Sailor Ted
Well-known
Ben,
You got me I'm selling my M8 and getting the ELPH. Now imagine I ride a train through China taking pictures of a fascinating and vanishing village culture, all of National Geographic caliber, and all with the help of my M8. Now imagine everything I need for this one-month adventure fits in a small backpack- cloths, camera, lenses, everyting. Wait don't imagine- I'm making this pilgrimage, hopefully very soon, and will share the results when I return.
Ben this is getting to be a bit of a broken record and what you always revert to. I have found no shortcomings in the M8 that cannot be corrected for either with filters or post process. What I have found are prints of a breathtaking three dimensional clairity not matched by my R-D1s or any prints I’ve seen from Canon DSLR's- and I've seen a lot of those as all my friends shoot with Canon and they're as adamant about their kit as I am about mine. That said they're all envious of the M8's size and IQ- every last one of them acknowledges when viewing my prints they exhibit a saturation and depth of color combined with a natural sharpness more film like then anything their cameras can produce.
Ted
You got me I'm selling my M8 and getting the ELPH. Now imagine I ride a train through China taking pictures of a fascinating and vanishing village culture, all of National Geographic caliber, and all with the help of my M8. Now imagine everything I need for this one-month adventure fits in a small backpack- cloths, camera, lenses, everyting. Wait don't imagine- I'm making this pilgrimage, hopefully very soon, and will share the results when I return.
Ben this is getting to be a bit of a broken record and what you always revert to. I have found no shortcomings in the M8 that cannot be corrected for either with filters or post process. What I have found are prints of a breathtaking three dimensional clairity not matched by my R-D1s or any prints I’ve seen from Canon DSLR's- and I've seen a lot of those as all my friends shoot with Canon and they're as adamant about their kit as I am about mine. That said they're all envious of the M8's size and IQ- every last one of them acknowledges when viewing my prints they exhibit a saturation and depth of color combined with a natural sharpness more film like then anything their cameras can produce.
Ted
Last edited:
Ben Z
Veteran
Sailor Ted said:
"all of National Geographic caliber"??? I hope you're not planning on trying to stuff your ego into that little backpack too
Just because you haven't found any situations where you would get either flare/ghosts from the filters or magenta without them, that you couldn't successfully deal with in Photoshop doesn't mean you won't, or that others won't. Flare off of the filters in fact has already been reported by several people.
I'm sure every last one of your friends knows better than to challenge your opinions
I suppose you would say the only people with a right to complain about the destruction of the ozone layer are those with skin cancer. Some of us had $4800 cash in hand ready to plunk down on the dealer's counter until we found out we'd need another grand of filters, and that would give us flare if we take them off in the very same situations they're needed most to combat IR, i.e. point-source artificial lighting such as a theater or reception or outdoors at night, where there are people dressed in some black clothing. If we complain, Leica will know there are a lot more people out there they could sell an M8 to if all they do is fix the sensor so the filters aren't needed. Of course, then all the early-adopters will be the ones complaining
Last edited:
Sailor Ted
Well-known
Ben perhaps you should go back to the R-D1 board and extoll the day before yesterday's technology that's certainly perfect and stop Trolling this board?
Ted
Ted
Last edited:
Sailor Ted
Well-known
patrickjames said:
Patrick,
Agreed but fortunately it's confined to a handful of people with predictable circular rhetoric.
Ted
Last edited:
Ben Z
Veteran
Sailor Ted said:
You mean, that which has less IR contamination and produces less magenta blacks than the M8's cutting-edge technology of today?
Ben Z
Veteran
Sailor Ted said:
You mean, that the M8 (which they've got at least $5000 invested in) is the best camera on earth, out-resolving anything with more sensor area and more pixels? Or that filters don't cause flare?
Sailor Ted
Well-known
Aside from the R-D1s inherent softness and lack of dynamic contrast as compared to the M8 it exhibits serious filter / sensor flare as exhibited in the following two shots. Look around the florescent fixtures both shot on San Francisco's BART- one with the R-D1 and the other with the M8. As always please see my Flickr account for the full res images.
Attachments
saxshooter
Well-known
pundit said:
Apologize for O/T, but Mike, there is a "silent mode" on the camera. You have to set it via personal functions (firewire hooked up to camera via computer). Use the camera on single frame advance. It is VERY quiet. It only drops the mirror back down when you let go of the shutter button.
ywenz
Veteran
Let's all just all agree to a point somewhere in the middle. The M8 is simply a digital camera that in low and moderate ISO situations, produce images equally as good or no better than the other high-end digital cameras in its class. My comment is supported by the fact that from all the M8 images we've seen, none of them stand out due to the fact that the M8 has an image sensor capable of higher image quality. The only obvious advantage of the M8 is that it is more compact than the DSLRs in its class.
Sorry guy, no sympathy for you there. Who attempts discrete street photography with a 1DS camera!? There are lots of cameras out there. Your options are not limited to just 1DS or M8. The 5D for example, has a very quiet shutter.
pundit said:
Sorry guy, no sympathy for you there. Who attempts discrete street photography with a 1DS camera!? There are lots of cameras out there. Your options are not limited to just 1DS or M8. The 5D for example, has a very quiet shutter.
Last edited:
Sailor Ted
Well-known
ferider
Veteran
This your Duc, Ted ?
Sorry couldn't resist
Roland.
Sorry couldn't resist
Roland.
Ben Z
Veteran
Actually I'm willing to give these gentlemen, whose work indicates a discerning eye, the benefit of doubt that the M8 is capable of print quality of an exceptional level. Frankly I wish I could believe it's just average, because it would make it's fatal IR flaw less tragic. As it is, it's just a crying shame that such an otherwise magnificent camera was given a club foot through some unfathomable bumble by one or more of the technology partners Leica relied upon to craft it.
Sailor Ted
Well-known
ywenz
Veteran
Ted, I actually like the look of the flares in your pics. In fact, I don't find them distracting at all. I almost wish that these were the first M8 pics that we were exposed to...
Ben Z
Veteran
Sailor Ted said:
I think it might be possible to fix those florescent light flares in Photoshop. The kind of flare you get off a front filter is impossible to fix because it veils large areas of the image. Believe me I'm a staunch UV-protector guy, not one of those "never put a filter in front of sacred Leica glass" guys, and I can tell just by looking at a shot when I had better take the MRC-UV off or else.
Not to mention, heaven forbid you want to use some other kind of filter like a polarizer and have to stack it on top of the IR-486 instead of replacing one with the other.
Sailor Ted
Well-known
ywenz,
Yes it is not an issue for me either. However if this were the case with the M8 this R-D1 "defect" that has gone largely unnoticed would be all the rage just as the R-D1s magenta cast was/is a non issue with the Epson. The thing the Epson cannot match when compared to the M8 is IQ. The Leica's print quality is unlike any thing I have ever seen from a digital non medium format camera- Canon included. These prints must be seen to be believed.
My shot "Daddy's Little Princess" is available for download on my Flickr account in full rez however in jpeg and 8 bit format. Anyone one who wishes to get an idea of the print quality this camera is capable of need look no further then this.
Ted
Yes it is not an issue for me either. However if this were the case with the M8 this R-D1 "defect" that has gone largely unnoticed would be all the rage just as the R-D1s magenta cast was/is a non issue with the Epson. The thing the Epson cannot match when compared to the M8 is IQ. The Leica's print quality is unlike any thing I have ever seen from a digital non medium format camera- Canon included. These prints must be seen to be believed.
My shot "Daddy's Little Princess" is available for download on my Flickr account in full rez however in jpeg and 8 bit format. Anyone one who wishes to get an idea of the print quality this camera is capable of need look no further then this.
Ted
Last edited:
Ben Z
Veteran
Sailor Ted said:
I don't know why you insist on harping (circular rhetoric?) on trying to show that the 3 yr old 6MP RD-1 available for $1395 as a refurb, is not as competent as the brand-new 10MP $4800 M8. I never claimed they were equal, only that given another 3 years of technology, plus help from Kodak and Jenoptik, plus the ability to recoup R&D through a $4800 price and a guaranteed loyal customer base, I don't see why the M8 had to be not even equal but worse than the RD-1 in IR sensitivity even if it's better in every other respect.
Sailor Ted
Well-known
Ben Z said:
Ben,
Yea like at your banquet plastic tux extravaganza? Sometimes the camera is the TOOL and some times it's the photographer.
Ted
Sailor Ted
Well-known
Ben Z said:
Ben,
Where prey tell can I find the R-D2?
Ted
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Actually, I find the suggestion of 1000$ worth of filters wildly off the mark. I own an extravagant ten lenses equally extravagantly two M8 bodies. That means four free filters, and six I have to buy. B&W pro 486 filters have set me back an average of 50 Euro's apiece with the internet shop of FotoHuppert. That makes 300 Euro or 400$. The average M8 owner can safely be assumed to own four lenses. That means two to be filtered, or 130$. For 1000$ one would have to own an astounding 15 lenses for one camera. Even if it were reality that those were 15 Jupiters of 20$ each, it hardly seems to be congruent with buying a 5000$ camera body. Either that or you are seriously being ripped off by your filter supplier.