A Summing up- and a Decision

I have no problem with you challenging statements, it is your right and puts things into perspective. But don't accuse me of making sweeping claims that I did not make. Yes- I stated that Leica M lenses are generally considered to be of a higher quality than Canon lenses. My own experience seems to confirm that to me.And considering the price difference they should well be too. But that is not saying a number of Canon lenses are not very fine lenses too_Or Nikon Or Zeiss. Or Olympus etc. But there is imo a very good reason that a considerable number of photographers are putting Leica and Zeiss lenses on their Canon DSLR's, despite turning those into mainly manual camera's. And given the fact that there at least some preferring those, there is a consensus amongst Leica users that M lenses are slightly superior to R lenses. In the end- it only shows in extremely well made prints of large size, that I grant you. The same for Leica M8 files. I like the way I (that is me, personally) can make them look better than the way I can make the files of other digital camera's look. And I prefer them to prints I used to make on my Mamiya 645 system. If I would do my own colour darkroom (which I used to do) it might be different, but as I can get it now- no way.You confirm that by your remark about the 20D. A claim as sweeping as the ones you denounce - to film users btw. I would dearly like to hear you having it out with Guy Manusco. He is in the same line of work as you are, and his -rather outspoken- opinions run 180 degrees counter to yours, as he claims there is no better file quality to be had with any camera in the 135 class than the M8. I- as an innocent bystander with no stake in the outcome will gladly take a ringside seat;)
In the meantime I will take my little bag and happily pursue my hobby on a level that I find more than satisfactory, whilst you lug your cases of DSLR stuff to arrive at the quality you need in you work. The prerogative of freedom I would call it.:)
 
Last edited:
That touches on what's perhaps the main reason I'm sticking with my 20D and the RD-1: I can afford both, so I can pick whichever happens to suit what I'm most likely going to shoot. For general travel it'll be the RD-1, and for shots of the grandkids and their pets (I've proven to myself I really benefit from AF in that type of shooting--must be my lack of fast reflexes), and the occasional wading bird down south, it'll be the 20D. For the size of prints I do (max 11x14) and for my main use which is burning to a DVD and showing on a big-screen TV, either of them has plenty enough resolution. If I just had to have the most possible resolution camera, I'd have to choose between a 5D and an M8 since I couldn't possibly afford both together (considering I'd also need to replace my entire lineup of lenses for the Canon because the ones I have aren't sharp enough for it). If I had all the money in the world, screw the M8 and the Canon, I'd buy me one of those 39-megapixel medium format thingamajigs, and hire a lackey to carry it around for me :D
 
No problem lugging my dslr system and after carrying my 8x10 and 50,000 wat seconds of strobes and gear for years it seems light in comparison. I don't mind because it's my job and I make money doing what I love. I respect Guys opinion as yours if supported with other than what someone told someone on the internet. Like Guy I've been around the block more than a few times and shot for Esquire, Life, News Week, Time, Parade, USA Weekend magazine plus commercial clients like catalogs and many ads for Phillips Electronics, annual reports for Union Carbide, ads for Arco Petrolium, Phillips Petrolium, annual report work for Motarola, Exxon plus man many more. I also show my work in galleries from Charleston SC. to New York city. I didn't start yesterday and shoot for the big guys.

Over 98% of my work is digital and has been mainly digital for about seven to eight years. I know you can get away sometimes with a small file and sometimes not. I also know there's a really big difference in printing on you epson printer vs CMYK printing. And yes, art directors crop the heck out of files.

Nothing personal here.
 
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
 
Don,

Quote from Guy Manusco: I just picked one from dozens, not the most enthusiastic one either.Btw, he is one top-pro who sold his whole Canon equipement in favour of first the DMR and then added the M8, for quality reasons. No disrepect here either, I respect you and your work, but I have a feeling there is some missionary work to be done here. ;)

Hi folks wanted to post just how easy this camera really is to get dead on and show some images from a Model and talent convention that I am working and i put the M8 into some heavy service and pushed it to places i thought would certainly fail and that is stage lights right in the the camera and frankly there is not one image were it blew apart, no vertical nband , no streaks and the color was extremely easy to WB in C1 . I loaded about a 1000 images in C1 took a Wb off the back wall and apllied to all images and bam , dead on. Now i expect this from the DMR which i also shot today but the M8 acted exactly like the DMR. The DMR i shot at ISO 400 and i will post some of those later but these are all M8 at ISO 640 with the 28, 50, 35 and 75 cron. All about f2 to f 4 on different lenses. No noise no banding , just perfect looking images. Now let's forget the models and talent here they are all wanna be's and this is competition stuff so the images are not what counts here but the use of the M8 and how well it can handle a situation like this. i will just post the images and not put the lens in use at the time just becuase i need to get back to work but i thought this would be of interest to some folks that this camera can perform beyond what i thought it was capable of and for stage work this thing rocks.
Click to expand...

Quote from David Adamson. One of his first, this camera was a non-updated ine:
Here are a few shots of the first 30 x 40 inch print,CV 35 1,7,160 iso, Epson 9800,Crane Museo max paper
Looks like a 4x5 scan (maybe even better) !
Leica should run some of the Magnum guys through my studio (listening David) and quickly produce a show of these images, it will have photographers queing up in droves to buy !!
Click to expand...

As I said before,you don't have to believe me, but consider what others, more expert than me, think.
 
Last edited:
Every major camera manufacturer has some great lenses in their line up. Companies like Zeiss and Leica don't have any low end consumer lenses so the ratio of stars to dogs is much better. But when you compare the pro lens lineup of i.e., Canon L, Pentax Ltd., etc., modern lenses are all stellar performers. Except on the very wide end I don't see the point of putting 3rd party lenses on a Canon.

There are design choices that do tend to give some manufacturers lines a certain personality. The modern Leica lens designs are outstanding wide open edge to edge (at f/1.4 nothing can touch them on the lab test bench) but have a bokeh thats different from the older lenses -some love it, some hate it. The new Zeiss ZM's manage to acheive modern resolution and contrast while keeping that old school smooth transition to soft oof areas. The Canon 135/2 and 85 lenses to me have this sort of signature, plenty of snap in the in focus areas and a smooth transition to dreamy OOF areas which is why I like them so much -as a matter of fact I am thinking of going all Zeiss with the M8 for this reason.

Hand held photographers are limited to resolution numbers far below what the lenses are capable of resolving so the differences between lenses resolving power is even more minute in practice then in shooting test targets on a tripod. I gravitate towards lens that give me a look in print that I like shot after shot. My favorites list would include the 4th gen Leica 35/2, the Hassy 150/2.8 FE, Nikkor 80/2.8 (for the Plaubel 67), Rodenstock 150/5.6 Sironar-S and 55mm Grandagon and the Canon 135/2.
 
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
jaapv said:
Ten weeks with the M8 now [...]

So my decision has been made: The M6 goes, the Digilux2 goes, some other stuff goes and I will buy a second M8 body and live happily ever after.:angel:
Click to expand...

Sorry for being a bit late in answering, I just got back from Ukraine this morning and still feel 36 hours of train in my bones.

Congratulations for getting a camera that you like. Especially since that way, you free up a M6 for the rest of us :)

Philipp (who is still waiting for the decisive moment for the first Leica, and who thinks of saving up for an M7 or M8 as a PhD present once I get that done over with)
 
Last edited:
Hi I appreciate x rays requirements for large images and clearly this can not reliably be done from 10mb file sizes. This however is not really relevent to the debate about the M8. The comparison is really with 35mm film and use in rangefinders in particular. My experience with the M8 tells me it has gone beyond the resolution of all but the finest grain film emulsions, and its performance at ISO 640 would give my MP with print or tranny film at ISO 640 a serious kicking. The real debate is, if you already value M series cameras for what ever reason, the M8 may or may not as the case may be represent a genuine improvement on its film counterpart. For me ot is in a lot of ways. The only real downside is battery dependance, and the long term storage reliability of digital files as apposed to film negatives.
 
If you work within the limits of the file size of any digital camera the results can be stunning. Like I mentioned it is like having an original transparency the size of the default size of the file. Digital gives a flexability that isn't possible with a film image. To me this is the big deal with digital. In my commercial work I shoot only raw and alter curves and design my own look to my image. With raw you are no longer bound to kodak, fuji or any other makers design for a particular emulsion. This and the ability to deal with adverse conditions of mixed light and varying color temperatures makes digital the king in this respect. With a properly converted / corrected file within the limits of the file size the image quality is sunning. In some cases I've even seen the MKII looking better than 4xr provia. For most of you you'll never enlarge beyond 13x19 and this isn't a big factor but for many of us it is. When you enlarge a digital file beyond the default you soon run out of info and the image takes on a strange plastic look with artifacts and detail takes on a smeared blob like texture wirth strange looking edges. It's hard to explain to someone that hasn't seen it. Film on the other hand can be scanned to any size. In a 35mm frame there is only so much information too but enlarging it to extremem degrees you only see larger grain not the odd edges and artifacts of digital when over sampled. To my eye and many others this is much more pleasing than the plastic artifacts of digital in these extreme enlargements. Like I said I've seen some great looking 30x40 prints but I've seen some really bad ones too. The same can be said about a 35mm enlargement. Much of success with either comes from knowing what to do and how to do it properly plus the limits of the medium.

I thought some of you might like to see some samples of digital and film. See if you can figure out what is what (no cheating).
 
For the first group, I'll guess film, digi, dig, film

second group:
digi, slide, film, digi

But I'd only bet on the first and last one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
x-ray said:
How about the second group? After a few guess i'll tell. See if you can guess the film format.
Click to expand...

okay, I added to my original post
 
If that first one's not film, I'm selling my Leicas and the second one looks like shots I get from my Hexar Af when I mess up the flash sync. So both film?
 
Nick R. said:
If that first one's not film, I'm selling my Leicas and the second one looks like shots I get from my Hexar Af when I mess up the flash sync. So both film?
Click to expand...


How much are you asking for your leicas? :D
 
I always appreciate your comments, x-ray. I can't wait to see the results of your test. Maybe this should become a forum here on RRF?
 
Take a guess! I won't make anyone sell their cameras.

One thing you'll see coming from this is how the internt brings everything down to a lowe level of quality. You really can't judge quality on the internet.

The second thing you'll see is how close film and digital are in the right hands. I'll give a little teaser here, one shot is 8x10 ektachrome.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom