totifoto
Well-known
I´ve been looking at photos from the M8 on flickr all day cause I´m thinking of geting one. I´m shooting Canon 1D mark IIN for digital right now but I´m enjoying my M6 so much that I wanna be able to shoot an M for my digital work also. I´m a part time photographer and shoot documentary style.
I live in Iceland and not many people here understand the rangefinder world and most people think I´m crazy thinking of getting an M8, they rather get a big DSLR. After shooting for 2 days with my dslr around my neck runnig in the wilds following poeople documening the trip they where having I had pain in my neck and shoulder. I shot my M6 also but they needed the pics fast so shooting it all film was not an option. That made me think that maybe its time to get the M8.
I found one used at a local store, it is 11 months old and have been used very litle and it looks brand new. I gave it a try and like I thought I would I loved handeling it, it so close to the film M´s.
But after looking at files from this camera all day I find the most of the time very soft and like the focus is not spot on. Some people on flickr have the original jpg files so I can see very big uploads of the fotos and find the IQ not so sharp.
Are the IQ of this camera not that good?
Does the "not having the IR filter on" have anything else to say about the IQ other then the magenta problem?
Or are people maybe just shooting jpg rather then raw?
Or does the "not having the lens bit coded" have something to say also?
If any of you could upload a raw file straight from the camera on the web shot at 320iso-1250iso or point me out somewhere on the web where I can downlad one that would be great.
I really want an M8 but if I´m not getting sharp files from this camera to make prints in 18x24cm I´m thinking about getting a Nikon.
Thanx.
I live in Iceland and not many people here understand the rangefinder world and most people think I´m crazy thinking of getting an M8, they rather get a big DSLR. After shooting for 2 days with my dslr around my neck runnig in the wilds following poeople documening the trip they where having I had pain in my neck and shoulder. I shot my M6 also but they needed the pics fast so shooting it all film was not an option. That made me think that maybe its time to get the M8.
I found one used at a local store, it is 11 months old and have been used very litle and it looks brand new. I gave it a try and like I thought I would I loved handeling it, it so close to the film M´s.
But after looking at files from this camera all day I find the most of the time very soft and like the focus is not spot on. Some people on flickr have the original jpg files so I can see very big uploads of the fotos and find the IQ not so sharp.
Are the IQ of this camera not that good?
Does the "not having the IR filter on" have anything else to say about the IQ other then the magenta problem?
Or are people maybe just shooting jpg rather then raw?
Or does the "not having the lens bit coded" have something to say also?
If any of you could upload a raw file straight from the camera on the web shot at 320iso-1250iso or point me out somewhere on the web where I can downlad one that would be great.
I really want an M8 but if I´m not getting sharp files from this camera to make prints in 18x24cm I´m thinking about getting a Nikon.
Thanx.
kalina
Newbie
I've seen both really sharp and really soft images from the M8. Since this is a completely manual focus camera, there are so many things that can contribute to a soft image, including the lens itself, making the aperture f/8 or higher on a lens not designed for that, the shutter speed, the atmosphere, and more. I complained not long ago that my images from my 35mm Summicron looked too soft at f/16. People told me to shoot at f/5.6 for my particular scene and voila! instant clarity.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
M8 + Canon 50mm f/1.2 LTM @ f/1.2
M8 + 90mm f/2.8 Elmarit I @ f/4
I think you're confusing selective focus with "inherent softness".
St Clair Photography
Member
I came from a Canon 5D to the M8. After getting it I sold all my Canon gear and bought another M8. Couldn't be happier, if you want to check out some photos click the link in my signature. Don't judge it by some people on flickr, some of them produce work that is really average and nothing to do with what the camera can do.
If M8 users are not using IR filters for color work, even BW, they're idiots. It cures the magenta issue, color shifts for greens, and sharpens up all lenses used on the M8.
If M8 users are not using IR filters for color work, even BW, they're idiots. It cures the magenta issue, color shifts for greens, and sharpens up all lenses used on the M8.
Last edited:
ddimaria
Well-known
I think the M8 files are sharper than most digital cameras before any post processing is done.. You can tell the difference between a CCD and CMOS sensor, or at least I can having used both the M8 and the Nikon D700. I think in the right conditions it produces some of the sharpest files.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Uh, oh. Here we go. 
St Clair Photography
Member
I'm just going to say one more thing... I don't think viewing an unsharpened RAW file is going to help persuade you anymore than viewing full res jpegs. Try to find a good photographer who is using the M8 and then look at the outcome, any RAW file will be sharpened before print so it seems irrelevant. If you are into "pixel peeping" I would suggest sticking to AF cameras as a lot of factors contribute to "soft" photos when using RF cameras. But I'm sure you realize this as you have an M6...
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
I've never thought of soft files as one of the drawbacks of my M8.
If that's what you are concerned about, go ahead and make the purchase.
I don't know which images you are referring to on Flickr, but some of what you could be seeing are the older vintage lenses that some folks like to use. Those lenses are sometimes a bit less sharp/contrasty than the most modern glass - but they often have a character that some photogs enjoy.
You could also be looking at smaller jpgs. I know I usually reduce the resolution considerably when I prepare files for Flickr.
I have no idea what this looks like on your computer screen, but it is a very sharp image when I look at the original file.
If that's what you are concerned about, go ahead and make the purchase.
I don't know which images you are referring to on Flickr, but some of what you could be seeing are the older vintage lenses that some folks like to use. Those lenses are sometimes a bit less sharp/contrasty than the most modern glass - but they often have a character that some photogs enjoy.
You could also be looking at smaller jpgs. I know I usually reduce the resolution considerably when I prepare files for Flickr.
I have no idea what this looks like on your computer screen, but it is a very sharp image when I look at the original file.
Last edited:
dfoo
Well-known
I love the sheen on the water in the above image!
__--
Well-known
Totifoto, the information you've got is bassackwards: the M8 has sharper files than other digital cameras because, for one, there's no anti-aliasing filter. And it's certainly sharper than film Leica's. Indeed, the M8, at low ISOs, can have a look like scanned medium format film files, Here's a landscape in colour and B&W. But all this is not an issue because even though the RAW files from my D300 are not as sharp they can be sharpened in post processing to be "sharp enough", as you can see from the Botswana series linked below my signature, which is all shot with the D300 and 70-200/f2.8VR lens, except for some ten landscapes shot with the M8 and the Summicron-28 lens. For M8 documentary style pictures, a few of them "soft" because they're shot at ISO 2500 you can look here. (The first has intentional blur from using a slow shutter speed).
Wiang Pa Pao | Leica M8.2 | Elmarit-21/ASPH | ISO 320
—Mitch/Chiang Mai
Wild Beasts of Botswana
Wiang Pa Pao | Leica M8.2 | Elmarit-21/ASPH | ISO 320
—Mitch/Chiang Mai
Wild Beasts of Botswana
Last edited:
totifoto
Well-known
Well getting the raw file from the camera and proccessing it myself kinda gives me the idea of what I´ll be getting from the camera.
I found 2 DNG files on leica.com from the camera and looing at the 100% crop I find the pixles a bit smudgy compered to my Canon dslr. I quess I am kind of a pixle peeper
But I guess I get better files then shooting my M6 and scanning the films, right?
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
O.K. Let's get the nomenclature right! It's "pixel peeping" and "Pixie dust" we're discussing here.
The M8 does not use an anti-aliasing filter like most DSLR's. Basically, DSLR's kill high-frequency in the image to get rid of errors generated by the color Mosaic filter. The raw images should be sharper as it does not use an AA filter. My older DSLR's did not use AA filters, either. My newer DSLR's which use the AA filter produce softer raw files.
That's another reason to pick up an M8, RD-1, or other camera not using AA filters if I go digital for personal use.
That's another reason to pick up an M8, RD-1, or other camera not using AA filters if I go digital for personal use.
Ben Z
Veteran
I got an M8 first and then got a 5D very recently when they were closing out refurbs. At the time I got my M8 I had a 20D, which I still have. I have never compared the RAW/DNG side by side, because all I'm interested in is what the final print looks like. Processed with the optimal workflow routine (which differs for every brand and model, and even sometimes depending on the type of subject), I don't find any significant difference between 20D, 5D and M8 up to the largest print I can make myself, which is 13"X19", viewed at a comfortable distance. Beyond that, I just don't have any interest in comparing minutae for its own sake.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
kbg32
neo-romanticist
Well getting the raw file from the camera and proccessing it myself kinda gives me the idea of what I´ll be getting from the camera.
I found 2 DNG files on leica.com from the camera and looing at the 100% crop I find the pixles a bit smudgy compered to my Canon dslr. I quess I am kind of a pixle peeper
But I guess I get better files then shooting my M6 and scanning the films, right?
The one camera the M8 is often compared to is the Canon 5D, which I also own. The M8 files at least equals, if not surpasses, the quality of the 5D.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Dang good thing, too, since it looks like the M8 with be the last digital M.
(I love these threads).
(I love these threads).
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
We have access to some incredible cameras. I got pretty good 13x19's with my old 3mp EOS D30. The M8 or 5D exceed the requirements for good images for the web or prints most of us routinely make. The only real difference anymore is when pixel peeping.
Ben Z
Veteran
AFAIK higher MP count allows further enlargement (and/or cropping), but isn't inherently responsible for the degree of file sharpness. Again, if the goal is comparing raw files, I'm not in a position to argue. But if the goal is comparing print sharpness, if a print from a 1D-IIn (or a 20D/30D) and one from an M8 is "no contest" then IMHO the culprit is the post-processing and the person doing it. CCD vs CMOS, AA or no-AA, I've seen prints at the hands of guys who really know their stuff and I would defy anybody to find a significant sharpness difference in ones made from any 8-10MP 1.3-1.6x camera including the M8 or DMR.
That's what the marketing people would love us all to believe. In fact though, 8.2MP is and will always be what it used to be. More MP allows more cropping or enlarging, but 8.2 already prints larger than most of us have the wall space for. Plus, the more MP they stuff into the same sensor area, the more the in-camera processing needs to cook the signal to tame noise.
Personally, I think 8-12MP is really the optimal figure for 1.3-1.6x sensors, and perhaps even for "full frame" 24x36. I've scrutinized prints made with the 5D and 5D-II (un-cropped) and (ignoring some improvements in the Digic signal processing engine) there really doesn't seem to be the difference you'd expect from nearly double the MP. I'd rather put my money in more sensor real estate than just bumps in MP count. The Leica S2 is an intriguing concept, that may be more on track than what Canon and Nikon are doing by cramming more MP onto the 24x36 format.
Last edited:
totifoto
Well-known
That is what I havent seen yet. Even those 2 DNG files I downloaded from leica.com dont look better then from my 1D mark IIN.
Example:
Leica DNG file 100% crop ISO 160
Canon EOS 1D mark IIN 100% crop ISO 200
