photoArne wrote:
SNIP
However in your post on the LF you mentioned that Canon had lately improved the quality of its primes. I know this is a bit OT, but since a great many Canon owners are posting here, could you please give us a little further background on this subject?
Frankly that would require me to start a thread in the Canon forum and as I alluded to above, I am not really interested in doing that. The level of civility in many threads here has dropped to new lows and any time an opinion is shared or conclusion drawn, the resulting pedantic bickering drives me nuts. It's going on in this very thread right now and from people I used to interact with regularly and respect(ed) and I really have no interest in engaging in that kind of exchange.
I haven't posted on this thread in a while for the same reasons Guy and Jack have just expressed. For those of us who lived through the DMR Bible thread, the difference is day and night. I guess we were lucky with that one. As an M8 owner I was hoping to get some insights and tips from other users. I feel I'm entitled to like this camera without being accused, albeit indirectly, of being a member of a cult or otherwise brainwashed. I shoot Canon, Contax, Hassy, Noblex, Minolta and Leica cameras and they are all great, as was the Nikon I recently sold. If I could only keep two cameras it would be the Contax 645 and the DMR or maybe the M8 because they work best for me. YMMV.
zaknat wrote:
I haven't posted on this thread in a while for the same reasons Guy and Jack have just expressed. For those of us who lived through the DMR Bible thread, the difference is day and night. I guess we were lucky with that one. As an M8 owner I was hoping to get some insights and tips from other users. I feel I'm entitled to like this camera without being accused, albeit indirectly, of being a member of a cult or otherwise brainwashed. I shoot Canon, Contax, Hassy, Noblex, Minolta and Leica cameras and they are all great, as was the Nikon I recently sold. If I could only keep two cameras it would be the Contax 645 and the DMR or maybe the M8 because they work best for me. YMMV.
We were lucky with the DMR thread, and it continues to give up a new gem every now and again. But I've really quit posting any of the lens/camera/post-process/print testing I do because of the nihilistic barrage that accompanies most posts. I save my results and discussions for colleagues I see more regularly or email. And it was always more pleasant here than at the most of the other sites....kind of a shame really. We've lost a lot of great contributors here over pedantic crap and it really is a shame.
I'll probably get an M8 at some point to try it out, after all I've saved most of my M lenses, but my experience won't be shared here. I don't have a martyr complex and am not interested in jihad.
I'm also an old timer, older than anyone claiming to be an old timer And I also miss old days like others.
What is this "Pedantic crap" that everyone seems to be commonly bothered by ? Can we put it on the table and openly talk about it like men ?
Pondria wrote:
I'm also an old timer, older than anyone claiming to be an old timer And I also miss old days like others.
What is this "Pedantic crap" that everyone seems to be commonly bothered by ? Can we put it on the table and openly talk about it like men ?
pedant (n.)- a person who is excessivley concerned with minor details…e.g.,
"I'm also an old timer, older than anyone claiming to be an old timer" and so forth
I had a 5D (and 1Dsm2 before that) because it gave me what I liked in a digital image file. Would Nikon or Minolta or something else have been "better?" I didn't know or care.
Would I have been bothered by "forum noise" if other brand owners had posted on various Canon threads about how much better other brands were, especially if they didn't own or use Canon? Definitely yes.
Would I have looked at Nikon forum threads for any negative mention of Canon cameras, then jump in and argue? No, what would be the point.
Now I use the DMR and more recently the M8. I personally have looked at the files in detail and also at the great files from the Canons. I like what I find in the Leica files. (I liked the Canons, too, just differently.) I want to discuss how to work with these files with others of similar interest. Since this is a place to discuss comparisons with Canon or Nikon, it will be of less interest to me, but of great interest to many. I have to say I'm not sure of the motivations of some who want (or "demand") comparisons.
Allen,
I am not sure why people want to compare either. As a matter of fact, we have not seen many comparisons here. As far as I know, Richard is the only person that posted the comparisons after 142 pages. Did I miss anyone ?
Here is a picture that was on my SD card but I didn't take. Rob Martin, a Fred Miranda forum member (Lektor?) ran into Mike Hatam and I on the Yosemite Valley floor. He and his girlfriend joined us for lunch at the hotel. Rob snapped this of his girlfriend using the 24mm ASPH, f2,8 and 1/30th of a second. Looks like he caught on to rangefinder focusing quite fast.
http://www.robsteve.com/FM/L1040701.jpg
When we bumped into him, he was using a Hasselblad H1 with a digital back and noticed my DMR. When I told him it was a Leica, he brought up the new M8. I told him I had one in my waiste pouch and if he had his own SD cards, he was welcome to shoot it a bit. Rob took a few minutes shooting the M8 and I think he was quite impressed with it. When we ran into him at the next stop, we invited them to join us for lunch.
There seems to have been a sense of humour failure by certain posters here - lighten up guy(s) it's just talk about cameras (and no Carsten - it's not religion). However judging by the reactions of some - my previous post may have more than a grain of truth to it afterall? For the record - the M8/5D/1ds2/D2x/D200 all produce very good images and if they are not satisfactory then more questions should be raised about your skills or expectations as a photographer rather than the quality of the hardware.
shirozina wrote:
Leica is a faith - not a brand. Questions and criticism are offensive to it's belivers and followers who by nature are sensitive and emotional. Take heed of what we are doing to promote harmony between faiths here in the UK - this year we have taken the sensible step of banning Christmas to prevent the grave offence and deep insult this would cause to other religeous groups. I hope this serves as a shining example of how to behave in a multi faith/format/brand community like ours - don't mention the C word!
Leica is a company which offers very good optics and (I only can talk about the DMR so far) also cameras with a very good sensor. If its worth all the money? Everybody can decide on his own.
Leica is pretty expensive.
There are some people who seem to bash Leica products whereever they find a weak point.
TO me it seems that those people try to proove themselves and others that their beloved C-product (or whatever) is much better than the L-product even though they paid less money. And they like to believe that those who spend that much money for the L-product do it only because of brand loyality.
There might be some who do it because of brand loyality. But there are others who do it because of excellent lenses, very solid built quality, a special user interface (which is a question of how you work and of taste) and because they do like the results better.
I do find the comparisons interesting.
However I DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW PEOPLE CAN DRAW OVERALL CONCLUSION FROM 1 OR 2 COMPARISON IMAGES.
Shouldnt we look at various things when judging a camera system?
- combination of the sensor with different lenses at different distance at different f-stops
- under various different light
- look at detail, but also at tonality, color, bokeh of the lenses, DR, etc. etc.
- also look at other aspects of the cameras: shutter lag, viewfinder, user interface, etc.
shirozina wrote:
There seems to have been a sense of humour failure by certain posters here - lighten up guy(s) it's just talk about cameras (and no Carsten - it's not religion). However judging by the reactions of some - my previous post may have more than a grain of truth to it afterall? For the record - the M8/5D/1ds2/D2x/D200 all produce very good images and if they are not satisfactory then more questions should be raised about your skills or expectations as a photographer rather than the quality of the hardware.
totally agree with you here.
Shirozina, I have an M8 and the color problems are horrid. I think my skills with computers and color are probably superior to the average in this forum
I have converted many of my M8 images to black and white, and those shot with low ISO are indeed superb -- as monochromes.
I agree that any functioning camera (5D, D200, D1x, 1DsII, DMR) and even a throwaway camera will produce good images, but a camera with a design fault in the sensor will not.
Edmund - sorry to hear about your M8 problems. I'm sure Leica will fix them in time though ( sooner rather than later) I have various problems with all my digital cameras to some degree or another but as tools you have to work within their limitations. This is not directed at you but I have to point out again leica's philosophy behind the M8 - it is a digital body designed to integrate into the existing M lineup and philosophy and it is not an IDEAL SOLUTION do digital capture but a COMPROMISE design solution within many limitations.
shirozina wrote:
Edmund - sorry to hear about your M8 problems. I'm sure Leica will fix them in time though ( sooner rather than later) I have various problems with all my digital cameras to some degree or another but as tools you have to work within their limitations. This is not directed at you but I have to point out again leica's philosophy behind the M8 - it is a digital body designed to integrate into the existing M lineup and philosophy and it is not an IDEAL SOLUTION do digital capture but a COMPROMISE design solution within many limitations.
Shirozina, I cannot see anything wrong with the picture quality of the M8 as far as resolution is concerned. I have no complaints about it there; it could have been better, but it isn't, and that's that. I do not expect a camera that fits in my pocket to compete with my Canon and its 85/1.2. Nor do I expect a motorbike to carry the load of a truck - other people on this forum do, but I do not. There is a Leica crowd who loudly claim this, and others who complain that it is not so, but you don' make such claims, and I anyway expect a light and small camera to be less functional than a big heavy one.
I do have an issue with the Hi-ISO noise. Here we are clearly one generation behind Canon. But again, as long as this is known, people can deal with it.
The problem I do complain about is not the design - the camera as sold is defective. If Leica had sold the M7 with a light-leak then pictures would also have been ruined. The filters are like requiring buyers to duct-tape the back of a camera to avoid light leaking in. And I really don't want people I photograph to stare at a huge red filter.
Expectations may have to be somewhat lowered in that case - the M film cameras competed and bettered every other 35mm film camera out there in image quality and resolution terms and could fit in your pocket. Expecting the M8 to do the same with digital may be misplaced confidence? While High ISO noise may well be better with the Canon it is acheived at a price - according to one source the RGB filters are less strong on the Canon to let in more light at the expense of colour fidelity and more on camera/chip noise reduction takes place which could well 'smear' the image more than is optimal for low ISO quality. Don't take this as gospel but I'm just pointing out that no system is perfect in all areas. I think calling the M8 defective is a bit unfair but at the same time calling it perfect is a bit optimistic - as Guy, Carsten and others have demonstrated - it is capable of very competative image making.
I don't think there is much unpleasantness here. I regret that some thread visitors feel that way. I have made pretty clear why I wanted to see real comparisons between the M8 and other cameras: if the M8 is superior, I will consider buying one. If the M8 is not in competition with other cameras, then how is it that Erwin Puts himself has "sold his 5D" and replaced it with an M8?
As Andi correctly points out, we have been told many times on this thread that the M8 offers better images than competing products. On one occasion, we were told that the M8 "buries" certain other cameras. It is not antagonistic to ask for evidence for that claim, since we still haven't seen it. Instead of showing us a basis for such claims, there has been criticism of those who exhibit polite skepticism, and refusal ever to test any product from a competing manufacturer which seems a bit strong.
Cheer up fellas, and show us some more nice pictures and some more rigorous comparisons. By rigorous, I don't mean this:
> ...the Apo-Summicron 2/75 at medium apertures. The Canon had the very good 24-105 at focal length 75 and also at medium apertures. In this comparison the Canon cannot capitalize on its larger sensor area as I wanted to get the same pixel area.
That is a quote from Erwin Puts' M8 v 5D review. The 24-105 is a convenient and good value lens, but it's probably a resolution bottleneck on the 5D. As if a prime/zoom head start wasn't enough, Puts appears to be saying that he has only used the 5D as a 10 megapixel camera. Once again, we are seeing careless and misleading comparisons from trusted reviewers.
We need to be able to discuss this stuff openly, without fear of insults, reprisals and tantrums. Let's all relax and allow people to discuss and investigate the real merits AND DISADVANTAGES of this camera relative to others.
It has been suggested that the M8 was not properly focussed on the 'Official UK Import' sticker in my test. I think it is pretty clear that this is not the case for the following reason: very high contrast is visible between adjacent pixels in the M8 crop. This suggestion was also made about my previous test. I would like to ask this: how can very high contrast between adjacent pixels be resolved if the lens is poor or the focus is wrong?
Edited here as subsequent posts suggest that this post was not clear:
New text: the crop below is resized using nearest neighbour to precisely 200%. That means that it is identical in every way to the pixels of the original file except that each pixel has become four pixels of exactly the same value as the original. I did not clarify that originally, so Jack's subsequent crops at 100% look sharper than this, not because I did something wrong in the test, but rather because this is 200%, not 100%. Apologies, I should have made that clear the first time round, even though it is pointed out in the test method description.
End of new text.
