Lets say the following people have an interest in the M8
1. Yes I am a proud owner
2. No, I dont own one, I am only curious
3. I owned one and dropped it again
4. I dont own one but would like to buy an M camera
Would you say that all these people get enough space to share their opinion and that they receive correct and applicable information here?
> ...I see that I must come across a little biased right now.
I don't think you seem at all biased, Carsten. You have made clear that the M8's strengths matter to you more than it's weaknesses. You have been very honest about it and you don't make claims you aren't prepared to back up regardless of how close you live to Solms. I completely respect your decision.
Dear Andi,
It is category 5 that I draw the line on
5. I don't own the M8, but really want to vent my rage on M8, Leica, as well as those posting here.
I actually have no issue with the first aspect, Leica bashing, because it is just another way of commenting on the camera.
But personally attacking others is REALLY where I draw the line. Even if any one of my interpretations of the ... or ... comments is off, the sum total of their agenda is not being prosecuted in any manner I would call civil.
When the chaff overtakes the wheat, you burn the field.
So, for a while I will join
Number 6. "I own an M8, and have VERY few problems , would like Leica to fix them, yet do not want to listen to attacks on either Leica or M8 owners"
Don't forget us in group 7: "I don't own an M8, and have VERY few problems, would like Leica to fix them, yet do not want to listen to attacks on either Leica or M8 owners".
Well said Guy. Helping us all to make smart buying decisions is the key, whichever products we buy, because we all have different needs, and so different cameras will suit different photographers. That's why comparisons where different cameras take the same picture are so useful. You have been very helpful to me and a lot of other people over the years in sharing so much useful information, so thank you.
I mentioned the IR issue in the beginning maybe twice and I think Leica should have pulled the safety brakes immidiatly after the first reviews mentioning it. Go to the LUF and read the issues with the quick fixes and you can maybe understand what I meant by that chess rule comment. Thats it and nothing else, and many mentioned it before.
Situation is better now as people who buy a Leica now know that they have to use a IR filter and there are still these complaints. I say it again this quick fixes with the filters is not making Leica a good PR, and that was the comment about it and Guy did get it in the other deleted thread. Said it twice to make sure. And Guy you should really drink Espresso and not coffee, much better for health and taste.
Some 15 years ago I borrowed a Leica and it had a 21 and a 50 with it and that 21 was just nice to shoot with. First grey hairs comming and I need to think about the futur, cant wait to see a Leica M with 22mp, might be the only one with the lenses capable of braking the 20mp line.
So for now I do not think the m8 is any better than the camera i use, dont understand why you people can not come out with evidence and show me that the Leica WA lenses deliver on this sensor as they should and maybe convince people by such comments that it is worth to go for the very first M Leica. Thats were that thread fails.
it is small. It also has a bit better high ISO performance for wildlife (hence the long lens experiment.)
I have 28/2.0 and 50 lux and 75 lux
not sure I need more (have 15mm CV coming)
Keep small.
BTW the fact that I could focus with a R9, swap out to an M8 and get same focus is tesetemnt to Leica quality, at least in this case. Also good adapetr from Stephen grandy)
> ...show me that the Leica WA lenses deliver on this sensor as they should
the 21mm Zeiss in my M test certainly showed less barrel distortion than my old C/Y 28 f2. Of course, we are looking at less of its image circle, but it is a wider lens. Distortion is more important than its mindshare suggests, and that is an area where the M has a telling advantage (unlike mirror vibes). It's just a shame that the WA advantage is complicated by the angle of incidence problem.
that is what the M system is based on, could not create the alias for the translated webpage, anyway it is interesting and worth translating it with guugle
Here we go again! ;-) Don't forget that tests of higher rez cameras than the M8 look scarier and sharper. The M8 is scary low-distortion certainly, and it is hard to achieve such low distortion on a 13 or 16 megapixel body without post-processing. The best options seem to be the Nikkor 17-35 and various Zeiss/Leica-R/Olympus primes as husband's site 16-9.net so excellently demonstrates. Sharpness, however, is not, apparently, the M8's forte because it is running on slightly shorter legs. Also don't forget that an M 21 is only a full frame 28. So let's not get carried away. The M8 wins on low-distortion but loses on sharpness by a significant margin. One you can fix in post, the other you can't.
> That has been my point since the first post the M lenses are beating my DMR.
I can certainly believe that. It stands to reason. The sensor is bigger and the lenses are better.
Perhaps I misunderstood your scary sharp point. You seemed to be saying that the M lenses and lack of AA filter allow the M8 to compete in sharpness with higher megapixel bodies, even though no tests illustrating this have come forth:
> ...yes the Canons may out res the leica's but as we have proved in the DMR thread that part may not mean much without the AA filter in there then you throw in the mix even better M lenses without a AA filter then you start to realize what i was saying all along . This is scary sharp stuff
brainiac wrote:
There's lots to like about the M8, true, but if I may pick you up on something important Jack:
The sharpness and detail of my old Nikon Coolpix 700 is better than the M8. That's irrelevant. It's 2 megapixels. Resolution is what matters, and in resolution, the M8 is probably second to the 5D, and third to the 1DsII and Nikon D2xs, as the pixel count indicates. Let's try and remain factual. If you have a test which shows this not to be true, then I for one am keen to see it. I'm not saying you are lying, but I am saying that you aren't quite in tune with the evidence presented here so far. Of course, you're free to present your own, just like any of us. If you're going to respond with the old 'crap test' call, then why not add some images of your own that do a better job of actually comparing the resolution of the two than my underskilled effort.
I do feel that if people keep repeating the contentious mantra 'M8, the most detailed camera bar none', someone might actually believe it and buy one for the wrong reasons....Show more →
Richard,
As a Canon 5D shooter, who played with the M8 for two days and shot about 200 frames, I can tell you that in my opinion, the M8 has better resolution and sharpness than the 5D.
Not more pixels, but it does resolve more detail.
The two sensors are quite different. CMOS vs CCD. AA Filter vs None. It's not a simple matter of "number of pixels = resolution".
I don't have any controlled tests to posts. I don't have any hard evidence to offer. I only have my own antecdotal experience to offer. And keep in mind that I chose to stay with the 5D (for reasons I outlined several pages back in this thread), so I don't have any investment to protect.
But I saw what I saw, and it stood out to me in multiple instances.
I also saw Jack work up some enlarged prints, and was stunned by how well the M8 files held up to very large print sizes. They held up better than the 5D when print sizes got very large. Again, not a tightly controlled test, but good enough for me to make that conclusion for myself.
OK Mike - I certainly take your view seriously, just as I take seriously the views of Guy, Jack and everyone else who has posted on this thread. However, I hope you can understand that I am being asked just to believe that a 10 megapixel camera is outresolving a 13 megapixel camera, in contradiction of my own tests, and common sense. After 200 pages of this there are still no rigorous demonstrations of that claim. You saw what you saw. I still ain't seen it, but my patience is infinite and my mind is open :)
Guy - there is a difference between debating and attacking. I listen carefully to what you have to say. I weigh it carefully. With much of it I agree. With some I don't. Despite your fantastic contribution to this forum, I don't have to just take everything you say on trust. That's not an insult to you, it's just a recognition that we all have different opinions and we are all right and wrong about many things.
Carsten, to be more clear here is my main M8 issue:
There are only TWO possible fixes for the IR bleed issue on the M8: One is to replace the IR cut filter over the sensor with one that actually cuts ALL IR. Two is to filter every lens with that same filter and leave it on the lens 24/7/365. BOTH of those solutions will require new profiles and updated firmware and that is a very minor problem.
With that said, *MY MAIN GRIPE* is that Leica chose the "filter the lens" option... My problem with that particular choice is that filters on lenses cause negative effects on images -- especially images shot directly into strong light sources. And a LOT of what I want the M8 for, is to be able to shoot in demanding light situations -- like street scenes at night, without having ghosts and flare pop up in every other shot as they most certainly will with IR filters hanging off the front of every lens!
So please understand me -- I want the M8 to work! I just need it to work for the kind of shooting I want to do with it, and filtering the lens is not going to deliver that... So if I sound like I'm being hard on Leica, I am! But only because I want the M8 to work for me -- and excel in the same environment Leica M's have excelled in for years.
Mike Hatam wrote:
I also saw Jack work up some enlarged prints, and was stunned by how well the M8 files held up to very large print sizes. They held up better than the 5D when print sizes got very large. Again, not a tightly controlled test, but good enough for me to make that conclusion for myself.
Mike
Did the Prints look like this? If I remember correctly, the large one is a crop as if the print was five by seven feet!
