M8: hits the street.... (sample pictures)

One of these days...

One of these days...

So can you tell the difference between images from Canon 5D and say 1DMkIIN? Are you 100% sure?

KM-25 said:
While I do think the look of Leica is coming through on these shots, nice tones, contrast and color, when looking at them, I still felt as though something was missing.

The peripherial bokeh or outer signature of the lenses, something I really enjoy about my Leica M optics, has been cropped out by the reduced size sensor.
Click to expand...
 
MarkM6 said:
So can you tell the difference between images from Canon 5D and say 1DMkIIN? Are you 100% sure?
Click to expand...

When I see them on screen at home, yes, but it takes a bit of looking.

When I am employing the style of shooting that I have bought the lenses for, wide open or near wide open ( Canon 24 1.4, 35 1.4 85 1.2, Leica 28 2.0, 50 1.4 ) then the difference screams out at me.

Here, it is not so obvious. If it were low light and wide open, then the loss of image quality ( peripherial bokeh ) would be glaringly apparent to me.
 
The colors look natural to me. Did you want `em to look like mini lab prints? Or maybe the garish colors in a television display.

European films give that kind of color. Extra vivid punched up reality is for American amateurs. This is supposed to be a pro product!
 
KM-25 said:
If it were low light and wide open, then the loss of image quality ( peripherial bokeh ) would be glaringly apparent to me.
Click to expand...
I've never heard this term before. What is "peripheral bokeh" and how is it different from bokeh in the center? I always thought that one of the things that make a good lens is that it doesn't behave much differently in the corners and in the center.

To me this "peripheral bokeh" somewhat suspiciously sounds like a euphemism for "lack of apparent corner sharpness" (a bit like "glow" could be interpreted as the expensive variant of "flare").

Philipp
 
rxmd said:
...To me this "peripheral bokeh" somewhat suspiciously sounds like a euphemism for "lack of apparent corner sharpness" (a bit like "glow" could be interpreted as the expensive variant of "flare")...
Click to expand...
LOL! "Classic look" means "crappy contrast," and "good for portraits" means "soft wide open." Now we've also got "high IR sensitivity" meaning "purple blacks."

I love the Leica subculture. :)

Richard
 
peripheral Bokeh

peripheral Bokeh

I've owned a 1D MarkII with a 1.3 crop for several years and have always awed at the full framed captures. What is the common knowledge? DOF is bigger with a crop factor or the same? If it is bigger, then I can agree with the comment that some peripheral bokeh is lost. But if it is the same, then the only thing you loose is the perspective that you are used to with a particular focal length.
 
I believe the DOF on a crop factor sensor is less then what is shown on a lens's zone focus scale.

BTW Nice shots J Borger- even from my laptop screen I can see this camera is capable of excellent images. However I cannot for the life of me understand how someone could determine, conclusively, the finer and ultimate potential of any camera or lens system solely based on a monitor view. So I am a little surprised by the distracters of these fine images- especially along such esoteric criteria.

Do some people just love to complain or do they feel threatened by the M8?

It seems to me Leica has given us a terrific tool and now it's our opportunity to figure out how best to use it. So why do so many see this as an opportunity to try and kill the M8? For what reason? Insecurity is my guess.
 
Last edited:
Having upgraded from a 1.6x 20D to a 1.0x 5D, I can tell you that all my Canon lenses are now showing a different(better) signature with the full frame sensor. It is a shame that these expensive Leica lenses(especially the Noc) isn't being used to its full potential. Oh well, I guess that is the limit of the current technology.
 
Sailor Ted said:
I believe the DOF on a crop factor sensor is less then what is shown on a lens's zone focus scale.

I think I would disagree with you on that. From my limited use of the smallest sensors in digi P&S cameras I think the appearent DOF is greater at any given F stop. Similar to going to larger film formats where the appearent DOF is smaller. I could be wrong though and that won't be the first time either.

I see nothing too much wrong with the example photos posted and am glad there were samples taken with the old pre asph lux. Those still appear to be different from the more modern glass even in digital use.

Bob
Click to expand...
 
Nikon Bob said:
I think I would disagree with you on that. From my limited use of the smallest sensors in digi P&S cameras I think the appearent DOF is greater at any given F stop.
Click to expand...

Terminological disclaimer: (Apparent) DOF is an illusion anyway. We've had many threads on this topic here :)

IIRC it was like this: a 50mm lens on a body with an APS (1.6x) sensor has the FOV of an 80mm lens on a 35mm body. The DOF is somewhat more than that of an an 80mm lens on a 35mm body (which is why everybody says lenses have greater DOF on smaller sensors). However, it is somewhat less than a 50mm lens on a 35mm body, which is what the scale is designed for. So the DOF is actually "somewhere in between", but because the DOF scale on the lens refers to usage on a 35mm body, the lens always delivers less DOF than what is printed on the DOF scale.

All those 12mm lenses on digital P&Ss actually deliver less DOF than a 12mm lens on 35mm film would (but way more than a 50mm lens with equivalent field of view).

It works the other way round, too. If I use my medium format portrait lens (a Sonnar 180/2.8) on a 35mm camera, I unfortunately get a lot more DOF than what's printed on the DOF scale, because the scale is designed for a 6x6 "sensor".

Philipp
 
Philipp

Thanks for the explanation, I'll get my head around it some day. Untill then I'll just use the darn things and hope for the best.

Bob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom