jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
How did my word tradeoff transmogrify into advantage ???
dacaccia
M246&X100V&GFX 50R
it's not really suitable comparing M8 to a DSLR. The - let's call it "atmosphere" - is simply different, regardless which actual or less actual DSLR you choose. Cause will probably be the different lenses of M and R (I am using Leica-R on my Canon). You will easily find out taking some street with the one and the other. With the Canon images are of really stunning quality, esp. with the Leica lenses which beat the Canon easily (I've tested), but ... the whole thing is simply different with M8.
Cheers,
dacaccia
Cheers,
dacaccia
Just to add a luddite perspective,
I am thinking of shooting Fuji slide film next year instead of negative film as it will be easier for me to scan.
Fuji vs Kodak anyone?
I am thinking of shooting Fuji slide film next year instead of negative film as it will be easier for me to scan.
Fuji vs Kodak anyone?
I agree with a lot here, mostly my thoughts though are along the lines that no digital camera is perfect, all are compromised to some degree which is the product of a still young advancing technology. I think everyone should use and enjoy the tools they have chosen, and not worry what is best, they are all flawed in some way. Film cameras evolved to the point that the lines were clear, each camera had a slot in the market, each lens had a characteristic, each kit a use for which it excelled, and they all used the same media. Digital to a certain degree will get there but the media will remain proprietary to the manufacturer because in addition to the sensor, the processor and electronics will always be unique. So it will be interesting to see this market mature. And there will always be fuel to the what is best arguments, more so I think than than when Trix is Trix in my Canon and your Nikon no matter what days.
I see some signs I like, the Canon 40D with only 10mp and the full frame Nikon D3 with only 12, is the megapixel cold war finally over? Is improvement in imaging going to win out over marketing for a little while? That same advancement has to be made by all competitors, including Leica. There will always be the RF/SLR difference, a Canon L lens vs Leica lens is an old tired discussion, they aren't changing and they are just different. The digital RF in my opinion has to keep stepping forward though to keep pace because if they don't the eventually the only reason to have an M8 will be to have a RF digital body on which to use your Lieca lenses.
Now, those Fuji mailers, I assume they return the processed slides mounted?
kevin m
Veteran
Gid, I wasn't trolling, honest, and I tried to keep my comments specific to what I'd read in this thread. I don't own the camera, but I have seen the high iso files on the web, so I am comparing apples to apples, I think, and I'm limiting my comments to that aspect of the camera.
gavinlg
Veteran
rover said:
Fuji Provia for skin tones in a colorful environment - eg travel
Fuji Astia for Pure Skin tones
Fuji Velvia 100f for flower bokeh and general high saturation shots without going too overboard
Kodak e100vs for when you want a little less real but still pleasing colours than velvia 100f, or just when you're shooting on a contrasty day (I find the velvia to block up shadows in contrast)
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
sitemistic said:
That one has been answered extensively. Not just because "they" couldn't do it technically, but because it is plain impossible on a rangefinder with current technology. Problem is, there is no prospect of a technology jump in the forseeable future that will make this a possibility, so all speculation on this point is moot. As soon as it will come to pass, you will not only see an M10, (as there are plenty of hints that the M9 will be slotted below the M8) but also a Z-I digital, as Zeiss has declared their intent.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Yes- you have seen them on the web, but you have not seen them where it counts - in print, and believe me, the on-sensor noise reduction that gives the Canon sensors their apparent high-iso performance, compares unfavourably with the noise of CCD sensors, especially the Kodak sensor in the M8 and even more with film. I am really interested to see what the new Nikons will do in this respect. They may well surpass the M8 and blow Canon out of the water - in print.kevin m said:Gid, I wasn't trolling, honest, and I tried to keep my comments specific to what I'd read in this thread. I don't own the camera, but I have seen the high iso files on the web, so I am comparing apples to apples, I think, and I'm limiting my comments to that aspect of the camera.
Digital Dude
Newbie
As an owner of the new M8, I truly appreciated your assessment and review. I was very tempted to purchase the D3 that was less expensive than the Leica although I opted for a camera that was less complicated and more fun. Obviously, I’m not a professional and I don’t view the Leica as just a piece of equipment. As a former defense worker, I do have some experience with optics and ranging systems and I’m sure this contributes to my appeal of the M8. In the end, I admire the compact design and lens quality of the M-series. Sure, I would love to see refinements in the current design since the QC of the Leica (in my opinion) is nearly the worst in the industry. For now, it’s my choice and I look forward to Leica’s future developments. Thanks again.
Regards,
Regards,
Last edited:
gavinlg
Veteran
jaapv said:
I'm sorry but this is SOLEY your opinion. I own a 5d and a 1d and have previously owned a 30d. In my uni there are people with D2xs and D200s (which I really appreciate - especially in the ergonomics area).
A the moment the 2 kings of low light noise performance are the 5d and the 1dmk3. The d3 is only just starting to filter onto the web, and from the samples I've seen, seems to beat my 5d by a little, but not a huge amount in High ISO performance.
The previous nikons, and the current d300 still do not hold a candle to the 5d in low light performance with sensor noise. I'm sorry, but when shooting a RAW file, the canon camera does NOT process the picture at all. The RAW file is just that - a RAW unprocessed image without in camera processing. Even comparing d200/300 JPEGS and M8 JPEGS with the canon files, the nikon/leica files have MUCH more noise reduction at high ISO than the 5d. The reason why the 5d and the 1dmk2/mk3 are the most used cameras for weddings by professionals is specifically because of their superior low light performance.
The m8 doesn't compare to the 5d in that respect either
Please also note that the 5d is a number of years old. It isn't the latest technology.
If you do not believe me, have a look on this page. Believe me, the prints mirror the results on screen:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2265/2062859422_0666482558_o.jpg
That result is with JPEGs, as you can see the ISO3200 5d result is basically no softer or less detailed than the iso 800 result - which is almost noiseless. Both the M8 and the D200 are both pretty unusable at that level.
Also by saying that CMOS sensors are the problem etc etc etc, you are also burning the new D3 and D300, both of which use CMOS sensors for their well documented by now noise and efficiency characteristics.
If you are going to argue this fact you are either:
a) a brand loyalist to nikon (sony - they make their sensors) /leica
b) blind
c) extremely ignorant
Last edited:
gavinlg
Veteran
Digital Dude said:
You've got an enviable position for me - I'd love to have an M8 as my daily personal camera. You couldn't get a better digital for that!
Gid
Well-known
kevin m said:Gid, I wasn't trolling, honest, and I tried to keep my comments specific to what I'd read in this thread. I don't own the camera, but I have seen the high iso files on the web, so I am comparing apples to apples, I think, and I'm limiting my comments to that aspect of the camera.
kevin,
Cool. I was a bit grumpy this morning, so apologies.
Gid
Well-known
fdigital said:
For me it would have to be Provia 400 if you were looking at just one film for all year use - it can be pushed quite hard. OT, a work colleague has just brought in a Pentax MX and a MG and a few lenses that he doesn't use anymore and told me to take them home and play with them - I guess I'll have to use up those last few rolls of Provia
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Did I present it otherwise?fdigital said:
fdigital said:
You are looking one step too far - a Cmos sensor has more native noise than a ccd, so there is on-chip circuitry that -amongst other things- reduces noise. The strong point of Canon is that they do this excellently, resulting in virtually noiseless high-iso files. The drawback is that the result looks to some viewers "digital", an esthetic assesment, which I happen to share, and so does, clearly the OP, but not his wife.
We simply do not subscribe to the mantra that smooooooth is beautiful.
fdigital said:
Which is surely solely your opinion.... See above.
fdigital said:
Do you hold this kind of pejorative opnions about everybody you disagree with? Or have you got a problem if someone argues? That is, after all, what forums are for.....Relax, mate, these are just cameras we are discussing, not some kind of religion. Have a beer.
Last edited:
iridium7777
Established
yes, although they tell you now it's more than 2 stamps, it's something like $1.35 they want.
rover said:
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
sitemistic said:
Yes - that is an oldie, the links to Erwin's site are obsolete too. Since then the M8 has come a long way.
I would like to add. These horrible "unusable" high-iso M8 shots we see on the web from time to time stem from user error. This camera is very sensitive to correct metering in high-iso situations. If the exposure is nailed just right, it is surprisingly good at low light photography, better than one would expect, with a slightly film-like noise.
Iso 2500 on the M8 (which equates to Iso 3200 on film) has about the look of Iso 800 film.
gavinlg
Veteran
jaapv said:
Look, I'm not trying to get shirty with you. I enjoy this type of discussion, and it's all in the name of the camera community discussing cameras and learning from each other right? If I came off sounding offensive I apologize, though I don't agree with you at all, and I'm trying to get my point across as well as I can. Have a look at the sample site I linked you to... it was from dpreview.com and has a noise comparison between the m8, d200 and 5d.
It is clear from viewing just that test that the d200 and the m8 are under heavy noise reduction past the point of 1250iso and are smudging detail quite badly, when as the 5d is holding it. Yes, the 5d is smooth but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's smoothing detail. It just means there is less luminance noise than the nikon and leica. Obviously as noise control gets better, the picture will have less luminance (grainy speckly) and color (red blue yellow green dots and splodges) noise while retaining micro contrast and fine detail in the subjects.
The other thing I'd love to hear your comeback to would be the whole CDD vs CMOS thing - You're saying you'd love to see how the new nikons do because you think they'll blow canon out of the water.... I've got some news if you didn't already know. THE NEW NIKONS USE CMOS SENSORS.
So how exactly do you put the two together? If the CCD is a better technology for general image quality and more specifically for noise control at high isos, why aren't nikon still using it? Why do you think they switched to the CMOS technology and suddenly all the guys are raving about their high ISO ability?
Now, as a final effort to back up what I have been saying, I'm going to post 2 examples of Canon and CMOS low light ability I took about an hour ago around my house. One is at 1600 iso in good light, and the other was me trying to push the sensor of my 5D to the absolute extreme of low light situations @ 3200 iso. Both are RAW processed in ACR with NO adjustments to ANYTHING. NO noise reduction, NO sharpening. Both shot with $90 50mm 1.8
1. ISO 1600, f2.2, 1/50th
When I pixel peep into 100%, I can (to genevieve the model and my girlfriends dismay) see the individual hairs on her upper lip, as well as the pores on her cheek and nose. No large loss of detail here....
2. ISO 3200, f1.8, 1/2 a second - handheld.
I shot this from the distant glow of a normal sized TV. The shot is not crucially sharp because it was handheld for half a second. This is the extremes of what anyone would normally be shooting. I can see decent detail in the boys hair even with the 1/2 second shutter speed. The histogram on my computer comes up as no information past about halfway - which means the shot was underexposed.
To me, this is exceptional noise control in both instances. Both have low noise, high detail, and high color/contrast. If any m8 or d200/d2x/k10d/d300/CCD lovers would like to publicly challenge me in saying that the m8 or CCD sensor in general has better high ISO noise control, I invite you to post a picture from your machine under the same sort of situations and lighting without ANY noise reduction or sharpening.
Cheers
palker
Established
So can anyone tell me how to get the Fuji film into my M8? After taking out the memory card try as i might it don't fit
Also I'm glad there is the same problem with noise as the D200 .. phew at least I'm happy in the knowledge of having two blind eyes I have real sympathy for you guys who get to see the difference. It must be frustrating.
I'm not sure what Trolling is .. I'm sure I once saw a definition but can't see it now .. but for what it is worth .. I hardly ever print .. but I do use the TV for slide shows .. (well you gotta replace the good old slide projector with something when you need to bore the neighbours)
My first digital was a 1meg P&S, after a couple of years I fimally broke cover and dumped (gave to my son) my Minolta for a D70. I was amazed and found myself 'zooming-in' for example to see the "details of the stichting round the button hole" or the "drops of pollen on a flower" .. it was only when I did my said slide show that I realised how intraverted I'd become (trying not to use swear words) because the folks were impressed by the content and not my mind blowing 6 meg pixels.
So whilst we can talk about resolution .. and it passes a few mins to read all about it .. it all comes down to the end result. What you gonna do with the said picture.
But it does matter? Unfortunatelly it does, everything has to advance, evolve and get better, even if we don't think we need it at the time.
Good luck and happy picture taking.
PS did I troll? what it Trolling?
Also I'm glad there is the same problem with noise as the D200 .. phew at least I'm happy in the knowledge of having two blind eyes
I have real sympathy for you guys who get to see the difference. It must be frustrating.I'm not sure what Trolling is .. I'm sure I once saw a definition but can't see it now .. but for what it is worth .. I hardly ever print .. but I do use the TV for slide shows .. (well you gotta replace the good old slide projector with something when you need to bore the neighbours
)My first digital was a 1meg P&S, after a couple of years I fimally broke cover and dumped (gave to my son) my Minolta for a D70. I was amazed and found myself 'zooming-in' for example to see the "details of the stichting round the button hole" or the "drops of pollen on a flower" .. it was only when I did my said slide show that I realised how intraverted I'd become (trying not to use swear words) because the folks were impressed by the content and not my mind blowing 6 meg pixels.
So whilst we can talk about resolution .. and it passes a few mins to read all about it .. it all comes down to the end result. What you gonna do with the said picture.
But it does matter? Unfortunatelly it does, everything has to advance, evolve and get better, even if we don't think we need it at the time.
Good luck and happy picture taking.
PS did I troll? what it Trolling?
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
No need to shout, Gavin. Yes I knew. Frankly I don't care two hoots about Canon or Nikon. I have my M8's and am in the process of adding a DMR. Most of my Canon stuff has been dumped over the last couple of years.
Ok. Shoot-out.
The M8 will not perform to my satisfaction at ISO 2500 (Surprise ) so I tricked it into ISO 5000 here, and that was a lot better....
A 100 % crop:
Yes, blotchy noise, but hey, ISO 5000. And still good detail, look at the loudspeaker in the monitor:
For more serious use:
ISO 1250, default setting, no noise reduction, nothing....
S
Ok. Shoot-out.
The M8 will not perform to my satisfaction at ISO 2500 (Surprise
) so I tricked it into ISO 5000 here, and that was a lot better....
A 100 % crop:
Yes, blotchy noise, but hey, ISO 5000. And still good detail, look at the loudspeaker in the monitor:
For more serious use:
ISO 1250, default setting, no noise reduction, nothing....
S
gavinlg
Veteran
Okay firstly, you're examples are much better than the plethora of (probably mostly horribly exposed and then pushed) samples on the net. The iso 5000 shot is pretty impressive, although I think lacking in detail a bit, as well as that the whole area is really well lit, being at 1/125th @ 2500 pushed to 5000. Still impressive though in comparison to what I've seen.
One thing I have to say though is that the canon 5d's iso sensitivity is actually a tad higher than what the numbers suggest - it's been proven a few times that iso 3200 is actually equal to iso 4000 in real world terms, so your iso 5000 shot is pretty comparable to my posted iso 4000 shot, considering mine was underexposed and in a very dark environment.
The second shot at 1250 is impressive in terms of a number of things, the first being sharpness which is typical m8 excellent, second being color and contrast retention which looks excellent too. I'm assuming it was taken with a summilux 75 1.4 - bokeh is beautiful.
But some things on it are a little strange. I notice banding running horizontally left from the very top of the first light into the middle of the photo, and also banding on either side of the light post running vertically parallel. Also I notice another band with a blueish tinge running vertically from the 2nd furthest lamp down the the path. I had a similar situation happening with my Epson r-d1 - vertical and horizontal lighter than the picture streaks running vertically and horizontally from light sources in high iso photos. If I'm just seeing things please forgive me, the picture is excellent and a fine advertisement for the m8 otherwise.
Could you (honestly) say that the 2 samples I posted from my 5d are plasticky and oversmoothened though?
One thing I have to say though is that the canon 5d's iso sensitivity is actually a tad higher than what the numbers suggest - it's been proven a few times that iso 3200 is actually equal to iso 4000 in real world terms, so your iso 5000 shot is pretty comparable to my posted iso 4000 shot, considering mine was underexposed and in a very dark environment.
The second shot at 1250 is impressive in terms of a number of things, the first being sharpness which is typical m8 excellent, second being color and contrast retention which looks excellent too. I'm assuming it was taken with a summilux 75 1.4 - bokeh is beautiful.
But some things on it are a little strange. I notice banding running horizontally left from the very top of the first light into the middle of the photo, and also banding on either side of the light post running vertically parallel. Also I notice another band with a blueish tinge running vertically from the 2nd furthest lamp down the the path. I had a similar situation happening with my Epson r-d1 - vertical and horizontal lighter than the picture streaks running vertically and horizontally from light sources in high iso photos. If I'm just seeing things please forgive me, the picture is excellent and a fine advertisement for the m8 otherwise.
Could you (honestly) say that the 2 samples I posted from my 5d are plasticky and oversmoothened though?