Pop-photo article about M8 problems.

[Toby]

I just threw down $4800 for a 5D and 85mm 1.2L. I guess I put my money where my mouth is. I bought into the more capable camera.

I've been spending £££ on L glass and will upgrade my Eos in the new year. With the current M8 issues and the financial state of leica, the M8 may yet prove to be an orphan camera

 

[ywenz]

I've been seduced by the bokeh rendering on the 5D's full frame sensor. I'll live with the bulk and weight when I want to capture superior imagery..

 

[MarkM6]

Let's not forget that DNG is "Digital Negative", i.e., the colors are *not* suppose to be correct.

 

[Nachkebia]

Congrats ywenz, good stuff, if I had 4800 to spend on digital I would still buy M8 over 5D 85mm 1.2l + enother two pro canon lenses not that you asked me but anyway

 

[jlw]

If image quality is the first priority, this is the best digital bang for the $$$$.

As long as you keep in mind that image quality isn't necessarily the same thing as picture quality...

 

[Maronati]

Good choice. I have one witch I do a lot of work with, and I have to say, it is a marvel of a camera!!!
Enjoy.

 

[Grober]

Let's not forget that DNG is "Digital Negative", i.e., the colors are *not* suppose to be correct.

So why use the DNG format anyway?

In other words, what advantages does DNG have over TIF or even JPG?

-g

 

[mr roberts]

Ywenz,

Is that including the $700 in rebates?

One reputable on line seller lists the pricing as:

Canon 5d $2,749
Canon 85 1.2 $1,828

Total including shipping $4,593.95
less $700 rebated

Net Cost $3,893.95

Not nitpicking. Just checking.

I'll be after a 5D myself before the rebates expire unless something leaks about a MKII with sensor cleaning.

Bob

 

[MarkM6]

DNG and ....

DNG and ....

So why use the DNG format anyway? In other words, what advantages does DNG have over TIF or even JPG?

Grober,
I am afraid how to answer this to someone who is looking at Leica M8! Are you new to digital cameras? If so, do yourself a favor by not buying the M8 as your very first digital camera.

DNG is one of the "RAW" formats unlike TIF or JPEG. Yes; RAW as in "raw" from a digital seneor with the least amount of "compression" applied to the file. Remember that "compression" means reduction in image quality, so you want as "raw" as possible coming out of a digial camera.

Now, DNG is a RAW format introduced by Adobe and they (and many others) hope to be the "universal" RAW format because Canon's RAW is CR# and Nikon is "NEF" etc., so a lot of people hopes to have a common format. In fact, every camera model have it's own RAW format; 5D's RAW is different from 20D's RAW even though they both are Canon!

Well... that's how I understands it. You can search about DNG on the Internet and could learn a lot more.

 

[jaapv]

I just threw down $4800 for a 5D and 85mm 1.2L. I guess I put my money where my mouth is. I bought into the more capable camera.

Does that mean you'll be moving yourself to DSLReXchange?

 

[Toby]

Does that mean you'll be moving yourself to DSLReXchange?

You can't have an arguement in an empty room

 

[jaapv]

So why use the DNG format anyway?

In other words, what advantages does DNG have over TIF or even JPG?

-g

JPG is a compressed format for the final output; if used in postprocessing it leads to artifacts and posterization and it lacks flexibility.
Tiff is the format of choice to use in Photoshop as it has full picture content albeit defined by the original conversion in DNG, but the files are quite large.
DNG is the unaltered (more or less) sensoroutput. It has the most flexibility in adjusting exposure and colour balance. After converting it to Tiff these basic parameters are limited.Btw, sharpening is better not done in DNG although the converters offer this option. Best results are obtained if this is done just before JPG conversion. The amount and style needed must then be adjusted to the final medium.

 

[telenous]

As long as you keep in mind that image quality isn't necessarily the same thing as picture quality...

JLW,

That is a very interesting distinction. Perhaps you have explained it elsewhere and I missed it, so would you please elaborate? Is this in the same vein that one could say the negative to be different from the final print?

Cheers,

 

[ywenz]

Does that mean you'll be moving yourself to DSLReXchange?

I still have my M6 so I'll hang out around here and will be making a cameo in the M8 room once in a while.

 

[jaapv]

You're most welcome

 

[bunkawen14]

Leica responds the way they do in substantial measure because they have been coddled by an intellectually dishonest specialized press. We all know the usual suspects, who get the early testers and help whip up the buzz, replete with wild oohs and ahhs about the latest incarnation of perfection.

 

[DaveSee]

So why use the DNG format anyway?

In other words, what advantages does DNG have over TIF or even JPG?

The DNG file format is a RAW file, but not camera/firmware specific. As jaapv has already posted, RAW files provide more data, with less in-camera interpretation and that means more fun in post-processing.

As was also mentioned, "digital negatives" are not the image, but the source of the resulting image. A TIFF or JPEG file are images, despite that they may be tweaked in post-processing applications... as one might "solarize" a print, for example. DNG files are a derivative of the TIFF format, just as PSD files: the file format is well known, yet there are different orders of bits and their values within it.

Regarding the OP: it seems pretty likely that Leica knew, and engineered the M8 around the sensor and its IR sensitivity... and the largely mis-reported "coding" is an attempt to couple a mechanical imaging process(over 60 years old) to a digital data capture system(just a little over 20) by supplying a digital signature of the known characteristics of a lens as the data is recorded to a file, in camera.

As for the "image quality v. picture quality", the image is recorded as JPEG, picture as DNG. If you want the camera to produce the image, then use coded lenses, and an IR cut filter. If you want to produce the image... you have some "souping" to do!

It is suggested that Canon has removed this souping, producing the author's desired image straight out of the can(on).

rgds,
Dave

 

[jlw]

That is a very interesting distinction. Perhaps you have explained it elsewhere and I missed it, so would you please elaborate? Is this in the same vein that one could say the negative to be different from the final print?

it's true that the negative is different from the final print (just as the map is not the territory and the recipe is not the meal -- who wants to eat a recipe, blech! Tastes all papery!) but I was getting at something different there.

What I meant is that the technical quality of the image is often not the thing that people value most in a photo, and in many cases there is often a tradeoff between getting maximum technical quality and getting an image with greater subjective appeal.

Here is an absurdly exaggerated example to make my point clear: I'm attending tonight's football game, and it's a critical moment -- what happens next could be the winning play that decides the championship. Naturally, since the moment is so important, I want to make the highest-quality picture possible.

So as the players line up, I get out my 8x10-inch view camera and mount it on a very sturdy tripod. I carefully adjust the back movements to get the correct perspective of the goal, and the front movements to maximize sharpness according to the Scheimpflug effect. I load a sheet of very slow, fine-grained film and stop down the aperture to its optimum setting, then use my spot meter to measure the important tones of the scene and "place" them on the correct zones of the Zone System according to my pre-visualization of the final image. I carefully attach a cable release to avoid camera shake during the two-minute exposure that will be required.

At this point I notice that the game is over and everyone has gone home.

If I press the cable release now, I undoubtedly will get a very high-quality image. But the guy who had been standing next to me -- the one hand-holding the little camera with the fast film and long lens -- had gotten a better picture of the game-winning play.

The reason is that he had chosen the equipment appropriate to the situation, and I hadn't.

As I said, I deliberately chose an exaggerated situation here, but photography is full of situations in which you have to make a tradeoff between approaches that will yield a sharper, finer-grained image, and approaches that will yield a picture with more interest or emotional appeal.

That's what I meant by the difference between image quality and picture quality. A picture is a depiction, and to make a good one you have to give some thought to what you want to depict.

FWIW...

 

[jaapv]

Leica responds the way they do in substantial measure because they have been coddled by an intellectually dishonest specialized press. We all know the usual suspects, who get the early testers and help whip up the buzz, replete with wild oohs and ahhs about the latest incarnation of perfection.

Do you you have any experience with the M8, or indeed any Leica product?