Gid
Well-known
sitemistic said:I'm no expert. But the experts I've read seem to pretty much agree that the tools in Photoshop, like unsharp mask, etc., pretty much erase the differences between lenses on digital cameras. With digital, sharpness is much more influenced by processing than the lens itself. Now, I'm not talking about the difference between a cheap kit lens and a Summicron. But with good lenses of different brands, digital post-processing is the great equalizer. With ACR, for example, you can correct all kinds of lens defects very precisely.
Film is a different matter. If everyone is using Tri-X, for example, a lens' specific characteristic is going to show through from example to example. This just isn't the case with digital. If my lens lacks a little sharpness, USM in Amount: 20%, Radius 50, Threshold 0, will make it look spectacularly sharp. It's almost magic!
I read extensively, but, haven't come across any claims that photoshop is a substitute for good quality lenses or good quality sensors. Adding a small ampount of micro contrast (which is what your USM recipe is doing) will add the appearence of sharpness to any digital camera and lens combination. However, a sharper lens and better digital implementation will always be better. I make no claims regarding which camera or lens or recording medium is better. Unless you want to produce billboard size prints that will be viewed from 2 inches with a loupe, just about any camera, lens, medium could produce A4 or even A3 prints that would look fine from normal viewing distance.
However, if we all accepted that, we wouldn't need to keep buying the latest gear and we wouldn't have so many (interesting) arguments
rsl
Russell
sitemistic said:I'm no expert. But the experts I've read seem to pretty much agree that the tools in Photoshop, like unsharp mask, etc., pretty much erase the differences between lenses on digital cameras. With digital, sharpness is much more influenced by processing than the lens itself. Now, I'm not talking about the difference between a cheap kit lens and a Summicron. But with good lenses of different brands, digital post-processing is the great equalizer. With ACR, for example, you can correct all kinds of lens defects very precisely.
Film is a different matter. If everyone is using Tri-X, for example, a lens' specific characteristic is going to show through from example to example. This just isn't the case with digital. If my lens lacks a little sharpness, USM in Amount: 20%, Radius 50, Threshold 0, will make it look spectacularly sharp. It's almost magic!
Well, several folks on this forum will disagree with you. Just ask them. They'll point you to a web that has a bunch of M8 images, and perhaps a bunch of Nikon or Canon images, and... you'll be able to see the difference -- at 72 ppi on a computer monitor?
Last edited:
chewbacca
Member
I also think so; but what do I know!
infocusf8@earthlink.
Established
Curious Redux Redux
Curious Redux Redux
I'm no expert. But the experts I've read seem to pretty much agree that the tools in Photoshop, like unsharp mask, etc., pretty much erase the differences between lenses on digital cameras. With digital, sharpness is much more influenced by processing than the lens itself.
I really don't follow this as any expert in PS will tell you that unsharp mask is one of the worst tools to use on an image for sharpening. Smart sharpen is a much better tool if you're going to use one but there is really no compromise for a sharp image to begin with. Leica's design criteria for Kodak was to design a sensor that did not compromise the sharpness of the Leica lenses and did not require processing to make the image sharp, they are successful in that respect. Canon (and other's) on the other hand relies heavily on their Digic processor to clean up the image that comes off the CMOS sensors they use which inherently produce a softer image than a CCD.
I keep hearing a lot of speculative thinking from Canon owners, on these forums, about what ifs. What if a this or that company produced a rangefinder with a Canon sensor in it and they will come in droves. I'll bet against it every time. Has Cosina Voigtlander made an Epson RD2? Was it as successful as the M8? No to both. Will Canon produce a rangefinder? I'll bet against it. Will there be a better Leica rangefinder? That remains to be seen but with speculative logic you can carry on the argument not to buy something ad infinitum because the next one will always be better.
And as for a Canon Rebel Xti being a better camera with better image quality that is pure rubbish. The fit and finish of the camera doesn't hold a candle to the M8 and the argument regarding sensor size can also be applied here as the Rebel uses an APS size sensor and the M8 an APSC sensor. More surface area better image quality, at least that's what I'm hearing. Do you care to dispute yourself? I had hoped that this forum was not run by Canon users who seem intent on trying to make Leica M8 owners somehow regret they didn't buy a Canon. I see that is not the case and have better things to do than listen to opinions by people who neither own or use the camera. See you in the field, I'll be the one with the M8 and a smile on his face.
Curious Redux Redux
I'm no expert. But the experts I've read seem to pretty much agree that the tools in Photoshop, like unsharp mask, etc., pretty much erase the differences between lenses on digital cameras. With digital, sharpness is much more influenced by processing than the lens itself.
I really don't follow this as any expert in PS will tell you that unsharp mask is one of the worst tools to use on an image for sharpening. Smart sharpen is a much better tool if you're going to use one but there is really no compromise for a sharp image to begin with. Leica's design criteria for Kodak was to design a sensor that did not compromise the sharpness of the Leica lenses and did not require processing to make the image sharp, they are successful in that respect. Canon (and other's) on the other hand relies heavily on their Digic processor to clean up the image that comes off the CMOS sensors they use which inherently produce a softer image than a CCD.
I keep hearing a lot of speculative thinking from Canon owners, on these forums, about what ifs. What if a this or that company produced a rangefinder with a Canon sensor in it and they will come in droves. I'll bet against it every time. Has Cosina Voigtlander made an Epson RD2? Was it as successful as the M8? No to both. Will Canon produce a rangefinder? I'll bet against it. Will there be a better Leica rangefinder? That remains to be seen but with speculative logic you can carry on the argument not to buy something ad infinitum because the next one will always be better.
And as for a Canon Rebel Xti being a better camera with better image quality that is pure rubbish. The fit and finish of the camera doesn't hold a candle to the M8 and the argument regarding sensor size can also be applied here as the Rebel uses an APS size sensor and the M8 an APSC sensor. More surface area better image quality, at least that's what I'm hearing. Do you care to dispute yourself? I had hoped that this forum was not run by Canon users who seem intent on trying to make Leica M8 owners somehow regret they didn't buy a Canon. I see that is not the case and have better things to do than listen to opinions by people who neither own or use the camera. See you in the field, I'll be the one with the M8 and a smile on his face.
chewbacca
Member
Why lighting a scene to achieve atmosphere, we can just put gradient oval selection in Photoshop over 2d image; if we start to simplify things based on tricks, whole this discussion is completely pointless. For years I was telling my students that at the “end" we are going to shoot with Nokia telephones or 8x10’’!
Last edited:
gavinlg
Veteran
Digital is the same as film. Get everything right from the start and you'll have a beautiful picture. The lens matters a huge amount - I've found on my canon 5d that the lens matters more than it does on film, as the sensor is more taxing on resolution and the way the lens renders the image. I use canon L lenses, and I find them very good - especially the L primes like the 35 1.4, 85 1.2, 135 f2 and the 24 1.4. These in particular are stunning examples of canons top lens technology and all samples are as good if not better then leica or zeiss equivalents of the same focal length.
Not only do the L lenses have improved resolution/micro contrast but it's often the things people don't think about too - each one is weather sealed, water/dust resistant, extremely flare resistant (my 17-40 f4L is just amazing - I have never had it flare on me, even when pointed directly at the sun without a hood), all have good contrast and hold it wide open, color reproduction is of high quality throughout, built like absolute tanks etc etc.
The more USM you add, the more unwanted artifacts will occur in the image - basically you want to be processing to an absolute minimum for the highest quality.
I like the m8, and I'd like to have one. But I use my cameras for work as well as play, my 5d and 1d make a great team - one full frame and the other crop sensor, one high resolution and large files and the other small files - ones able to be used in the rain/dust/weather. I've dropped the 1d, ran it into walls etc etc and it's tough as hell. No rangefinder to go out of alignment, no base plate to be sheared off. My canon DSLRs do everything I could ask, maybe in some situations without the same "sparkle" that the m8 has via its lenses and no AA kodak sensor, but I can guarantee that in high pressure situations where I depend upon the camera and it's subject to extreme conditions such as blistering rain and dust, knocking around in the back of a truck etc etc, the DSLR is a much more comforting thought.
Not only do the L lenses have improved resolution/micro contrast but it's often the things people don't think about too - each one is weather sealed, water/dust resistant, extremely flare resistant (my 17-40 f4L is just amazing - I have never had it flare on me, even when pointed directly at the sun without a hood), all have good contrast and hold it wide open, color reproduction is of high quality throughout, built like absolute tanks etc etc.
The more USM you add, the more unwanted artifacts will occur in the image - basically you want to be processing to an absolute minimum for the highest quality.
I like the m8, and I'd like to have one. But I use my cameras for work as well as play, my 5d and 1d make a great team - one full frame and the other crop sensor, one high resolution and large files and the other small files - ones able to be used in the rain/dust/weather. I've dropped the 1d, ran it into walls etc etc and it's tough as hell. No rangefinder to go out of alignment, no base plate to be sheared off. My canon DSLRs do everything I could ask, maybe in some situations without the same "sparkle" that the m8 has via its lenses and no AA kodak sensor, but I can guarantee that in high pressure situations where I depend upon the camera and it's subject to extreme conditions such as blistering rain and dust, knocking around in the back of a truck etc etc, the DSLR is a much more comforting thought.
trev2401
Long Live Film!!!
fdigital said:
oooooo k... yes yes... I'm sure we pretty much know how good/fantastic/wonderful canon bodies & lenses are.
As sitemistic pointed out, let's not let this thread degenerate into one of FM's 'Canon's Da Best & you were an id*iot to buy anything else' threads.
Now how bouts the M8?
gavinlg
Veteran
trev2401 said:
I think that whole comment was a bit out of line. I never slagged the m8, in fact I said that I want one. I also said that the images it produces seem to have a magical "sparkle" to them. I'm not a canon fan-boy - far from it. I use an Olympus OM2 and nikon F3 for film SLRs and I've had numerous leica/japanese rangefinders. The original post in the thread was a comparison with the m8 vs a 1dsmk2. My comment was relevant in that I was stating that FOR ME (personal opinion warning - if you're too proud of your $5000 leica to hear it can be beaten in some areas, go suck a leica lemon), the canon DSLR is a better compromise of overall usefulness due its excellent reliability and consistency. Not just Canon DSLRs either, the Nikons are excellent - especially the new D3 and even the new olympus e-3 which is highly sealed against the elements.
As I said in my first post, the slight image advantage at low isos the m8 may have over a D3, E-3, 5d or a 1d can be overlooked by the fact that the DSLRs are just more versatile and (IMO) more reliable in trying conditions.
The other point I just thought of is that the m8 isn't so great over 1250iso - All the above mentioned DSLRs are excellent up to 3200. If you want to argue that high ISO performance isn't important, I'll post up a portrait taken for the local top newspaper of a guy that owns the only still running silent theatre in the world, @ iso 3200.
All of this is relevant, because the original poster was comparing a canon DSLR and a leica m8. I am too, just put into context of my professional usage of the gear.
kevin m
Veteran
The M8 owners who've responded in this thread sure don't seem to listen very well. No one here is a 'Canon fanboy' or any other sort of gibberish. I shot with Leicas; I even made money with them, which, I'd wager, is more than the most Leica owners can say. I love using them, too, but I'm not so blinded by brand loyalty that I can't make a simple, technically accurate observation, viz, Canon makes a better sensor for high iso use.
You're not alone. Many M8 owners seem equally agoraphobic. But there is a sanctuary on the world wide web where you won't have to rub shoulders with the hoi polloi: http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/
gavinlg
Veteran
infocusf8@earthlink. said:
CCD vs CMOS....
All I can say is that now nikon are using CMOS, Canon are using CMOS, Sony are using CMOS, Panasonic are using CMOS, Olympus are using CMOS.
In the old days of digital cameras, it was thought that CMOS was an inferior chip, but now I think in terms of overall versatility, efficiency and image quality, the CMOS is ahead of the CCD. Try doing a 30 second exposure with a CCD nikon and then comparing it to a CMOS canon, both at low iso. Compare the Canon 30d to the Nikon d200 at high ISO. Theres no comparison - the CMOS sensor does better at those 2 things. Quite a bit better. This is the reason nikon is now using CMOS. If you check the d3 samples posted all over the net, there is no lack of sharpness there at all.
"Leica's design criteria for Kodak was to design a sensor that did not compromise the sharpness of the Leica lenses and did not require processing to make the image sharp, they are successful in that respect. Canon (and other's) on the other hand relies heavily on their Digic processor to clean up the image that comes off the CMOS sensors they use which inherently produce a softer image than a CCD."
- Wrong. The m8 produces a sharper file than the CMOS DSLRs because it has a very very weak Anti Aliasing filter in front of the sensor. Not because of the CMOS vs CCD thing. They designed it this way to get maximum sharpness at the expense of more moire and also IR penetration - if you haven't already noticed most people with m8s that use them for color work also use IR filters on the front of the lenses.
Also, if shooting RAW (which you should be if you're shooting digital seriously), the picture is not processed whatsoever within the camera. It is, in effect, the RAW data output by the sensor. The Digic processors in the canon have very little to do with processing in RAW output, more the speed and efficiency at which it's done.
Peter55
Leica M5 & Summilux User
I don't like Fighting all the time
I don't like Fighting all the time
I have the 1Ds Mark II. I used my friends Epson RD-1 and my Leitz 50mm f/1.4 Summilux first version and I had a hard time seeing which produced the better landscape image.
So they are close enough.
I use my M5 with my 50 Lux all the time and scan the neg's.
I use Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Riccoh and Leica 35mm systems and I like them all.
I have just purchased but not yet recieved an HP DesignJet 130 24" x 36"
6 color dye printer and so soon I will be printing my landscapes the same size as I paint my oil paintings of landscapes. I'm thinking all my dslr's will be able to print this big. I know my 1Ds Mark II will and I am hoping my Leica M5 with 50 Summilux will too!
Cheers to all you fighting Ninja's! I'm a lover not a fighter!!
I don't like Fighting all the time
I have the 1Ds Mark II. I used my friends Epson RD-1 and my Leitz 50mm f/1.4 Summilux first version and I had a hard time seeing which produced the better landscape image.
So they are close enough.
I use my M5 with my 50 Lux all the time and scan the neg's.
I use Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Riccoh and Leica 35mm systems and I like them all.
I have just purchased but not yet recieved an HP DesignJet 130 24" x 36"
6 color dye printer and so soon I will be printing my landscapes the same size as I paint my oil paintings of landscapes. I'm thinking all my dslr's will be able to print this big. I know my 1Ds Mark II will and I am hoping my Leica M5 with 50 Summilux will too!
Cheers to all you fighting Ninja's! I'm a lover not a fighter!!
Gid
Well-known
kevin m said:
I am an M8 owner, amongst other cameras. Please don't include me in your "don't listen very well" comment. I've been as harsh a critic of Leica and the M8 as any non M8 user. These sort of generalisations are not much more than trolling. If you don't own one or have shot extensively with one, then perhaps you should limit your comments. The same applies to any camera that any one of us has not used.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
As opposed to this forum?cmogi10 said:
(or any other internet forum for that matter...)Just fyi, the poster of the thread quoted is a (if not the) printing guru of this world....
Prosaic
Well-known
Batman is nice you know. But I think Superman can kick his ass because he has x-ray vision. I´m not a Superman-Fan-Boy either. But Superman has a lot more Superpowers than Batman. Just look at the facts.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Err... the M8 using a sensor without AA filter requires far less "sharpening" if any (which is not sharpening but edge contrast enhancing btw) than sensors with such a filter. That is not unlogical, given that an AA filter is basically a piece of matte glass in front of the sensor. The sensor behind it would probably needs as little sharpening as the Kodak sensor, developed not just for the M8 but for digital backs as well.sitemistic said:
gavinlg
Veteran
forum
noun
1. a public meeting or assembly for open discussion
2. a public facility to meet for open discussion
I just love it when people take a perfectly normal thread discussing the virtues and impressions of this and that, and make it into a sarcasm elitism 'fest, because they can't handle the topic at hand.
Chewbacca - would you mind sharing some pictures from the shoot with us from the m8 or the 1ds or both?
gavinlg
Veteran
jaapv said:
True. The m8 files are naturally sharper due to the much weaker/thinner AA filter in front of the kodak sensor. It's also the reason from magenta looking blacks in color.
Rico
Well-known
If Canon offered a digital RF, would they use a chrome finish? If Leica offered a FF sensor, would the camera break your shoulder? Enquiring minds want to know!
Last edited:
Paul Kay
Member
kevin m said:Really? An M8 with a Summicron 28 mounted is much smaller and lighter than a Canon 40D with a 28/1.8 mounted? And the Canon is slower than the Leica when both are in Manual mode? Really?
Hmmmmmm! I actually sold a 20D when I bought the M8. I'd tried it with Canon's 20/2.8, 35/2 and 60/2.8 micro - a far bulkier and somewhat heavier outfit altogether than the equivalent M which didn't fit in as small a case! The 20 and 35 lenses could be described as 'adequate' no more (probably less in the 20s case) and no amount of PS will an adequate lens into a superb lens. I also have a 35/1.4L - an excellent though not perfect lens) but its very much heavier. The EFS60 micro is a cracker (or the 2 copies I have certainly are) even at infinity. So I'm not biased in favour of ALL Leica lenses (and I use 1D Canon's series most of the time). But I'd say (a personal opinion) that a dSLR is still far more obtrusive in many situations than an M rangefinder. Speed of use depend on many factors but a largely preset Leica M is pretty fast to use.
I won't post again on this (clearly emotive) topic but I will say that to date the M8 has yielded images in the way that I wanted it to with the minimum of fuss and least time spent in PS - I'm a photographer and accept but begrudge time spent dealing with image files as I sometimes spend 8+ hours a day using PS, and that is way more than enough already.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
fdigital said:
Let's be pedantic. The lack of an AA filter can cause moire, which can be removed in software. The lack of an IR cut filter causes magenta shift, which needs an IR cut filter infront of the lens. Both decisions are tradeoff to exceptional image quality, beyond the specifications of comparable sensor.