One regret

[fgianni]

I do wish somebody would actually post some evidence of this. I'm just not seeing it, even with the few raw files I've seen.

Ian

From the test I have seen the M8 can resolve significant more detail than the RD-1, on the other hand claims of prints with quality that can't be seen on screen are extremely suspicious, since the process is essentially digital, how can details be lost when shown on screen and re-appear when printed?

On screen you can magnify as much as you like, so you can see all the detail pesent on the image, just magnify by 200% and you have 4 pixels for each photosite.

No proprer comparison has yet been made, but for what I have seen so far the image quality, under good lighting conditions and with an IR filter on front, seems comparable to what you get out of a 5D. When light levels fall OTOH you seem better off even with the lowly RD-1.

 

[iml]

From the test I have seen the M8 can resolve significant more detail than the RD-1

I'm not sure about "significant", but I have no doubt it resolves a bit more detail than an R-D1, or any other 6MP sensor. But significantly more detail than a cheap 10MP DSLR body with good glass, like a 400D or the new Pentax? I wonder. And, as you suggest, better than something like a 5D with good glass? Unlikely.

I'm just suspicious of all these claims of M8 having class-leading image quality until I actually see some evidence of it. I have no problems with people buying an M8 because it has good image quality, but much bigger claims have been made for it, especially on LUG.

Ian

 

[RML]

Hopefully, your RD1 will last long enough for the price of a used M8 to fall to what you initially paid for your RD1.

By the time the M9 comes out, perhaps....

 

[Ben Z]

what I have seen so far the image quality, under good lighting conditions and with an IR filter on front, seems comparable to what you get out of a 5D.

Mmmm, that's not what I'd call a very strong endorsement. The 5D (after rebate) costs less than half of the M8 and no further expense on filters is needed. The RD-1 is a different beast, lots of reported problems and iffy service support, and a 6MP sensor that dates back to the Nikon D100, and taken from that view even $1400 for a refurb seems like too much. But taken in view of $4800 for an M8 and $100+ for each IR filter (past the 2 freebees) plus $125 for coding each wideangle lens (if you don't want to fiddle in software), an RD-1 refurb looks like a runaway steal. If it concks out after the 1-yr warranty is up, if you've shot $1400-worth of film/developing you're home free, and I bet an M8 depreciates a lot more than $1400 in the first year. More if there's an M9 on the horizon. A very little uprezzing and the RD-1 shots look very nice at 11x14.

 

[georgl]

Of course there isn't the "perfect camera" for everybody. Right now you can get the RD-1 quite cheap and not everybody wants to pay 4200€ for a camera - it depends on your expectations, otherwise, everybody of us would need an 30t€-combo Alpa+39MPixel-back ;-).
The M8 has great per-pixel-quality, but of course not significantly above RD-1 (because this camera is quite good in that respect - just like a Nikon D70 with excellent lenses) that still means that you have about 80% more resolution with the M8.
And I have tested the M8 with the new Tri, 21-28mm with full quality over the whole frame! But this lens is too expensive for me, I will take the 24mm, = 32mm without vignetting, and the viewfinder is precise enough o use my 90AA at open aperture - what about the RD-1?

But just because you don't need higher quality than the RD-1 brings you, you shouldn't deny qualities other cameras have - at a higher price.

For me it was clear that the quality of the DMR was necessary to switch from Velvia/Provia to the digital world. But it was so heavy, I mostly used the M-system so the DMR was nothing for me. But they said they would come up with a digital M - so I had two years thinking about it and saving money Then came the RD-1, I've handled it and it was fun to make digital files with M-lenses. But ~40mm as WA? Files that don't surpass Velvia-quality (scanned with Imacon) and all of this put into a Cosina (I have paid 5times more to get a Leica MP - because the Cosinas didn't meet my expectations) and sold by Epson (the company where I had bad experiences with)? And for 3000€? No way, not for my way of taking pictures.
Over one month ago I got my M8 - and I'm really happy. The banding problem was really not necessary - but they handle it.
The IR-problem cannot be handled at this time, so the only solution are IR-filters (like with many professional cameras before it) - I can live with that, even when I rather wouldn't use filters of course.
Of course you need these filters with the RD-1 too, but when you don't use them, it clearly shows that your photoraphic "style" just needs a special profile, just like the M8 - you only need the filters in very critical situations.

I can't show you the file-quality on the net with small jpgs - but here is one picture I've processed in C1 (50sharpening), no filters, nothing! People said that banding makes the camera unusable...
I've bought a Canon Pro9000 and printed those files on DINA3+ (enlarged with Alienskin BlowUp) and the quality is simply stunning! And the lenses are free from (visible) optical imperfections - they shine with the M8. As I already said, when this quality isn't enough for you, you won't be happy with Leica-lenses + 1DsMarkII or 5D (except for noise >800ASA) either, you would need a MF-back!

 

[iml]

Of course you need these filters with the RD-1 too

Another internet myth is in the process of being born. In all the hundreds of colour pictures I've taken with my R-D1s, maybe 2 have a very faint magenta cast. The Epson appears to be very slightly more IR sensitive than some more mainstream cameras, but no more than that. IR filters are certainly not *needed* with it.

I'm still waiting to see some pictures taken with an M8 which make me think, wow, what truly amazing pictures. No doubt it can produce high quality images, but class leading? The jury's still out.

Ian

 

[georgl]

"Another internet myth is in the process of being born"
It's the same with the M8. With correct profiles, it won't bother you at all. But people who take certain kinds of pictures (e.g. wedding) and need perfect rendition of black textiles need an IR-filter, with the M8, RD-1 and other cameras.

I'm sorry for the not-so-great-pictures, I think Guy Mancuso and other professional photographers with the M8 will come up (or already did) with much better pictures.
"Truly amazing pictures" Hmm, that also depends on your expectations. Of course the M8 isn't the end of technological evolution (color interpolation, small sensor) but it brings you great image quality TODAY and in the small body with the legendary capabilities and qualities of traditional Leica M (except for the shutter sound ;-). "The jury's still out" - not for those who already handled both systems (high-end-Nikon/Canon vs. M8/DMR) and used it extensively - but you can't judge about this in the internet.
Others can't use DMR/M8 because it's too slow for them - they still go with C/N, others just want to start digital photography with their rangefinder - the RD-1 is an interesting camera and now reasonably priced. But the M8 is absolutely unique among digital cameras.

This is the print I've made in DINA3+. What you can see here is the missing AA-filter (highest amount of detail with pixel-razorsharp edges and slight moire-like effects)

 

[iml]

"Another internet myth is in the process of being born"
It's the same with the M8. With correct profiles, it won't bother you at all. But people who take certain kinds of pictures (e.g. wedding) and need perfect rendition of black textiles need an IR-filter, with the M8, RD-1 and other cameras.

It took about a day of the first M8's being shipped for the problem to be noticed in a large number of pictures, which was the first sign that the M8's IR contamination is many orders of magnitude greater than average. Under virtually every circumstance I have shot colour with my R-D1s, it produces black blacks, there is no magenta casting, but this is simply not true of the M8. People can repeat it all they like, but it's not true that the Epson *requires* IR filters to achieve good colour fidelity in virtually all circumstances in the same way the M8 *requires* IR filters. It's a myth. The Epson is marginally more sensitive to IR than the average digital camera, the M8 is significantly more sensitive. Therein lies a big difference, and the need for filters on the M8.

I'm sorry for the not-so-great-pictures, I think Guy Mancuso and other professional photographers with the M8 will come up (or already did) with much better pictures.
"Truly amazing pictures" Hmm, that also depends on your expectations.

Some people are claiming truly exceptional, world-beating, up there with medium format, top-of-the-range image quality for the M8. My expectation is no more than for some concrete demonstration of that claim. There's none available as of yet, and I've been looking hard for it (not just on the net, btw, I've been looking at a few M8 raw files too). Sure, it can produce good or even very good pictures, but so can any 6-10MP digital camera with good glass and a good photographer. Perhaps you're right that it's better than, say, a Canon 400D with a good L lens on it, but I don't think anyone has yet tested that assertion properly with some comparative tests. Until they do, I remain to be convinced.

Ian

 

[J. Borger]

Ian,

If you think pictures from the Canon 400D are as good as those from the 1Ds II..... you are rigt the 400D almost equals the M8!

 

[iml]

A 400D with a top piece of L glass on it will produce exceptional results, of that I have no doubt. The 1Ds II is certainly a better camera, and is demonstrably so, and nowhere have I even faintly suggested otherwise.

I would just like to see some comparisons between the M8 and some other 10MP cameras before I accept the claims being made for it by some that it produces far and away better image quality than virtually anything else out there, close to MF allegedly. Doesn't seem like much to ask for some comparative evidence.

Ian

 

[Topdog1]

I'm just suspicious of all these claims of M8 having class-leading image quality until I actually see some evidence of it. I have no problems with people buying an M8 because it has good image quality, but much bigger claims have been made for it, especially on LUG.

Ian

If you think about this rationally instead of emotionally, there is no way the M8 can have the level of performance claimed for it without breaking the laws of physics. If film Leicas couldn't claim medium format quality, then neither will the M8 be able to do so. In the digital era, all of the parts are commodties. They are avilable to everyone. And the little elves in Solms slaving away on their software can't do any better than the minions of Japanese working in Tokyo. Software is software. No one has any secrets any more.

So chill and enjoy it for what it is: a very well built digital light box that makes very nice pictures and carries the M tradition forward into the digital age.

Regards,
Ira

 

[iml]

So chill and enjoy it for what it is

Amen to that

Ian

 

[J. Borger]

A 400D with a top piece of L glass on it will produce exceptional results, of that I have no doubt. The 1Ds II is certainly a better camera, and is demonstrably so, and nowhere have I even faintly suggested otherwise.

I would just like to see some comparisons between the M8 and some other 10MP cameras before I accept the claims being made for it by some that it produces far and away better image quality than virtually anything else out there, close to MF allegedly. Doesn't seem like much to ask for some comparative evidence.

Ian

I owned a 1Ds and about every L lens in the Canon line-up.
I dumped the whole system for the R-D1 with Leica lenses ........ and think the M8 outperforms the R-D1 by miles in the resolution/ detail department.
I will not deny any 6+ mp DSLR is capable of extraordinary results ... the megapixel race is fortunately over.
Other aspects come into acount now .... no AA filter (= clean sharp files) and broader Dynamic Range for instance .....

 

[georgl]

Leica can't brake the law of physics and therefore they can't reach excellent MF-back-quality. That's what I've already said: you want more IQ than the M8 gives you? You need MF-backs!
But many people think of the Leica M8 as an overpriced 10MP-consumer-camera.
That's NOT the truth, the price difference is easily seen in digital electronics and mechanical build quality! You don't get superior overall quality with spending 800€ on a 400D!
But when you compare a new 10MP-camera under certain circumstances, with excellent lenses, you will be disappointed when comparing those pictures with those made with a 4200€-M8 or a 7300€-MarkII. Those are extreme tools, build for extreme situations, some regarding IQ (making every Detail visible, DR...) or build quality or speed. You won't get 10times higher IQ out of a 16MP-camera just because you've spend 10times more money on it...

We need to appreciate the M8-qualities, when we want to have those qualities in the future, too.

@Iml
Yes, the M8 is more IR-sensitive, but the problem and it's solution in real-world photographic situations are quite similar - the pictures made with the wrong profiles just scared people who just looked at the pictures and thought "THIS is the way the M8 renders black?" - after thousands of shots made I see it differently. You really need IR-filters in critical situations, but those are rare - as you already mentioned. When the new profiles don't help anymore, there will be visible magenta with RD-1 and some other cameras, too.

 

[iml]

Profiles cannot completely fix problems caused by IR sensitivity, although they can help remove some of the grosser colour distortions. Virtually every M8 user on the various forums now seems resigned to having to use filters all the time for exactly this reason, unless they don't care much about colour fidelity (and some don't, fair enough).

I repeat, visible magenta casting with the Epson is so rare, and so minor when it does occur, as to be more or less a non-issue. The same simply cannot be said of the M8, within a day or two of the camera being released some users were reporting significant and immediately obvious magenta casts in anything up to 50% of their images. Whether you love the M8's image quality or not, filters are not optional with this camera, I would suggest.

Ian

 

[butter71]

Another internet myth is in the process of being born. In all the hundreds of colour pictures I've taken with my R-D1s, maybe 2 have a very faint magenta cast. The Epson appears to be very slightly more IR sensitive than some more mainstream cameras, but no more than that. IR filters are certainly not *needed* with it.

IR is less of an issue on the R-D1, but it is there if you look for it. when the R-D1 first came out, we were all so busy taking pictures of measuring sticks and straight edges.

i'll continue to shoot without filters with the R-D1; with on the M8.

i'm annoyed that i have to send my M8 back and be without for 4-6 weeks. swapping those out for new cameras would have been a better PR move. the (vaporware) 30% lens discount is only useful if you were already planning to buy a lens. how about a rebate in the amount of a new M8 versus a refurb'd M8?

if the only issue was that they didn't tell us upfront that the IR sensitivity required filters, i would have been placated with the offer of free filters.

my scorecard --
-- hardware fix requires factory repair: really bad
-- firmware update needed: understandable and expected
-- filters needed: annoying to learn after the fact, but willing to accept the tradeoff.


[using AE for the before and then using the same speed (under-exposed) for the after.]