squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Blondie, I think I've made your point. Everyone else on earth doesn't need to hate it, too.
Gawain, you might try an Epson R-D1. 6MP, but good quality, and much less expensive. 1600 is good in B&W and sometimes in color.
Gawain, you might try an Epson R-D1. 6MP, but good quality, and much less expensive. 1600 is good in B&W and sometimes in color.
astroman
-
WOW I never realized how bad the high ISO performance really was on the M8 till I seen this comparison.I think this is exactly the right thing to do - this coming from someone who owns an (upgraded) M8 and doesn't use it.
Why? Because, all its foibles aside, the M8 simply has no answer for avialable light to a fast lense (f2.0 is good enough, but f1.4/f1.0 is better) and a roll of pushed Fuji Pro800Z or Neopan 1600.
You may find that you cannot shoot quite as low-speed with a CL as with a film M due to its focal-plane (rather than cloth) shutter, but you will be able to use the glass as it is intended - without the infuriating 1.3x crop, and the £1500-£2000 difference between a CL and M8 will pay for alot of process and scan.
To give you an idea...
M8, 1250ISO, 35mm/f1.4 Summilux:
Or...
MP, Neopan 1600, 50mm/f1.0
J. Borger
Well-known
Perhaps it is more the quality of the sample shown than the high iso performance of the M8 ... ever thought about that?
(color vs B&W and the color picture is shot against the light with a lot of flare and most likely boosted in pp in the shadow areas)
The M8 is perfect usable (especially for B&W) at iso 1250 ..... if processed and exposed well!
I am not saying the M8 is the king of high iso ... but this specific sample is not showing the capabilities of the M8 in this respect ... far from it!
The samples below are shot at iso 1250, simple raw conversion in C1 and resized for web..... NO Noise Ninja or whatever to clean up the pictures .....
Attachments
Last edited:
blondie1
Member
It is good that you started your quote with the word perhaps. It is namely not only this sample in which the M8 fails to give good results on 1250 ISO. I compared several shots taken in several light conditions, perfectly exposed and processed, with pictures from N and C taken in the same conditions. The M8 was always the looser,without exception.
Also to amateurs I would say: looking at the price of the M8 and what the camera offers it is far, far too much money for a in fact weak camera. Regards, Blondie.
Also to amateurs I would say: looking at the price of the M8 and what the camera offers it is far, far too much money for a in fact weak camera. Regards, Blondie.
J. Borger
Well-known
The "perhaps" was meant cynical .... it simply is a bad picture from a technical point of view.... but it suits your point so enjoy to refer to it!
I am not saying the M8 is better than a N or C at iso 1250 but in fact it is PRETTY GOOD and at least far better than you would expect reading internet forums ....
Stating it is not usable is just giving people false information..... keeping another internet myth alive....
I realy do not know why i even bother to get into this discussion again .... been there about 2 years ago .... so i close my case ....
Last edited:
blondie1
Member
The examples you gave were also not ideal. For a good judgement of noise, one needs pictures taken in some diffuse light, and in color. Than you will see 'how pretty good' the M8 is. But in other conditions a comparison to N and C will show that the M8 is also far behind. While N and C are so much cheaper. And quicker. And more reliable. The only advantage of the M system is the weight and size, plus the lens quality. But that last thing only counts in low ISO values.
J. Borger
Well-known
TKH
Well-known
I know exactly what you feel Gawain.
This is my stuff:
I also used like you the fine Zeiss ZK 50mm 1.4 and it was a joy. But every time when I read in this fantastic forum about the fun to use a rangefinder camera I heard the little voice:"Buy one"!
I stopped at the local camera store and put fingers on a Leica M8. I find it very strange to use the rangefinder. Also the camera is very big (for example when you see how small an old Pentax Super A is).
Dont forget that your Pentax Limited and your Zeiss lenses a top of the AF world. For example I know a few photo-friends who changed to Nikon who have tears in the eyes when they remember the build and the IQ of the Pentax glass.
My decision was to order the new Pentax DA*55mm 1.4 and wait for a bargain way to join rangefinder. For example an old Epson R-D1 around 500 Euro or an heavy used Leica M8 one day in the future for around 1.000 Euro. The other possibility is to buy a analog rangefinder like a Bessa. But Im not shure if I will like the hassle with the photo store to get good pics on the paper.
After checking a lot of pics and words all around the different forums I think my pics wont get automatically better when using a rangefinder. My goal is to use both systems in future.
Hope to help a little,
Rainer
Ben Z
Veteran
That's enough to do it for me. I had a series of DSLR's--Fuji S1, Canon D30, D60, D-Rebel, finally 20D which I still own but most likely it will be my last. They and their lenses and the bag needed to hold them are more than I'm comfortable travelling with on trains and metros, or walking around all day, or sitting down in a restaurant. And unlike my M outfit, the DSLR outfit won't all fit in the hotel room safe if I want to go out without it. My only alternative is a p&s and I haven't found one with the flexibility and image quality of the M8 yet.
ruslan
Established
2500Iso
2500Iso
with Summicron-C 40mm 2500iso
2500Iso
with Summicron-C 40mm 2500iso
blondie1
Member
I just shot different pictures on 2500. Leica M8 125 sec/ f 4, 5.6,8, with summicron 50 mm. In RAW. They all have terrible noise. Exactly the same as what test results showed. And exactly the same as what another professional noticed with his M8. I fear that you cannot expose.
with Summicron-C 40mm 2500iso
Richard Marks
Rexel
I am not a professional photographer, but I am a health professional and use life support equipment on a daily basis. It simply has not got to go wrong. A mediocre but reliable performer would always be chosen over a brilliant but flawed one for obvious reasons. We have to replace everything every 10 years even if its fine and usually dread upgrading things simply because if something works reliably one can always loose from changing it.
Now I am an M8 user and accept its flawes in full light of the brilliant things it can do. I do believe it can produce some unique images purely in consideration of some very unique glass. But I am not relying on it for my daily crust. Going back to the professional analogy. Professional photographers want something that can churn out reliable (not necessarily inspirational) images time after time irrespective of the circumstances. Two amazing inspirational portraits and 30 poorly lit flared shots are not going to cut it for a wedding album. Professional photography I belive is about reliability more than absolute artistic expression and quite honestly it would not be my choice as a professional photographer. Fortunately I am not and justify the expense as a leisure pursuit with no regrets.
Happy new year
Richard
Now I am an M8 user and accept its flawes in full light of the brilliant things it can do. I do believe it can produce some unique images purely in consideration of some very unique glass. But I am not relying on it for my daily crust. Going back to the professional analogy. Professional photographers want something that can churn out reliable (not necessarily inspirational) images time after time irrespective of the circumstances. Two amazing inspirational portraits and 30 poorly lit flared shots are not going to cut it for a wedding album. Professional photography I belive is about reliability more than absolute artistic expression and quite honestly it would not be my choice as a professional photographer. Fortunately I am not and justify the expense as a leisure pursuit with no regrets.
Happy new year
Richard
ruslan
Established
Another shot at 2500iso, but pushed for 1.5 stop
kevin m
Veteran
Richard, I think you've hit the nail on the head, and it explains why professional wedding photographers who had been using film M's - including Jeff Ascough, George Weir, Paul Gero and Peter Silvia, to name a few - didn't buy the M8 when they switched to digital capture.
Jeff Ascough, in fact, was recently offered sponsorship by Leica to shoot weddings with the M8.2 and he declined.
No matter how much its owners love the files it produces, it's simply not a reliable, go-to camera like the film M's are.
Richard Marks
Rexel
Kevin thanks
I hope i did not imply that the camrera itself is unreliable. A lot of early issues have been solved. What I would be more concerned with is that it would not be able to cope with all eventualities (such that it could not be completely relied on!). The main issues for me are in very bright harsh sunlight the UV filters cause flare. I would also probably use fill flash and here the M8's primitive TTL flash is a problem. I think I would like a spot metering mode also. The other issue for a pro is you really would need two M8's! I am glad I do not need to justify my M8 on commercial grounds. If I do not like the light I have the luxury of coming back later!
Happy new year to all
Richard
I hope i did not imply that the camrera itself is unreliable. A lot of early issues have been solved. What I would be more concerned with is that it would not be able to cope with all eventualities (such that it could not be completely relied on!). The main issues for me are in very bright harsh sunlight the UV filters cause flare. I would also probably use fill flash and here the M8's primitive TTL flash is a problem. I think I would like a spot metering mode also. The other issue for a pro is you really would need two M8's! I am glad I do not need to justify my M8 on commercial grounds. If I do not like the light I have the luxury of coming back later!
Happy new year to all
Richard
blondie1
Member
You better stop sending examples like this. Everyone knows the M8 is bad in high ISO's. 1250 is already not good. Now one could read here the test of a professional with pictures from Iraq. I endorsed the results. And I am also an experienced professional. We are not negative about the M8 because we like it. It is simply what it is. Unreliable, and bad quality on the point of ISO. Like I said earlier, I'm afraid you cannot expose.
Another shot at 2500iso, but pushed for 1.5 stop
blondie1
Member
Also true. The primitive TTL flash. But for a pro the most important things are the speed of the processor, and the ISO quality. Both are insufficient and far behind what other camera's can do. The newest FF Canon cost 2500. With a 16/35 f 1,4 zoom, it takes about 4000 euro.
Now Leica. The M8 cost 4900 euro. There is no zoom. It is not FF. There is a 16-21-28 lens. But that lens starts with f 4, and is therefor too slow. So one has to buy the 21 mm f 1.4. Cost 5000. Than the 28 f2,0. Cost 2800. Together 12.700.
One has than less ISO quality, a very slow processor, unreliable color balance, primitive TTL flash, no FF, and therefor less possibilities with the lenses.
Indeed. Leica is killing itself. The only thing they can do is to produce very quick a M9 ( instead of that not much betterM8-2), and lower the prices.
Happy New Year, Blondie.
Now Leica. The M8 cost 4900 euro. There is no zoom. It is not FF. There is a 16-21-28 lens. But that lens starts with f 4, and is therefor too slow. So one has to buy the 21 mm f 1.4. Cost 5000. Than the 28 f2,0. Cost 2800. Together 12.700.
One has than less ISO quality, a very slow processor, unreliable color balance, primitive TTL flash, no FF, and therefor less possibilities with the lenses.
Indeed. Leica is killing itself. The only thing they can do is to produce very quick a M9 ( instead of that not much betterM8-2), and lower the prices.
Happy New Year, Blondie.
ruslan
Established
Canon 16-35 f1.4? I'll buy this one