M8 and Eos 1Ds Mk II

[chuckcars]

emraphoto, you have spoken well, knowledge and experience. Best post yet on a thread that is going nowhere. Thanks,

 

[emraphoto]

"if it works for you, keep shootin', man"

now that was spoken well

 

[dacaccia]

emraphoto, not often do I read words like yours - words of someone who really goes out and photograph. Thanks for that.
Let me add: My husband was a photographer. He went out every day with his M3, M6 and 6x6. He never had had any problem (apart from a problem with M6 and one lens just after buy - the lens was replaced, the body was repaired on guarantee).

So did my M6 till now (I am amateur, though) - and the M8 of my partner. And so will do my Epson, I am sure - without special care and photo bag etc.

Cheers,
dacaccia

 

[HAnkg]

No disrespect to anyone, but I shoot a lot of architecture and interiors. When blown up to a small billboard, quality matter a LOT to me.

I just wanted to add one more comment about this remark beacuse it is indicative of a problem that seems widespread. With the advent of digital and the internet everyone is comparing the 'quality' of different cameras without regard for there intended use.

When before digital would architectural photography and a Leica be mentioned in the same sentence? It would be like commenting "man I tried using that 4x5 Sinar P view camera with the f/5.6 max aperture lens mounted to take some hand held available light shots and it sucked.

In the rush to compare pixel to pixel IQ people forget that different cameras were optimized for different tasks. I am afraid that Leica in the quest for ultimate IQ to satisfy the internet test target photo club may wind up screwing up the M as the ultimate street camera. Already some are abandoning the M8 for small sensor cameras like the GRD because they feel it's closer to the experience of a film M loaded with TriX.

Rangefinder 35, Autofocus SLR's, Medium format and view cameras all were designed with different tasks in mind and so made different compromises and chose different priorities - if IQ was the only determining factor everyone would have shot 8x10. If Leica asked me what would you rather see in the M9? better IQ then a MF digital back or a quieter, smaller, better handling camera with no improvement in IQ I know what I'd choose. Now if it was an MF camera that I was going to use for product shots I'd choose the opposite. If I was shooting architecture I'd be more worried about the availability of swing tilt lenses.

Everyone obsesses about MP and feature lists but you hear very little about how the camera handles when being used to do the things it was designed to do. Shutter feel, grip, ergonomics, etc., For the things the M has been used for the IQ of the M8 provides no impediments to photographers compared to film. There Leica has cleared the bar -it's other areas where it has not quite made the grade that need attention.

 

[emraphoto]

i'm not sure why exactly ANY of this needs to be quantified.
i have one, i like it. i didn't spend your money, i spent mine.
if the 5d, d3, d40, d whatever takes a better picture of a newspaper hanging from a wall blown up to "billboard size" viewed through a magnifying glass then righteous! buy one!
i don't blow up images to billboard size, i don't view them through a loupe for hours on end. i OWN an m8 and i certainly don't feel i've recieved "less for my money" so i reckon leica doesn't need to sweat it.
lets be perfectly clear here... i don't care a lick if my camera has the BEST image quality, i don't care a lick if i can make bigger enlargements than the photog next door, i don't care a lick if my camera's wb isn't as good as the d600000. i care about the content of the image i take over anything else and the joy i recieve taking said image.
end of my side of the story

 

[gavinlg]

i'm not sure why exactly ANY of this needs to be quantified.
i have one, i like it. i didn't spend your money, i spent mine.
if the 5d, d3, d40, d whatever takes a better picture of a newspaper hanging from a wall blown up to "billboard size" viewed through a magnifying glass then righteous! buy one!
i don't blow up images to billboard size, i don't view them through a loupe for hours on end. i OWN an m8 and i certainly don't feel i've recieved "less for my money" so i reckon leica doesn't need to sweat it.
lets be perfectly clear here... i don't care a lick if my camera has the BEST image quality, i don't care a lick if i can make bigger enlargements than the photog next door, i don't care a lick if my camera's wb isn't as good as the d600000. i care about the content of the image i take over anything else and the joy i recieve taking said image.
end of my side of the story

I agree with what you just said. The flipside is, I do have to make massive billboard prints. So it's sort of important to me. I've said a thousand times in this forum - I don't shoot digital for personal use. I shoot film because to me it's a more emotional and tactile experience, and I very much enjoy the process and the results. I love rangefinders for the aforementioned comments, usability, intuitiveness, simplicity etc etc. I shoot with them daily. In fact everywhere I go with me I either carry a rangefinder or my OM2n. Every day. every week. been like that for a few years now (I'm only 20). I really couldn't give a **** how a digital or a film camera compares to another when shooting newpaper or a test chart, I've never done such a thing in my life and never will.

HOWEVER
I make 100% of my living off my cameras, and I sure as hell couldn't compete in the industry with my om2n/f3hp/leica M/hexar RF or zeiss ikon (no I don't own all those cameras) I don't think I could compete with what I do at the moment with an m8, even though I would LOVE to have one (besides it's obvious - wether you like it not - flaws). The original poster posted a test based on professional comparison in a studio environment - a direct comparison between a canon 1d and an M8, if you don't like to compare cameras in real life shots, you're a hypocritical sour person, who obviously doesn't like photography. If you don't like the first post, with the comparisons in it, dont post in this thread. Simple as that. I like cameras, I like photography. No matter what the hypocrites say, we all compare cameras with another. Doesn't matter if its a rangefinder and an SLR, a point and shoot and a medium format, or a godamn camera obscura with a nokia cell phone. Theres a reason why you would all say that a hassleblad 6x6 with zeiss glass betters a 1970s holga camera in every respect with image quality, and thats because you've made the basic comparison at some point and come to the conclusion that the above is the outcome.

The thing is, it's my money that I spend on the cameras too, and I'll compare however the damn hell I want - I've made many many many suggestions in this thread that I appreciate the guys using the m8 for good work, and I've even congratulated some people on how bloody fantastic their results are with the m8. I've also said I want an m8. Can I afford it? no. If I could afford the m8, could I afford leica glass to do it justice? No. Sure voigtlander/cosina may make good stuff in terms of easy light work, but what happens when I get caught in a high humidity thunderstorm or when i have no choice but to shoot into the sun with the camera getting a political episode in the city? I'll tell you what would happen - those great cosina lenses would flare worse than john travoltas pants, and possibly some of the leica lenses too - especially the ones within most mortals price range - the older ones. My 17-40L WILL NOT flare when pointed into the sun. It may not be as sharp or have sparkle like a leica 28 elmarit or a cosina 28 1.9 ultron, but I guarantee it will serve me no worries without an unexpected hitch for the next few years. It's in my best interest to know this, so I will compare my lenses with another and find out the flaws and weaknesses of each.

Overall, I never said (i'm pretty sure at least) in this thread that the 5d or canon DSLR is a better camera than the m8. Yes, it's better for the price. No doubt about that in my mind. Yes, the canon L lenses are better for the PRICE, same with the high end nikkors. I mainly said it's better for me. Jaap showed fine examples of how the m8 works bloody well for him a few pages back, and I have said in one of my posts that yes, that camera seems to be working really well for him.

If some of you people can't get over your elite leica attitude you shouldn't be posting in a thread comparing it to a DSLR for professional, modern work because even though they can be and are being used by people for that reason, the number of pros using a DSLR for the reasons outlined in this thread by me and few other people far outnumber them. For a reason.
Love the M8, love peoples work with it.
Use my 5d and 1d because they get me bread on the table week after week without a hiccup. They're bricks without emotional tactile attachments like a leica, but christ they work, and they work BLOODY well.

End of story.

 

[emraphoto]

"If some of you people can't get over your elite leica"???
if you scroll back through some of the recent posting you will see what it was i was talking about. i'm tired of defending the "leica snob" thing... no one... NO ONE has been remotely "leica snobby" throughout this thread. all i have said is "i'm not a FOOL because i bought a camera that cost $5000". i like it, it produces GREAT FILES! the rest is academic to me.

"if you don't like to compare cameras in real life shots, you're a hypocritical sour person, who obviously doesn't like photography"
i was going to insist you explain this one to me but i am not getting sucked further into this ridiculous thread. i take my leave as of the your attac... sorry post.

sitemtstic... i enjoy discussion, i enjoy our exchanges.... please do't think anything otherwise.

 

[gavinlg]

"If some of you people can't get over your elite leica"???
if you scroll back through some of the recent posting you will see what it was i was talking about. i'm tired of defending the "leica snob" thing... no one... NO ONE has been remotely "leica snobby" throughout this thread. all i have said is "i'm not a FOOL because i bought a camera that cost $5000". i like it, it produces GREAT FILES! the rest is academic to me.

"if you don't like to compare cameras in real life shots, you're a hypocritical sour person, who obviously doesn't like photography"
i was going to insist you explain this one to me but i am not getting sucked further into this ridiculous thread. i take my leave as of the your attac... sorry post.

sitemtstic... i enjoy discussion, i enjoy our exchanges.... please do't think anything otherwise.

Not a personal attack - you've made good points. I know there are people that shoot newspapers for test charts to see how good there lenses are, and I'm really... really... really not into that. The whole leica snob thing wasn't so much as aimed at you, there were comments earlier about all canon DSLR shooters being the same - directed at me.

To explain the camera/lens comparison thing further, NOBODY goes out and buys a us$5000 camera without first comparing it to the competition to see which suits you better. if you do that, you have far too much money and should definitely shout me one. You can't tell me you don't know, even in the back of your head where each of your cameras (if digital) and/or lenses rank in terms of image quality, what their flaws are and what their strengths are.

I'll let loose with a little example story. I was paid to photograph a beautiful seaside house with a Buddhist feel to it - it was very very modern but very simplistic and traditional at the same time - had massive wide open spaces and very airy. Only thing was, it was a dusk shoot, and the house used a strange type of lighting was was very powerful, and powered down (when turned off) green! There were heaps of the little lights, and they sat flush with the ceiling, which meant they spread a very broad beam of light below them. I used to use a sigma 10-20 HSM etc etc for such shoots, which is a highly revered wide angle for crop sensors - it has little distortion (easily correctable), is as sharp or sharper than the canon equivalent and generally is quite good to use. Anyway, I started getting the lighting right and shooting the angles I thought showed off the qualities of the house. After a quick review on a macbook, it became clear to me that the sigma lens I was using, which did so well in newspaper tests (all over the internet) and resolution tests, was getting the most horrible and potentially reputation damaging flare I've seen in a long time from those bright down-lights. It looked like the whole image was washed out, and there were tiny speckles everywhere - all over the image - each one of them. As I opened the lens up, the veiling flare got bigger and thicker, the speckles got hazier. As I stopped the lens down, the veiling flare left but the speckles all over the image got sharper edges and more prominent. I checked that their were no filters on the lens and that I had been using the hood. Almost ready to give up (the pictures were unusable with that so called great sigma), I gave my 17-40 f4L a shot (didn't use it often for that because of the crop factor with the 30d). After trying a few different apertures for a test, I reviewed on the macbook - and my god - no flare whatsoever. No speckles, no veiling mist or fog, no internal reflections, and as I stopped it down, the lightly hazy rim around the bright down-lights turned into a beautiful symmetrical star.

The point is that if I had known that, I would have spent half the time getting the shot. If it was something like a wedding, or a photojournalism cover, and I had got a flare like that, I would not have time to review it and decide to shoot it over again.
"excuse me miss bride, please step back up to the alter and pretend to take your vows again because my lens flared from the church lights and it looks like you have a holy light shining out of where the sun dont shine."

I'm sure you understand this.

 

[jaapv]

Jaap I'm going to save this quote and post it again after you post your first M9 pics 😉

😀 😀 I've just come in from taking some photographs with my M3 and K64, Hank..

 

[HAnkg]

It's really not rocket science. The Canon 5D and 1 series, the new Nikons, Olympus E3 and the Leica M8 are all great cameras IF they fit your needs and which one you choose whether it's film or digital, 35 or MF, auto everything or all manual will depend on your particular requirements and preferences.

People who feel the need to pick a winner or claim one camera type or brand is 'best' and that there is something deficient in people who choose to shoot with Canon's or Leica's or digital or film or what ever have issues that have nothing to do with photography but might be helped by some professional therapy.

I'll say it again I've shot with Canon and Leica digital and the differences are not that significant in IQ. I have some preferences in the files that different cameras produce but I could happily work with the output of any of them. It really comes down to -do you prefer an RF finder, a weather sealed camera, autofocus or manual, etc., All of these camera's are good enough that the choices are more about price, ergonomics, shooting style, lenses available (no Tilt shift for Olympus, maybe you like Nikons wide zoom better) - everyone will have a different list of priorities - rather then IQ issues.

 

[HAnkg]

😀 😀 I've just come in from taking some photographs with my M3 and K64, Hank..

I'm jealous.