Clearly Doomed

Ben Z said:
Yup, Canon's sure a bunch of fools to have hired digital electronics experts instead of dentists 😀 Look at how unsuccessful they've been so far 🙄
Click to expand...

Well we gave Leica the benefit of doubt before the M8 came out, and look what they did with that... I'd perfer to tread light from now on..
 
On a microfilm, those same Canon L primes will resolve you hunderds lp/mm, and well above 18mp equivalent with normal contrast film, so I don't buy that "the lenses already the limit" nor "135 tops at 18Mp". Even my $10 Helios can do more than that, sorry 🙂
 
Gid said:
I did have a look, but that won't fix the misaligned RF
Click to expand...

Gid, forgive me if I am misunderstanding what is wrong with your M8 but I'm not sure how your RF is misaligned in a way that is only apparent when you do the focus test. I presume you are not confusing the effects of parallax when trying to align two edges at an angle in the close range (in the rangefinder patch the edges appear at different angles and will only align at the point where they cross). This is normal.

However, backfocussing is another issue and seems to be quite common. My own M8 is currently in Solms and is being corrected for this. The 2mm allen key fix looks seductively easy but, from my understanding, is possibly not the right adjustment for close range back focus (which my M8 suffers from). Messing with this adjustment isn't going to void your warranty (how would Leica know what you have done?) but it shouldn't really be necessary to tinker in this way with a £3k camera body to get proper focus with £1.5k lenses. If you have lost confidence with the M8 I think that you are right to consider getting a refund now rather than try and secure one later. You can always get another M8 later in the year.
 
ian_watts said:
Gid, forgive me if I am misunderstanding what is wrong with your M8 but I'm not sure how your RF is misaligned in a way that is only apparent when you do the focus test. I presume you are not confusing the effects of parallax when trying to align two edges at an angle in the close range (in the rangefinder patch the edges appear at different angles and will only align at the point where they cross). This is normal.

However, backfocussing is another issue and seems to be quite common. My own M8 is currently in Solms and is being corrected for this. The 2mm allen key fix looks seductively easy but, from my understanding, is possibly not the right adjustment for close range back focus (which my M8 suffers from). Messing with this adjustment isn't going to void your warranty (how would Leica know what you have done?) but it shouldn't really be necessary to tinker in this way with a £3k camera body to get proper focus with £1.5k lenses. If you have lost confidence with the M8 I think that you are right to consider getting a refund now rather than try and secure one later. You can always get another M8 later in the year.
Click to expand...

Ian,

I did the same test using the same lens on my R-D1 and whilst there is a very slight skew (parallax), its hardly noticeable. I tried to focus on a magazine (using the M8) focusing on the magazine edge from an angle less that 45 degrees and the only point in focus (in the VF) was the centre of the VF - above the centre was skewed very badly to the right and below, very badly to the left. No such issues with the R-D1 and never seen this with either the M6, MP or Bronica RF645.

I'd dearly love to have a "fixed" M8 that I had confidence in, but not sure how I can get there. Maybe wait until some of the other issues are fixed and come back to it.
 
Ben Z said:
Yup, Canon's sure a bunch of fools to have hired digital electronics experts instead of dentists 😀 Look at how unsuccessful they've been so far 🙄
Click to expand...

I'm sure not even dentists have walls to hang 2x3 meter prints on, which is all 22 MP resolution would be good for...😉
 
jaapv said:
What are you going to do, Gid? return or retry?
Click to expand...

I'm waiting for my dealer to get back to me - he's having a word with Leica about the problem. As I have said I would dearly love a "fixed" M8, but my confidence has been severely dented. There's nothing else that I need to spend the money on, I just don't want to put £3000 into a camera I only get to use occasionally and maybe can't rely on. At the moment I want my money back, but could probably be persuaded otherwise, which is a testament to potential of this camera. I'll keep you posted.
 
Ben Z said:
And the 1DS-II is probably about at the end of its product cycle and will be replaced with something that has double the # of pixels as the M8, and improvements over the MK-II in many other areas of IQ. It may be a close call between the Mk-II and M8, but not likely to be so with the Mk-III. e keeping his if that were so in his case.
Click to expand...


If canon does whatthey did with the 1DII I don't think it's at the end of the cycle yet. The 1DIIN was only minor chnges over the 1DII for example a larger preview screen. Most likely when the 1DsII does arrive it will be 20-22 MP and come in at the $8K price that each of the other came in at. If you can wait to buy one and don't have to have it before anyone else the prices will drop to the $6K range new like the 1DsII is now.

Sorry but I would'nt give up my 1DsII for a truck load of M8's. The M8 isn't even close in any respect.

japv:
Think outside the amateur world for a minute. 22MP is good for the commercial photo world where every MP counts and art directors crop like it was large format film. Double page spreads and tripple page spreads need the res. Interpolation might work for some inkjet applications but not for large litho reproductions like ads, annual reports and magazines. Although amateurs have adopted the MKII and MF backs they were and are designed to meet the professionals needs.
 
Last edited:
varjag said:
On a microfilm, those same Canon L primes will resolve you hunderds lp/mm, and well above 18mp equivalent with normal contrast film, so I don't buy that "the lenses already the limit" nor "135 tops at 18Mp". Even my $10 Helios can do more than that, sorry 🙂
Click to expand...


You're correct that the lenses have not become the limiting factor yet. I recently received an announcement that Hasselblad ( I think it was Hasselblad) is going to introduce some new 35mm slr type bodies with High MP backs. I think they were using either Nikon or Canon lenses.It seems as if the full frame 39 MP back was one of the options too. I don't remember specifically because i don't intend to spend $40K for a camera I would'n use very often.
 
Jaapv:

Look at how close the shot the 50mm M8 images compared to the 50mm MkII images. Quite a big difference but the MK still kicked the M8 tail. Sorry to burst your bubble here but the M8 is starting to look plastic in the tighter crops and clearly the M8 isn't as sharp in the stop down tests. The M8 falls quite short.
 
x-ray said:
You're correct that the lenses have not become the limiting factor yet. I recently received an announcement that Hasselblad ( I think it was Hasselblad) is going to introduce some new 35mm slr type bodies with High MP backs. I think they were using either Nikon or Canon lenses.It seems as if the full frame 39 MP back was one of the options too. I don't remember specifically because i don't intend to spend $40K for a camera I would'n use very often.
Click to expand...

I would be interested to read your comments on this article on diffraction limitation
 
Gid said:
I did the same test using the same lens on my R-D1 and whilst there is a very slight skew (parallax), its hardly noticeable. I tried to focus on a magazine (using the M8) focusing on the magazine edge from an angle less that 45 degrees and the only point in focus (in the VF) was the centre of the VF - above the centre was skewed very badly to the right and below, very badly to the left. No such issues with the R-D1 and never seen this with either the M6, MP or Bronica RF645.
Click to expand...

Don't forget that the RD-1 and Rf645 have much shorter distances between the rangefinder windows (baselength?) than M cameras and are thus less susceptible to parallax 'distortion'. Do you have another M body to hand that you compare your M8 with? What you describe sounds perfectly normal to me but it may be that we are describing different things.
 
jaapv said:
I would be interested to read your comments on this article on diffraction limitation
Click to expand...


I would like to read it. I had three years of physics in college so I have a fairly good understanding of diffraction.

Think for a moment, Nikon is using a 1.5X chip and comperable lenses. In reading tests the Nikon D2x produces virtually the same sharpness of image as the canon 1DsII. Other characteristics of the image are different due to different processing of the raw file. The aps size sensor is roughly half the size of the full frame canon. You don't need math here just straight logic to see we haven't come close to the limits yet. Obviously Hasselblad would'nt be releasing cameras with 39mp using 35mm lenses if there was a problem.

Thinking back about the test you provided a link to, I didn't take the time to read the text but I'm guessing the photographer shot the M8 and MKII from the same distances resulting in the larger head size of the M8. This shows what the sensor will do but not in real life shooting. If I'm shooting a head to toe shot of a person on the MKII and switch to the M8 I have to back up to get the same image size. This is how the test should have been conducted.
 
I hear you- I did Technical Engineering in technical university as well - so maybe I do understand slightly more of technical matters and mathematics than the average dentist, in optics I am autodidact, so any education is welcomed. About the test, however, I agree it is flawed, the Canon seems to be oof as well, but subsequent images by Jamie Roberts indicate a clear superiority of the M8 in DR. And yes- I do understand different requirements for different goals. I dont see a wedding photographer using a MF digital back on assignment. That is the reason why I protest sweeping statements like Camera 1 runs circles around camera 2. It only applies in the narrow application the poster has in mind.
 
jaapv said:
I protest sweeping statements like Camera 1 runs circles around camera 2. It only applies in the narrow application the poster has in mind.
Click to expand...

Can I quote you the next time someone does just that regarding the M8? 😀
 
Diameter of the Airy disk depends very much on aperture, as you will see in this article on my site, which also gives the formula ... Hope this helps
 
Last edited:
The End

The End

M8 went back to Leica UK today - delivered by hand - and refund is being processed by the dealer. I'll sit tight for a while and enjoy what I already have (and what can deliver far more than I am capable of). Shame, but I have no confidence left in Leica, but will gladly be proven wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom