While there may indeed be a few blind loyalists, I think that quite a few recipients of the first M8s have been quiet because they are more than happy about having a digital rangefinder solution. If you like shooting with a rangefinder and M lenses, while not perfect, I know what side of having an M8 vs. not having an M8 equation I'm satisfied to be on. So, while Leica works through the fixes, I'll use a few work-arounds that are available and enjoy the utility of digital rangefinder shooting.
Thanks for digging that shot up Robert! Yes, the little image is the full frame M8 shot at 360PPI. The middle one is that file enlarged to 30x44 at 360PPI and a 16x20 section from the middle printed out. The final image is a section of what would have been a 5 FOOT x 7-1/2 FOOT print.
There is no way the 5D could hold together as well as the M8 at those print sizes -- and I know this because I shoot 5D's!
PS: That's Mike Hatam and myself holding the prints while Robert is taking the picture. Guy was working on a martini
Cheers,
Edited by Jack Flesher on Dec 18, 2006 at 08:39 AM GMT
The design advantages inherent in rangefinder lenses allows them to be sharper than their SLR counterparts. Zeiss has said that their lenses for the Contax G rangefinder are as much as 20% sharper than their Contax SLR (c/y) lenses.
What is not clear to me is if that difference in sharpness will be noticable with a 10mp sensor. Guy and Mike seem to suggest that it is, Richard's and the actual comparisons I've seen (albeit, possibly flawed) seem to suggest that it isn't. Hmmm.
We are mixing up the terminology. We cannot communicate effectively without establishing the definitions of the words that we are using.
Details, Resolution, Sharpness are all different qualities.
In Canon world ( in order not to touch the sensitivity of the Leica owners )
- 1DsII captures the most Details ( # pixels )
- 20D/30D provides the highest resolution ( Pixel Pitch )
- Original 1D followed by 1Ds provides the most sharpness - this is also called "Acutance".
To my Eyes, M8 has the most Acutance that I've seen - Bar None ( may be except Sigma SD10 ).
actually te 50 lux is on loan tillDale gets a Nocyilux, but I may pass or just 'collect' it
anyway, 15 cv comes tomorrow from Woody so interested to check 15 cv vs R 15mm
I also now have the 50 lux both M and R. I will try both on the M8. Curious to see any differences. Puts says that 50m lux R was specifically NOT ASPH for some reason, and that difference in design was due to registration distance differences.
Given that the sensor in the DMR and M8 is almost the same, how come Leica didn't put an IR filter in the cover glass for the M8 as they did for the DMR. The DMR has never had the kind of issues that the M8 has experienced
I am really disappointed with Leica. The M8 promised to be the digital camera for me, with the size and everything, that is why I didn't go for the DMR and now I am totally confused, some people say the IR thing is a major deal breaker, others say it is a minor nuisance
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
This was covered in excruciating detail in the DMR thread. I think that why you are finding people less than enthusiastic to invest the time to repeat the tests given the sensor of the M8 is essentially the same as the one in the DMR.
Pondria wrote
To my Eyes, M8 has the most Acutance that I've seen - Bar None ( may be except Sigma SD10 ).
If both the SD10 (SLR) and the M8 (rangefinder) are seen as having the most acutance, then we should be able to deduce that this must be due to the camera (sensor, AA filter, etc.) and not the advantages of rangefinder lenses
Given that the sensor in the DMR and M8 is almost the same, how come Leica didn't put an IR filter in the cover glass for the M8 as they did for the DMR. The DMR has never had the kind of issues that the M8 has experienced
I am really disappointed with Leica. The M8 promised to be the digital camera for me, with the size and everything, that is why I didn't go for the DMR and now I am totally confused, some people say the IR thing is a major deal breaker, others say it is a minor nuisance
Leica did not put an IR filter in front of the sensor for the same reason they had to shift the microlenses: The edge rays of a Rangefinder come at a far too acute angle. An IR filter has a limited acceptance angle. To put a IR filter directly in front of the sensor would have induced heavy cyan vignetting for all lenses, with, if corrected, loss of dynamic range at the edges and the corners.
brainiac wrote:
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
I think the answer is simple:
You did your test for the way you shoot each camera then processed the resulting files the way you normally process. We can only assume you adhered to some standard workflow that you commonly practice for your work, start through finish, and thus, YOUR results are right for YOU. Hence, for your style of shooting and processing, you can easily claim the 5D is a better camera than the M8 for you. And to be clear, I personally have NO problem with that decision! If it works for you, great, you are done, can stick with your 5D's and get back to taking pictures!
However, for Guy, Robert, Jamie, Mike, myself and a few others, doing the comparison the way WE use our cameras and the way WE process our files to get to OUR desired output, WE got different results than you and found the M8 to produce the superior product for OUR uses, at least WRT to what we refer to as net file quality.
(On another note, our group above all agree that the M8 has color issues and we all find the net detail difference compelling enough to want to get the color issues repaired. We don't even disagree on how that should be accomplished, but rather disagree on which fix we're willing to accept for it.)
So why can't we just leave it at that? IMO nothing more needs to be said about the comparison tests -- folks that think they process and shoot more like you will likely embrace your result and folks that think they shoot and process more like us will likely embrace our result, end of story.
Cheers,
Edited by Jack Flesher on Dec 18, 2006 at 09:03 AM GMT
Question to Pros here;
Do you think the difference in qualities between M8, 5D, DMR, 1DsII would affect your bottom line ? Will there be occasions where you ruin the assignment with 5D that would have been saved with M8 or DMR or vice versa ?
Pondria wrote:
Question to Pros here;
Do you think the difference in qualities between M8, 5D, DMR, 1DsII would affect your bottom line ? Will there be occasions where you ruin the assignment with 5D that would have been saved with M8 or DMR or vice versa ?
Yes! I don't think too many of us could choose to work with only one of the above and still shoot a wide variety of subjects. I just spent three days (OK nights!) shooting a band on stage at different venues with a 1Ds2+70-200 f2.8 @ 200mm f2.8 ISO 3200. I could not have done that with an M8, either for the focal length, or for such good high ISO shots (as far as I can tell the M8 is not as good for high ISO colour - but I have yet to receive mine so I may be pleasantly surprised).
But, there were times when I was shooting outside that I would have preferred an M8 to the 1Ds2 (or any other large DSLR for that matter). The 1Ds2 was too large and bulky for that type of work, and tended to attract attention that was not wanted, because we were trying to shoot in a 'candid / natural manner', without other people looking at us all the time, and even trying to get 'in' the shots! However, this one is not a quality issue as such, but having the quality of the M8 in a small package may make the difference.
brainiac wrote:
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
Richard,
I'm not asking you to believe anything. I have no interest in debating this with you. I'm simply offering my own antecdotal experience, in case it is of any value to you or other who read this thread.
I will also say that I don't think the image quality difference is significant enough to warrant the kind of debate it's getting on this thread. They are very close to each other. I'd give the M8 a tiny edge.
But so what? The cameras are so fundamentally different from each other, that it doesn't really matter which is "better" (at resolving details), as long as they are both excellent, which I think they are.
Mike
Edited by Mike Hatam on Dec 18, 2006 at 10:09 AM GMT
Pondria wrote:
We are mixing up the terminology. We cannot communicate effectively without establishing the definitions of the words that we are using.
Details, Resolution, Sharpness are all different qualities.
In Canon world ( in order not to touch the sensitivity of the Leica owners )
- 1DsII captures the most Details ( # pixels )
- 20D/30D provides the highest resolution ( Pixel Pitch )
- Original 1D followed by 1Ds provides the most sharpness - this is also called "Acutance".
To my Eyes, M8 has the most Acutance that I've seen - Bar None ( may be except Sigma SD10 ).
OK, good point Pondria.
I don't know which of the terms applies in what I'm trying to say, so I'll put it in my own terms...
The M8 files reveal more fine details than the 5D files. They are very close, but the M8 holds a tiny edge. Moreover, the M8 files upres better (continue to hold fine details) than the 5D files to large sized prints.
Again, I don't think the difference is significant enough to warrant pronouncing one camera system as superior to the other, since in this particular category (retaining fine detail), they are both excellent and very close to each other.
Pondria wrote:
Question to Pros here;
Do you think the difference in qualities between M8, 5D, DMR, 1DsII would affect your bottom line ? Will there be occasions where you ruin the assignment with 5D that would have been saved with M8 or DMR or vice versa ?
Moiré might be a problem, Leica shooters dont complain a lot with the DMR, M8?
Lotusm50 wrote:
What is not clear to me is if that difference in sharpness will be noticable with a 10mp sensor. Guy and Mike seem to suggest that it is, Richard's and the actual comparisons I've seen (albeit, possibly flawed) seem to suggest that it isn't. Hmmm.
When you combine it with an AA filter it's quite noticeable. While 10MP couldn't show a difference in high-contrast areas and test targets, in actual real-world photography where the bulk of image information is low and medium contrast the combination of crisp optics and AA-free image formation makes a pretty big difference. AA filters start attenuating low-contrast detail well before 13 or 16MP or whatever, and on the 1Ds2 only high-contrast detail was resolved. I understand the AA filter on the 5D is improved, but it's not a brick wall OLPF, because such things don't exist outside matlab.
One thing I will not do is jump on you for the tests you published.
I know from experience how much effort it takes to do careful testing. As some people here will remember, I ran a long series of lens tests on FM last year, to test various Zeiss / Zuiko / Leica lenses against their Canon counterparts on the 1DsII.
What I learned from that 6 months of extensive testing (I must have spent at least 200 hours on the testing project), is that it's much easier to get a test wrong than it is to get it right. There are so many variables, and so many ways to mess things up. I made an incredible number of mistakes, and learned the hard way not to take my first test results as conclusive until I had repeated them multiple times and accounted for all possible variables.
Anyway, I took a lot of abuse on FM during that time. Everybody jumped on me whenever my tests didn't show what they were expecting. It really bothered me, as I was making my tests available to FM as a favor, but being ridiculed for it. Yes, I deserved some criticism for my testing techniques, until I learned how to control the tests better and provide more consistent and reliable results. But I did not deserve the abuse or sense of entitlement that I felt others displayed toward me.
So bottom line - I appreciate you taking the effort to report your test results. You took the effort, performed the test, and reported your findings. That in itself is a contribution to the forum, whether or not we agree with the methodology or the conclusions you've reported.
I just think it's important that we all keep them in context. They are one data point. I've provided another data point (albeit, not as hard evidence, but just as antecdotal evidence). Others have provided their own data points. Until/unless someone steps up and performs a rigorous, comprehensive, repeatable and tightly controlled test, then I don't think we can claim any of these tests to be ultimately conclusive.
And once I again, I'll come back to my primary point...
What is the purpose of proving that one system is one-half percent better than the other in terms of ability to resolve detail, when the systems are so fundamentally different and will be used in different situations anyways? As long as they are both absolutely excellent at resolving fine detail, I think we reach the point of diminishing returns to go through all the effort to find which one is one-half percent better than the other.
Even if someone were to loan me an M8, I personally would not think it's worth the ~100 hours of testing that would be required for me to have conclusive proof one way or the other.
DaveEP wrote:
Yes! I don't think too many of us could choose to work with only one of the above and still shoot a wide variety of subjects. I just spent three days (OK nights!) shooting a band on stage at different venues with a 1Ds2+70-200 f2.8 @ 200mm f2.8 ISO 3200. I could not have done that with an M8, either for the focal length, or for such good high ISO shots (as far as I can tell the M8 is not as good for high ISO colour - but I have yet to receive mine so I may be pleasantly surprised). ...Show more →
It won't, you'd be very disappointed with it at 2500 (its max).
However, set it to 640, put on a 28/2 ASPH or CV 28/1.9, and get onto the stage and shoot wide open. That's where it will excel, up close and personal.
Pondria wrote:
Question to Pros here;
Do you think the difference in qualities between M8, 5D, DMR, 1DsII would affect your bottom line ? Will there be occasions where you ruin the assignment with 5D that would have been saved with M8 or DMR or vice versa ?
mmm... I once got paid for some architectural works I've done, does it count for being a pro ?
Seriously, if I was a full time pro and I had to choose only ONE system, I'm sure it won't be the M-system.
I couldn't live without SLR, so for me it would be DMR only or 1DsII / 5D only before being confined to the M8.
And by the way I've never met a pro who uses only one system...
Notice though that for ME (= not a pro), being able to use the camera as much as I can is important and as my primary goal is to enjoy photography, if I had to choose only one system it would be... the M8.
