spersky said:
X-ray,
I recently purchased an Canon 85mm f/1.2L for my 1DsM2 and I am very happy with the results. The final prints that I get are so smooth with high detail especially in the subject's eyes it is quit amazing. I wont say that the 85mm f/1.2 is better than the Leica 90mm APO summicron, but I took extensive portraits with both, and I would choose the Canon. It is very lifelike.
Regards,
Steve
I have both the apo summicron and the 85 1.2 and like both but the 90 apo is not a very good performer at close range under 8-10 ft. The 85 1.2 outperforms the apo in that range and then the apo has a slight edge at greater distances. Both have their place. Tha 85 1.2 is even a very fine lens at 1.2. If you like the 85 you should try the 135 F2 and the 200 1.8 and the 35 1.4 is exceptional.
I really don't want you to think I have any issue with M8 owners. I just feel the M8 is less than expected in a pro level camera. I don't question the reasons why Guy or a few others have gone to the M8 but for my work and my clients it would be a step backward. Image quality from raw files is fine but there are too many issues with filters, flare and magenta creaping in the blacks even with a filter. I've seen first hand magenta in blacks even with the filter in place.
A great deal of my work involves close work that inly the 90 TSE will do and teathered to the computer to shoot direct to the HD. Other aspect of my annual report work involves adverse conditions like a few weeks ago. I was in a coal mine for two days and then in the rain for a day. My clients routinely make double page spreads from my images and crop. Even if the M8 were perfect image wise it would not work for these applications. This is not to say it doesn't work for a number of othere.
Before the M8 was introduced I had high hopes and had planned to buy one when the system settled out and all the traditional bugs were delt with. When it came out I was shocked and still feel to this day it's only marginal as a pro tool and more suited for amateur use. The reason for this, I believe, is leica knows it market and the market is not and never will be again the pro shooter. Life has moved on from the RF in 99% of the pro world and Leica no longer has the inovative spirit it had in the beginning. When Nikon brought out the Nikon F it was the kiss of death for the RF. I still love RF shooting and purchased two new a la carte MP's and a ZI last year. I added and updated 7 M lenses for two seperate systems so you can see I have nothing against RF or Leica. 80% of my documentary work is RF photography and the rest is scattered from 2-1/4 to 8x10, all B&W.
I'm glad the M8 is out and very pleased some pros are finding applications for it. I certainly hope Leica makes it and feel the M digital is the only way they will. My issue is when anyone starts putting down Nikon, Canon etc. whether digital or film equipment. Both are more than excellent in what they make and none have the maket cornered on quality or lenses. Each have their problems and strengths and no one system will do it all.
I'll go back to what I've said before, you can get away with enlarging some digital files to extreme degrees but many you can not unless you're willing to accept some ragged images. There is only a finite amount of information in a file and you can not add information that is not there. A good example is a shot with tree leaves in the scene. Take a 10mp file up to 30 inches and the leaves start to look like sea sponges soaked in green paint. They become blobs of color and in my opinion look terrible. Skin and people are another thing or things with less detail work fine.
I agree that a peoperly processed digital file is stunning. If yo think about it a 1DsII file for example has a native size of 11x17 inches. In reality the quality at 11x17 is much like an 11x17 transparency contact printed. The same is true of the native file size of any digital camera. The down side is it won't enlarge like an 11x17 piece of film. Like I mentioned before there is a very big difference in printing on your epson printer and CMYK litho printing. You just can not get away with the extremem enlargements on the lith press that you can on the epson printer. It just does not work that way. In my work 99% of my commercial work goes to press in brochures, ads and catalogs. Very little is ever printed for display. Only about 25% of my work could be done or accepted by art directors if shot on a 10 MP camera. Big clients with big budgets have big demands.
When i got into digital I felt the same way. I felt digital was the answer to everything. The more I use digital the more I see it's not the total answer. I made the serious mistake of sell a great deal of my film equipment and lived to regret it. The more I use digital the more I appreciate film again. In the past couple of years I've purchased much of my equipment back and added a fuji finescan 5000 scanner that I scan up to 11x14 on. I now shoot the work that will reproduce large on film and scan it. If I had a choice but unfortunately I do not I would shot 50% of my work on film again. Unfortunately my clients have been caught up in the digital mania.
