Sean's Review

[Geoff Smith]

Well, I for one am impressed. My two main cameras are an M6 for low light/night/music/performance photography and a Canon 5D for everything else. The thing I notice most about running the Canon at higher ISOs (not as much with the 5D as with earlier Canon DSLRs) is that it basically only limits your enlargement size. Where a well exposed ISO 100 file could easily go to, say, 20x24, an ISO 1600 file in low-light might only hold up well up to 9.5x12.5 or 11x14. I'm wondering where the M8 would fall? From the samples on the Reid Reviews site, it looks like the sky's the limit for the low ISO files -- do you think one would be able to print a decent 16x20 from a well-exposed ISO 1250 file on the Leica?

 

[jaapv]

Sean, I appreciate you patiently answering all our questions here, but how about a "comments"board on your own site?

 

[Ben Z]

Here's my opinion, and because like everyone's opinion it doesn't apply to everyone, I'm charging exactly what any opinion is worth monetarily, zero: I don't care how the M8 compares to the 5D. My 20D is smaller and lighter (slightly) than the 5D and I already leave it home when I go on a trip because I don't like lugging it and its lenses around. I can't focus it accurately manually, especially in low light, and the mirror blacks out the shot at the exact moment I really want and need to see. It's an SLR, and has all the negative attributes thereof that compelled me to get into rangefinders to begin with. If the 5D can "rival medium format" that's way cool for the guys who want 20x30 and bigger enlargements. I'm not one of them. My one and only criterion for choosing an M8 or not is: can it give me image quality as good as I got from an M6 and film. At ISO 800 film starts to show some grain. Beyond that it shows quite a bit of grain. At ISO 2500, film is grainy as hell. 35mm negatives can be enlarged past 20x30, if done skillfully, and if the viewer stands at a proper distance, not the distance he views a 4x6, or with a loupe and his eye up to the print. If the M8 files can do as well as a 35mm negative, it doesn't matter to me if a 5D file at ISO 3200 can be blown up to billboard size, I have no need for such print size and no desire to travel with a brick-sized SLR with brick-sized lenses stuffed into a bag the size of a VW Golf.

 

[marbrink]

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

It would be amazing if Leica could combine that with IS in body with the next digital M camera.

 

[sreidvt]

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.

I agree with all of the above.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[sreidvt]

Well, I for one am impressed. My two main cameras are an M6 for low light/night/music/performance photography and a Canon 5D for everything else. The thing I notice most about running the Canon at higher ISOs (not as much with the 5D as with earlier Canon DSLRs) is that it basically only limits your enlargement size. Where a well exposed ISO 100 file could easily go to, say, 20x24, an ISO 1600 file in low-light might only hold up well up to 9.5x12.5 or 11x14. I'm wondering where the M8 would fall? From the samples on the Reid Reviews site, it looks like the sky's the limit for the low ISO files -- do you think one would be able to print a decent 16x20 from a well-exposed ISO 1250 file on the Leica?

Hi Geoff,

It's hard to say because it would depend on one's tolerance for graniness. Quite beautiful, albeit grainy, very large prints could be made from those files.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[sreidvt]

Hey🙂

Haven't you considered that whatever money Sean's not giving to RFF, he's making it up by providing content to this forum? If I may equate monetary contribution to content contribution, I'd say he's providing more than you or I.. Food for thought.

Thank you.

Sean

 

[JohnL]

ManGo --

Since he has no advertising on his site, he charges a fee. I have no problem with that. Unlike me, one can always chose not to subscribe to his site. Luminous Landscape charges no fee and contains reviews, but the author of the site offers a video journal (to which I also subscribe). I do not think it fair to ask either of these gentlemen to work for free. Having read the review, the decision to purchase the M8 has been confirmed, and I can hardly wait to receive it. His additional lens reviews will be helpful in deciding on future lens purchaes. Perhaps you would be best to limit yourself to sites or printed journals that contain advertising to pay for the work involved in performing these reviews.

Steve

Strongly agree with Steve ...

 

[JohnL]

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...)

... and with Jaap ...

 

[JohnL]

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.
(snip)

... and this one ...

 

[JohnL]

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.
(snip)

... and this one ... and several others in the same vein.
Actually, I thought part 2 of Sean's M8 review was pretty good and does nothing to make me think the M8 is "just another digicam" as some have suggested. I don't think digital images, even at 100% on screen, tell us that much about what prints will look like. For me, the appearance of prints is the acid test. YMMV.
The fact that the M8 comes even close to the 5D in terms of high(ish) ISO performance (up to a real ISO 800 or so) is a significant achievement. Remember the 5D has bigger pixels. I'd have been *amazed* if the M8 had matched the 5D at (real) 1600+.
It is also beginning to look like Leica's offset-micro-lens technology has successfully resolved even more of the vignetting issue on wideangle RF lenses than expected. We'll be hearing more on this from Sean in coming installments (unless we're too cheap to subscribe).
Also in a future segment, Sean is planning to compare the resolution of the M8 with the 5D, which should be interesting. I don't know how (or if) it can be done, but if allowance can be made for the fact that the 5D has more pixels, and therefore requires less enlargement (of each pixel) to achieve any required print size, it would be even more informative than just comparing 100% crops.

 

[semrich]

I usually don't like to get involved in "hair pulling Threads" and I am making an exception in this case.

I subscribed to Sean's site and have benefited from the very specific reviews involving the considerable investment in equipment I've made in the last six months.

I also signed up as a RFF sponsor because I derive equal benefit from the exchange of information posted here, the images I view, and the comments I receive about the photos I post.

I truly believe if something has value it is worth paying for and supporting the efforts of those who provide the value. And for what I get it is cheap at twice the price. Where I live it is a minimum of $12 and up to buy an English language photo magazine (when I can find them) geared toward DSLR's which I have already ruled out when I went through the spec's for how much that gear weighs.

As busy as Sean is he continues to contribute to this and other forums and I appreciate it.

 

[Magnus]

Man, all this M8 hype is unbelievable.

I pre-ordered mine 8 weeks ago thinking it would be comparible to an image quality of the Canon 5D, maybe a bit less, but who cares, you can measurbate a camera to death, use schneider 10x loupes to detect flaws in the out area's, take pictures of brick walls all around the world and spend the rest of you life discussing them on the internet.
I bought/ordered mine because for one I have the money to do so, I like Leica, have used them for quite a while now and I do believe the M8 will be good, but I'm certainly not goinf out of my way to prove it's better than any other camera.
Another reason for buying it the size, I love the 5D's output but it is a bit big.
Now does this all justify the purchase of a 4500$ camera, I don't think so, actually bringing it back to the basics spending that amount of money on a camera is quite ridiculous. But selfadmittedly being a bit of a "camera snob" I purchased one.
Anybody else trying to tell us the quality is worth it, the images are better, blablablabla, I do believe a Nikon D80 can make equally good pictures and that none of you folks here.... or there, or anywhwere is able to tell the difference between a well done D80-, and a well done M8 picture.
But anyway the introduction of the M8 will keep the blood running through the different photo fori for quite a while, wannahaves will try to bombade the quality, and the haves will defend it with all their means, and this will take quite a while. No amount of brick walls will have been photogrpahed ever before as they will in the coming period of time, one will be able able to read great amounts of BS about the pro's and con's.
As for sean reid, who needs in depth camera reviews for which you have to pay.
The 5D takes good pictures, so does the D80, so does the M8, so does etc. etc. etc.
We all know that..... It's the measurbators going for all this ****.... I wonder if they actually go out and actually take shots and blow them up to 5x10mtrs in order to justify their purchases.....
It's all a hype, fashion hype, red ferrari hype, yellow lamborhini hype, Armani hype etc etc. All fine with me, but at least I know why I buy something and am not afraid to admit that I'm following a hype...

 

[rover]

OK, we really have to get back to talking about cameras.

Man, we are regressing.

I cannot agree with these comments more.

I subscribed to Sean's site and have benefited from the very specific reviews involving the considerable investment in equipment I've made in the last six months.

I also signed up as a RFF sponsor because I derive equal benefit from the exchange of information posted here, the images I view, and the comments I receive about the photos I post.

I truly believe if something has value it is worth paying for and supporting the efforts of those who provide the value. And for what I get it is cheap at twice the price.

We all have a choice here and elsewhere to what extent we can or want to participate and support RFF or any other site, like Sean's. These decisions are for each of us to make, and any financial support you can offer here is of course greatly appreciated. It is not required though, and as always, the greatest contribution that you can make to RFF is through your comments and participation in our threads or gallery. Sean is a great contributor to RFF as are many other Sponsor and non Sponsor members.

Since we are so off topic here I am closing this thread. I am confident that we will see many more threads about the M8 and I will even read some of them with interest.

So there you go, we have pulled enough hair here. Not much more unique can be offered in this thread, so lets get back on track.