Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Have you considered that there was more sharpening done in converting one file over the other, and that M8 "nature" shots are more likely than SLR shots to be done without a tripod?
I see evidence of the Canon shot crop above having processed with some not-too-agressive sharpening.
I see evidence of the Canon shot crop above having processed with some not-too-agressive sharpening.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Do folks looking at our images really care whether they were sharpened or not? It's like people admitting that images from the Pani G1 with the kit lens look great, but Panasonic "cheated" by correcting the lens aberrations in software. Who really cares?
totifoto
Well-known
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Then am I correct to assume that it was a JPEG file? The camera applies sharpening, contrast and white balance prior to writing the file, according to your settings.
BTW, I love "who cares" comments, failing to see that the thread includes statements showing who actually cares.
totifoto
Well-known
These are both raw files, opened in CS3, croped and saved. Thats it.
But you are correct about the Canon file, it has some "in camera" sharpening and contrast. I usually shoot it with all settings at zero but in this case I had it at "standard" settings that gives a bit sharpening and contrast. My mistake, but then again I have no Idea what the "in camera" settings in the Leica was.
But dont get me wrong, I´m not trying to downtalk the Leica, far from it. I really want that camera but being such a pixel peeper that I am I´m just trying to convice myself before I sell my Canon + 2 lenses to afford the Leica. I know I´ll love working with it and that is a huge part of photography for me, enjoying the camera in my hands. In the end I probably wont look at the pixels in every photo I take
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
The BIG truth is in the viewed at a comfortable distance bit. Pixel peeping is no use, when visiting the museum you will not get up close on pictures to view them either. When you get up close, all you see is jittery lines and brush strokes, but the impression of the whole picture is lost.
For a comfortable viewing distance, use at least 1.5 times the diagonal of the printed picture. For instance, when reading a standard sized magazine, you usually hold the page some 50 centimeters away from your eyes, and the page diagonal approaches 35 centimeters.
WHY is it that everybody seems have to forgotten these basic rules in photography?
Robin Harrison
aka Harrison Cronbi
I can't compare it to a top-of-the-range DSLR, but compared to everything else I've tried in the same pixel-count range (D80, G1, E410, SD14, LX3) the files are 'sharper'. That's based purely on on-screen, 100%, no sharpening.
See the old 'single strand of hair' example below. ISO 320, 1/750, 40mm summicron.
See the old 'single strand of hair' example below. ISO 320, 1/750, 40mm summicron.
totifoto
Well-known
I can't compare it to a top-of-the-range DSLR, but compared to everything else I've tried in the same pixel-count range (D80, G1, E410, SD14, LX3) the files are 'sharper'. That's based purely on on-screen, 100%, no sharpening.
See the old 'single strand of hair' example below. ISO 320, 1/750, 40mm summicron.
Thank you! This is actually the first really sharp picture I see from this camera
Even at 320 iso the pixles look very very nice.
Cant complain about this .
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Just wait till you hang a 300mm zoom off that M8, then you'll see the difference!
If you are happy with a rangefinder, I think you'll be happy with the M8. Just do it.
If you are happy with a rangefinder, I think you'll be happy with the M8. Just do it.
RichC
Well-known
As others have said, nothing wrong with M8 sharpness! Here's a 100% crop from a photo taken with a 40-year-old Summilux 35mm lens at f/8 (whole photo shown underneath the crop). If taken with a modern lens, you'd probably get a tiny bit more "pop" owing to the increased contrast. Note: no "smearing" (or over-sharpening) in this photo...!
Also, people can get a bit anal about IR filters. This photo wasn't taken using a filter, and it's still bitingly sharp. I generally leave them off unless the subject specifically warrants their use, as I've had photos ruined by reflections and flare caused by the IR filter. Before digital, colour films reproduced colours in their own unique ways, and most people ignored minor colour casts (e.g. when shooting in light that wasn't mid-day sunshine!) - so why this concern, for example, that foliage may be a bit more yellow in M8 photos taken without a filter? Anyway, IR filters are wandering a bit off topic, so getting back on track...
This photo was selected by The Royal Photographic Society as one of the 125 images in its annual print exhibition last year, out of over 3,000 images submitted. Leaving aside the judges' decisions on artistic merit, and considering only technical quality, the Society expects all prints to be technically faultless - my print was A3 in size (20 inches), and met its standards with ease. The point I'm making is that A3 and larger prints from the M8 are superb, and one of the world's foremost photographic societies agrees.
The M8 is optimised for Raw images, and the image quality of its JPG files is not as good. So, avoid shooting JPG if you can.
The trick to getting bitingly sharp images is to use Capture One for Raw development. I know people often prefer Aperture or Lightroom, but Leica designed its M8 Raw files for Capture One, and this shows in the quality of its output.
Unlike images from most digital cameras, Leica M8 images benefit from minimal noise reduction and sharpening, as they are particularly sensitive to these parameters: noise reduction loses and smears detail unnecessarily, while sharpening makes noise coarser and more visible. Ideally, noise reduction and sharpening are best done in Photoshop or similar, preferably with dedicated plug-ins allowing fine control - not in the Raw converter.
Turning off noise reduction can make a significant difference. Capture One settings for the M8 to maximise sharpness and detail:
Capture One 3
• Sharpening: 0, Standard look
• Noise suppression: off
• Colour noise suppression: 0 (below ISO 640), 15 (above ISO 1250)
• Banding suppression: off
• Pattern noise suppression: off (unless moiré is visible)
Capture One 4
• Sharpening: 0
• Luminance noise reduction: 0
• Color noise reduction: 0 (below ISO 640), 75 (above ISO 1250)
Lastly, because the M8 lacks an anti-aliasing filter, and hence does not blur the micro-detail like most other digital cameras, M8 images can be resampled to produce much larger files that retain a natural look without becoming "plastic and digital". The third image below is a 200% resample - this produces an on-screen width of 2 metres (over 6 feet)! It's "quick and dirty", so I could improve on its sharpness and quality (I resampled using the free Irfanview image browser, not some expensive fancy software like Genuine Fractals).Regardless, although the image quality suffers from being enlarged to twice its original size, note that there are no appreciable digital artefacts like haloes or stair-stepping ("jaggies"). Move a metre or so back from your screen, and you can appreciate the quality.
One final point: I'm not saying that the M8 image quality is better than other decent digital cameras. It's good but there are several far cheaper cameras that equal it, and some, like the new top-range Sony will kick the M8's butt!
100% crop - at this size, the photo is 1 metre (39 inches) wide:
Full image:
Resampled image (200%) - screen width over 2 metres (6 feet):
Also, people can get a bit anal about IR filters. This photo wasn't taken using a filter, and it's still bitingly sharp. I generally leave them off unless the subject specifically warrants their use, as I've had photos ruined by reflections and flare caused by the IR filter. Before digital, colour films reproduced colours in their own unique ways, and most people ignored minor colour casts (e.g. when shooting in light that wasn't mid-day sunshine!) - so why this concern, for example, that foliage may be a bit more yellow in M8 photos taken without a filter? Anyway, IR filters are wandering a bit off topic, so getting back on track...
This photo was selected by The Royal Photographic Society as one of the 125 images in its annual print exhibition last year, out of over 3,000 images submitted. Leaving aside the judges' decisions on artistic merit, and considering only technical quality, the Society expects all prints to be technically faultless - my print was A3 in size (20 inches), and met its standards with ease. The point I'm making is that A3 and larger prints from the M8 are superb, and one of the world's foremost photographic societies agrees.
The M8 is optimised for Raw images, and the image quality of its JPG files is not as good. So, avoid shooting JPG if you can.
The trick to getting bitingly sharp images is to use Capture One for Raw development. I know people often prefer Aperture or Lightroom, but Leica designed its M8 Raw files for Capture One, and this shows in the quality of its output.
Unlike images from most digital cameras, Leica M8 images benefit from minimal noise reduction and sharpening, as they are particularly sensitive to these parameters: noise reduction loses and smears detail unnecessarily, while sharpening makes noise coarser and more visible. Ideally, noise reduction and sharpening are best done in Photoshop or similar, preferably with dedicated plug-ins allowing fine control - not in the Raw converter.
Turning off noise reduction can make a significant difference. Capture One settings for the M8 to maximise sharpness and detail:
Capture One 3
• Sharpening: 0, Standard look
• Noise suppression: off
• Colour noise suppression: 0 (below ISO 640), 15 (above ISO 1250)
• Banding suppression: off
• Pattern noise suppression: off (unless moiré is visible)
Capture One 4
• Sharpening: 0
• Luminance noise reduction: 0
• Color noise reduction: 0 (below ISO 640), 75 (above ISO 1250)
Lastly, because the M8 lacks an anti-aliasing filter, and hence does not blur the micro-detail like most other digital cameras, M8 images can be resampled to produce much larger files that retain a natural look without becoming "plastic and digital". The third image below is a 200% resample - this produces an on-screen width of 2 metres (over 6 feet)! It's "quick and dirty", so I could improve on its sharpness and quality (I resampled using the free Irfanview image browser, not some expensive fancy software like Genuine Fractals).Regardless, although the image quality suffers from being enlarged to twice its original size, note that there are no appreciable digital artefacts like haloes or stair-stepping ("jaggies"). Move a metre or so back from your screen, and you can appreciate the quality.
One final point: I'm not saying that the M8 image quality is better than other decent digital cameras. It's good but there are several far cheaper cameras that equal it, and some, like the new top-range Sony will kick the M8's butt!
100% crop - at this size, the photo is 1 metre (39 inches) wide:
Full image:
Resampled image (200%) - screen width over 2 metres (6 feet):
Last edited:
totifoto
Well-known
Thanx alot for that info RichC.