jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Nachkebia said:Sean lets Jaap to read reviews for free!
I wish! But, having said that, I prefer reviews I have to pay for to those that are sponsored. We only have to think back to the recent Erwin Puts debacle, which showed slightly too obviously his switch from Leica to Canon...Yes- I respect Sean for being objective and a photographer, and I don't have a problem with him wanting to feed his wife and kids from time to time. As for using this site to point to his product from time to time, well, certainly that is not something we should have an opinion on, that is between him and Jorge. For all we know, he pays Jorge thousands of dollars a post....(I don't want to start a rumour here - it seems not very likely...)
ywenz
Veteran
I know I'll be burned for saying this.. but the images from the M8 are rather pathetic. I really hoped that Leica was able to come up with some magical image processing technique to make the M8 images look film like.. but the sample images from Sean's review resemble that of poor P&S quality(The last color image especially - horrible DR). Maybe Sean simply didn't have time to process the images adequately and hence why they looked so bad. In fact, I'm betting that's what happened because I've seen more filmic images from the RD-1. The high ISO noise on the M8 is poor as expected when compared to the 5D ( but worse than my 20D even..?). Seeing how they are marketing it as an available light hand held camera, I think the M8 missed the mark.. Sigh, looks like my M6 won't be loosing that much value after all.
Granted, I didn't read thru the text carefully, but where are those wide-open shots in his review? We don't need no F/11s....
Granted, I didn't read thru the text carefully, but where are those wide-open shots in his review? We don't need no F/11s....
Last edited:
S
sreidvt
Guest
stevme said:
Thanks Steve, maybe you realize this already but much of what's going on in the thread so far is really a spill-over of bile from my doubting of Seal. It will probably be like that for a while from certain quarters and then some day, hopefully, we'll all get back to discussing photography.
As Kim said, this is not my thread. Jorge does help promote my site because he likes it and finds it valuable. I don't think it's necessary for people to attack Jaap when their real object of anger is me.
If at some point there's a new thread which is really about the M8 as described in my review, I'll be happy to contribute as I have done for the past two years (long before RR existed). If not, so be it. My reviews used to be free but there aren't enough hours in the day to do that anymore.
Cheers,
Sean
rvaubel
Well-known
jaapv said:
Jaapv
Yah, but seeing you is like pulling teeth!
Rex
devils-advocate
Member
This thread, as contrasted to sean's review, stands as further proof of the adage that 'you get what you pay for'. :bang:
Criticism of Sean's site, his commercial approach, and references to his site by others is inane. No one who is seriously interested in rangefinders, and cruises the internet for their fix, can be unaware of Sean's site. Each of us makes up our own mind as to whether we wish to lay down our dollar to peek inside the tent. If anything, Sean should be concerned about the cheapskates getting the gist of his reviews from discussions (like this one ought to be) on free sites, by people giving away his punchline -- but he isn't. He participates generously and openly in this forum, sharing his privileged insights, and has never 'plugged' his pay site as far I can remember.
While I'm on a righteous roll --- anyone who is too cheap to spend $2-3 to read a long and interesting article on a photographic subject of interest has no business being on a "LEICA M8" discussion thread. This is a frickin' $5,000 camera. Anyone who buys it, or considers buying it, without digesting every intelligent word they can find (and there are a lot of intelligent words, articulately delivered, in Sean's review) *because those words cost a couple of dollars* is either a multimillionaire or an unmitigated moron.
Most people will spend three times more in gas and vehicle costs driving to the local dealer to look at an M8 than it costs (per review) to subscribe to Sean's site. If you can't figure out the relative economies involved, you are unlikely to be possessed of the grey-matter to say much of relevance on a sophisticated topic such as the relative performance of a high-end digital camera.
If you don't like Sean's approach, empirically don't agree with his results or just don't have the money, that's cool too. But don't criticize him. Or those who like his site or chose to talk about it. There's simply no rational basis for doing so.
As for image quality, I actually agree that the screen-renditions in Sean's review were pretty 'disappointing' to the eye. But remember that processing ima ges for web display is a whole separate art (like everything in digital). Some, like Michael Reichmann, imho, are exceptionally good at it. I personally don't care for the low level of contrast and sharpening Sean applies to his web images. The need 'punch' and 'snap'. But that means very little about the actual image quality -- much less than his words on image quality.
Not knowing Sean, I suspect he is a hard-core print-man, who most cares how an image looks in his hand, and could make his images look 'better' on the web. But that is a whole other discussion.
The bottom line is that he, like almost everyone who has touched this camera, feels the magic. That is great news, and now news that is more supported by actual experience (if not the web-jpegs to totally back it up)
When the first RFFer gets his or her M8 and spends a days shooting with it, testing it, processing files and writing thousands of words about it, I look forward to reading that, too.
- N.
Criticism of Sean's site, his commercial approach, and references to his site by others is inane. No one who is seriously interested in rangefinders, and cruises the internet for their fix, can be unaware of Sean's site. Each of us makes up our own mind as to whether we wish to lay down our dollar to peek inside the tent. If anything, Sean should be concerned about the cheapskates getting the gist of his reviews from discussions (like this one ought to be) on free sites, by people giving away his punchline -- but he isn't. He participates generously and openly in this forum, sharing his privileged insights, and has never 'plugged' his pay site as far I can remember.
While I'm on a righteous roll --- anyone who is too cheap to spend $2-3 to read a long and interesting article on a photographic subject of interest has no business being on a "LEICA M8" discussion thread. This is a frickin' $5,000 camera. Anyone who buys it, or considers buying it, without digesting every intelligent word they can find (and there are a lot of intelligent words, articulately delivered, in Sean's review) *because those words cost a couple of dollars* is either a multimillionaire or an unmitigated moron.
Most people will spend three times more in gas and vehicle costs driving to the local dealer to look at an M8 than it costs (per review) to subscribe to Sean's site. If you can't figure out the relative economies involved, you are unlikely to be possessed of the grey-matter to say much of relevance on a sophisticated topic such as the relative performance of a high-end digital camera.
If you don't like Sean's approach, empirically don't agree with his results or just don't have the money, that's cool too. But don't criticize him. Or those who like his site or chose to talk about it. There's simply no rational basis for doing so.
As for image quality, I actually agree that the screen-renditions in Sean's review were pretty 'disappointing' to the eye. But remember that processing ima ges for web display is a whole separate art (like everything in digital). Some, like Michael Reichmann, imho, are exceptionally good at it. I personally don't care for the low level of contrast and sharpening Sean applies to his web images. The need 'punch' and 'snap'. But that means very little about the actual image quality -- much less than his words on image quality.
Not knowing Sean, I suspect he is a hard-core print-man, who most cares how an image looks in his hand, and could make his images look 'better' on the web. But that is a whole other discussion.
The bottom line is that he, like almost everyone who has touched this camera, feels the magic. That is great news, and now news that is more supported by actual experience (if not the web-jpegs to totally back it up)
When the first RFFer gets his or her M8 and spends a days shooting with it, testing it, processing files and writing thousands of words about it, I look forward to reading that, too.
- N.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Yeah, while obviously the M8 does a good job within its limits, it still leaves a lot to be desired.
So, anybody heard any rumors about the M9 yet?
(I know, this is both ridiculous and evil - but I got such a surprising amount of reaction to my 'cosmic rays ate my pixels' thread that I think I'll become a full-fledged rumormonger...)
So, anybody heard any rumors about the M9 yet?
(I know, this is both ridiculous and evil - but I got such a surprising amount of reaction to my 'cosmic rays ate my pixels' thread that I think I'll become a full-fledged rumormonger...)
peter_n
Veteran
Yes, the M9 will be an M7 with the M8's shutter mechanism.
rvaubel
Well-known
Sean
I read your review with much interest. One of my main concerns with regards the M8 was how much better the noise levels is controlled versus my RD1. From what I can see on the site, it may be one stop better. Since you say that the M8 has an effective speed of +1/3 over nominal, would the noise of the M8 at ISO 1250 be better than the RD1 at ISO 800 ?
Rex
I read your review with much interest. One of my main concerns with regards the M8 was how much better the noise levels is controlled versus my RD1. From what I can see on the site, it may be one stop better. Since you say that the M8 has an effective speed of +1/3 over nominal, would the noise of the M8 at ISO 1250 be better than the RD1 at ISO 800 ?
Rex
newyorkone
Established
Sparrow said:
Agree. Sign me up for that
S
sreidvt
Guest
devils-advocate said:
Advocate, you Devil <G>
Thank you very much. You said several things in that post that I often think but do not post. <G> As far as the digital preparation of the files, what people are seeing is the result of a conscious set of decisions. I was an exhibition printer for several years and my own preferences have changed over time. My "prints" even on the web, tend to be subtler now. I consciously choose to be restrained with contrast and saturation because much of what I see on the web has (to my eye) too much of both. I also tend to keep the files close to the way they look coming out of RAW conversion -- a little local contrast work but not much else. That keeps them, hopefully, representative. I also find that a lot of work on the web is oversharpened. In many cases it's as if people are printing with exclamation points in each aspect...punch the contrast, punch the saturation, punch the sharpening, etc.
An experienced photographer, such as many are here, can look at those files and know how they would change with more punch of this or that. It's much harder to go the other way.
So, in short, I consciously make very subtle prints for the web and I stick close to the original to give the viewer a better sense of how the picture tends to look with little to no processing. Ultimately, it's a stylistic choice. For fun though, some might want to look at the color prints of photographers like Helen Levitt or Stephen Shore - very restrained.
Cheers,
Sean
S
sreidvt
Guest
jlw said:
Hi jlw,
It has its pros and cons just like any camera. I happen to love it.
Cheers,
Sean
S
sreidvt
Guest
rvaubel said:
Hi Rex,
I answered this when you posted on the Leica forum but it's basically dead even. Nominal ISO 1250 on the M8 (actual ISO 1600) has about the same noise as the Epson at 1600. Specific comparisons in the next article.
Cheers,
Sean
kshapero
South Florida Man
sean, you have my support. free enterprise and such.sreidvt said:
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
peter_n said:Yes, the M9 will be an M7 with the M8's shutter mechanism.
Hey, come on, my post was a joke (satirizing the appetite for rumors on RFF) whereas yours is actually plausible (assuming the M8 does well, it would be hard for Leica to resist the logic of sharing its components with a film-based model) and sensible. No fair!
egpj
50 Summilux is da DEVIL!
I have to admit that I was a bit disappointed in the amount of noise the M8 has at ISO 1250/2500. For me the amount of noise at 1250 would have been the max that I would have found acceptable. Have not canceled my order yet but it was a disappointment to see.
S
sreidvt
Guest
egpj said:
Hi Glenn,
1250 is actually pretty good when you look at prints. Earlier this evening I expanded the ISO-Color section with more examples that might be of interest to you.
Cheers,
Sean
emdubya
Member
ywenz said:
Well, the thing about rangefinders is they lack of a mirror negates some of the need for IS/low noise at high ISO. I've been able to use slower shutter speeds with an R-D1 than with my D200. AND the D200 is no high iso star, I should add. In fact, I prefer the noise out of either the old E-1 or the R-D1 compared to the D200. If the M8 keeps a grain-like pattern, I'll be happy with that.
Another note: I found the 10D to have very blotchy noise in the red channel. The D200 is like that too. The E-1 and R-D1 both looked better in that regard to me. If the M8 can hold a uniform noise character in all three colour channels at 1250 and 2500, it will be a nice machine for black and white.
rvaubel
Well-known
sreidvt said:
Sean
I'm glad you expanded the ISO-color section as your earlier example was a little dissappointing to me also. What I hadn't noticed about the ISO 1250 sample was how "fine grained" the noise was and how detailed the file remained. This is the kind of noise that is not annoying at least when in conjunction with fine detail. Also this kind of hi frequency, "raw" noise is much easier to deal with in sophisticated noise reduction programs like Neat Image and Noise Ninja.
Although the presentation of your files is useful, the fact that your site is a flash site precludes me from downloading the pictures into Neat Image to confirm my expectations about the effectiveness of my chosen noise reduction program. RAW files would be extra nice. Perhaps there is someway to do this without compromising your site?
looking forword to your next report
Rex
LCT
ex-newbie
Never met him personally but the way i feel him, Sean is a serious, competent and honest guy, the kind of person i like to deal with in my pro and private life.devils-advocate said:
Now in fact he's choosed to put his reviews in a somewhat private domain, the domain of people willing to pay for them.
It is a choice that i respect and i could well have done the same for my own works but, objectively, the result of this choice is we can hardly discuss on what he writes about in open forums like this for the simple reason than some of us do know what Sean's thinking about and the others do not.
A good solution, perhaps, would be to summarise Sean's reviews is the forums he's posting in. I guess it may not be the best commercial approach, although i am not competent in this matter, but in practice, Sean can hardly abstain from doing this himself as a matter of fact like in this very thread where he writes that "Nominal ISO 1250 on the M8 (actual ISO 1600) has about the same noise as the Epson at 1600".
Just my two cents.
Mark Norton
Well-known
I think Sean's site is rather good value for money, much better than a pile of photographic magazines who don't go in the level of detail for the products you are interested in and too much for the ones you aren't.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to pay for this level and quality of information and paying less than 1% of an M8 for a year's subscription to help you make a more informed buying decision makes sense to me.
I do understand that references to the site content will inevitably occur in open forums which may not be self-explanatory out of context. That's where shorter articles as LCT suggests on sites such as Luminous Landscape are valuable.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to pay for this level and quality of information and paying less than 1% of an M8 for a year's subscription to help you make a more informed buying decision makes sense to me.
I do understand that references to the site content will inevitably occur in open forums which may not be self-explanatory out of context. That's where shorter articles as LCT suggests on sites such as Luminous Landscape are valuable.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.