Sailor Ted said:
rsl,
When I make 5x7 prints from either my M8 or R-D1 it is always the M8 whose images seem to "jump" off the paper they are printed on. By comparison my R-D1 images seem "flatter," softer and the color seems less saturated and more "digital." That higher mega pixel count can result in higher resolution is true but (and I may not understand this fully) at 5x7 is this the only advantage the M8 has over the R-D1 and most DSLR's?
It seems to me the unique compromises that went into the M8 are responsible for the M8's unique signature- for the good and bad. By forgoing an anti-aliasing filter, placing a thin(er) filter in front of the digital sensor, running less noise compression and smoothing, and angled sensor lenses the M8 creates images that are quite film like. It also makes the M8 sensitive to IR and requires cut filters if you want your colors 100% accurate and can exhibit moray patterns under certain circumstances however I have never experienced this. Tradeoff's aside the M8 within it's native resolution print size and below will hold it's own against other digital cameras with higher MP at the same print size and below I would imagine (unless these cameras also adopt some of the M8's design decisions).
This thread started out as "I love my M8" and I do. This does not mean it's perfect (it certainly is not) but for me it's my best digital alternative. Sometime soon a manufacturer will come out with a huge and heavy DSLR that will clearly outperform the M8 in large print size but for me this is a non issue- I'll still love my M8 nor will I be tempted to carry a 20 MP howitzer into the field as this does not work for my style of photography. The fact is my M8 is too big sometimes and I gladly compromise my image quality for a smaller size camera when I shoot with my GRD; a camera I also love.
Ted,
Thanks for a balanced response to my statement. Turns out we're not actually in disagreement. First of all, I like your photography. I don't post on Flickr because I have several domains of my own. You can see very coarse copies of some of my work on the web I sell from,
www.rslstudio.com, and even more on my personal (fun) web,
www.pkinfo.com. I also like the results I see from the M8, and, like you, I don't like carrying around a D2X, though sometimes that's necessary for the stuff I do. I prefer street photography, though nowadays I don't get enough chances to do that. For street work there's nothing that can take the place of a good rangefinder, and once Leica fixes it I have no doubt that the M8 will be the best rangefinder out there.
Yes, I think the idea of using a very thin filter over the M8 sensor was a good idea even though it causes a problem with IR and, occasionally, with moire patterns. I hope Leica finds a way to avoid the cut filter requirement because that seems a real downer to me.
As far as results from the R-D1 and other digital cameras being "washed out" is concerned, that may be because, unlike most of the people who show prints at "art fairs" around the country I don't like oversaturated color. I tend to pull the saturation instead of push it. In the end, there's nothing quite like black and white, though there are plenty of situations where color is essential. But to be straight and realistic color can't be pushed the way an awful lot of photographers push it. I know why they push it -- a lot of people like it that way and tend to buy what they're selling because it's pushed. Happily, I don't have to live on my photography, so I don't have to do that. In the long run, I think my prints will wear better. Pushed color saturation can become tiring after a while. By the way, the shot on my earlier post was at f/4.0 and ISO 800, so it wasn't as tack sharp as it might have been otherwise.
It's okay to love your M8. If Leica fixes it I'll buy one and I'm sure I'll love it too. I certainly loved all three of my film Leicas, especially my M4 which was in Asia with me for two years. But it doesn't pay to make claims for the M8 that won't stand up to scrutiny. For instance, to say that the M8 image is "film like" more or less requires you to say which film. Every film I ever worked with was different from all the others. Every digital I've worked with gave a result different from all the others. Even the R-D1, which uses the same sensor as my D100, gives a different result from the D100. Which of all these results is best is all in the eye of the beholder.
In the final analysis, as I've said several times on these forums, the rangefinder is a specialized tool, especially good for street photography. There are other kinds of photography where a blunderbuss of a D2X is better, and there are other kinds where only a large format film camera will do. I do stuff that requires the D2X kind of camera and I love to do stuff that, if not requiring it, certainly desires a good rangefinder. I used to do stuff that required a 4 x 5, but I've lost interest in that kind of thing.
Keep on loving your M8. I have high hopes that Leica will get the thing to the point where I can join you.
