Am I broken or is my M8 (IQ questions)?

[kur1j]

Maybe I am putting the bar to high, maybe I am being unrealistic here, maybe its because I'm used to the "look" of the images from my other cameras but I don't feel like I'm getting what I want out of my M8 and I don't feel they are as "good" as I should be getting.

I saw this article

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/...a-quick-test-with-the-leica-50-summarit-lens/

I looked at the images and I can only assume that they are straight out of camera. The images look extremely similar (the m8 sharpness blows the nex out of the water). I started looking through some of the images I have taken and actually compared some images from my 5diii to my M8 and I was left unimpressed with the M8 in the image quality difference between the two.

Thinking it was just my mind playing tricks on me I went out and took some pictures so I could compare. I took the same shot with one camera and then took another shot with the other camera to get a direct comparison (5diii vs m8). I used a 50mm 1.4 on the 5dmiii and the 35mm cron ASPH on the m8 to get similar FoV. I trimmed the 5diii images down to the same resolution. All images are at base ISO (M8 160, 5d 100) and f2.

I have a Leica UVa filter on the cron. Compared to the 5diii the m8 looks hazy, less contrasty, less sharp and over all less appealing to me now that I directly compared the two cameras. Is something wrong with me?

Here are some shots for comparison.

http://imgur.com/a/VDJLD
http://imgur.com/a/F1iLf
http://imgur.com/a/P8RPs
http://imgur.com/a/jxmX6
http://imgur.com/a/jjrIN
http://imgur.com/a/29B1V
http://imgur.com/a/SoOqP
http://imgur.com/a/HEDWB

I know that foliage will look kinda yellowish due to not having the IR cut filter but to me the images aren't very sharp coming from the M8. Is this due to the 5d just being ~5 years newer technology?

All images were RAW/DNG converted to jpg, 5diii files were shrunk to same size as m8.

 

[jaapv]

Your colour balances, exposures and contrast are all over the place. There is no way you can compare these images. And yes, omitting the IR filter will not only influencethe colour -all colours not just black and green, it will also overlay an out-of-focus IR image at about 4 stops underexposed over your sharp image. Down- and upressing will destroy all chances of a meaningful sharpness comparison as well. Just compare the prints, much more informative.
Properly used and postprocessed the M8 at base ISO will give an image with a higher sharpness impression than the 5Diii. Although that Canon is no slouch either and it will have a higher resolution. Having said that, image qualty is not a good reason to prefer a camera nowadays any more. There are many cameras giving superb results. Things like build, ergonomics, concept, lenses, etc. will be the arguments for purchase.

 

[35mmdelux]

Inconclusive and inconsistent. don't know why...

 

[kur1j]

Your colour balances, exposures and contrast are all over the place. There is no way you can compare these images. And yes, omitting the IR filter will not only influencethe colour -all colours not just black and green, it will also overlay an out-of-focus IR image at about 4 stops underexposed over your sharp image. Down- and upressing will destroy all chances of a meaningful sharpness comparison as well. Just compare the prints, much more informative.
Properly used and postprocessed the M8 at base ISO will give an image with a higher sharpness impression than the 5Diii. Although that Canon is no slouch either and it will have a higher resolution. Having said that, image qualty is not a good reason to prefer a camera nowadays any more. There are many cameras giving superb results. Things like build, ergonomics, concept, lenses, etc. will be the arguments for purchase.

None of these images have been edited or modified. All are from DNG or RAW images converted to JPG.

The pole picture had a

Color Balance:
5d
Temp of +5400 and Tint +12
M8
Temp of +5900 and Tint +10

Exposure:
5Dmiii
1/1000, f2, ISO 100
M8
1/1000, f2, ISO 160

I'm not sure how you make an image more contrast without editing the image. If I correct the color balance to the same values (can you actually do this and it still be valid?) the M8 still doesn't look as good. I'm simply comparing straight from camera, clarity, sharpness and details and such. The M8 now that I look at more images those things don't appear to be as good. If I convert those images to B/W that basically nullifies the color issues. The 5d has more detail, sharpness and clarity.

Converted to B/W which is where I would expect the m8 to shine, it to me still doesn't appear as good as the the 5d. http://imgur.com/a/H64ih

Both images converted from RAW/DNG to JPG. Exposure for the M8 was dropped by -.5EV to correct for the 160ISO vs the 100ISO of the 5d. Images were at 1/1000, f2.

Suggestions?

 

[kur1j]

Inconclusive and inconsistent. don't know why...

Care to expand on that?

 

[MCTuomey]

I don't feel competent to comment on your files. What I can say with confidence is that prints I have made from my own M8 files compare very well to those made from my own 5DII files, B&W conversions particularly so.

If you find the canon files more in line with your expectation, technical abilities, and judgement, I'd say shoot canon. Why waste time working with gear that doesn't suit you?

 

[35mmdelux]

I can't say all the Canon shots or all the M8 shots are the best or the worst. Its a mixed bag. The digi experts will have to tell us why.

 

[peterm1]

One of the things that is known about the M8 is that its systems for color balance and for exposure are barely adequate. In fact compared to what you could buy for half what you would pay for an M8 they are highly inadequate.

Read back though forums from the time the M8 was newly introduced and you will see them to be full of complaints about problems of this sort. Complaints about poor color balance were particularly rife as you could take two seemingly identical exposures and end up with two different color results for no apparent reason - I know as its happened to me - I have an M8 and its frustrating. Whats more a slight movement of the camera to re compose can suddenly produce an even huger shift in exposure or in color.

Neither does the exposure lock work terribly well - try metering from a mid grey object and then half pressing the shutter button and recomposing. This is the oldest photographers trick in the book. But with the M8 you will find that the damn thing is so sensitive that half the time it just fires the shutter instead of locking the exposure reading. It seems to be very susceptible to these kind of problems compared to my other digital cameras. Not only that, I find that it's unusually hard for older guys like me to focus properly. Much harder I have to say than my old M3 which has a bigger and clearer finder and focusing patch. Combined with my aging eyes the tiny viewfinder is much poorer than in any earlier M camera and produces haphazard outcomes and I have to admit that too many of my shots are poorly focused - not wildly out but just enough to miss critical focus. (And this is after paying to have the rangefinder re-calibrated. Oh that is something else about the M8 I should mention. Its rangefinder goes out of calibration regularly. If you do not believe me, then check the forums by googling it they are full of complaints about rangefinders going "out of whack" for no good reason).

I persist for old times sake and because I own the damn thing now and I would lose a packet if I sold it. But to be honest had I known then what I know now I would never have bought it - to be perfectly frank and honest it is a camera that is far from being up to Leica's normal high standard as these technical faults are just too many. (I guess it proves the old adage - never buy the first of any new product - wait till the bugs have been ironed out).

I think the M9 and subsequent cameras are better but the film Ms are still the best M cameras available in terms of usability. I find this hard to say as I am a dedicated digital photographer who almost totally gave up film years ago.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

Make sure that your M8 and 35 'Cron have been properly adjusted to each other.
You can do a quick check of this by focusing out to infinity at a contrasty object well over a mile away. Something like a quarter moon is excellent.

What was said earlier about a defocused IR image is also true. It's not quite plainly visible but it imparts enough of an unsharp image to affect your visible image almost like a haze. So, use a UV/IR filter. Either a Marumi, Leica or B+W, all make the filters that work perfectly with the M8 sensor. You'll notice your contrast will go up a measurable amount and your white balance will be much better.

The M8 files take a bit of work and the RF mechanism needs to be adjusted. Your lenses need to be adjusted to the camera as well. On top of that, your eyeball needs to be centered in the exit pupil of the viewfinder. I've noticed that the M8 and M9 were more sensitive to eye placement and RF focus than earlier film cameras. Then again, they are far more precise since the sensor does not have depth like film does.

Good luck.

Phil Forrest

 

[kur1j]

One of the things that is known about the M8 is that its systems for color balance and for exposure are barely adequate. In fact compared to what you could buy for half what you would pay for an M8 they are highly inadequate.

Read back though forums from the time the M8 was newly introduced and you will see them to be full of complaints about problems of this sort. Complaints about poor color balance were particularly rife as you could take two seemingly identical exposures and end up with two different color results for no apparent reason - I know as its happened to me - I have an M8 and its frustrating. Whats more a slight movement of the camera to re compose can suddenly produce an even huger shift in exposure or in color.

Neither does the exposure lock work terribly well - try metering from a mid grey object and then half pressing the shutter button and recomposing. This is the oldest photographers trick in the book. But with the M8 you will find that the damn thing is so sensitive that half the time it just fires the shutter instead of locking the exposure reading. It seems to be very susceptible to these kind of problems compared to my other digital cameras. Not only that, I find that it's unusually hard for older guys like me to focus properly. Much harder I have to say than my old M3 which has a bigger and clearer finder and focusing patch. Combined with my aging eyes the tiny viewfinder is much poorer than in any earlier M camera and produces haphazard outcomes and I have to admit that too many of my shots are poorly focused - not wildly out but just enough to miss critical focus. (And this is after paying to have the rangefinder re-calibrated. Oh that is something else about the M8 I should mention. Its rangefinder goes out of calibration regularly. If you do not believe me, then check the forums by googling it they are full of complaints about rangefinders going "out of whack" for no good reason).

I persist for old times sake and because I own the damn thing now and I would lose a packet if I sold it. But to be honest had I known then what I know now I would never have bought it - to be perfectly frank and honest it is a camera that is far from being up to Leica's normal high standard as these technical faults are just too many. (I guess it proves the old adage - never buy the first of any new product - wait till the bugs have been ironed out).

I think the M9 and subsequent cameras are better but the film Ms are still the best M cameras available in terms of usability. I find this hard to say as I am a dedicated digital photographer who almost totally gave up film years ago.

Thank you, but unfortunately my beef isn't really with the color shifts or color balance. Sure, it is annoying to have drastically different colors being seemingly yanked out of nowhere when taking a picture but I am speaking purely of contrast, sharpness, and clarity of the images.

Most review sites that I run over say the M8 + Leica lenses produce some of the sharpest and contrasty images around but based off my experience here they are not.

Do not get me wrong it isn't like the images are camera phone quality (granted some camera phones today are extremely good, but im not getting into that) but the images just don't seem to be "up to snuff" of my expectations of everything I read and see. Maybe my views and expectations are too skewed. But i just can't seem to take a picture with the M8 that matches the sharpness, clarity, contrast of my 5d and what I see online.

 

[kur1j]

Make sure that your M8 and 35 'Cron have been properly adjusted to each other.
You can do a quick check of this by focusing out to infinity at a contrasty object well over a mile away. Something like a quarter moon is excellent.

What was said earlier about a defocused IR image is also true. It's not quite plainly visible but it imparts enough of an unsharp image to affect your visible image almost like a haze. So, use a UV/IR filter. Either a Marumi, Leica or B+W, all make the filters that work perfectly with the M8 sensor. You'll notice your contrast will go up a measurable amount and your white balance will be much better.

The M8 files take a bit of work and the RF mechanism needs to be adjusted. Your lenses need to be adjusted to the camera as well. On top of that, your eyeball needs to be centered in the exit pupil of the viewfinder. I've noticed that the M8 and M9 were more sensitive to eye placement and RF focus than earlier film cameras. Then again, they are far more precise since the sensor does not have depth like film does.

Good luck.

Phil Forrest

Sorry for the ignorance, what am I looking for when focusing to infinity and how do I make any adjustments if needed?

I have ordered a B+W IR Cut filter so hopefully that helps. We shall see.

When you say "the M8 files need work" are you saying things about adjusting WB, colors, color shifting or are you talking about bumping contrast, sharpness and clarity sliders? If it is the latter I don't see the validity of people saying (or I'm missing a big point) that the M8/35 cron/<insert great lens> have great sharpness and contrast if you are applying it in post. I've always felt that you can't ever gain detail in sharpness in post. Hence my comparison here. If the 5d has the attributes I've been talking about SooC and the M8 isn't as good then it doesn't have "some of the sharpest, and most contrasty images" and then I feel the attributes and performance of the camera (possibly lens) were over inflated.

 

[pepeguitarra]

I am also new to Leica (and rangefinder), coming from the fastest and accurate Canon AF, I am having a rather steep learning curve. One of the things I have done is ask another Leica shooters and they said that with Leica, the discussion is not always about sharpness and, but about message, etc. Also, they told me that now, i cannot blame the camera or lens for poor focussing, because it is manual and it is just me. My aging eyes also have problem focusing, especially the 35/1.4 Nokton. However, I do pretty well with the 50/1.5 and the Emerit-M 21/2.8. It was difficult to get sharp pictures initially. However, I do notice a difference between Canon/Pentax and Leica. I like Leica better. Here is one of my first shots (the first one was my first, without UV/IR Cut filter), the second one is the next day with a filter:



First Shot w/Leica M8 -No UV/IR Cut Filter by Palenquero, on Flickr



Yellow1 by Palenquero, on Flickr

 

[Taipei-metro]

I don't feel competent to comment on your files...
...If you find the canon files more in line with your expectation, technical abilities, and judgement, I'd say shoot canon. Why waste time working with gear that doesn't suit you?

This is not OP's point,
Typical leica snob canned food answer

 

[kur1j]

I am also new to Leica (and rangefinder), coming from the fastest and accurate Canon AF, I am having a rather steep learning curve. One of the things I have done is ask another Leica shooters and they said that with Leica, the discussion is not always about sharpness and, but about message, etc. Also, they told me that now, i cannot blame the camera or lens for poor focussing, because it is manual and it is just me. My aging eyes also have problem focusing, especially the 35/1.4 Nokton. However, I do pretty well with the 50/1.5 and the Emerit-M 21/2.8. It was difficult to get sharp pictures initially. However, I do notice a difference between Canon/Pentax and Leica. I like Leica better. Here is one of my first shots (the first one was my first, without UV/IR Cut filter), the second one is the next day with a filter:



First Shot w/Leica M8 -No UV/IR Cut Filter by Palenquero, on Flickr



Yellow1 by Palenquero, on Flickr

Thanks. Maybe it is the IR/UV Cut filter and I've got a B+W on order right now but I don't think that is going to be a magic bullet for me.

While I agree the bottom picture is very sharp I think the top image is fairly sharp as well but it is hard to compare sharpness, contrast, clarity with a stand alone picture and nothing else to compare it with. Which is why I did the comparison in my original post. I'm not saying the M8/Lenses I have aren't capable of taking sharp images. I'm just saying in my experience that the images I've taken and that I've been able to compare things against they aren't as sharp as my other gear or as sharp as I would expect given the information I've read.

Do you have any comparisons of unedited images one taken with a comparable camera and your M8?

 

[Ronald M]

Took me 18 months and a new M9P to get the M8 straightened out.

You need the uv/ir , not plain uv. B+W 486. The greens are a give away.

Code 35 mm and shorter lenses.

WB with Whi Bal card.

Profile the camera with Adobe Profile editor.

Set Camera Raw to pick up the profile automatically. It is in in camera preferences.
There is no way around it. The camera should not have been released as is.

 

[jaapv]

The colour balance problems were solved with the spring 2008 firmware update. This firmare made a huge improvement in the embedded profile too. Since the then colours are actually excellent right out of the box.Make sure your camera is running the latest firmware (available from Leica's website).

But coming back the your sharpness question: There is nothing wrong with your focussing. The main problem I am seeing is difference in contrast.

It is true that the digital M cameras require more skill from the user, both in handling and in postprocessing.
As for exposure - the camera is very consistent and accurate - once the user has understood the way it works. This is not matrix exposure metering like most DSLRs use, but strongly centre-weighed. That means one must realize which part of the image one is metering, otherwise there will be a misexposure.

You can find the metering pattern HERE.
Although this is for the M9, the M8 is very similar.

 

[gsgary]

Iver never used an M8, but are you using top quality filters ? Ive only had Leica's (film) for a year now but im enjoying it so much all my Canon gear could be going this year

 

[Jeff S]

Make sure that your M8 and 35 'Cron have been properly adjusted to each other....
...Your lenses need to be adjusted to the camera as well.

Common misconception. The RF and the lenses are each adjusted to an independent standard, not to each other. Leica service department often requests that customers send in both camera and lens(es) for calibration, but this is to ensure that all are checked independently to eliminate all possible sources of error and to save time.

Jeff

 

[MCTuomey]

This is not OP's point,
Typical leica snob canned food answer

Having spent this morning shooting small orchids with a 5DII and MP-E 65 & flash on a homemade rail for stacking, unsuccessfully to judge from the files (vibration at 2-3x mag is hell), leica snob I must be.

Thanks for ably guarding the thread, my friend. I think the OP has plenty of useful recommendations for his consideration. If mine wasn't, no harm no foul.

 

[35mmdelux]

This is not OP's point,
Typical leica snob canned food answer

why so rude? chill out...