like structure in the tree trunk on the left. The 5D has a weaker AA filter than the 1ds2 and aliasing artefacts are more pronounced as a result - just because a camera has an AA filter does not mean it's effective in all circumstances. I seem to remember that on some early Sinar MF digital backs there was a mechanism that vibrated the sensor slightly to slightly blur fine detail in the same way that an AA filter does. If this could be incorporated into the sensor it would be user switchable. Maybe a bit of camera shake or mirror slap is not such a bad thing in some circumstances?
Guy Mancuso wrote:
Cindy you want the Metz 54 with module 3502. Now i don't get TTL yet and i am still trying to get that with the Metz . Someone said you need a firmware mod on the module to version 5 but than that don't work I hear. The only problem with flash is your head get's in the way a little , not a deal breaker but something to work around. They need to make just a smaller metz for the M8, rumor has it leica is making one . The lux david is a very nice lens. i am still working on my eye for focusing. 35 years in a SLR makes it a little strange but i do like it...Show more →
Guy
The trick to get TTL is to make sure the Metz is set to Guide Number Control Mode. You get there by going to the M or Manual mode and while it is flashing rotate the dial counter clockwise until the letters GNC appear in the display. This is then the mode to use to get TTL. Interestingly you can't get TTL by using the TTL mode on the Metz.
niklasl wrote:
... And even when using the same raw converter we cannot compare colours from different cameras since we might in fact be comparing profiles?
I completely agree.
Digital sensors are colorless. What makes the colors is the Color Filter Array and mostly the RAW converters. Lens makes the color different. But the leverage that the RAW converter has is far greater than the lens. Just change the color temp by 10 degree. Change the saturation, contrast, curve or the calibration parameters. Ask yourself how do you know whatever the setting that you are using is correct ?
There is absolutely no such thing like "Canon color", "Leica color".
Like Niklasl, I also Calibrated my 1DsII for ACR. It is a little laborious process but the result is very rewarding. I highly recommend it. But before that, Calibrate/Profile your Display Monitor with colorimeters.
It seems that Leica is intent on fixing the streaking at the same time, hence it is taking a little longer than I expected.
). I also appreciate your input, even though I may not agree with 'everything' you say, I absolutetly defend your right to think and say it (as long as it's not offensive 
