John Camp
Well-known
Being banned from Fred Miranda is like being banned from Iraq.
JC
JC
Sean Reid's M8 Review
- Thread starter Gid
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 92
- Views 11K
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
rjcruz said:
Is that what you meant to say? I agree that the Luminous Landscape review didn't seem very objective, but normally that's NOT what you want in a review...
R
rjcruz
Guest
Wow, I picked the wrong topic to start posting with. I guess its leftover venting from the other site. I never said there was anything wrong with paying a subcription fee to read reviews. No different than subscribbing to a magazine. My point or should I say , my question is, was it wrong for him to be banned for plugging his site or was it wrong for him to be plugging his site without paying FM for advertising? I don't know if he paid or not and can only ssume he did not or else he would still be there. But reading other threads on this forum I am seeing the same kind of posts that most likely lead to his banning on FM.
examples:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29900
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28305
examples:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29900
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28305
S
Simon Larbalestier
Guest
🙂 that's odd - i thought this thread was about the issues Sean raised in part three of his review of the M8 not Sean himself.
BTW welcome to RFF rjcruz 🙂 you picked a hot topic to post in!
BTW welcome to RFF rjcruz 🙂 you picked a hot topic to post in!
back alley
IMAGES
rj, it's cool, no one is gunning for you.
i appreciate the info but am surprised to hear it.
sean has handled his website and talking about it here very professionally, in fact, most references to it usually come from others.
joe
i appreciate the info but am surprised to hear it.
sean has handled his website and talking about it here very professionally, in fact, most references to it usually come from others.
joe
ywenz
Veteran
Now I want an RD-1 more than ever...
Gid
Well-known
Don't shoot Sean, its all my fault 😱
Great post JLW. I have to say that I felt a certain bias coming through in Sean's review, especially part 3. However, that is always going to be difficult to avoid if you really like the camera/lens you are reviewing. That said, there's no denying that on the evidnce produced so far, the M8 will do the job very nicely, just not that much better than the RD-1, which also has the ergonomic edge 😉
Great post JLW. I have to say that I felt a certain bias coming through in Sean's review, especially part 3. However, that is always going to be difficult to avoid if you really like the camera/lens you are reviewing. That said, there's no denying that on the evidnce produced so far, the M8 will do the job very nicely, just not that much better than the RD-1, which also has the ergonomic edge 😉
S
sreidvt
Guest
JLW wrote:
"This whole mystique of the absence of an anti-aliasing filter is something that leaves me a bit dubious -- I'm sure there are situations in which it gives a better result, and I suspect that there also will be a lot of situations in which it gives a worse result. Many of the M8 sample pix in Sean's review look to me as if they're simply over-sharpened, leaving me to wonder how much of the effect is due to the absence of an AA filter and how much of it is the product either of in-camera processing or of the default settings of the Capture One software he used for all his test shots."
Hi Jim,
Over-sharpened they are not. That's actual sharpness you're seeing, not a software artifact. C1 does barely any sharpening at all at its default level and there was no other sharpening done to the files seen at 100%. There's no mystique about eliminating the AA filter, the results are very real. There are trade-offs with respect to moire but I myself am willing to make them.
"Early in the review, he....about the sharp details of an M8 picture compared to an R-D 1 picture, speculating that the lack of an AA filter has a lot to do with the Leica shot's crisp appearance."
Yes
"He demonstrates that much of the Epson picture's crispness can be restored by applying a small amount of unsharp masking -- but dismisses this as being not as good as "real" sharpness."
Not "much" but "some". One can sharpen the Epson file all kinds of ways and it still won't look like the M8 file. As you know, I have a good deal of experience with the R-D1 and its files. A sharpened soft file is not the same as a file that is sharp from the start and cannot be. Contrast and resolution are two different things. One can't create actual resolution with contrast. That doesn't mean that some won't prefer the look of the Epson. But I have to call things as I see them.
"Later on, though, when comparing the M8's high-ISO noise levels to the Epson's (the Leica's are visibly higher at ISO 1600) he notes that the Leica produces a higher pixel count, and that downsampling its images to the same dimensions as the Epson's has the effect of smoothing out its noise. His samples demonstrate this. BUT -- the reason it works is that downsampling averages -- that is, anti-aliases -- adjacent pixels!"
Jim, one has to resample in order to print files from both cameras at the same size. That's just a reality. 100% crops are fun but the print is the real test and for a print at 240 ppi, 300 ppi, etc. one must size accordingly. For any given print size, either the Leica files must be downsampled or the Epson files must be upsampled. That's just a reality of printing and I imagine you know that. I made the same point in the 5D review and resampled the 1Ds2 files there. To be accurate with respect to final printing, one should compare equally sized files.
"So... Sean's comparison photos seem to show that the Leica produces more vivid, detailed, and subtle color than the Epson. Then again, Leica has a relationship with Capture One (a limited version of their software is supplied with the M8 as its raw-conversion program) so it stands to reason they might have better calibration data for it than they do for Epson, correct?"
Actually, I myself pushed Epson to do what was needed to get C1 support and they did it. C1 is unusual in that they only support cameras that they can test first-hand in order to build color profiles. I know they did that for the Epson because I was involved in starting that process myself.
"The only way to find out for sure would be to pass the Epson files through Epson's own converter software (if they don't have a good calibration for their own camera, they have only themselves to blame!) and see if there are any differences."
C1 does better with color for the R-D1, to my eyes, than PhotoRAW. But feel free to post your own comparisons if you're interested. In order to make meaningful comparisons, one must stabilize some variables. RAW conversion is important variable to stabilize.
Look Jim, I think you realize that I have been an advocate for the excellences of the R-D1 for a long time. I'm pretty familiar with it by now. I don't think I need to summarize my R-D1 history here. It's a wonderful camera and I still love it dearly. But I can't let that bias my results. You can trust my eyes and knowledge or not but what I've written in those reviews is what I know to be true about these cameras. All of it is based on first-hand experience, reviewing prints, etc. and I would argue that it is all quite accurate. I think that I described the R-D1 fairly accurately in 2004 and I think I've described the M8 accurately in 2006. That doesn't mean that everyone will be happy with my results, but I can't worry about that aspect.
Sean
"This whole mystique of the absence of an anti-aliasing filter is something that leaves me a bit dubious -- I'm sure there are situations in which it gives a better result, and I suspect that there also will be a lot of situations in which it gives a worse result. Many of the M8 sample pix in Sean's review look to me as if they're simply over-sharpened, leaving me to wonder how much of the effect is due to the absence of an AA filter and how much of it is the product either of in-camera processing or of the default settings of the Capture One software he used for all his test shots."
Hi Jim,
Over-sharpened they are not. That's actual sharpness you're seeing, not a software artifact. C1 does barely any sharpening at all at its default level and there was no other sharpening done to the files seen at 100%. There's no mystique about eliminating the AA filter, the results are very real. There are trade-offs with respect to moire but I myself am willing to make them.
"Early in the review, he....about the sharp details of an M8 picture compared to an R-D 1 picture, speculating that the lack of an AA filter has a lot to do with the Leica shot's crisp appearance."
Yes
"He demonstrates that much of the Epson picture's crispness can be restored by applying a small amount of unsharp masking -- but dismisses this as being not as good as "real" sharpness."
Not "much" but "some". One can sharpen the Epson file all kinds of ways and it still won't look like the M8 file. As you know, I have a good deal of experience with the R-D1 and its files. A sharpened soft file is not the same as a file that is sharp from the start and cannot be. Contrast and resolution are two different things. One can't create actual resolution with contrast. That doesn't mean that some won't prefer the look of the Epson. But I have to call things as I see them.
"Later on, though, when comparing the M8's high-ISO noise levels to the Epson's (the Leica's are visibly higher at ISO 1600) he notes that the Leica produces a higher pixel count, and that downsampling its images to the same dimensions as the Epson's has the effect of smoothing out its noise. His samples demonstrate this. BUT -- the reason it works is that downsampling averages -- that is, anti-aliases -- adjacent pixels!"
Jim, one has to resample in order to print files from both cameras at the same size. That's just a reality. 100% crops are fun but the print is the real test and for a print at 240 ppi, 300 ppi, etc. one must size accordingly. For any given print size, either the Leica files must be downsampled or the Epson files must be upsampled. That's just a reality of printing and I imagine you know that. I made the same point in the 5D review and resampled the 1Ds2 files there. To be accurate with respect to final printing, one should compare equally sized files.
"So... Sean's comparison photos seem to show that the Leica produces more vivid, detailed, and subtle color than the Epson. Then again, Leica has a relationship with Capture One (a limited version of their software is supplied with the M8 as its raw-conversion program) so it stands to reason they might have better calibration data for it than they do for Epson, correct?"
Actually, I myself pushed Epson to do what was needed to get C1 support and they did it. C1 is unusual in that they only support cameras that they can test first-hand in order to build color profiles. I know they did that for the Epson because I was involved in starting that process myself.
"The only way to find out for sure would be to pass the Epson files through Epson's own converter software (if they don't have a good calibration for their own camera, they have only themselves to blame!) and see if there are any differences."
C1 does better with color for the R-D1, to my eyes, than PhotoRAW. But feel free to post your own comparisons if you're interested. In order to make meaningful comparisons, one must stabilize some variables. RAW conversion is important variable to stabilize.
Look Jim, I think you realize that I have been an advocate for the excellences of the R-D1 for a long time. I'm pretty familiar with it by now. I don't think I need to summarize my R-D1 history here. It's a wonderful camera and I still love it dearly. But I can't let that bias my results. You can trust my eyes and knowledge or not but what I've written in those reviews is what I know to be true about these cameras. All of it is based on first-hand experience, reviewing prints, etc. and I would argue that it is all quite accurate. I think that I described the R-D1 fairly accurately in 2004 and I think I've described the M8 accurately in 2006. That doesn't mean that everyone will be happy with my results, but I can't worry about that aspect.
Sean
Last edited by a moderator:
S
sreidvt
Guest
Benjamin Marks said:
Thanks Ben!
Cheers,
Sean
S
sreidvt
Guest
Simon Larby said:
Amen....the covering can be changed but the lack of weather seals was a real mistake and I told them that two years ago.
Thanks,
Sean
S
sreidvt
Guest
rjcruz said:
Nope, Fred banned me because I made a public post challenging the inconsistency in the way he applies his rules. Actually, he deleted the thread and then banned me. Others also questioned him and have been warned by PM to hush up.
"It can seem like he was only publishing with plugs to his reviews."
Nonsense. I did there what I do here, respond to questions and include a link in my signature to RR. If you pay close attention to FM, you'll see that lots of people have links to commercial sites in their sigs. although that may soon change. I may post here when I'm up to something new but there's genuine interest from many in knowing that.
I believe Fred tossed Jorge as well, want to criticize Jorge too? In any case, we're here to discuss the M8, not soap opera politics.
Sean
Last edited by a moderator:
S
sreidvt
Guest
Simon Larby said:
Thanks Simon. I'm getting very used to being trolled. His post had nothing to do with the M8 review but people with these kinds of agendas seem to be coming out of the woodwork lately. The better known RR becomes, the more I see these kinds of off-topic digs.
Cheers,
Sean
S
sreidvt
Guest
John Camp said:
LOL! I bet Jorge agrees.
Cheers,
Sean
S
sreidvt
Guest
rjcruz said:
You forgot all the posts other people have started about my reviews, even Jorge himself. I suppose we all should be banned. Are you actually here to discuss the M8 or just to troll me?
Let's see, here's one from Jorge himself, a sticky no less:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22632
I suppose he should be banned.
Then we better ban Carlos too, look at this:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18219
Get over it. One of these days again I'll be able to post here without being trolled. Why don't you give it a rest and contribute something useful and on-topic to the thread. We're talking about an M8 review here.
Can we get back to the camera review now?
Sean
Last edited by a moderator:
back alley
IMAGES
sean, time to become a site sponsor here at rff and then you can plug away without fear!
joe
joe
S
sreidvt
Guest
Gid said:
No bias at all. If anything, I had to be careful not to get too protective of the R-D1. Enthusiasm and bias are not the same thing. Note the enthusiasm in my R-D1 review as well. There's no need to be dispassionate, just fair.
Sean
R
rjcruz
Guest
Well,
What a response. My thread was never heated or insulting. Just an observation. then i get this
"Get over it. One of these days again I'll be able to post here without being trolled. Why don't you give it a rest and contribute something useful and on-topic to the thread. We're talking about an M8 review here."
Well, why don't you contribute your review without teasing and getting people to sign up to read it. That would be "Something useful" Geeeeeee talk about being arrogant.
What a response. My thread was never heated or insulting. Just an observation. then i get this
"Get over it. One of these days again I'll be able to post here without being trolled. Why don't you give it a rest and contribute something useful and on-topic to the thread. We're talking about an M8 review here."
Well, why don't you contribute your review without teasing and getting people to sign up to read it. That would be "Something useful" Geeeeeee talk about being arrogant.
S
sreidvt
Guest
back alley said:
OK, Joe. But you need to send me my birthday money first!
Cheers,
Sean
back alley
IMAGES
end it here before i do.
sean offers a service for a fee, the key word being offers.
no one is under any obligation to pay the fee but then there is no service.
very simple really.
i choose to pay the fee because i like to read reviews and i happen to think that sean's reviews are worth paying for.
but then i buy about 20 bucks worth of photo mags each month too.
joe
sean offers a service for a fee, the key word being offers.
no one is under any obligation to pay the fee but then there is no service.
very simple really.
i choose to pay the fee because i like to read reviews and i happen to think that sean's reviews are worth paying for.
but then i buy about 20 bucks worth of photo mags each month too.
joe
back alley
IMAGES
sreidvt said:
i'm sure we could work out a deal...when's your b'day?
😉
Similar threads
- Article
