p.17 #2 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
Hey Ulrik, that photo you posted from the m8 + 90 summarit before, is this what the m8 noise looks like from up close? Round and grainy and filmlike? No photoshop magic?
p.17 #3 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
Spyro P. wrote:
Hey Ulrik, that photo you posted from the m8 + 90 summarit before, is this what the m8 noise looks like from up close? Round and grainy and filmlike? No photoshop magic?
Yeah, that is just clarity + monochrome + s-curve in lightroom.
p.17 #5 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
bdickers wrote:
Lack of practice...perhaps, I've only been shooting for 30 years or so. In my humble opinion, the M8 is little more than a very well built over-priced homage to the past; fun to play with for a bit, but I wouldn't want try to earn a living with one. I imagine I could still buy a car that starts with a crank to haul the M8 around in... but why?
Too true. Moreover, they aren't even necessarily much quieter, lighter, or less discrete than a comparable SLR with a 50mm lens. They are far less discrete than the DLUX-4, though I will concede that the DLUX-4 cannot give you the same shallow DoF that a Leica M8 will give you.
My own experience with rangefinders has been that they were not worth the time, effort, and lost images to master.
ulrikft wrote:
Yeah, that is just clarity + monochrome + s-curve in lightroom.
It's a nice result ulrik, and shows that you have great skill. However, the fact that your curve has removed virtually all the shadow information and flattened it to black means that it doesn't show us very much about M8 high iso performance. Highlights are effectively higher iso than the one that is set. Where sensors and film struggle at high isos is in the shadows, where the rising noise levels eat into the latitude/DR. It is always possible to use curves to beat the noisy shadows down to black, but an awful lot of information is lost, and depending on the picture, that can have a dramatic effect on whether the picture captures what you need it to. In this case, with a relatively bright face, you can knock the shadows down to black and forget about them. I don't think it proves very much about M8 high iso performance relative to other competitive cameras. In colour it is my experience that the M8 suffers from quite large blotches of yellowish colour in faces at 1250 iso, to the extent that they can ruin the shot unless a considerable amount of skilled photoshop work is done on them. I would be interested to see this image in colour without the s-curve so we can see how good shadow retention is and what chroma noise is like.
p.17 #9 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
Thanks for posting, Ulrik, It seems like strong colors in the shadows get a bit blotchy and uneven, but not too bad -- itīs not long ago since this would have been state of the art high ISO quality. I think anyway it can be helped with just some basic PP. Fortunately I see no trace of the worst high ISO enemy - banding.
Certainly doesnīt deter my interest in an M8, even being a daily user of the 5D2 - the high priest of high ISO.
Jun 22, 2009 at 07:50 AM
Andi Dietrich Offline [X]
p.17 #10 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
This image shows that it is not a sacrilege to compare the m8 to a 450d. I guess most people use a Leica for the feel of quality and not for its image property.
Jun 22, 2009 at 11:46 AM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.17 #11 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
Thanks for posting Ulrik - that's very informative. I do see a bit of the yellow blotchiness in the face and elsewhere, although the result is better than a lot of other examples I have seen. For reference, here's a 3200 iso shot with the 450D, although it has had some noise reduction in post: http://cyberphotographer.com/450d/contax28f2.8/grumpypa_lowrez.jpg
I prefer to shoot the $640 450D at iso 3200 than the $4400 M8 at iso 2500, even if focussing is trickier. The M8 costs much more than the 5D2, which has a whopping 3-4 stops more reach into the gloom, as does the D700. For a low light camera the M8 just does not compute, even with an f1 lens, because that saved money means lenses and those extra stops mean latitude and/or detail and/or focus depth and/or a faster shutter.
Please understand that I think it's a good camera and I would use one with pride if we weren't so spoiled for choice by the highly competitive offerings from other makers. I'm not trying to pee in anyone's chips, I'm just trying to explain why I think the M8 is a long way behind the competition for low-light shooters. For many photographers that's not an issue, but the subject is worth discussing for some of us.
p.17 #12 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
The question is. Even if the M8 has 1-2-3 stops worse ISO, if you factor in slower handholding-able speeds and faster lens at equialent mm-ranges, what do you end up with?
Jun 23, 2009 at 05:49 AM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.17 #13 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
ulrikft wrote:
The question is. Even if the M8 has 1-2-3 stops worse ISO, if you factor in slower handholding-able
Maybe I just have wonderful SLR technique, but I did not find that the M8 lowered the speeds at which shake was visible. I've never seen any real evidence for this, only anecdotes from fans. I think there is a general tendency to overestimate the significance of mirror slap, which in my experience only ever affects huge SLRs with long lenses, e.g. the Pentax 6x7. And what about image stabilisation in lenses like the 24-105, or Olympus DSLRs?
...speeds and faster lens at equialent mm-ranges, what do you end up with?
What faster lenses? For a mere $4000 you can buy a Canon 50 f1 with AF. Canon offers 14 f2.8, 24 f1.4, 28 f1.8 35 f1.4, 50 f1.2, 85 f1.2, 135 f2, 200 f2 (or f1.8), all at affordable prices by Leica standards. I use a Rokkor 58 f1.2 and a Zeiss 35 f1.4 on my Canons too, both superb lenses. Nikon also offers some wonderful fast lenses, like the legendary 28 f1.4. Add some excellent f2.8 zooms, and it's not at all clear that you can compensate for the iso problem by throwing money at glass.
p.17 #14 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
So you counter the quite commonly said/believed/practiced "easier to handhold no-mirror-rangefinder"-anecdotes with an anecdote of your own?
I appreciate your zeal brainiac. Just be careful not to fall over into the zealot cathegory.
When it comes to lenses, what does the 28 1.4 cost, compared to a CV 35 1.2? And how is the size of the 24 1.4, 35 1.4, 50 1.2, 85 1.2...? I do have a d700 with 1.2 and lots of 1.4-glass. If I want to, I have a great af and non-af high iso, fast-glass-system. But it is _huge_. the m8 is quite a bit smaller than the 500d, it is less "you won't get into the club/concert area with that"-prone, and a m8 + 35 1.2 is.. well, a good package.
p.17 #15 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
They'll just think the M8 is an old film camera and let you in
I use an M6 often alongside my 5D Mark II, and mirror slap makes a difference. I have handheld shots around a stop below 1/focal length and they look spot on in 6mp scans, if I try and do the same with my slr my hit rate drops significantly, unless I use poor-man's IS (string on tripod screw).
Jun 23, 2009 at 06:37 AM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.17 #16 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
ulrikft wrote:
So you counter the quite commonly said/believed/practiced "easier to handhold no-mirror-rangefinder"-anecdotes with an anecdote of your own?
In 25 years of using compacts, rangefinders, and SLRs, I have never found any difference in handholding speeds. Have you? Meanwhile no demonstration of the alleged superiority of mirror-free cameras for handholding is available. Bearing in mind the variable results of handwobble on images, only a statistical answer to this question exists, and results will vary from one person to another, and from one brand of coffee to another. It would be interesting to actually perform the test by taking 100 images with the M8 and the 5D at various slower shutter speeds and giving them each marks out of 100 for sharpness. If someone in London with an M8 wants to meet up and do that test, out of curiosity, I'm willing to do it, and buy beer. I don't expect to see much of a difference between the cameras in this respect, although my experience is that 1D cameras can be more steadily held than shortarse SLRs, perhaps because they have greater rotational inertia.
>I appreciate your zeal brainiac. Just be careful not to fall over into the zealot cathegory.
Call me what you want, if you look at my posts you will see that I stick to discussing the real, not the imaginary.
>When it comes to lenses, what does the 28 1.4 cost, compared to a CV 35 1.2?
But my 35 f1.4 on a 5D2 can see a whopping 3 stops further into the darkness. Even a cheapo Contax 35 f2.8 can get good results in a stop less light than your M8/CV35. My weapon of choice is an Oly 40 f2 with 5D2, which offers about two stops more gloomvision than an M8/CV35 and isn't much bigger or heavier.
>And how is the size of the 24 1.4, 35 1.4, 50 1.2, 85 1.2...?
Again you're ignoring the fact that I only need to take smaller darker lenses to compete or surpass the M8's gloomreach, and I get more d.o.f. and change in my pocket in so doing. Sure I can use the f1.x lenses if I want bokeh tricks, but by and large shooting at f1 is a hindrance not a help.
I do have a d700 with 1.2 and lots of 1.4-glass. If I want to, I have a great af and non-af high iso, fast-glass-system. But it is _huge_...
...and can reach far better into the shadows. If you want the M8's gloomreach, take f2.8 lenses, which are not huge.
>...the m8 is quite a bit smaller than the 500d, it is less "you won't get into the club/concert area with that"-prone...
Not once you put that f1 lens on it. A 5D2 and a small f2 or f2.8 prime isn't any more conspicuous, and can work without flash in darker rooms.
p.17 #17 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
the 5d2 is _far_ more conspicous than a m8 + 35 1.4/1.2, even with a small lens on it. IF you want to discuss the real, you have to aknowledge this. Seriously.
When it comes to how a 35 1.4 with a 5d2 can see 3 stops further into the darkness, I wonder how you do this. the 35 1.2 has a one stop advantage, so you have to argue that you can get as good results at 12500 with the 5d2, as you can get at 640 with the m8... Good luck with that one!
Jun 23, 2009 at 06:50 AM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.17 #18 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
thrice wrote:
They'll just think the M8 is an old film camera and let you in
I use an M6 often alongside my 5D Mark II, and mirror slap makes a difference. I have handheld shots around a stop below 1/focal length and they look spot on in 6mp scans, if I try and do the same with my slr my hit rate drops significantly, unless I use poor-man's IS (string on tripod screw).
...and how do you stop subject movement?
Seriously, even if the average shooter can get an extra half stop of steady hand out of an M8, it's no different from using IS. It would be interesting to test the 24-105 against steadihandman though.
p.17 #19 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
thrice wrote:
They'll just think the M8 is an old film camera and let you in
I use an M6 often alongside my 5D Mark II, and mirror slap makes a difference. I have handheld shots around a stop below 1/focal length and they look spot on in 6mp scans, if I try and do the same with my slr my hit rate drops significantly, unless I use poor-man's IS (string on tripod screw).
My experience with both my old Canonets and with the G1 with non-IS glass is the lack of mirror gives about a stop more of handholdability at the low end. My hit rate drops at 2 stops under 1/FL rather than 1 stop below. I'd expect the same from a Leica. From using the G1, that does seem to evaporate with lenses over around 135/150mm-e as the minimum shutter speed climbs up to the point where it's shorter than the resonant frequency of the mirror slap.
Jun 23, 2009 at 06:59 AM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.17 #20 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
ulrikft wrote:
the 5d2 is _far_ more conspicous than a m8 + 35 1.4/1.2, even with a small lens on it. IF you want to discuss the real, you have to aknowledge this. Seriously.
>When it comes to how a 35 1.4 with a 5d2 can see 3 stops further into the darkness, I wonder how you do this. the 35 1.2 has a one stop advantage, so you have to argue that you can get as good results at 12500 with the 5d2, as you can get at 640 with the m8... Good luck with that one!
A CV 35 f1.2 is only half a stop brighter than a Contax 35 f1.4, give or take. The 5D2 has about a 3.5 stop advantage at high iso, so this is how I do this: I set the M8 to 1250 iso because that's the limit of where I think I can hand over shots to a client without having to do excessive work on every file, and I turn the aperture dial to 1.2. On the 5D2 I set the iso to 12800 because that's the limit of what I can hand over to a client without having to do excessive work on every file, and I set my lens to f1.4. That's about three stops more gloomvision, like I said. Now you might argue that the iso ratings aren't correct, so I'll give you a stop for good will. It's still two more stops of gloomvision.
BTW, the Oly 28 in the pocket of my jacket is about equivalent to the Leica 21 f1.4 in terms of gloomvision, but it has more depth of field in any given situation, and you don't need to attach a conspicuous optical viewfinder. It cost 50 bucks not 5000, and yet performs just as well in the real world.
- you nailed it!
