M8 - Picture IQ

B

blazeicehockey

Brand New In Box
Local time
12:53 AM
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
107
You may have been asked this question many times before but may be you can help an RF newbie out just one more time....

I love the idea of a nicely weighted compact camera that becomes more of a photographer's tool and just a photo taking machine. Although I own a couple of SLRs, I still find myself hankering back to film and to compact rangefinders. To this end I bought myself a Bessa R3A with a few lenses but, to be honest I'm having difficulty converting back to film. I'm not a darkroom person and you know the score, its becoming more of pain and a risk to have your films processed and scanned by someon else.
So...my attention turned to the M8. Now this will be a little bit of an investment for me if I go down this route, so before I do can I ask a couple of quick questions?

- Can you really see the difference in pictures taken with a M8 with Leica,Zeiss or Voigtlander glass compared to SLR alternatives?

- Are pictures any sharper or is it purely a size, more availability of lenses with lower f-stops and shooting style preference that a photographer would benefit from?

- What are the benefits of an M8 over say a comparable camera (sizewise) like an Olympus e-420 with an OM 50 f1.4 or similiar MF lens?

Thanks in anticipation.

Darrin
 
The files from the M8 are a match for most DSLR's out there but will lose out against a few of them at higher ISO's by producing more noise in the images. That said ... if you want a digital rangefinder as Leicasniper pointed out it's the only game in town for new choice! :)
 
Since you own both SLRs and RF, but seem to be leaning to RF, buy an M8 or a used R-D1s (very hard to find). IMO, the R-D1s image is not as good as the M8, but the handling characteristics of the Epson are much better in some areas than the M8. But image quality on the M8 - again IMO - is superior, noticeably so.

I also own a Canon EOS system (1DsmkII - full frame sensor, 20.9 mg raw files) and the image quality is better than the M8, but not by much.

I much prefer using the M8 for most of my photography these days and not only because of the compact, high quality camera, but because I "take different photos" with the rangefinder. And I think with the RF I "see" better and am more creative with it. I am not sure why, but that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

O.C.
 
Thanks to all above . Do you not believe the Leica has its own unique IQ, such as reported for the Sigma SD-14, Fuji S5pro and Oly E-1?
 
lets be honest, and I hate to say this, but as far as image quality is concerned every single digital camera is about equal. The only variable is what glass is being used...I tend to think from my experience with leica glass, canon L glass, minolta G lenses(believe it or not I still have a maxxum 7d clicking away) and some hassy lenses for my hassy digi....glass is really what makes the difference but only so far as microcontrast and distortion. Sharpness is something that is pretty much irrelevant with current glass because I can take a shot with any of my lenses run them through some post processing and they'll all come out with the same sharpness.
I do find that the m8 produces images that have much better dynamic range than my other cameras (which again, if it's a still image is meaningless since all I have to do is bracket and run it through photoshops HDR engine.)
Really it only comes down to the feel of the camera in your hands. I've never been able to get my goofy hands comfy on a nikon (D)SLR and due to that, regardless of the D3's high ISO capabilities, I simply don't use them.
If it feels good in your hands, buy it and use it.
The only real deciding factor I find myself indulging in lately is battery performance...while the m8's battery is kind of weak in comparison to other cameras...I came to the realization that it's only 1/2 the size....and 2 m8 batteries is on par with the rest of the pack.
good luck.
 
victoriapio said:
Since you own both SLRs and RF, but seem to be leaning to RF, buy an M8 or a used R-D1s (very hard to find). IMO, the R-D1s image is not as good as the M8, but the handling characteristics of the Epson are much better in some areas than the M8. But image quality on the M8 - again IMO - is superior, noticeably so.

I also own a Canon EOS system (1DsmkII - full frame sensor, 20.9 mg raw files) and the image quality is better than the M8, but not by much.

I much prefer using the M8 for most of my photography these days and not only because of the compact, high quality camera, but because I "take different photos" with the rangefinder. And I think with the RF I "see" better and am more creative with it. I am not sure why, but that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

O.C.
Click to expand...

Interesting, I have never seen a full size comparison of a M8 file with a RD1 one with the same lens and same subject. Does anybody have done the test and would be willing to post or email ?
I am still thinking about getting the M8, but need a substantial IQ difference with the RD1 to justify the purchase.
 
Test drive.

Test drive.

I think the Leica dealers are still offering a test drive, take one and decide for yourself. The M8 ain't everybody's cup of tea. Every well intention comment you read about how good or bad the M8 is, will all ways be subjective. Bill
 
yanidel said:
Interesting, I have never seen a full size comparison of a M8 file with a RD1 one with the same lens and same subject. Does anybody have done the test and would be willing to post or email ?
I am still thinking about getting the M8, but need a substantial IQ difference with the RD1 to justify the purchase.
Click to expand...


Dave and I shot a Toronto festival last week; I posted my (RD1) shots on the RD1 forum, and Dave used his M8. I assume he will be posting soon and then you can compare. We both used his LUX 75 so hopefully this will help.

In lower ISOs, RAW the M8 will have better IQ than the RD1, but from what I peeked at, the RD1 may have the edge higher up. But whether or not the difference is substantial enough to justify the price only you can answer that.

I also have DSLRs, a 1DsmkI and a 5D and even though pixel-for-pixel the DSLRs have more info than the RD1, as a whole image, the RD1 shots seem "alive" compared to the others.

cheers, George.
 
georgef said:
Dave and I shot a Toronto festival last week; I posted my (RD1) shots on the RD1 forum, and Dave used his M8. I assume he will be posting soon and then you can compare. We both used his LUX 75 so hopefully this will help.

In lower ISOs, RAW the M8 will have better IQ than the RD1, but from what I peeked at, the RD1 may have the edge higher up. But whether or not the difference is substantial enough to justify the price only you can answer that.

I also have DSLRs, a 1DsmkI and a 5D and even though pixel-for-pixel the DSLRs have more info than the RD1, as a whole image, the RD1 shots seem "alive" compared to the others.

cheers, George.
Click to expand...

georgef makes two good points I agree with: I owned a R-D1s before the M8 and agree that at high ISO the image quality is cleaner than the M8. I agree too that since the M8 and the R-D1s do not have the moire filter, the images are different than those of DSLRs. "Alive" is as good a word for the difference as any.

O.C.
 
Yes, the R-D1 and all DSLRs have AA filters of varying 'strength' to avoid moire.

I say buy an R-D1 for now and see how you like it. I think they go for less than 1,500 used, which is well below 1/2 of a used M8 ($3600+). If you end up liking the idea of a digital RF but wanting a larger sensor or longer base length or whatever, you can probably sell the R-D1 for %95 of what you bought it for.
 
Very hard to tell... Web Jepgs can "prove" anything. From my experience RD1 is better than the prosumer Canons, less good than the M8 and newer Nikons. Basically it is just behind the Nikon D70, which uses the same sensor, but is not handicapped by the short lens register. Take your pick. I would never have chosen a Bessa over an M6, nor would I prefer a RD1 over an M8....
 
Last edited:
Sam N said:
Yes, the R-D1 and all DSLRs have AA filters of varying 'strength' to avoid moire.

I say buy an R-D1 for now and see how you like it. I think they go for less than 1,500 used, which is well below 1/2 of a used M8 ($3600+). If you end up liking the idea of a digital RF but wanting a larger sensor or longer base length or whatever, you can probably sell the R-D1 for %95 of what you bought it for.
Click to expand...

My bad gentlemen. I did not think the R-D1s had the AA filter. I'll take your word for it and stand corrected.

O.C.
 
I am using the RD1 on the RF end and the 1DsmkI on the DSLR end after selling the 5D. I dont think one can compare the RD1 to any DSLRs past the D70 given the leaps in technology, and the only reason I would compare it to the M8 is because they are the only two DRFs out there.
I think for myself, the sombiination of hi ISO IQ, size, feel and lens compatibility is what makes me grab it first, before the CANON. Thats all.
..oh yeah, and the coolest, James bond-like, early aviation-ish dial when you turn it on! he he he...ooh the joys!
 
yanidel said:
Interesting, I have never seen a full size comparison of a M8 file with a RD1 one with the same lens and same subject. Does anybody have done the test and would be willing to post or email ?
I am still thinking about getting the M8, but need a substantial IQ difference with the RD1 to justify the purchase.
Click to expand...

Yanidel, you'll find exactly what you're looking for at reidreviews.com (M8 review part 3), however it is not a free site. If you wish not to subscribe (every bit of information there is most valuable), you'll have to trust me : resolution wise, indeed the M8 is better than the R-D1, mais ce n'est pas le jour et la nuit, loin de là. And at high ISO, the old R-D1 is even a bit better or more precisely the noise pattern is less disturbing.
If your gallery here at RFF displays your main photo style, I doubt you would benefit from switching to the M8. Actually, I would rather use the M8 for landscapes (if only I had the $$$$...), and keep my R-D1 for everything else.
 
first: if you don't like RF, don't shoot the m8...if you like it, the m8 is really the only one anyway, so not too many options there...
about the file quality....i have owned canons, nikons, sigmas, kodak DSLRs and leaf and phase MF backs....none of the DSLRs give a file that has the same pixel quality as the m8 imo...the dsmkii and iii may have more pixels, but they also have more pixels then a phase P20 and i much prefer a file from that to either DSLR....
talking about image quality is a little like talking about music....you have to hear it to really get it....
i was alway very frustrated with my DSLRs because of a flat, muddy, digital look, that needed curves and sharpening to look better but still does not do it for me....i shoot studio so i don't care about high iso....
to me the one image capturing device that is comparable in file quality to the m8 is the P20...i find the files very similar...the P20 does not have the DR of the P30 or P45 but when used correctly is just amazing and the files can be blown up to just about any size....for commercial application....fine art is a different animal but i would not even look at a canon or nikon for that....
so to me the m8 is almost like a P20 but WAAAAAY more easy to handle, faster, smaller, cheaper,.....
in fact i sold my P30 and shoot m8s exclusively now....i just did not need the extra pixels....
when i got my first m8, i got all voigtlander lenses, which are great....(i think the biggest problem might be getting a good or not so good copy....i think they really vary...)..then i got a summarit (i needed a 75...) and have since sold all voigtlander (except for the 15) and got summarits....i read the reviews and everything....they way the leica lenses handle the highlight transitions and dig into the shadows is just visibly better then the good voigtlander copies....
the last camera i compared the m8 to was the D3 and i really wanted to like the D3 (all the bells and whistles and less expensive....) and even with the voigtlander lenses, the M8 won for me, clearly....again i am only looking at ultimate image quality at base iso....that is the most important factor for me....
as with all these things and like i said before, you really have to check it out for yourself....
a friend of mine picked up his loaner m8 with all 4 summarits today....he shoots canon DSLR and phase backs....can't wait to hear his experience....
 
Kawabatnam,

Actually I am a subscriber of reidreviews and read all of his article with a lot of interest. I had looked at the files comparison but tripod, studio kind of pictures are not really what I am interested in, not my style as you mentionned. Yet I followed the advice given in this thread and want to a Leica dealer to do a quick trial. I took my RD1, one SD and used a 50mm summicron that I switched between the two cameras. So here is my quick and dirty opinion based on my photographic needs and of course, taking into account that I know the RD1 inside out and not the M8. This is just a amateur photographer opinion, not any kind of a long term pro input.

My first impression is that the M8 is a beautiful crafted camera. Feels strong and, size wise, very much like the RD1. I like the speed dial, the LCD and the general look. The menus were clear and just the options that are needed to take pictures, no additional fancy items.
Yet, I won't buy it and the RD-1 remains for me clearly best digital camera for street photography, let me explain why :
- ergonomics. Sincerly, this is not even a contest. The ISO and exposure compensation are dials on the RD1, no need to look at the screen. In the streets, I adjust many times ISO and exposure compensation as in Paris (and most cities) you go from tight streets to avenues, sun to clouds, river to parks, bars to river banks. Knowing that most of your pictures are taken on the move with moving subjects, I try to never go below 1/250 or 1/125 to get good sharpness. To get that speed I need to be able to react very quickly in a given situation, especially when zone focusing, tweaking a lot aperture, ISO and exposure compensation. The RD1 dials are perfect for that, it would be a challenge on the M8 speedwise.
- 1:1 viewfinder. I felt like looking in a tunnel on the M8. I guess this is maybe because I am used to the RD1 but I feel that with 1:1 viewfinder I am more immersed in the pictures and surroundings. The camera is an extention of your field of view, not a reduction. Also, I did not like having more than one frame show up at a time in the finder. Yet, I wish there was a wider frameline on the RD1 (21 or 24 mm).
- image quality. I did expect a big wouaaa opening the M8 files but it did not happen. And here it might be my fault. My RD1 as a half case with grip and I felt I was able to control camera shake much better than with the naked M8. But even then, analyzing in details the files, I saw no evidence of a substantially better file quality on the M8. It is sharper yet the RD1 gets very close with a slight sharpening in lightroom. Also I did notice that dynamic tone range is better on the M8. But overall IMO the Summicron was the real reason for the look of the images, not the camera. At least, not on a computer screen or A4 prints.
- high ISO noise. While it can argued on the quantity of noise, but the look of 800-1600 noise is better to my taste on the RD1.
Of course, there are other pros and cons, but these are my main criterias.

So, now I can move on :D and forget on how better the M8 IQ could be compared to the RD1. It was interesting to compare the same lens on the two cameras, and this was my main learning, the M lenses explains most of IQ, not the camera.
To me, the RD1 (with its limitations) is clearly the best tool for my type of photography. I will skip on the M8 and wait for a RD2, Zeiss D or M9 that fulfill better my needs. So I am sure there will be quite some time to enjoy the RD1.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom