M8 realities

Tri-x is constantly changing and improving. The tri-x of today is a very different film than from when it came out.

But anyway, it will be horrible if they discontinue it, but there's always Neopan 400!
 
Not even one week later and I have already shot one commercial job and two editorial jobs plus stock with the M8. C1 is the best raw converter with Jamie Foulds magenta fix, works really well, no sharpening needed.

The camera is excellent, no problems at all, even works well with my 1954 collapsable ( I do not collapse it on the M8 ).

Battery life is right at 400 shots, the little 2 GB cards fill up too fast though, wish I could use a 4GB.

iView needs to get off of their rear and update the software so I can properly import, re-name and archive my M8 files. This could be the one big hold up in putting the M8 into full blown pro mode.

Great camera overall..
 
KM-25 said:
Thanks to all who wrote in. The Lightstalkers thread was really good.

The framing issues with the 50 bother me a bit, but seems as though my 28 Summicron is going to be a joy to use on the other hand.

I am going to give this some more thought, even though B&H has them in stock, I might wait until a big commercial gig in Cabo is done next month since I will be selling one of my 5D's, one of my FM3A's and about 4 lenses to get this...

I'll keep an eye out...

By the way, Anne Holms images with the M8 are really the first ones to truly wow me:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/anne_holmes/

Thanks!
Click to expand...

The subjects totally overwhelm the camera. Those would have been great with a Kodak Brownie.

/T
 
KM-25 said:
Battery life is right at 400 shots, the little 2 GB cards fill up too fast though, wish I could use a 4GB.
Click to expand...
Transcend 150x 4GB works no problem. Just make sure you have a relatively new card reader the old ones will not work with anything over 2 GB.

Make sure it's the 150x not the newer SDHC.

Tiger Direct has them for 69.99:

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/category/category_slc.asp?MfrId=1519&Nav=|c:380|c:2412|&Sort=3&Recs=10
 
Trius said:
And how does it compare to Kodachrome 25?
Click to expand...

You'll have to wait a bit for that comparison, I don't have a ton of that, so I shoot it sparingly.

I would imagine the K-25 would pull ahead quite a bit of any digital.
 
HAnkg said:
Transcend 150x 4GB works no problem. Just make sure you have a relatively new card reader the old ones will not work with anything over 2 GB.

Make sure it's the 150x not the newer SDHC.

Tiger Direct has them for 69.99:

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/category/category_slc.asp?MfrId=1519&Nav=|c:380|c:2412|&Sort=3&Recs=10
Click to expand...

Thanks! I'll consider it.
 
Nearly a month later...

Nearly a month later...

...So here I am nearly a month later wondering how everyone else is getting that "Incredible image quality" that is "Better than my 5D/ D2X". Sure, the color and contrast is really nice, but...when it comes to giving consistently sharp and clean files to clients who are used to that from me, I am pulling hair that I don't have out of my bald head.

I have been pulling, poking, prodding and doing more damn work in front of the computer than shooting with this camera. Sometimes I get great shots with no jaggies, artifacts, weave pattern noise or moire, but most of the time, this is what I am dealing with.

The Geographic shooter that told me he thought this camera was ready for "Prime-time" has apologized and sold his two, he too is tired of jumping through hoops to get files consistently that clients can actually use and play with in PS to suit their specific output.

I am still waiting on IR/Cut filters so this is part of it. I find C1 gives the best sharpness output and does a decent job at getting rid of the insane moire problems. But the color is weaker, the weave pattern noise at any iso even with pattern noise reduction on at any setting is not good. The artifacts I see when applying any sharpening at all, even after outputting to tiff is bad as well, had one client that thought I sent them an image from a point and shoot due to it.

ACR-4 puts out the best color, but really softens up the image and does not do well at all with the moire.

And with either of these programs, when it comes to the very finest details when using aspherics in mid to high contrast situations, the fine details break up and look very point and shoot like.

Is it the sensor?

Is it the processing engine?

Is it the lack of a more refined raw output program?

The one thing it is not is consistent enough to use for paid work for anything other than 1/2 page or smaller editorial.

So as much as I love everything about it, two to three more weeks of this *massive* time-wasting, hoop-jumping and then it is up for sale for a loss of at least $700...:bang:

I'm easy to please, but it has to be better than this to keep it for the long haul...
 
Last edited:
KM-25 said:
I have been pulling, poking, prodding and doing more damn work in front of the computer than shooting with this camera. Sometimes I get great shots with no jaggies, artifacts, weave pattern noise or moire, but most of the time, this is what I am dealing with.
to please, but it has to be better than this to keep it for the long haul...
Click to expand...

It would be great if you could provide a link to some samples. We're always seeing samples of "great" images, but we never get to really see problem images. For someone like myself who is contemplating buying the camera, it's' important to see both types of images in order to make the right decision when it comes to purchasing.
 
I've only had my M8 a short time but I'm not seeing those horrible problems at all. Given the number of professionals who seem to be pleased overall, I'm fairly sure it isn't a lack of perceptiveness on my part, and I'm wondering if some of these problems couldn't be attributable to a small sample of defective cameras.
 
I'll wait until after the October price increase, I'll just take care to not scratch it and see if I can't eek out some of these problems. I have a really busy next couple of weeks so after that, I will post some samples. I know a lot of people are seeing some great work out of the M8....but are you seeing it at 100%? Most of what have seen is web sized stuff that does not really show me the finest of details.
 
Ben Z said:
I've only had my M8 a short time but I'm not seeing those horrible problems at all. Given the number of professionals who seem to be pleased overall, I'm fairly sure it isn't a lack of perceptiveness on my part, and I'm wondering if some of these problems couldn't be attributable to a small sample of defective cameras.
Click to expand...

Is there a way you can post a 100% version of what you believe to be your technically best set of M8 shots then? I would be real interested in seeing those fine details look better that what I am getting some of the time..

Also, I hope that when you say the number of professionals, that you don't mean some of the ones on the Leica Forum..especially Mr. Mancuso. They just say how much better the M8 is than the rest of the world and don't ever show why, all talk, no proof.
 
Here is a 100% example that I think does a good job of showing the M8 details. There is some moire in the eyebrow, but it can be dealt with. Is this the extent of the problem you are dealing with, or is it deeper?

noelle-relish2.jpg


noelle-relish2-crop.jpg


Apologies to others who have probably seen this before. It is the only good photo I have with the crop uploaded.
 
The biggest I've done is what fits on the 13x19 paper that's the largest my printer will hold. Even that's bigger than I really need or have wall space for. Those were full-frame, not crops. Prints seem to look much better than what I see on screen. That might be my crappy screen or my lack of PS skills or both. I don't hold myself out as an expert and don't offer you any advice. I also am on a dial-up connection so I can't upload anything larger than a small .jpg, and I don't subscribe to FLickr (yet). I apply the same paradigm to the M8 as I did to the M6. I consider it a replacement for 35mm equipment, so if it outperforms 35mm I'm happy, but if it just equals it, I'm still happy. It's like the story of the 2 photographers in Africa being chased by a lion. One suddenly turns around and stops to take a shot of the approaching beast, and the other one is frantic, "keep running or you won't outrun the lion!" "I don't have to outrun the lion" comes the reply "I just have to outrun you" 😉 But I understand those who expect the M8 to be a replacement for MF, and I might be disappointed too if that was my hope. I don't know.

Seriously, before you throw in the towel, you might want to get in contact with one of these guys--no, not "Guy"--( I don't have their e-mails, sorry, but I believe they appear on the LUF) who seems like are extremely adept at digital processing and the M8 : Jamie Roberts (pro), Marc Williams (pro and graphic arts guy), Jack Flesher (amateur but very digital-savvy and sophisticated PS'er).
 
Last edited:
There is a very good thread on this going on in LUF right now, with comparisons between the various settings in raw converters, and comparisons to the 1Ds??. I see Dan already found it 🙂 I'm staying well out of the discussion, as I am certainly not expert enough. I will say one thing though: out of 5000 shots, two that would have been real keepers have been totally ruined by uncorrectable moire, and I do check at 100% and I do print at up to 1 metre wide. But to me it is just annoying, a pro has his evening meal riding on it....
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom