chewbacca
Member
Hello fellow photographers
Couple days ago, I had an opportunity to “meet” M8 for real, first time. When camera was realest, I went to shop and played with it but I don’t count that. My Friend Denis just porches M8 and broth it to me on a fashion shoot. So we put it to a test and I wont to share my impressions. This is not meant to be technical review; but more likely personal observation and as such it is subjective.
Before I start let me say something about my self. Am not big fan of digital. Don’t get me wrong; tool is tool and it is there to serve us as creative individuals. At the end of the day it comes to one thing: are you satisfied with your creation; or not? Equipment that we use doesn’t reflect on what we have to say in our photos.
I am cinematographer with more then 20 years of experience in photography. Last couple years I do some commercial photo work, mainly in fashion and advertising. Beside that I constantly am working on my art projects. I’m using M system for 19 years now and I don’t have any other 35mm equipment. In my M toolbox I have: 2x MP and M3; 35mm, 75mm Summilux’s; Elmarit 21mm ASPH, 35mm, 50mm, 90mm summicron’s ASPH; VC 12mm and 15mm. that is my working set. Beside that I have some older Leica lenses that I use from time to time. My main work is on Hasselblod and LF system. Am processing my films on Jobo ATL-1500 and scanning on my Imacon 868. Only digital camera that I have is canon G9 and I use it as “digital Polaroid”, so it is far to say that I am as analog as it gets.
On the other side my wife is photographer and she is big fan of digital. In last couple of years she didn’t shoot tow rolls of film. She is using Canon Eos 1ds mkII with L lenses. I gave a try with Eos but in numerous occasions it disappointed my expectation. On the other hand she is working much more then me and in her world speed is important; so I understand completely and am always backing up in domestic disputes film VS digital.
Now to go back to the subject of this post. I was shooting catalog for jewelry on Hassey and I broth all leica lenses and MP with Provia as reference. We also borrowed Eos from my wife. After I was dun with a job it was time to play, and I asked model if she could stay and spend some time with tow old nerds. Then we restage scene under same conditions, and first I took some pictures with MP using
50mm summilux at f1.4, then 75mm at f2, then summicron 50mm at f2.8 and 90mm at f4.
It was a time to see digital beasts in action 1ds mkII VS M8. Eos had 24L, 35L, 50L, 50 macro and 85L. On M8 we decided to go with Elmatit 24, Summilux 35, Summicron 50 and Summicron 90. First problem in lining them side by side was the image size, so M8 was tighter then Eos and we didn’t won’t to use canon zooms to compensate on that. Idea was to put best canon lenses VS leitz. On the other side canon had bigger chip with more elements to compensat. Finally we decided to compose shoots centrally in order to crop canon image to same physical size as M8 (that sound weird). During the shoot we were constant imagining frame lines on canon focus screen (common thing to do with motion picture camera).
Canon is definitely faster system; it is build for speed and that is noticeable instantly. On the other hand we were in studio with a model not on the soccer game, but never the less, canon was ripping and making impression of much more faster camera in total. Other conceptual difference was that we are putting rangefinder opposed to AF SLR. We used strobes for that setup and rangefinder was in his element by my standards, having a big advantage over SLR. This M8 is firs Leica for my friend Denis, so hi was much slower then me with Leica, and much faster with Eos. One big point on my behalf for M8 was that I really didn’t have impression of holding digital camera. When my eye is on viewfinder and finger on focus; it feels more-less, like any other M with winder. I was more familiar with canon software and commands and I was confused couple times with Leica’s interface. But taking in consideration that I have almost on experience with digital, that’s not add. I must say that for someone like me M8 is much more familiar ground to step in digital world then Eos.
So for this part of the test I must give point to M8 over Eos 1ds mkII. But this is highly personal opinion based mainly on SLR and rangefinder deferens and photographer’s preferences. Not to mention physical size of canon compared to leica.
Long before we started this test I read a lot on M8 and Ds Mk II. My experience with digital cameras is limited but am not stranger to digital images. I have good knowledge of digital postproduction; scanning my films for more then 10 years now and working on Photoshop since version 2.0; so I was aver of what can I expect in terms of image quality. It was clear that M8 had some issues; but so thus canon and any other tool. When I told my wife what we wont to test she simply told me that canon would deliver better and bigger image and that is unfair fight… There was couple of similar comments from my friends. I was aver of numbers, but I have to say that I rely don’t like to count lines and dots; and especially when that method is used to determent esthetical value in photography. I would say that some of most important artwork in photography was made by “low” quality equipment by today standards. Somehow I don’t think that Robert Mapplethorpe, Henri Cartier Breson, Robert Capa, Diane Arbus, Irving Pen, Joel-Peter Witkin, Nan Goldin…, would be affected by number of pixels in there cameras and algorithms in ROW to tiff conversion.
Camera is a tool for photographer and as such can be compared with a photographer in a first place. Philosophy aside, my idea was to see how suitable M8 is in my case and Canon was there as a benchmark in digital SLR.
Canon delivers decent picture, but I don’t like canon optics. In my humble opinion whole L series is over rated and completely misinterpreted by some individuals, but that is whole different subject. Don’t get me wrong, that is good camera but with lot of room for improvement. Personally I don’t like SLR and size meter in my case. And I was hoping that M8 would be able to deliver similar results agents all adds.
I must say that result was much more then I initially expected. Canon shows all attributes that I was aver of. On the other side M had excellent sharpness, fine color rendering (I didn’t notice any major problems) and dissent dynamic range. But it had a “character”; definitely made by leica lenses. This is a first time for me to see a character in any digital camera ever.
Summicron 90 gave best performance and look, by my opinion. During whole test we could see radical difference in performance of Canon and Leica lenses.
M8 had a bit more noise and some artifact; but again we are talking about digital cameras.
To conclude:
1. Canon Eos 1 Ds Mk II is superior Body to Leica M8, but personally I don’t care, my opinion is that if you need huge digital picture; use digital beck! Any other case Canon and Leica are capable to delivering enough for normal Leica format printing.
2. M8 is optically superior to Canon by far. That difference is huge in my opinion; blessing M8 with personality capable of producing “leica vibe”. On the other hand 1Ds is full frame and that is biggest advantage of this camera.
M8 is definitely Leica, and with all down sides it is unique tool. It is only digital rangefinder and in my book that is a huge plus. Idea that I can just slip digital camera in my already existing M system is excellent but I am aware that without full frame sensor, M8 will turn in to “digital Polaroid ”.
On the other side, I can say that M8 is by far best digital photo camera that I ever had to use. Canon is grate camera but its not my cup of tea; niter any other SLR for that matter. I hope that Leica will work more on M9 and that we will have full frame in future to enjoy.
Thus are my 2-cent on a fact. I am sorry if I was to long or if I unwillingly offended someone. English is not my first; niter a second language, and I apologies for some misspelling I made in this post.
Luka 😎
Couple days ago, I had an opportunity to “meet” M8 for real, first time. When camera was realest, I went to shop and played with it but I don’t count that. My Friend Denis just porches M8 and broth it to me on a fashion shoot. So we put it to a test and I wont to share my impressions. This is not meant to be technical review; but more likely personal observation and as such it is subjective.
Before I start let me say something about my self. Am not big fan of digital. Don’t get me wrong; tool is tool and it is there to serve us as creative individuals. At the end of the day it comes to one thing: are you satisfied with your creation; or not? Equipment that we use doesn’t reflect on what we have to say in our photos.
I am cinematographer with more then 20 years of experience in photography. Last couple years I do some commercial photo work, mainly in fashion and advertising. Beside that I constantly am working on my art projects. I’m using M system for 19 years now and I don’t have any other 35mm equipment. In my M toolbox I have: 2x MP and M3; 35mm, 75mm Summilux’s; Elmarit 21mm ASPH, 35mm, 50mm, 90mm summicron’s ASPH; VC 12mm and 15mm. that is my working set. Beside that I have some older Leica lenses that I use from time to time. My main work is on Hasselblod and LF system. Am processing my films on Jobo ATL-1500 and scanning on my Imacon 868. Only digital camera that I have is canon G9 and I use it as “digital Polaroid”, so it is far to say that I am as analog as it gets.
On the other side my wife is photographer and she is big fan of digital. In last couple of years she didn’t shoot tow rolls of film. She is using Canon Eos 1ds mkII with L lenses. I gave a try with Eos but in numerous occasions it disappointed my expectation. On the other hand she is working much more then me and in her world speed is important; so I understand completely and am always backing up in domestic disputes film VS digital.
Now to go back to the subject of this post. I was shooting catalog for jewelry on Hassey and I broth all leica lenses and MP with Provia as reference. We also borrowed Eos from my wife. After I was dun with a job it was time to play, and I asked model if she could stay and spend some time with tow old nerds. Then we restage scene under same conditions, and first I took some pictures with MP using
50mm summilux at f1.4, then 75mm at f2, then summicron 50mm at f2.8 and 90mm at f4.
It was a time to see digital beasts in action 1ds mkII VS M8. Eos had 24L, 35L, 50L, 50 macro and 85L. On M8 we decided to go with Elmatit 24, Summilux 35, Summicron 50 and Summicron 90. First problem in lining them side by side was the image size, so M8 was tighter then Eos and we didn’t won’t to use canon zooms to compensate on that. Idea was to put best canon lenses VS leitz. On the other side canon had bigger chip with more elements to compensat. Finally we decided to compose shoots centrally in order to crop canon image to same physical size as M8 (that sound weird). During the shoot we were constant imagining frame lines on canon focus screen (common thing to do with motion picture camera).
Canon is definitely faster system; it is build for speed and that is noticeable instantly. On the other hand we were in studio with a model not on the soccer game, but never the less, canon was ripping and making impression of much more faster camera in total. Other conceptual difference was that we are putting rangefinder opposed to AF SLR. We used strobes for that setup and rangefinder was in his element by my standards, having a big advantage over SLR. This M8 is firs Leica for my friend Denis, so hi was much slower then me with Leica, and much faster with Eos. One big point on my behalf for M8 was that I really didn’t have impression of holding digital camera. When my eye is on viewfinder and finger on focus; it feels more-less, like any other M with winder. I was more familiar with canon software and commands and I was confused couple times with Leica’s interface. But taking in consideration that I have almost on experience with digital, that’s not add. I must say that for someone like me M8 is much more familiar ground to step in digital world then Eos.
So for this part of the test I must give point to M8 over Eos 1ds mkII. But this is highly personal opinion based mainly on SLR and rangefinder deferens and photographer’s preferences. Not to mention physical size of canon compared to leica.
Long before we started this test I read a lot on M8 and Ds Mk II. My experience with digital cameras is limited but am not stranger to digital images. I have good knowledge of digital postproduction; scanning my films for more then 10 years now and working on Photoshop since version 2.0; so I was aver of what can I expect in terms of image quality. It was clear that M8 had some issues; but so thus canon and any other tool. When I told my wife what we wont to test she simply told me that canon would deliver better and bigger image and that is unfair fight… There was couple of similar comments from my friends. I was aver of numbers, but I have to say that I rely don’t like to count lines and dots; and especially when that method is used to determent esthetical value in photography. I would say that some of most important artwork in photography was made by “low” quality equipment by today standards. Somehow I don’t think that Robert Mapplethorpe, Henri Cartier Breson, Robert Capa, Diane Arbus, Irving Pen, Joel-Peter Witkin, Nan Goldin…, would be affected by number of pixels in there cameras and algorithms in ROW to tiff conversion.
Camera is a tool for photographer and as such can be compared with a photographer in a first place. Philosophy aside, my idea was to see how suitable M8 is in my case and Canon was there as a benchmark in digital SLR.
Canon delivers decent picture, but I don’t like canon optics. In my humble opinion whole L series is over rated and completely misinterpreted by some individuals, but that is whole different subject. Don’t get me wrong, that is good camera but with lot of room for improvement. Personally I don’t like SLR and size meter in my case. And I was hoping that M8 would be able to deliver similar results agents all adds.
I must say that result was much more then I initially expected. Canon shows all attributes that I was aver of. On the other side M had excellent sharpness, fine color rendering (I didn’t notice any major problems) and dissent dynamic range. But it had a “character”; definitely made by leica lenses. This is a first time for me to see a character in any digital camera ever.
Summicron 90 gave best performance and look, by my opinion. During whole test we could see radical difference in performance of Canon and Leica lenses.
M8 had a bit more noise and some artifact; but again we are talking about digital cameras.
To conclude:
1. Canon Eos 1 Ds Mk II is superior Body to Leica M8, but personally I don’t care, my opinion is that if you need huge digital picture; use digital beck! Any other case Canon and Leica are capable to delivering enough for normal Leica format printing.
2. M8 is optically superior to Canon by far. That difference is huge in my opinion; blessing M8 with personality capable of producing “leica vibe”. On the other hand 1Ds is full frame and that is biggest advantage of this camera.
M8 is definitely Leica, and with all down sides it is unique tool. It is only digital rangefinder and in my book that is a huge plus. Idea that I can just slip digital camera in my already existing M system is excellent but I am aware that without full frame sensor, M8 will turn in to “digital Polaroid ”.
On the other side, I can say that M8 is by far best digital photo camera that I ever had to use. Canon is grate camera but its not my cup of tea; niter any other SLR for that matter. I hope that Leica will work more on M9 and that we will have full frame in future to enjoy.
Thus are my 2-cent on a fact. I am sorry if I was to long or if I unwillingly offended someone. English is not my first; niter a second language, and I apologies for some misspelling I made in this post.
Luka 😎
