Hands on M8

Glad to hear the C/V 15mm does OK - I'd rather not buy the Zeiss or the Super-Wide-Tri-Elmar if there is any chance Leica will eventually come out with their own f/2.8 prime lens - so I'd like to stick with my C/V until then.
 
AndyPiper said:
Glad to hear the C/V 15mm does OK - I'd rather not buy the Zeiss or the Super-Wide-Tri-Elmar if there is any chance Leica will eventually come out with their own f/2.8 prime lens - so I'd like to stick with my C/V until then.
Click to expand...

Andy

I feel the same way too. If the M8 could handle the 15mm Heliar that is a revealation. My RD1 severely vignettes my Heliar, not that I can't handle it in photoshop but we are talking 3 F stops at least.

If HENNINGH says that the M8 could handle it, that portends well for the microlensing ability of the sensor.

Rex
 
Ben Z said:
Henning, from this I take it that, especially assuming the production firmware will be even better, you don't feel any urgency image-wise to have one's existing lenses "coded"?
Click to expand...

I can't see any need for it myself. I've gone over 40 years shooting with Leicas without having the focal length imprinted on the film; I can live without it now. I'm sure there is some benefit to coding the lenses other than EXIF data and flash use, but since I use flash so seldom with Leicas, and the main (probable) benefit to lens optimization would be with the 12 and 15 CV, and they don't have it anyway, I'll just leave it.

If I ever do get a wide Tri-Elmar, it'll have the coding in any case. :)

Henning
 
Last edited:
Speaking of flash, when looking at pictures of the M8 I can't see where the pop-up flash will be.

Just kidding.
 
HenningW said:
I've gone over 40 years shooting with Leicas without having the focal length imprinted on the film; I can live without it now. I'm sure there is some benefit to coding the lenses other than EXIF data and flash use...
Click to expand...

The 6-bit coding is designed to let the M8's internal processing engine recognize the lens you use and map out vignetting and maybe some other unwanted characteristics, Henning ... you definitely should do it.

I hope someone could run an extensive test for every single lens out there, before and after the 6-bit coding is done ... perhaps some of the uncorrected images would look fascinating.
 
Last edited:
Do I understand right that when using auxiliary viewfinders, you cannot match to the focal length of the lens? So e.g. for a 70mm lens you need something like a 100mm auxiliary viewfinder?
 
While the 6-bit tells the camera what lens you have mounted. The camera only does the necessary image corrections when you are shooting in jpeg mode. In raw no changes are made to the image, just the lens type is written to the exif data.
 
egpj said:
While the 6-bit tells the camera what lens you have mounted. The camera only does the necessary image corrections when you are shooting in jpeg mode. In raw no changes are made to the image, just the lens type is written to the exif data.
Click to expand...
But it may well be that the information can be used in the raw conversion software to automate some corrections as well.
 
jaapv said:
But it may well be that the information can be used in the raw conversion software to automate some corrections as well.
Click to expand...

Of course that is possible, but by the same token, once you arrive at the correction manually in the software from raw images, then I am sure you can save it as a preset, or "action" to run.

Just like in the raw window of Photoshop CS, once you adjust one of your digital raw files, you can save those corrections, then apply them to however many raw files you wish.

The main benefit of the lens coding would seem to me to be for in-camera produced jpg's, which I would not use, as I am a "raw" man.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom