Sean's Review

[jlaw]

m8

m8

all good things abount m8, is that worth buying?

 

[jaapv]

Welcome. Only you can decide, assuming you want to go digital:
1. Do you want a Rangefinder? - if yes - go to 2. If no- go to 5
2. Do you know how to use a Rangefinder?- if yes - go to 3- if no go to 7
3. Do you want to buy the best - regardless of cost? If yes- go to 4 if no go to 6
4. Buy a M8
5. Buy any DSLR
6. Buy a RD1
7 Buy a Zorki, burn some film and go to 1.

 

[marbrink]

The ISO settings are very confusing.. So if I use ISO 640 on the M8 I should set my external meter to ISO 800?
Can't understand why Leica did this. They actually have ISO 3200 and 100 but people only believe they have ISO 2500 and 160...

 

[jaapv]

I would underexpose when in doubt.. Better lose some DR by extracting from the shadows than have blown out highlights. I share your confusion, but I understand they all do it, except the RD1. Sean, HELP!

 

[Gid]

The ISO settings are very confusing.. So if I use ISO 640 on the M8 I should set my external meter to ISO 800?
Can't understand why Leica did this. They actually have ISO 3200 and 100 but people only believe they have ISO 2500 and 160...

The actual sensitivity is ISO 200 to 3200 as measured by Sean. At worst you will be half a stop out. However, you have to experiment with the camera to see how it actually meters/responds in real life and you may find that you will use exposure compensation to some degree on a regular basis once you know the camera. Initially setting -1/2 a stop will get you lined up with your external meter. If you shoot raw, then 1/2 a stop discrepancy should not cause too many problems. In any case you should shoot digital like you shoot slide and protect the highlights.

 

[PeterL]

The actual sensitivity is ISO 200 to 3200 as measured by Sean. At worst you will be half a stop out. However, you have to experiment with the camera to see how it actually meters/responds in real life and you may find that you will use exposure compensation to some degree on a regular basis once you know the camera.

Which is like film. First thing we learned in photography classes after development was, how to calibrate your exposure-development-printing cycle. That involved checking the *actual* ISO of the film, and many were surprised that, for best results, they had to expose their 400ISO at 320 or lower.

No fault in the M8 then, everything stays like it always used to be


Peter.

 

[jaapv]

And you have your histogram...

 

[Woody Campbell]

High ISO

High ISO

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.

My response was to order a 35 summilux - it will give me an extra stop in situations where I need it.

 

[marbrink]

Peter,
You're right. ISO 160 is ISO 200 and not 100 like I said.

 

[sreidvt]

The ISO settings are very confusing.. So if I use ISO 640 on the M8 I should set my external meter to ISO 800?
Can't understand why Leica did this. They actually have ISO 3200 and 100 but people only believe they have ISO 2500 and 160...

Leica and Canon both outperform the ISO spec., which I think is an excellent accomplishment. Both companies have chosen, apparently, to rate their cameras' sensitivity conservatively which I far prefer to the companies who err in the other direction.

Will you need to set an external meter to 800 instead of 640? That depends on how accurate the meter is, when it was last calibrated, etc. 1/3 stop isn't a lot and anyone tweaking exposures that closely is likely going to be watching the histogram.

I, for one, am strongly in favor of companies outperforming their own claims. Canon has done it for years. It's an asset for those of us who work a lot in existing light. My call is that the M8's file quality is quite good through an actual ISO 1600 and useable with additional luminance filtering at an actual ISO 3200.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[sreidvt]

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.


looking forword to your next report

Rex

Hi Rex,

Glad to hear it. As I read the initial responses I realized that some people seemed to be drawing mistaken conclusions about the M8's noise performance so I went back to the article to clarify further.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[sreidvt]

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.
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.

Hi LCT,

First of all, thanks for your comments about my character. You and I have been conversing on the web for several years now but I realize that many here don't know me very well.

Basically, I appreciate that people don't try to summarize my reviews on the web because I certainly put in the work required to be earning money as a reviewer. I don't set any firm rules as to how much I myself will discuss on forums but on several sites, so many people are already reading RR that it's easy to move from one to the other. Basically, I just try to follow-up as needed.

Best,

Sean

 

[sreidvt]

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.

Thanks Mark.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[sreidvt]

I would underexpose when in doubt.. Better lose some DR by extracting from the shadows than have blown out highlights. I share your confusion, but I understand they all do it, except the RD1. Sean, HELP!

Hi Jaap,

The Nikons and the R-D1 seem to deliver as rated but not above. The Canons and the M8 deliver 1/3 stop above spec. Phil Askey has noted this about the Canons as well. His M8 review isn't done yet.

It's a good thing and, in practice, has no real downside. 1/3 stop isn't much.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[sreidvt]

The actual sensitivity is ISO 200 to 3200 as measured by Sean. At worst you will be half a stop out. However, you have to experiment with the camera to see how it actually meters/responds in real life and you may find that you will use exposure compensation to some degree on a regular basis once you know the camera. Initially setting -1/2 a stop will get you lined up with your external meter. If you shoot raw, then 1/2 a stop discrepancy should not cause too many problems. In any case you should shoot digital like you shoot slide and protect the highlights.

Hi Gid,

In practice, with no EV correction at all, the M8 is usually dead on in aperture priority mode. In bright sunlight, I tend to dial in - 1/3 EV comp with virtually all digital cameras.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[sreidvt]

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.

If the subject is not moving then, yes, I'd say the M8 has about 2 stops more "hand-holdability" than most SLRs.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[sreidvt]

Which is like film. First thing we learned in photography classes after development was, how to calibrate your exposure-development-printing cycle. That involved checking the *actual* ISO of the film, and many were surprised that, for best results, they had to expose their 400ISO at 320 or lower.

No fault in the M8 then, everything stays like it always used to be


Peter.

Exactly! Moreover, prior to the introduction of the histogram, it was rare that anyone pinned down exposure to within a 1/3 stop. So many factors go into exposure that getting to know a digital camera or camera + film has got to be empirical. Having training in the traditional darkroom is a huge asset for digital work.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[sreidvt]

And you have your histogram...

Right, and that's really what it comes down to for precise control. One thing I love about the M8 is that, if chosen, the review image comes up almost instantly after exposure with a large white histogram across the screen and no other info. overlapping the picture - perfect implementation in my book.

S

 

[HAnkg]

Looking at the color images it looks to me like the M8 at 640 ISO could come close to or exceed the quality of 800 ISO medium format color negative film in print. That makes it a winner for color available light work as far as I'm concerned. For 35mm I used 100 ISO transparency exclusively and moved to medium format for color negative.

Leica has done better then I would have expected, they have a product that compares well to the offerings of companies with much greater resources and experience.

 

[Toby]

I think it's a bit rich for some of us to criticise Sean for plugging his site here albeit indirectly (although there is a link to Reid Reviews in his signature) I notice Manolo has a link to his site where he sells his prints and I have a link to my portraiture site (not that anyone here has comissioned me you bunch of cheapskates!!!). As far as I'm concerned as long as Sean is imparting his knowlege freely here rather than saying I know the answer to that go to www. etc. then what's the problem? Having said that though I think we may need a clear rule on this.