M8 realities

[Tony C.]

Is there a way you can post a 100% version of what you believe to be your technically best set of M8 shots then? I would be real interested in seeing those fine details look better that what I am getting some of the time...

I'm no pro, but I've been quite pleased with the detail whenever I've cropped. Here's a virtually untouched example (M8; 75mm 'cron; UV filter; Lightroom) from this morning.

Regards,

Tony C.

 

[mn4367]

Here is a 100% example that I think does a good job of showing the M8 details. There is some moire in the eyebrow, but it can be dealt with. Is this the extent of the problem you are dealing with, or is it deeper?





Apologies to others who have probably seen this before. It is the only good photo I have with the crop uploaded.

Which RAW converter was that?

 

[POINT OF VIEW]

Just buy it

Just buy it

So many questions for a pro? As a pro photographer you just buy the camera and right it off. If you don’t like it, sell it. Nothing lost everything gained. Bill http://www.pbase.com/leicalight/galleries

 

[StuartR]

Which RAW converter was that?

That was capture one LE. It was with an IR filter and it was firmware 1.2 I believe...perhaps 1.1. The lens was the 35/1.4 ASPH. ISO 320 (admittedly, by mistake).

 

[KM-25]

OK, I think I will have some crow for lunch...

I just shot some outdoor scenes on my backyard with the 28 cron on the M8 and the 35L on the 5D. This time, in C1, I put all the settings at zero, no sharpening, no noise reduction of any kind, nada.

Enter the crow: The M8 files out resolved the 5D files by about 2-4% and had zero noise at ISO 160. The 5D had a trace of noise, which might be attributed to using a incremental ISO. But either way, there was no noise, moire or any of that from the M8 with the settings put to zero. When I tried to apply even a setting of 1 to the noise reduction, the weave pattern started up again.

So it really boils down to the M8 needing raw conversion that is entirely different than any other camera.

So this is the way I will approach it for now, nothing but color and tone corrections, no default noise, nothing. Unfortunately that puts the moire reduction in a strange place again..

So the M8 stays for now..and no, I was not looking for a replacement for medium format...

 

[tomasis]

it might be dumb proposal but how about to try older lenses? maybe it'd encounter less "artifacts"?

I remember someone suggested lenses with lower contrast for high contrast scenes and vice versa for M8.

 

[Ben Z]

OK, I think I will have some crow for lunch...

Eating the loss on selling the M8 is a much costlier meal

This time, in C1, I put all the settings at zero, no sharpening, no noise reduction of any kind, nada....
So it really boils down to the M8 needing raw conversion that is entirely different than any other camera.

That's been my finding. I used to (still do) run all my 20D and RD1 files through Miranda sharpening plugins (and the 20D's through DxO as well), not the M8's. I haven't used noise reduction, I just try to shoot as low ISO as possible and accept the "digital grain" (I find the M8's noise less digital-looking than some) as it comes at higher oness. To put it another way, once again I approach the M8 more like 35mm film. If I really must have plastic-smooth @ ISO 800 to please someone else's taste who likes the digital look, I can always grab the 20D.

I'm probably going to get either Noise Ninja or Neat Image to salvage any shots I might have to take above ISO 100 on my D-Lux-3, so I'll give it a go on high-ISO M8 files just to see how it handles them.

 

[grduprey]

I'll wait until after the October price increase, I'll just take care to not scratch it and see if I can't eek out some of these problems. I have a really busy next couple of weeks so after that, I will post some samples. I know a lot of people are seeing some great work out of the M8....but are you seeing it at 100%? Most of what have seen is web sized stuff that does not really show me the finest of details.

I never got 100% from film either, who does? No one I know. I get far more consistant pics from my M8, than my Nikon D200, and the results are always sharper, clearer and better color saturation.

Gene

 

[jaapv]

Eating the loss on selling the M8 is a much costlier meal



That's been my finding. I used to (still do) run all my 20D and RD1 files through Miranda sharpening plugins (and the 20D's through DxO as well), not the M8's. I haven't used noise reduction, I just try to shoot as low ISO as possible and accept the "digital grain" (I find the M8's noise less digital-looking than some) as it comes at higher oness. To put it another way, once again I approach the M8 more like 35mm film. If I really must have plastic-smooth @ ISO 800 to please someone else's taste who likes the digital look, I can always grab the 20D.

I'm probably going to get either Noise Ninja or Neat Image to salvage any shots I might have to take above ISO 100 on my D-Lux-3, so I'll give it a go on high-ISO M8 files just to see how it handles them.

I gave up on Neat Image (which served me well for other digitals like the Digilux2) for the M8. I found it too destructive of fine detail. Try Noise Ninja first.

 

[jaapv]

it might be dumb proposal but how about to try older lenses? maybe it'd encounter less "artifacts"?

I remember someone suggested lenses with lower contrast for high contrast scenes and vice versa for M8.

Sean Reid suggests this as well in his 90 mm test.

 

[Ben Z]

I gave up on Neat Image (which served me well for other digitals like the Digilux2) for the M8. I found it too destructive of fine detail. Try Noise Ninja first.

Will do. I was leaning toward NN vs NI based on input from others, plus NN's website looks a lot more professional Mostly I want it for RAW from the DLUX-3, which really needs help with noise, and the in-camera JPEG processing seems a case of the cure being worse than the disease. So far I haven't felt any desire to de-noise the M8. The noise is there but it looks a lot like film grain.

 

[tomasis]

Sean Reid suggests this as well in his 90 mm test.

I thought of the same person lol


I have thought more of the problem. I did read somewhere member's post from MF forum that medium format backs which don't have AA filter at default, don't exhibit moire, jagged lines that easily since they have high mpx so they are almost invisible. It might sound as a good solution to extract files from C1 at no sharpening then upresize with a nice upresize program as Genuine Fractals then sharpen files with another program. Yeah it sounds a lot PP work hehe but I'd try this metod and see if it works. It is not enough to judge this in the monitor though, because some ugliness might be gone in prints.


Km is right, it is up on software processing otherwise MF backs could suck that badly lol

 

[mn4367]

That was capture one LE. It was with an IR filter and it was firmware 1.2 I believe...perhaps 1.1. The lens was the 35/1.4 ASPH. ISO 320 (admittedly, by mistake).

The pixel artifacts in the eybrow are perhaps symptomatic for C1. Attached are some 200% crops from an image I shot with an R-D1 (sorry, no budget for an M8). The first is developed with C1 and standard import settings. The second also comes from C1, but with sharpening and noise reduction completely off. To be continued in the next reply...

 

[mn4367]

That was capture one LE. It was with an IR filter and it was firmware 1.2 I believe...perhaps 1.1. The lens was the 35/1.4 ASPH. ISO 320 (admittedly, by mistake).

... The first one in this post was created with Lightroom 1.1 and standard import settings, the second also with noise reduction and sharpening off. You may look at them at 200% zoom to better see the difference.

 

[mn4367]

That was capture one LE. It was with an IR filter and it was firmware 1.2 I believe...perhaps 1.1. The lens was the 35/1.4 ASPH. ISO 320 (admittedly, by mistake).

Another two which IMHO show that rendering diagonals isn't done very well by C1. This all is perhaps irrelevant for the M8 since these shots have been taken with the R-D1, but I don't think that the demosaicing algorithm in C1 is different for every single camera model in C1.

I haven't tried to adjust the files to look very similar in terms of color and brightness, so the Lightroom sample looks a little dark.

 

[StuartR]

That's pretty interesting Michael. The C1 does have artifacts that Lightroom does not, but it definitely appears to have more detail and sharpness. In the second photo in particular, despite the artifacts it appears to reach deeper in the shadows (not just the brightness) and it has higher sharpness. Anyway, they are interesting results. I would be interested to see whether they are the same with the M8 files. Unfortunately, I don't have lightroom...

 

[mn4367]

Ok, now it comes to real pixel peeping. I've attached another LR example which has been slightly adjusted regarding brightness, white balance and sharpness to be more close to the C1 example. That was done very quickly, I didn't try to be absolute perfect here. In the other examples I've set every gauge to zero just to be fair. Normally I keep the default values in LR. My impression is that LR in some areas of the image seems to a be very little bit softer but my impression is that the drawing is slightly more realistic and precise. But that perhaps is more a matter of taste.

I think the example shows that LR very well is capable to reveal detail in dark shadows. Another conclusion for me is that in some cases it seems to be better to turn off default sharpening and noise reduction in C1.

Examples:
[C1 default] [C1 zeroed'] [LR adjusted]

 

[Stefan R.]

the most important thing is the feeling… working with the M8 you have the M feeling, no big black shoe box in front of your face. it is a camera you can carry with you everywhere.. I never did it with my canon 5D.

P.S. I don't care about all these technical issues: if cyan in the corners, if IR problem, if back focus ..... its the picture that counts.