Erwin Putts M8 test report

C'mon now, really. If you want a digital rangefinder there isn't much choice, is there? With Epson packing it up and abandoning the rangefinder arena there's only one contender left. So Leica M8 cannot do everything our imaginations hold imaginable. Why is that so much of an issue? And when was it the case that rangefinders excelled in each and every aspect of photography? Buying a camera is always a compromise between what it can and can't do. That's why we end up with an assortement of different cameras.
 
jlw said:
Whoa! As another R-D 1 user, I had been thinking the M8 was everything I ever wanted, and was scheming how on earth I could manage to buy one.

But now after reading Erwin's review (even the expurgated second version) I'm not so sure!

1) Yes, 10 megapixels would be great, and having framelines for 75mm and 90mm framelines would be nice. And as Sean Reid has pointed out, some of Erwin's initial negative comments were about characteristics that are partly determined by the firmware, and the test camera's firmware wasn't final. (These comments have been snipped from the reposted version of his review.) Perhaps the release-version firmware will be better. Still...

2) -- No exposure compensation dial? I use exposure compensation a lot. Having to dive into the menu system to get it would be a huge pain. There's no way to fix this in firmware.

3) -- There's some controversy on whether or not the M8 has more shutter-release lag than a mechanical M -- but there's no doubt that it needs a three-stage shutter release so it can incorporate the meter-on, AE-lock, and shutter release functions. Maybe going through all those stages caused the lag Erwin originally thought he was feeling (before this remark was expurgated from his review.) Meanwhile, other reviewers have noted that pressing the release just enough to lock AE can be touchy. I can't help thinking that the R-D 1's separate AE lock button is a better solution.

4) -- The original version of Erwin's writeup (before he removed anything firmware-related) noted that he was getting only 200 shots per battery. Crikey, that's not very good -- I'd need three batteries to get through a typical shoot. The R-D 1 is a bit of a battery hog if you turn instant review on, but if I leave it off I can get through a long shoot on one Epson battery. Let's hope Leica's final firmware is less power-hungry.

5) -- Holy cow, once the buffer is full it takes a full minute to empty it?!? This also was excised from the second version of his review. Again, I hope the final firmware does better -- no photographer is going to want to spend that long sitting in the "penalty box." I'm sure they can improve on this, but I still suspect there may be a speed penalty for choosing the computation-intensive DNG format for raw-file storage.

6) -- Leaving out the anti-aliasing filter sounds like a great way to get finer detail...until you look at the "Siemens star" photo in Erwin's test (again, removed from his reposted review.) The center of the star was pretty badly artifacted. I wonder how this is going to play out in photos of finely-detailed real objects with regular patterns in them, such as fabric textures...? Kodak's DCS14 SLR also dispensed with the antialias filter, and I recall some reviews noting problems with moiré patterns in such subjects. Again, since the M8 uses software-based antialiasing, maybe the final-version firmware will be better than in Erwin's now-removed test shot. But what if it's not? Leica's notion of the best tradeoff between fine-detail rendering and moiré avoidance may not be the same as my notion.

7) -- Come on, a $4800 camera and they can't spring for a PC outlet? (And before you ask "Why would anyone need a PC outlet on an RF camera?", let me answer by saying that an RF is great for studio shooting with an AC-powered electronic flash system; one big advantage over an SLR is that you can SEE the flashes go off through the viewfinder, which makes it a lot easier to coordinate action shots.) Sure, you can put a slave trigger in the hot shoe, or use one of those cheesy hot-shoe-to-PC adapters, but it still seems a little chintzy.


8) So, one good thing about all this is that it makes me feel a bit better about the fact that I'm going to be sticking with my R-D 1 for quite a while! If I encounter some bucks-up photo snob who wants to know why I haven't traded for an M8, I no longer have to say, "Because I'm too poor"; instead I can say, "Yeah, it sounds good, but for the way I shoot I really kinda need a hardware exposure compensation dial and an AE lock button."
Click to expand...

Hi jlw,

1) Not only early firmware but crops of an out of focus bodice to boot.

2) EV comp. criticism is valid and, as you know, I discussed it at length in my review. First level menu but still a bad design.

3) There shouldn't be controversy over this, there's no lag to speak of.

4) Early firmware, battery life is much better than that. Outlasts R-D1 with new firmware by about 2:1

5) He's misleading again, 11 frame RAW buffer and one *does not* need to wait for the buffer to dump to shoot again, one frame out, one frame in. As I wrote in my review, this camera is fast, esp. compared to R-D1

6) Look at DMR samples to clarify this. Moire is rarely a problem.

7) Probably a trigger voltage issue but I would have liked to see a PC connection too.

Cheers,

Sean
 
Erwin Puts report

Erwin Puts report

I find the comments of Erwin Puts quite useful in that he is being definitely negative towards the M8 accomplishement. That said I am quite impressed with other positive opinions such as detailed by Sean Reid. All this information is of value towards forming a basis for each readers personal evaluations and plans. My plan is to go for M8, I am still favorably inclined to want to use and enjoy learning and accomplishing professionally satisfying results from the digiital RF experience. There are certainely possible negative factors in all camera and systems but for the M8 these do not outweigh the positive in my non humble opinion.
​
 
VinceC said:
>>Blathering nonsense, my friend. We live in a society that considers it normal that a 50.000 Euro car in perfect order is worth 10.000 in five years time and is "obsolete" as well... This kind of thing has nothing to do with the quality of the object.<<

Thanks, Jaapv. Anyone who wants to really buy a Leica M8 -- and who is also a new-car buyer -- can afford to. Simply get the next model down from what you want, and spend the $5,000/4.000 euro difference on buying the camera. In Five years, the car will have lost much more value than $5,000, and both it and the camera will remain functional if properly cared for. At some point about 10 to 12 years from now, the $5,000 camera will retain more resale value than the 50.000 euro car.
Click to expand...

That is a wonderfully practical piece of advice and all of it true.

Cheers,

Sean
 
Nachkebia said:
jaapv : Honestly speaking, I am more interested in new Fuji digital SLR which is comming soon, which will definatly have revolutionary sensor... I know what M8 can do already, even it was beta software what Mr. Puts had that it pritty much it :)
Click to expand...

You do? Wow, how do you know what the M8 can do already?

Cheers,

Sean
 
sreidvt : even if it as good as 5D it is still not impressive, fuji had an idea to create sensor that reacts to light with cristals same as film.. so that is very interesting..

Fujifilm Develops New Image Sensor Technology for Digicams
Fuji Photo Film Co. Ltd., Tokyo, Japan, has developed a new basic technology for a new type of image sensor that ensures 3x higher sensitivity and richer color depth than conventional image sensors, reports PhotoImaging Enterprises Association International's PEN News Weekly.
In today's digital cameras, images are captured and converted into digital signals by triplets of CCDs placed side by side -- one each for red, green, and blue. It is difficult for ordinary photographers to realize that a digital image captured with a digital camera has less depth than pictures taken with film in which the photosensitive pigments for the three primary colors of red, green, and blue are layered above one another, but pro photographers can recognize this.

Adopting the same concept of layering, the new image sensor developed by Fujifilm uses organic pigments reacting to red, green and blue light. The pigments are sandwiched between transparent electrodes and stacked above one another. When light enters each pigment layer, electric current flows between the electrodes, and the electric current is then converted into digital signals.

Fujifilm has made a prototype image sensor containing a green-reacting pigment. It yields monochrome pictures having the same depth as photo film, and is now making prototype elements for red and blue light as well. The company has filed a patent application on the basic technology and hopes to commercialize new image sensors in three to four years, says PEN News Weekly.
Click to expand...


Inventors: Taniguchi, Masato; (Kanagawa, JP) ; Takada, Shunji; (Kanagawa, JP)
Correspondence Name and Address: SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
SUITE 800
WASHINGTON
DC
20037
US

Assignee Name and Adress: FUJI PHOTO FILM., LTD.

Serial No.: 082697
Series Code: 11
Filed: March 18, 2005

Abstract
A multilayer deposition multipixel image pickup device comprising a pixel unit, wherein the pixel unit comprises: a plurality of electromagnetic absorption layers being capable of absorbing electromagnetic waves of different wavelengths and performing photoelectric conversion; at least one pair of electrodes that sandwich each of electromagnetic absorption layers; a charge transfer and charge read part; and a plurality of contact parts that couple at least one of the electrodes and the charge transfer and charge read part, wherein a length between outermost surfaces of ones among electrodes of the pixel unit is smaller than a pixel size that is a circle-equivalent diameter of the same area as a first electromagnetic absorption layer of the electromagnetic absorption layers, the first electromagnetic absorption layer having a largest area in said plurality of electromagnetic absorption layers.
Click to expand...

For more information open this web page
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html and search this number combination " 20050205958 "
 
Last edited:
Marc-A. said:
It is very important to highlight this because most (if not all) of DSLR produce flat pictures, without subtlety in tones ... for instance, PBase is full of those digi flat and vulgar pictures. ... I'm far from being an expert
Best,
Marc
Click to expand...

Marc:

I don't wist to be critical of you but this is total rubish. I make my living with digital photography and have been a commercial photographer for over forty years. My studio has been 95% digital for seven years and I've shot a few thousand assignments on digital and certainly had the opportunity to compare digital with film at a very critical level. Shooting raw files and post processing correctly digital has tonality equal or better than any transparency film that I've ever shot not to mention the total control of the final look. With raw files a tallented photographer can design the look that he desires rather than leaving it up to the fim engineers at kodak and fuji. You as the creator have the control to make the emulsion that you want when shooting raw.

You're confusing the tallent of a few amateurs on pbase with the capabilities of digital in a true pros hands. This is one of the big pitfalls of digital. It requires a great knowledge and skill level as it does in film based photography. The supposed ease of making great photographs with a digital camers along with the low price of gear had brought into the equation a bunch of no tallent hacks that think they're photographers.

I still use my film cameras up to my 8x10 and personally love the traditioal approach for some of my assignments and virtually all of my personal work but there is no superiority of one method of capture over another. Film has its advantages and digital has advantages too. To say all digital images are flat and are lacking vs film is total nonsense.
 
Re. the lack of immediately accessible EV compensation. Provided the AE Lock from first pressure on the shutter button works effectively, for me its not an issue in most cases. I find it much more 'fluid' to just point to an area that experience tells me will give the amount of compensation I desire. It only matters if you want/need to shoot a number of frames continously. I usually find I'm waiting/holding for the correct moment so the very small amount of time it takes to reposition the camera is quicker than making the adjustment via the dial (with its lock) as on my RD-1, with the bonus that I don't need to remember I have set it.
 
W00t, this year's Fuji announcement of another "revolutionary" new sensor. You'll recall that their last "revolution" -- the one with the extra photosite for measuring luminance -- didn't make as much of a splash as they claimed it was going to.

Even if it does turn out to be a big improvement... and even if Fuji were to put it into a camera that I'd consider buying, which is an even bigger "if"... well, while I was waiting "three or four years" (or five, or six, or seven) for commercial applications to appear, I could have taken a lot of pictures!

In other words, good to see that companies are still researching the fundamental technology of digital capture, but predicting which horse will win the Kentucky Derby is a bit tricky while it's still a foal!
 
Nachkebia said:
The company has filed a patent application on the basic technology and hopes to commercialize new image sensors in three to four years, says PEN News Weekly.
Click to expand...


The technical term for this kind of announcement in the digital world is vapourware ;) Let's judge when it is implemented...
 
Jim Watts said:
Re. the lack of immediately accessible EV compensation. Provided the AE Lock from first pressure on the shutter button works effectively, for me its not an issue in most cases. I find it much more 'fluid' to just point to an area that experience tells me will give the amount of compensation I desire. It only matters if you want/need to shoot a number of frames continously. I usually find I'm waiting/holding for the correct moment so the very small amount of time it takes to reposition the camera is quicker than making the adjustment via the dial (with its lock) as on my RD-1, with the bonus that I don't need to remember I have set it.
Click to expand...

Hi Jim,

That's great then. Do you change ISO very often? If not, given that I know you shoot RAW, the M8 controls may work very well for you. Are you planning on getting one?

Cheers,

Sean
 
specular said:
I guess it boils down to if you like the more compact size of the M8, have M lenses, prefer the traditional simplicity and can spare the $
Click to expand...

Hasn't that pretty much been the case with Leica all along? For as long as I have been "into" photography (since my early teens) there have always been other cameras that seemed to have more features and cost less money than a Leica (I opted for a few of them myself over the years before finally getting a Leica).
 
sreidvt said:
Hi Jim,

That's great then. Do you change ISO very often? If not, given that I know you shoot RAW, the M8 controls may work very well for you. Are you planning on getting one?

Cheers,

Sean
Click to expand...

Another effective way to achieve exposure compensation is to lock the shutter speed via a half press of the shutter button, then turn the aperture ring the required amount. Since the shutter speed stays locked, Bingo! A simple EV control

As for instant access to the ISO speed, its less important in practice than in theory. Yes, it would be nice if ISO could be changed on the fly but in reality I selects a ISO value for a particular situation and leaves it there. On my RD1, 200 ISO is default in bright light, 800 ISO in low light, and 1600 ISO when I want to play with NoiseNinja.

A final point on Erwin's rope bodice photo. It's out of focus. Since the picture was taken down so early, most people didn't have a chance to critically inspect it but I did. The girls eyes were in focus but the bodice wasn't. Kind of makes it hard to analyis sensor resolution doesn't it??

Yes, I am getting one. I am number 2 on my local Calumet dealers list so I should be in the first wave.

Rex

Rex
 
"Professional photographers (with a handful of exceptions) have long ago abandoned the M-system and it is unlikely that they will return to this system."

Well it shows he's not im touch with actual working news photographers.... many pro's have tons of Leica gear they want to use again.
 
BTW, can someone please tell me if this camera can do high ISO and not look like crap?

Sean, any thoughts? And what's Erwin's site? I tried the above link and it doesn't take you to the main site where I can see the second part of the review Mr. Putz did.
 
I agree, the JPEG examples on Erwin's site were of such poor quality with so much compression artifacts that it was hard to distinguish the true quality of the original image.

The only example which I found telling was the high ISO comparisions. The 5D's high ISO performance was clearly superior. This isn't suprising because I didn't expect anyone to trump Canon's CMOS sensors in that department.
 
ywenz said:
I agree, the JPEG examples on Erwin's site were of such poor quality with so much compression artifacts that it was hard to distinguish the true quality of the original image.

The only example which I found telling was the high ISO comparisions. The 5D's high ISO performance was clearly superior. This isn't suprising because I didn't expect anyone to trump Canon's CMOS sensors in that department.
Click to expand...

I agree that I don't expect the M8 to trump the 5D in the high ISO department. Canon has that area pretty well nailed down. But even there, Erwin's methodalogy is so poor we don't even know if the Leica noise reduction software is even on. Or if the beta implementation of the noise reduction algorythm is complete. Nobody knows and thats why his "test" is almost useless.

Rex
 
It would be more realistic to compare Leica to Nikon in the area of noise reduction. At least one is comparing CCD sensors then. Canon is extremely smooth at high ISO - at a price: it is oversmooth at low ISO giving rise to the "digital look" some of us don't like.
 
jaapv said:
It would be more realistic to compare Leica to Nikon in the area of noise reduction. At least one is comparing CCD sensors then. Canon is extremely smooth at high ISO - at a price: it is oversmooth at low ISO giving rise to the "digital look" some of us don't like.
Click to expand...

The so called "plastic" look of the Canon. The tendency for everything to look like it was dipped in cosmoline.

Rex
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom