MarcoS
R9/DMR . M8 . R-D1
First part, not very favorable judging by his words
http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/m8report/t006.html
Even if I actually prefer the images from the M8...
Moreover all other early reviewers said the Leica has a not yet optimized the firmware.
http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/m8report/t006.html
Even if I actually prefer the images from the M8...
Moreover all other early reviewers said the Leica has a not yet optimized the firmware.
sunsworth
Well-known
to quote Putts...
"The overall performance of the M8 Optics, sensor technique and post processing) is most certainly a match for the best players in the market..."
"The overall performance of the M8 Optics, sensor technique and post processing) is most certainly a match for the best players in the market..."
HAnkg
Well-known
Erwin's sample images
Erwin's sample images
I increased the contrast in the M8 image and sharpened both images. Keep in mind I was starting with the jpgs from the review. The original 5D detail looked almost posterized compared to the M8 -which seemed to have a lot more midtone/quartertone tonality to work with.
I expect that image quality should be on a par with other DSLR pro offerings.
Erwin's sample images
I increased the contrast in the M8 image and sharpened both images. Keep in mind I was starting with the jpgs from the review. The original 5D detail looked almost posterized compared to the M8 -which seemed to have a lot more midtone/quartertone tonality to work with.
I expect that image quality should be on a par with other DSLR pro offerings.
HAnkg
Well-known
Here are the originals:
anabasis
Established
The M8 shot looks really soft. Putts error or what?
I don't really trust low res jpgs from the web to judge a camera however.
JCA
I don't really trust low res jpgs from the web to judge a camera however.
JCA
HAnkg
Well-known
soft image
soft image
The softness is no big deal as long as you have captured all the detail and a full tonal range. You can choose to apply sharpening, saturation and contrast in camera. Or just try and capture as much info as possible in camera and then apply everything in post with software that's likely to do a better job then any in camera software.
Comparing the before and afters from both cameras -I would much prefer to have the M8 file to work with ( I currently use a Canon 1Ds)
soft image
The softness is no big deal as long as you have captured all the detail and a full tonal range. You can choose to apply sharpening, saturation and contrast in camera. Or just try and capture as much info as possible in camera and then apply everything in post with software that's likely to do a better job then any in camera software.
Comparing the before and afters from both cameras -I would much prefer to have the M8 file to work with ( I currently use a Canon 1Ds)
Nemo
Established
24x36 frame needs a x8 enlargement for a 8x12 (aprox. A4 print).
Whether the sensor and lens resolve 40 lp/mm we will get 40/8 = 5lp/mm of real detail in the print. Just the amount of detail the human eye can resolve, at best, at optimum distance (25cm or more, depending on age).
For a A3 print (12x16, aprox) and 5 lp/mm of real detail the sensor (film) need to resolve 80 lp/mm. There is no full frame digital camera with this resolution power (I think a 22MP full frame camera would be necessary). Only medium format cameras, mostly due to the smaller enlargement factor, can reach the necessary resolution for those prints.
These requirements are increased for a cropped sensor. The M8 sensor has a crop factor of 1,33, and therefore 40x1,33 = 53 lp/mm and 80x1,33 = 106 lp/mm should be resolved in order to have 5lp/mm of real detail in those prints (A4 and A3).
The 74 lp/mm of maximun theoretical resolution (Nyquist limit) of the M8 sensor -but less than that number of real maximum resolution-, means that the M8 is capable of gorgeous A4 prints, but other cameras actually in the market will provide visibly better prints at A3 sizes or bigger (I am thinking on the Canon 1Ds Mark II and Canon 5D, due to the bigger picture size -number of pixels- and smaller enlargement factor). I think the M8 could be comparable with a Canon 1Ds, in terms of detail resolved on paper.
The image quality will be very good, due to the optics, the abscense of low-pass filter and the (big) size of the sensor. I try to say that 10MP in the M8 are not like 10MP in other cameras with inferior lenses and smaller sensors. However, the full frame cameras with more pixels, specially if they work with good lenses, will provide higher resolution on paper. Color rendition, contrast, distortions and fingerprint of the lenses are another history... Leica lenses are hard contenders here.
Whether the sensor and lens resolve 40 lp/mm we will get 40/8 = 5lp/mm of real detail in the print. Just the amount of detail the human eye can resolve, at best, at optimum distance (25cm or more, depending on age).
For a A3 print (12x16, aprox) and 5 lp/mm of real detail the sensor (film) need to resolve 80 lp/mm. There is no full frame digital camera with this resolution power (I think a 22MP full frame camera would be necessary). Only medium format cameras, mostly due to the smaller enlargement factor, can reach the necessary resolution for those prints.
These requirements are increased for a cropped sensor. The M8 sensor has a crop factor of 1,33, and therefore 40x1,33 = 53 lp/mm and 80x1,33 = 106 lp/mm should be resolved in order to have 5lp/mm of real detail in those prints (A4 and A3).
The 74 lp/mm of maximun theoretical resolution (Nyquist limit) of the M8 sensor -but less than that number of real maximum resolution-, means that the M8 is capable of gorgeous A4 prints, but other cameras actually in the market will provide visibly better prints at A3 sizes or bigger (I am thinking on the Canon 1Ds Mark II and Canon 5D, due to the bigger picture size -number of pixels- and smaller enlargement factor). I think the M8 could be comparable with a Canon 1Ds, in terms of detail resolved on paper.
The image quality will be very good, due to the optics, the abscense of low-pass filter and the (big) size of the sensor. I try to say that 10MP in the M8 are not like 10MP in other cameras with inferior lenses and smaller sensors. However, the full frame cameras with more pixels, specially if they work with good lenses, will provide higher resolution on paper. Color rendition, contrast, distortions and fingerprint of the lenses are another history... Leica lenses are hard contenders here.
HAnkg
Well-known
I would not disagree with any of what you say, however it has been my experience that on a CMYK 150 line screen 2 page magazine spreads you would not be able to tell the diference between the 1Ds and a 22MP medium format back in a side by side comparison if the files where properly prepared. Even on an Epson ink jet print with a some types of subject matter the differences would not be noticable. That's why I have not yet upgraded my 1Ds. In addition to the fact that I prefer the way the 1Ds handles skintones compared to its Mark II replacement.
specular
Member
I think these are compelling quotes from Mr Puts' review.
"Most M-users (as can be inferred from the many news groups entries) assume that the optical superiority of the M lenses can be migrated to the digital domain without any problem. Such a view disregards the many issues involved....The inherent superiority of the Leica lenses (the 2/75 is definitely a better performer than the Canon zoomlenses used here) cannot be capitalized on."
"You might start a war about the differences in resolution: for me the analysis of this level of details is input for the theoretical discussion and has limited practical value. See the model pictures. You will be hard pressed to get these details on the printer."
"Where the rest of the photographic world is preparing for the deep changes that follow in the wake of the technological possibilities, Leica has an eye on values from the past...There is nothing wrong with this approach, but Leica now knows very well that a broader product line with more modern products is required to survive. The Leica M in whatever livery is a niche product. "
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 $5000, then it's a no-brainer.
"Most M-users (as can be inferred from the many news groups entries) assume that the optical superiority of the M lenses can be migrated to the digital domain without any problem. Such a view disregards the many issues involved....The inherent superiority of the Leica lenses (the 2/75 is definitely a better performer than the Canon zoomlenses used here) cannot be capitalized on."
"You might start a war about the differences in resolution: for me the analysis of this level of details is input for the theoretical discussion and has limited practical value. See the model pictures. You will be hard pressed to get these details on the printer."
"Where the rest of the photographic world is preparing for the deep changes that follow in the wake of the technological possibilities, Leica has an eye on values from the past...There is nothing wrong with this approach, but Leica now knows very well that a broader product line with more modern products is required to survive. The Leica M in whatever livery is a niche product. "
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 $5000, then it's a no-brainer.
ywenz
Veteran
He says there is a slight delay in the shutter trigger on the M8... yikes!
Athos6
Tao Master
No offence...
No offence...
But the optical quality, which is on par, is not enough to justify the cost of the system. Film, yes. Digital, no. Unfortunatly this camera is only for those who need to feel better about themselves and are to shy for therapy. For this kinda cash I'd buy a whole Mamiya 6 or 7 system and get my negs scanned. I supremely happy, my D200 and 30 year old nikkors rock compared top the putts samples....
No offence...
But the optical quality, which is on par, is not enough to justify the cost of the system. Film, yes. Digital, no. Unfortunatly this camera is only for those who need to feel better about themselves and are to shy for therapy. For this kinda cash I'd buy a whole Mamiya 6 or 7 system and get my negs scanned. I supremely happy, my D200 and 30 year old nikkors rock compared top the putts samples....
Nachkebia
Well-known
Eeexactly!! though anyone might need a therapy even me 
Athos6 said:
Athos6
Tao Master
Yep
Yep
I know that after the buyer remorse wears off, I always feel better after I buy new gear! I think in the long run 5000 bucks on a camera would be cheeper then therapy, unless you got good insurance. To bad cameras arn't covered. "Here is my $500 copay, can I have my camera please"
Yep
I know that after the buyer remorse wears off, I always feel better after I buy new gear! I think in the long run 5000 bucks on a camera would be cheeper then therapy, unless you got good insurance. To bad cameras arn't covered. "Here is my $500 copay, can I have my camera please"
raid
Dad Photographer
Unless I am forced to leave behind film photography, I won't.
Why would anyone leave behind the M system and change over to somnething like the M8? If you want advanced digital photography, something like a Canon already offers a great product with great lenses. If you want the film based rangefinder camera with superb optics, then you already have several options on the market, with the Leitz M line being most likely the Rolls Royce of such cameras. It takes the discipline and wish to work for many hours on a computer to refine and complete the digital "film", and this is a task that not everybody wants to do unless it is required or it is leading to vastly superior results.
I am not seeing myself [yet] in need to switch to a digital camera or add an advanced digital camera to what I already own and use for photography.
One day, I may be asking "who has an el-cheapo M8 for sale?"
Raid
Why would anyone leave behind the M system and change over to somnething like the M8? If you want advanced digital photography, something like a Canon already offers a great product with great lenses. If you want the film based rangefinder camera with superb optics, then you already have several options on the market, with the Leitz M line being most likely the Rolls Royce of such cameras. It takes the discipline and wish to work for many hours on a computer to refine and complete the digital "film", and this is a task that not everybody wants to do unless it is required or it is leading to vastly superior results.
I am not seeing myself [yet] in need to switch to a digital camera or add an advanced digital camera to what I already own and use for photography.
One day, I may be asking "who has an el-cheapo M8 for sale?"
Raid
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
The question, for us RD-1 users, is how much better is the M8 (no doubt it is better, at least from a pixel count point of view)
Chuck A
Chuck A
Athos6 said:
I am glad that you are happy with what you have. The image quality that I have seen (granted, it hasn't been much) seems to be as good as the DSLRs out there. But there is much more to the M8 than being "on par" optically. Some of us just love using a rangefinder. Using a rangefinder is different than using an SLR/DSLR and the Leica gives us rangefinder users a top quality camera with a fantastic viewfinder to move into the digtial world.
We will see what is revealed in the weeks to come when we get more samples using updated firmware but, I think the M8 desrves more respect than you give it.
MarcoS
R9/DMR . M8 . R-D1
HAnkg said:
I increased the contrast in the M8 image and sharpened both images. Keep in mind I was starting with the jpgs from the review. The original 5D detail looked almost posterized compared to the M8 -which seemed to have a lot more midtone/quartertone tonality to work with.
I expect that image quality should be on a par with other DSLR pro offerings.
HAnkg, you are spot on here.
I immediately saw the finer detail and smoother image of the M8, hidden behind the apparent "soft" image and indeed you perfectly managed to pull them out.
In the Canon sample there's little you can do to improve the "harsh" look.
Look also at the crop of the eye, much better sharpness and colors from the M8.
And we are talking about full frame 12.8 Mp vs a cropped 10.5 mp one, with firmware still not optimized (read Sean Reid's review and the comment from HenningW in this forum)...
Btw even if those samples are jpeg compressed images, they are 100% crops from the half body image, so rather good to judge actual quality.
Sonnar2
Well-known
With the pre production firmware in the M8, I think E.Puts hadn't made a fair test
Chuck A
Chuck A
MarcoS said:
After some work the M8 image has a more 3D look with much more depth in the midtones. Certainly we can't tell its overall image quality by one sample, but I am surprised that Mr Putts didn't pick up on this. To be honest, I don't think that he likes the idea of a digital M abd this colored his review.
MarcoS
R9/DMR . M8 . R-D1
Agreed with all you said Chuck.
Anyway these are some comments about Putts' report made by Phil Askey, editor and owner of dpreview.com:
I'm pretty shocked that he's allowed to post samples from the cameras, this was a BIG according to Leica.
_____
Unfortunately the samples are awful, we were told absolutely no crops, samples or anything from the pre-production cameras were allowed (STRICTLY). Honestly the test is flawed, the 5D images look horrible (not what I am used to seeing from a 5D) and the M8 images appear to be JPEG crops (and the JPEG engine was clearly not fully tuned in the camera we had).
It's a pity this kind of _______ gets out before proper controlled repeatable tests are carried out on production models. It can create significantly the wrong impression of a camera.
______
Bizarre then that Leica trust him with a beta camera and appear to be unaware that he's published images from it.
Anyway these are some comments about Putts' report made by Phil Askey, editor and owner of dpreview.com:
I'm pretty shocked that he's allowed to post samples from the cameras, this was a BIG according to Leica.
_____
Unfortunately the samples are awful, we were told absolutely no crops, samples or anything from the pre-production cameras were allowed (STRICTLY). Honestly the test is flawed, the 5D images look horrible (not what I am used to seeing from a 5D) and the M8 images appear to be JPEG crops (and the JPEG engine was clearly not fully tuned in the camera we had).
It's a pity this kind of _______ gets out before proper controlled repeatable tests are carried out on production models. It can create significantly the wrong impression of a camera.
______
Bizarre then that Leica trust him with a beta camera and appear to be unaware that he's published images from it.