bigdavid
Member
yes darling, I registered today. if you think I registered just to create havoc I can only tell you NOT to imagine too much. Anyway, just for your lack of security and understanding:
I read occasionally in this forum but never felt the need to post and I'm sure many others does the same. I don't supposed theres anything wrong with it. This thread or this forum is objective, not personal. Do not target at me unless you don't agree with any of my post. What I have stated are my experience with the camera and facts of the market now. If you don't agree, please state your point like what I have done so for Kittyphoto. But if you are trying to stir up a flame then I rest my case.
bigdavid
Member
well, so you agree 5D out perform the M8?
To me, its simple, I wouldn't even compare the 2.
5D is full frame hence more light enter each pixel blah blah blah (I wouldn't go on, please go read up on full frame) no matter how "clean" everyone claim, it seriously will never ever beat a 5D IN TERMS of noise.
But I seriously think you need help in identifying the whole subject matter here: whether it is worth $5k for such performance.
To be fair, I will compare it to 40D if you push me. But well, seeing your loyalty in the brand, I don't think its necessary for me to go further and bruise your ego. period. good luck in your photography
Last edited:
bigdavid
Member
true enough... you certainly have a good point there I must agree. both my m8 and mps serve their purposes. but I choose over the latter if I must. to each his own I guess. but interesting point, I never think about film cost ever.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
In all fairness there is quite a bit of noise in the sky and it's a picture downscaled in postprocessing, where noise will eventually cancel itself out.
We could now go and look at 1:1 crops and do a lot of comparisons, but it's probably just a waste of time as this is largely about subjective value judgement.
I find that "pros" are just as opinionated and subjective as anyone else. One "pro"'s indispensable tool is another "pro"'s garbage. It's like this with dedicated "pro" cameras, why should it be different with a dentawyer hobbyist camera like the M8?
Philipp
gavinlg
Veteran
I must be doing something VERY wrong - ISO 640 with all noise-reduction, also in C1, switched off....
You know - the answer to your question is fairly simple, albeit a bit technical.Cmos sensors are more noisy than CCD sensors per se. So the noise reduction starts with circuitry on the sensor board and even before raw conversion. That produces clean files, albeit with some tradeoffs, specifically in microcontrast. Canon has this down to a fine art, but it does produce files with a specific look. Many photographers like that look, others don't. That results in reviews calling the Leica, which eschews such manipulation, "more filmlike" . A matter of priorities, I guess, and it clearly does not suit you. But calling the camera garbage goes a bit against the opinion of quite a number highly respected pros, wouldn't you agree?
Not to start a ****fight with you at all (we've been there/done that
), but I'm pretty sure that CMOS sensors are actually less noisy than the CCD. This is because the CMOS sensor runs cooler. Nikon/canon/pentax/olympus all use variants of the CMOS sensor now, mainly for high iso gains. I'll admit the nikon ccd, oly e1 ccd and m8 ccd can produce stunning results at low ISOs especially with textures and certain kinds of light/color.I had a play with a D3 and their new 600mm lens the other day at the Australian PMA exhibition - shooting ISO 6400 and anywhere up to 12800 gave excellent, sharp, colorful results, both in RAW and JPEG.
There's no doubt in my mind the m8 is not as good as the Canon/Nikon CMOS sensors at high ISO, however there are those that make stunning pictures with the M8, wether it be at 640 or 2500 ISO. I think it's more about how the camera is used rather than it's tech specs or lab tests.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Not to start a ****fight with you at all (we've been there/done that
I had a play with a D3 and their new 600mm lens the other day at the Australian PMA exhibition - shooting ISO 6400 and anywhere up to 12800 gave excellent, sharp, colorful results, both in RAW and JPEG.
There's no doubt in my mind the m8 is not as good as the Canon/Nikon CMOS sensors at high ISO, however there are those that make stunning pictures with the M8, wether it be at 640 or 2500 ISO. I think it's more about how the camera is used rather than it's tech specs or lab tests.
Gavin has hit the nail on the head ... the M8 is not for pixel peepers and comparing it to the latest DSLR from Canon or Nikon is pointless! It's a camera that can produce stunning images in certain environments in the right hands but is bound to fall short in areas that are the D5 and D3's strengths ... and a lot of other DSLR's for that matter!
I realise it costs a lot of money and this tends to give weight to the argument that the M8 should measure up to the opposition because it costs twice their price ... Leicas have always been expensive and the M8 was never going to be an exception!
Like anything in life .... if you buy it and don't like it ... sell it and move on!
Nick De Marco
Well-known
Ara, attempting a calm and reasonable response...
I agree that the M8 is not good at high iso's. I have been a 5D user for about a couple of years and one thing I like about the 5D was its ability to shoot at high isos with little noise.
I was concerned about this before buying the M8 recently, but I went ahead because I thought the M8 was a better camera in other ways. I actually would go further than you - I don't like using the M8 as 640 iso - I think it can look worse at that iso than the 5D at 1600 iso.
So I don't use the M8 at anything above 320 iso (unless emergency). This works fine with me. I rarely used the 5D above 400 iso unless it was night time - and I still have it to use in very low light. I rarely use film of 400 iso or higher. I love using well made small fast prime lenses. I would rather get away with shooting late at night with an f1.2 lens on my M8 at 320 iso (and I find I can hold the camera very steady even at 1/4 s).
I continue to think my 5D is a good camera, and I expect I will buy a 5D mk II when it comes out as I have invested heavily in L glass. But with the battery pack I attached and a spare couple of lenses it was huge, obtrusive, and heavy. Not ideal for all photography. I can put my M8 and an M6 and four lenses in one small bag and it's easier to carry around.
I am sure I am not an accomplished professional like you, but I do occassional professional work and when I do I use my 5D more than the M8 (partly because of reliability, partly because of zoom lenses and use of flashes). Apart from that I don't use the 5D anymore - I use the M8 nearly every day, certainly every week, and many of the photos I get are as good or better than the 5D - in fact in my view my own photography is much better than my professional photography as the latter is usually so confined to the narrow specifications of the purchaser.
I am about to buy a Mamiya 7 rangefinder MF camera for certain types of work (not professional but in preparation for some exhibition work). I will use it alongside the M8.
If I had not invested in Canon L lenses I would probably buy a D3 as it whacks the hell out of the 5D at high isos (so if that's what you want the D3 is a better camera for you).
But I think what these arguments and practise has taught me is that there is no such thing as a perfect camera for all occassions. Imagine if you were a photographer at a football game (I've done it before) - no way would you want an M8. But imagine you are doing a lot of street photography in busy cities, I wold rather have an M8.
What I do know is that if I could only have one camera it would be the one I use most often and get the most personal satisfaction from - and that would be the M8. But that is a personal choice. If I was a full time professional, depending on the work I did, it might be a Hassleblad, a D3, a 5D, a 1D Mk II or large format, or it just might be the M8 depending hat I was doing.
I certainly don't agree that the M8 is useless garbage - although it may well have been for your purposes
I agree that the M8 is not good at high iso's. I have been a 5D user for about a couple of years and one thing I like about the 5D was its ability to shoot at high isos with little noise.
I was concerned about this before buying the M8 recently, but I went ahead because I thought the M8 was a better camera in other ways. I actually would go further than you - I don't like using the M8 as 640 iso - I think it can look worse at that iso than the 5D at 1600 iso.
So I don't use the M8 at anything above 320 iso (unless emergency). This works fine with me. I rarely used the 5D above 400 iso unless it was night time - and I still have it to use in very low light. I rarely use film of 400 iso or higher. I love using well made small fast prime lenses. I would rather get away with shooting late at night with an f1.2 lens on my M8 at 320 iso (and I find I can hold the camera very steady even at 1/4 s).
I continue to think my 5D is a good camera, and I expect I will buy a 5D mk II when it comes out as I have invested heavily in L glass. But with the battery pack I attached and a spare couple of lenses it was huge, obtrusive, and heavy. Not ideal for all photography. I can put my M8 and an M6 and four lenses in one small bag and it's easier to carry around.
I am sure I am not an accomplished professional like you, but I do occassional professional work and when I do I use my 5D more than the M8 (partly because of reliability, partly because of zoom lenses and use of flashes). Apart from that I don't use the 5D anymore - I use the M8 nearly every day, certainly every week, and many of the photos I get are as good or better than the 5D - in fact in my view my own photography is much better than my professional photography as the latter is usually so confined to the narrow specifications of the purchaser.
I am about to buy a Mamiya 7 rangefinder MF camera for certain types of work (not professional but in preparation for some exhibition work). I will use it alongside the M8.
If I had not invested in Canon L lenses I would probably buy a D3 as it whacks the hell out of the 5D at high isos (so if that's what you want the D3 is a better camera for you).
But I think what these arguments and practise has taught me is that there is no such thing as a perfect camera for all occassions. Imagine if you were a photographer at a football game (I've done it before) - no way would you want an M8. But imagine you are doing a lot of street photography in busy cities, I wold rather have an M8.
What I do know is that if I could only have one camera it would be the one I use most often and get the most personal satisfaction from - and that would be the M8. But that is a personal choice. If I was a full time professional, depending on the work I did, it might be a Hassleblad, a D3, a 5D, a 1D Mk II or large format, or it just might be the M8 depending hat I was doing.
I certainly don't agree that the M8 is useless garbage - although it may well have been for your purposes
delander
Newbie
I have a 5D and an M8, no doubt that the 5D has better high iso performance. But you know that is not the only important feature of a camera. Having had the 5d for 3 years and now the M8 for 15 months, I find that I never use the 5D. Sometimes I think I need to use my 5D but as soon as I pick it up I just realise that I don't like it anymore and will only use it if I have to. It is no fun.
Now the M8 has its problems, its not perfect but I just love using it and it has made me less interested in telephoto and macro photography, stuff that I would do with the 5D.
And to those that rant that the M8 is garbage - lets wait for the M9, remember that if no one had bought the M8 there would be no M9.
Do you see anther digital rangefinder out there? I don't.
Jeff
Now the M8 has its problems, its not perfect but I just love using it and it has made me less interested in telephoto and macro photography, stuff that I would do with the 5D.
And to those that rant that the M8 is garbage - lets wait for the M9, remember that if no one had bought the M8 there would be no M9.
Do you see anther digital rangefinder out there? I don't.
Jeff
kittyphoto
Member
Well, you can call me anything you like. You might call me phaseone loyalist or film loyalist too. I am using Hasselblad H system with phasone P45+ and P30+ before I bought M8. I am film guy still have MP, Xpan, F5, TLR, MamiyaRB, SinarX all scan with Imacon 949. I still prefer film. But today I have to admit the world change. Less film more digital requested by customer.
I have followed M8 since it launch. I have tried 5 times before I bought it. At the beginning firmware and shutter is not good. Noise and battery also not the best.
Why I bought M8 6 weeks ago? Latest firmware AWB is much better. No more SD card lock. Shutter is more quiet and less vibration. With new C1 v.4 and Aperture noise is also better.
For the battery, I guess because of the CCD power hungry. If Leica goes for CMOS, battery life could be better. But quality should suffer.
Before I got M8, I have tried RD1 but I feel it lacks leica feel. Color is not what I like.
Many years ago before P45+ and P30+ I own lightphase which is the full frame 35mm CCD digital back.
I used with Horseman digiflex + Nikon lens. The color is so nice. It made me wait and think Leica could do the same full frame CCD.
Come back to the point. M8 noise is not bad. It is good sharp noise like grain. It add micro contrast to the picture.
The bigger print from M8 the sharper it is. With 5D the bigger print the softer you get.
You own M6 so I guess you should see the same phenomenon with film too.
Because M8 is rangefinder and manual focus. So it is much more difficult to use than DSLR. It is another breed system. I also have D80 and GRD2 for quick snap.
I did not say M8 is equal to medium format.
Phaseone is better.
But M8 is one of the best 35mm I could get at the present.
If you don't see the same, you are lucky.
YMMV
kitty
BillP
Rangefinder General
Keith makes a fine point.
The M8 is not for everybody. I decided some time ago it is not for me. It appears capable of exceptional results, but it is not everybody's cup of tea. There are other cameras that do certain things better, but the M8 is unique in it's blend of features, it's capabilities and it's access to optics. Some people will appreciate it, stick with it, find it's strengths and capitalise upon them to produce beautiful images. Others will feel cheated and let down by it.
There is no right and wrong here, only opinions. The problem arises in that you have a brand (Leica) that arouses strong emotions, coupled with a camera (the M8) that arouses strong emotions.
*sigh* I suspect this thread will spiral around the world the obligatory two and a half times before it peters out, with the usual admixture of insult, counter-insult and pro- and anti-Leica positions being stated - again - before we are done.
I'll leave you to it.
Regards,
Bill
The M8 is not for everybody. I decided some time ago it is not for me. It appears capable of exceptional results, but it is not everybody's cup of tea. There are other cameras that do certain things better, but the M8 is unique in it's blend of features, it's capabilities and it's access to optics. Some people will appreciate it, stick with it, find it's strengths and capitalise upon them to produce beautiful images. Others will feel cheated and let down by it.
There is no right and wrong here, only opinions. The problem arises in that you have a brand (Leica) that arouses strong emotions, coupled with a camera (the M8) that arouses strong emotions.
*sigh* I suspect this thread will spiral around the world the obligatory two and a half times before it peters out, with the usual admixture of insult, counter-insult and pro- and anti-Leica positions being stated - again - before we are done.
I'll leave you to it.
Regards,
Bill
EtoileFinder
Established
In the digital rangefinder there's only two options the M8 and the rd-1. For myself i chose the r-d1 mainly for economical reason. The rd-1 is much cheaper used, despite some default of the r-d1, it performs very well in high iso. For sure, when you pay high price for tools you have expectations that it will performs well. That's why a lot of people (like myself) are ready to throw away a lot of money to buy Leica gears. But there are people (pro or not pro) who can do great thing with cheap tools and others nothing with expensive tools (maybe myself ) .
But, as I'm reading on the M8, it seems there's a lot of disastisfaction, that's the other reason why I bought the r-d1. I can understand the frustration when you just throw away about 5000 $ for an M8, and it is not fufill some minimal expectations. By the way, for a cheap alternative for shooting in low light condition, there's the shoot and point fuji f30. There's no universal camera, but from Leica I think we are justify to have high expectation. I would spend big money for the M8 if Leica upgrade it with a full frame sensor!
Maybe it will interesting to start a new thread on the Leica syndrome or for myself I call it the Leica fetichism! Remember as another member as said: cameras are only tools! There's no reason to insult personaly others members or feeling offended because there are negative comments on your favorite brand !
But, as I'm reading on the M8, it seems there's a lot of disastisfaction, that's the other reason why I bought the r-d1. I can understand the frustration when you just throw away about 5000 $ for an M8, and it is not fufill some minimal expectations. By the way, for a cheap alternative for shooting in low light condition, there's the shoot and point fuji f30. There's no universal camera, but from Leica I think we are justify to have high expectation. I would spend big money for the M8 if Leica upgrade it with a full frame sensor!
Maybe it will interesting to start a new thread on the Leica syndrome or for myself I call it the Leica fetichism! Remember as another member as said: cameras are only tools! There's no reason to insult personaly others members or feeling offended because there are negative comments on your favorite brand !
Eric T
Well-known
In my hands, the noise on M8 images at 640 iso and above is unacceptable. This is frustrating. I need to compensate fast lenses - in some situations that is fine, in others not. But at 160 and 320, the M8 is great.
Would I buy this camera again? I honestly don't know. I am thinking of selling a few other cameras and buy a Canon 5D while the price is dropping.
Eric
Would I buy this camera again? I honestly don't know. I am thinking of selling a few other cameras and buy a Canon 5D while the price is dropping.
Eric
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
For those that missed it - here's my review of the M8:
http://x.chang-sang.com/blog/?page_id=92
On the page there is an image shot with the M8 @ ISO1250 in a rather dimly lit Irish pub and an image shot with the 5D under available halogen/fluorescent light. Take a look at the noise in both images and decide for yourselves. I've included 100% crops of both images.
Cheers,
Dave
http://x.chang-sang.com/blog/?page_id=92
On the page there is an image shot with the M8 @ ISO1250 in a rather dimly lit Irish pub and an image shot with the 5D under available halogen/fluorescent light. Take a look at the noise in both images and decide for yourselves. I've included 100% crops of both images.
Cheers,
Dave
Tony C.
Established
I have to say that while some of the posters on this thread have made good points in a quite reasonable manner, the original poster's combination of arrogance and anger badly degrades the points which he attempts to get across.
Yes, the M8 produces more noise than certain other cameras at high ISO . So what? Every camera has strengths and weaknesses, of course, including the 5D. In fact, it is absolutely incapable of producing images like those which the M8 is capable of producing with a Noctilux (and certain other M lenses). Does that make the 5D "useless garbage"? Obviously not.
Furthermore, the notion that a certain amount of noise is "acceptable", with anything above that being "unacceptable" is sheer nonsense. There are plenty of brilliant photographers, as well as amateurs, who like and use "high" noise to their advantage.
I very rarely find the need to use ISO above 640 on the M8, and am delighted with the results. Is it a perfect camera? No. Is it worth its cost given its limitations? That's a purely subjective question, but many have decided that it is worth every penny.
As a final, albeit subjective note, to my eye the B&W image on the original poster's website would benefit from a bit more noise – seriously!
Yes, the M8 produces more noise than certain other cameras at high ISO . So what? Every camera has strengths and weaknesses, of course, including the 5D. In fact, it is absolutely incapable of producing images like those which the M8 is capable of producing with a Noctilux (and certain other M lenses). Does that make the 5D "useless garbage"? Obviously not.
Furthermore, the notion that a certain amount of noise is "acceptable", with anything above that being "unacceptable" is sheer nonsense. There are plenty of brilliant photographers, as well as amateurs, who like and use "high" noise to their advantage.
I very rarely find the need to use ISO above 640 on the M8, and am delighted with the results. Is it a perfect camera? No. Is it worth its cost given its limitations? That's a purely subjective question, but many have decided that it is worth every penny.
As a final, albeit subjective note, to my eye the B&W image on the original poster's website would benefit from a bit more noise – seriously!
Dan States
Established
Folks, 640 should look grainless on the M8 if you just turn off the #$%$ sharpening and bogus noise reduction programs. Use C1, turn off all sharpening and LUMINANCE noise reduction and keep CHROMA noise reduction at about 65% and you will have great files.
The M8 needs different handling of the RAW files if you want maximum quality. I have many shots at 1250 that look CLEAN.
Finally, it does not have a matrix meter. Get used to making proper exposures in camera by metering properly. Underexposing and then trying to over adjust in post processing is a sure way to get issues.
Not saying the M8 is the end all, but if you can't get great results from it I'm sorry to say it's not the camera.
Best wishes
Dan
The M8 needs different handling of the RAW files if you want maximum quality. I have many shots at 1250 that look CLEAN.
Finally, it does not have a matrix meter. Get used to making proper exposures in camera by metering properly. Underexposing and then trying to over adjust in post processing is a sure way to get issues.
Not saying the M8 is the end all, but if you can't get great results from it I'm sorry to say it's not the camera.
Best wishes
Dan
J. Borger
Well-known
The best remark of the whole thread so far Tony ....could not agree more.
In fact i never ever use the M8 below iso 640 for that reaon
No need to discuss the cleaner high iso's of Canons and Nikons ... they are a fact for sure ... but it does not make them better cameras for everybody !
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I hadn't picked up your review before, Dave. Good one - I wish all were so fair.
Paul Kay
Member
Sorry Ara but for a start this isn't a particularly pleasant attitude and I think that you are confusing truth with your own opinion. I too am a (full-time) professional and own both M8 and 5D and use and like them both - different cameras, different uses. What I would say about this thread is that I am heartily fed up with rants like yours presumably trying to influence my opinions because someone does't like something. If you have some very specific point to make then fine, but to criticise any product because in your opinion it doesn't measure up to another, decidely different product is a pretty pointless exercise. If I'm flaming you then so be it, but as a positive suggestion, why don't you find a 5D forum and extol the virtues of the 5D there insted of in the 'M8 RANGEFINDER forum'?
jplomley
Established
WTF! Another one has hopped on the flaming bandwagon. You bought it a few months ago. Therefore, if you did your research (as any "professional" would), then all the issues you have raised would have been known b4 you slapped down your cash. And now you are complaining in an open forum about performance issues which have already been divulged. Sorry pal, but you have no credibility with me.
lemalk
Rebel Without Applause
Roger Ebert's primary rule for film criticism is to judge the film that was made, not the film that "should have been made."
$5500 is a lot to swallow. But those who want a Leica digital rangefinder will find something to like or LOVE.
Sometimes my $250 superzoom pi**es me off due to CA, butT can overlook that because it's cheap and does so many other things right.
$5500 is a lot to swallow. But those who want a Leica digital rangefinder will find something to like or LOVE.
Sometimes my $250 superzoom pi**es me off due to CA, butT can overlook that because it's cheap and does so many other things right.