|
Leica M8 - is it any good?
There’s been a few posts on this issue already, do a search for Leica M8 in ‘posts’ and you should find some useful stuff. Alternately look at www.dpreview.com for pretty extensive review of the M8.
|
Ok, it is time I chime in.
I came back a few days ago from a 6 weeks’ trip in Iran, where I shot exclusively with a Leica M8. This camera had been lent to me by Leica for assessment, but I want to stress that there is no financial deal involved either way.
I couldn’t be happier with the camera, it performed (almost) faultlessy. There was a minor temporary quirk with the lightmeter (the camera continued to work fine) for a couple of hours when I (and the camera) was drenched during a Caspian Sea gale. I mean humidity was 100%, gale force winds and torrential rain poured on the camera for hours, at one point, the light meter stoped working under a certain EV value, just for a couple of hours and then it went back to normal. I talked with Leica about it, they told me they had been aware of a similar case with the M7 (same lightmeter technology) and that they would look into improving this issue. Apart from these two very wet hours, the camera performed flawlessy throughout the 6 weeks duration.
The first and foremost thing to mention is the absolutely outstanding quality of the files: extremely sharp, outstanding microcontrast, I did acouple of strict A-B tests with a Canon 5D before leaving to Iran and in my view the Leica wins hands down in terms of sharpness, microdetails, contrast, highlights and lowlights tolerance, as well colour transition smoothness. The autowhite balance of the M8 is adequate in most cases, but sometimes (not too often) quite a bit off; this is not as bad as it seems as I shoot raw. However, the raw files are usually almost perfect once opened with Camera Raw or C1, with very little need of photoshopping, certainly NO need for unsharp mask. The Canon 5D raw files in comparison, need unsharp mask and quite a bit of contrast (or gamma) doctoring before losing that plasticky feel. The final result of the 2 camera files after photoshopping is obviously very very good, but much less PS work is needed to get to that point with the M8.
On difficult lighting situations, the ‘manual’ white balance setting of the M8 works extremely well, just point the camera to a piece of white paper or cloth in your hand, take a frame, and voilà, perfect colours.
The noise at high ISO is more present on the M8 than on the 5D, but at the nominal 160 or 320 asa sensitivities, there is actually LESS noise on the M8 files!!! The M8 noise say at 640 iso or higher, has a very ‘film’ feel, the resulting images not displaying the typical plasticky feel of many digital cameras. An anecdote: when my first pictures from Iran were sent to Stern magazine in Germany, the head of the technical lab would not believe they were shot with a digital camera and placed a bet with Harald Menk the foreign picture editor (who knew better, as I had told him these were M8 images, hahaha)...
When shooting with the M8 at 160 or 320 ISO (by the way, I always underexpose 2/3 of a stop in digital over the nominal sensitivity to avoid blown-up highlights), the files were outstandingly capable of revealing details in the highlights (sky, clouds, skin…) as well as in the lowlights without any visible side-effects.
I shot for 6 weeks with just one lens for 90% of my images, the new 28mm f2,8 asph. extremely compact, this must be one of if not THE sharpest and smoothest lens I ever used, an absolute marvel, 12/10 note! (it becomes a 35mm lens equiv. on the M8)
The only other lens I used during this trip was the new wide-angle Tri-Elmar (16-18-21 f4) which on the M8 translates into a 21-24-28mm equiv.
I used it with a standard Leica wide-angle zoom viewfinder on top of the camera, very compact, bright and precise. This lens is amazingly sharp, with very little or no vignetting (certainly nothing that needs correction) and produces absolutely outstanding results, I have never seen a wide angle lens so sharp in the corners…(except maybe my old Leica 24mm Elmarit…). This lens also allows you to focus down to 45cm, the only Leica M lens focussing at les than 0,7m! Heartily recommended piece of kit!
The much publicized infrared issue has now become a non-issue with the release of the latest firmware update 1.10.2. When using the provided IR filters and lens recognition option, the colours are accurate with no side effect whatsoever, in fact I am now believing that Leica’s choice of not putting a filter in front of the sensor but in front of the lens provides a MUCH better resulting image, sharper, more detailed without the need of resorting to unsharp masking.
The ergonomy of the camera including its menu is virtually faultless, certainly the best menu system I have used, there are a couple of minor points that could be still be improved, for instance the delay shutter switch, I have suggested to Leica that there should be a “0 sec” position in the delay menu to alleviate the possibility of the camera not shooting immediately if the switch got accidentally set to the delay position.
The battery life is perfectly adequate in my view, typically about 4-500 images.
One thing in my opinion could be improved, it is the size of the RAW buffer. In some occasions, when I had to shoot repeatedly for a while, (demonstrations, press conferences) I had to wait a few seconds for the data transfer to be complete. Considering the type of work done with that camera, it is probably not critical for most users, but it could be improved.
However, nothwithstanding all its technical qualities, the best point of the M8 is that it is a true M Leica!
The ability to shoot discreetly in a crowd, to be inconspicuous in a street, and finally to point a small innocent looking camera in the face of the people you photograph instead of a big black brick, the ability to see ‘over’ the frames of your pictures in the clear viewfinder, the incredibly small size and weight of a system such as described above (just ONE spare lens for 4 focal lengths) makes the M8 an absolute winner in my view.
|
Happy to hear… I ordered mine nearly 2 months ago and I am still waiting (I hope the people at Leica read this)...
John Vink
|
my only question is a simple one: why is a camera nearly $5,000???....i dont mean to sound flippant, but what’s up with that…..to me, its depressing idea….its like hollywood spending $300,000,000 on spidey-iii…..i dont get it, ....
i dont, fundamentally, understand the idea of owning such a thing (as much as i love the little red dot), it seems more about luxury than photography, documentary or otherwise….
then again, i dont own a car either, only a bike ;))))
cheers guys,
bob
|
Bob, a camera is a merely a tool…this one is a good one, a Canon 5D, Eos1DIII, Nikon D200 as well…they’re all different…pick up the one that makes you feel relaxed and forget the most about having a camera in your hand, just you and the subject… B.
|
Bruno: o, i know, that’s my point :)))...especially since rangefinders are my type of camera (small, unintrusive, discreet: an extension of my body, not some big-nosed black gun ;)) )....
(though, i probably would love to have it, if i switched to digi (can u talk to the folks at Leica for me ;)) ), i just don’t understand (on a fundamental priciniple) why this tool is so outrageously expensive….german engineering and german glass is brillant, i only get frustrated with the idea of price in relationship to story telling…
no offense to anyone, just seems crazy to me…..
and Vink: when we come to SE Asia, you’ll let me take a few shots i hope? ;)))
cheers guys,
running for bike ride
bob
|
Aside from the ridiculous price, the other negatives are discussed on Online Photographer
still, the camera looks good to me and very tempting. ‘
|
I was pretty close to making the leap to one. There’s a guy running around Cap Hill here with one and he loves it.
|
Jon and the others, a lot if not all of the M8 reviews were done prior to the release of the current firmware (1.10.2) which brings the camera performance to a completely new level, it took some months to Leica to come up with the goods, but hey, this is their first attempt at a professional digital camera, an almost impossible task for a small company, yet they came up with a camera producing files on a par or even better than the best DSLR’s on the market…and as I said in my review, I feel that Leica made a very good decision in getting rid of the filter in front of the sensor, the current external IR filter strategy has no negative sides whatsoever, most people use a UV filter in front of their glass anyway, but even for the so called purists who don’t, these IR filters are manufactured by Schneider and are of the same quality as the Leica glass: immaculate. B.
|
Cameras are tools but I want to earn money with mine and profit is a cost vs revenue issue. How many of you can justify this investment from a business point of view? In the old days I could just about justify buying a Leica because it would keep its value and I would use it for years and years. Digital cameras (and even digital Leicas, I suppose) just don’t keep their value that way anymore and I assume that the value of a digital Leica will diminish more rapidly than its film predecessors. I can’t believe that Leica will stop developing new models and new models will reduce the value of the investment. For me, the main advantage of a Leica would be its size but I can’t go off to work with only one camera (even Leicas break down – mine did very regularly) and I certainly can’t afford to have two in my bag (let alone run the risk of carrying around such valuable – and uninsurable- equipment). Result? I would have to carry the Leica plus a Canon. Two camera systems with incompatible lenses. Suddenly the bag gets heavier again… I did a big job the other day almost in the dark using the 5D at 3200 and the 28mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.4 lenses. I couldn’t have got away with a lower ISO or slower lenses. Imagine me with my hypothetical $5000 Leica in my bag, having to use the Canon for low light photography because it gives better results! Bad business or what? And finally, frankly, can you really see the difference on the printed page? $5000 worth of difference? Just wondering…
Bruno, does this mean you will be giving up 35mm film Leicas?
|
David, very valid points. On your question before last though, I will surprise you: yes, I can see the difference…the main difference being the type of pictures I shoot with Leica compared to the pictures I shoot with Canon…and still, even on a printed page, the smoothness and sharpness of the Leica lenses produce outstandingly good images.
But I still shoot film as often as I can, both 35mm and medium format…
B.
|
Bruno, the problem (my problem) is that I agree entirely about the type of pictures you shoot with a Leica (by the way, I have been looking at your Iran work on DRR and there are some very fine pictures there – I have learned a lot and I hope you don’t mind my ‘spying’...). It’s precisely because of this difference that I have thought so hard about the business side!
|
hahaha, not spying…these images are published there to be accessible…
B.
|
So, Bruno, it sounds as if I should pick one up. Unfortunately, I bought a M7 last summer and think I should probably sell it now so I can get an M8. My Canon 5D has been good for jobs but a SLR just does not work for personal projects etc. when one has always been shooting on Leicas. . . I, too, want to continue to shoot as much as possible on film but I need an Imacon 646 to be viable in the digital age. So it’s $5000 + 10,000!
|
Bruno—thanks for the review. Sounds great. I know you’re an “f1.4” kinda guy. Did the speed of either the f2.8 28mm or the f4.0 16-18-21mm ever bother you? I’m assuming it wasn’t an issue. Now if Leica would just sent John V. his camera we could learn his impressions. (Me? – just using my old m6ttl/Tri-X, along with the good old Canon dslrs)
|
Bruno, why didn’t you take the 28/2 summicron? Money problems?
|
is there any word of a full frame rangefinder being developed? i mean really, whats the problem here? how hard can it be to get rid of the crop?
|
John, is a 2.0 aperture important with digital, compared to 2.8, mostly for a 28mm ? I do understand for a 50 for the DOF, but for a 28mm… ? That new elmarit seems very nice, very small, and probably optimized for the M8.
Seeing the price of the 28 summicron… I’d go for the elmarit.
|
John & John, I had asked leica for a “28mm to test the M8 with”, and they sent me the new Elmarit 2,8 and not the Summicron. I actually tested the M8 for a couple of days with a friend’s Summicron 28 ( Gael’s) and the results were just as good. And JRF, yes, actually, on a couple of occasions, I wish I had had a 28 1,4… However, the Elmarit 2,8 is SO light, smooth and compact that it “feels” better on the camera than the Summicron, the size of which hides part of the image lower right corner in the viewfinder…nothing too critical though.
Rian, there is a major optical problem regarding a FF rangefinder, as the light falls on the sensor at a very ‘flat’ angle towards the corner because of the shorter distance beween the back of the lens and the sensor; in the case of the M8, Leica and Kodak developped a revolutionary solution, offsetting the microlenses from the actual photosites towards the corners of the frame, it works beautifully, but I don’t think it could work on a FF, the angle would be too flat, there would be major diffraction and colour fringes issues.
Imants,
The colour is actually very very good now, as I said, the latest firmware revision (1;10.2) together with the IR filters and the lens recognition option give outstanding results right from the camera. Opening a M8 file in Camera Raw or C1 is a strange experience as it looks like a finished picture, sharp, contrast spot on and rich colors, nothing like the somewhat milky carateristics of the other cameras raw files…they really did their homework!
B.
|
thank you Bruno for sharing your valuable experience with us. I think that this review “on the field” is extremly important and give a real perspective on the camera. I don’t need graphics and curves and diagrams, I wanna just know if a camera delivers good results, and sure it did in Iran. By the way, you did really good job down there! I hope to see you around, maybe another Parisien dinner with Stanley!! Bye Gianfranco
|
I might buy one next year. It depends on a few things that develop work wise here that develop for me. I shot my M6 overseas and noticed there’s a big difference between my Nikon and Leica shots. Frankly, I like how the Leica stuff more than Nikon. The camera just felt more comfortable and allowed better shots. But that’s just my opinion. Thanks for the field review, Bruno.
|
Gianfranco, Bill, yes, I think you are right, my concern when I embarked onto this M8 field test in Iran was exactly this: can this camera deliver high quality files, on a par with say a Canon 5D, while retaining the traditional Leica M ease of operation? The answer is a resounding “yes”, except perhaps in very low light conditions, where at high ISO settings (above 640ASA), the Canon 5D is still clearly superior; but then again the 5D is superior to most if not all other digital cameras on the market in that respect. But the ease of operation, the sheer quality of its file and the true Leica M ‘feel’ of the M8 in the field makes it one of the most interesting and desirable digital cameras on the market today…
And, Gianfranco, yes, I hope we can have another dinner like the last one quite soon…are you coming to TPW in June? I am doing the 2 WE with Ed Kashi there…and then a week in August…
B.
|
I guess what might keep me from getting one is obsolescence.
For 100,000 yen or so ($800) I could buy a functionally perfect and cosmetically clean M3 that’s around 50 years old. I could expect to use it for the rest of my life, or until they stop making film. Any lens that Leica makes in the foreseeable future should fit it as well, if not, there is every lens made so far. For $2500 or so, I could get a brand new MP that should last for about forever.
An M8 is a digital camera, with far more electronic guts than anything they’ve made previously. How well will those electronic bits hold up? Can I expect it to work in 20 years? 10?
For how long will I be able to get batteries?
How well will it stand up to humidity and ambient moisture? (I had to send my then new D100 back to the factory for a $600 repair after a month of rainy season, but no direct rain.)
I guess that as far as a tool for a working PJ goes, five years is probably good for any piece of gear, but for me, I’m a bit torn—though I think the thing is a fantastic camera, $1,000 a year for five years with probably negligible resale value after that is too much for me to spend.
(Please note that I haven’t mentioned any of the M8’s well-documented great points and certainly don’t want to fan the flames of any film vs. digital debates. I just wanted to address some points about expected lifespan.)
As an aside on the whole sensor size issue—I guess there is some practical or economic limitation that keeps most sensors at 75% of the standard 135 film size, thus forcing all of the rethinking of lenses and such, but it’s interesting to note where the 35mm standard came from. Apparently, in 1889, Thomas Edison was developing the Kinetoscope and a worker asked him how wide to cut the film. He held up his thumb and forefinger and said “About this wide…” and the 35 millimeter standard was born…
I’d bet a lot of engineers in Germany and Japan now wish he’d held them just a wee bit closer.
|
Jim, I understand your concern, you are right…my favourite camera is my…1965 Leica M2, it is still my main camera whenever I shoot 35mm film…however the digital obsolescence issue is general to ALL professional digital cameras…4 (!) years ago I was sooo happy with the quality of my Canon EOS 1D…resale value today…not much…but I spent 6 months on assignment in Iraq with mine, it was paid for after a week or two…
B.
|
Bruno, how would you compare the digital files you get after scanning film shot with your M2 with digital files directly from the M8? I preesume that the M8 files are much better. Is this the case?
I ask because there are a lot of very reasonalbly priced Leica Ms around at the moment (presumably because everyone has gone digital) and I am wondering whether it’s worth getting one. I have spent some time recently looking at old black and white prints from the 30s and Kodachromes from the 50s and, frankly, I’m a bit concerned about long-term conservation of digital images.
D.
|
David, The M8 files are much “cleaner” than any 35mm film scans. They are at least equivalent to good 6×9 scans…The Leica M2 scans are typically very good though, because filmgrain nothwithsanding, the smootness and precision of the Leica M lenses provides for very very good images, gorgeous colour transition and bokeh. Of course it is down to the scanner (I use an Imacon 646), the film and its processing as well…
It depends how big you need to print these scans, but I don’t mind seeing a bit of grain if the picture is otherwise sharp and smooth. I haven’t printed (in big format) any M8 files yet, but they look very promissing on the computer screen!
By the way, David, I haven’t forgotten…next time I am in Paris…;-)
B.
|
I, too, want to continue to shoot as much as possible on >film but I need an Imacon 646 to be viable in the digital >age. So it’s $5000 + 10,000!
>
>by Davin Ellicson
Dave, you don’t need a $10,000 Imacon 646 to continue to shoot film, especially if you are shooting 35mm. The Imacon 343 is almost half the cost and delivers top notch results.
I have the Nikon 9000ED ($2000) (which scans up to 6×9) and it too is extremely good.
Imacon has a huge reputation, with prices to match, but they aren’t the only game in town. Take a look at the Nikon 9000ED. At $2000 it’s a steal and delivers extremely high quality results. The Imacon may be better, but I doubt that the difference is like day and night. In any case the 9000ED will probably beat the pants off of almost anything professionals used just a few years ago.
|
Dave, I am sure Feli is right. Also there is the still unresolved question of proper digital archive… B.
|
Hello Bruno,
Thanks for that very interresting Leica M8 report.
We met long time ago at Studio Kitsch (I’m Sound engineer working for feature films and I have a very large sound effects library).
I bought my M8 ten days ago. Very expensive and because it’s my first “M” Leica I have to buy the lenses.
I found a second hand lens Summicron-M 1:2/35. Very nice but a littel too narrow for me.
I’m looking for another lens, a 21mm or 24mm. Not very easy to find. Any suggestions in Belgium?
Hello to John Vinck I met more than 25 years ago during a shooting in Bohan (Belgium) about a sect and Virgin appearing…
Philippe Vandendriessche
www.adhocsound.be
|
Philippe, you can buy a nice 28mm from me ;) ok, I’m leaving…
|
Philippe,
Of course I remember you!
I would look into the new Elmarit 28 2,8 asph, I think it is the cheapest(!) Leica wide angle, and the 28 becomes a 35 on the M8. The 24mm (or the 21mm) is too big for the viewfinder and blocks a large part of the bottom right of the image…
See you soon,
Bruno
|
The 24mm (or the 21mm) is too big for the viewfinder and blocks a large part of the bottom right of the image…
Bruno, does the 24mm block more on the M8 then on the M?
regards Stefan
|
Stefan, yes the 24mm (or 21mm) blocks quite a bit more than the 35mm f2 on a M6 or M7 0.72. I can’t say about the 35mm 1,4… The 28mm f2,8 asph is virtually out of the M8 viewfinder… B.
|
quick filter question concerning the M8… is the leica branded one the only option or are there filters available from b+w, etc. that would be worthy contenders? —ben
|
Ben, The Leica filters IR are either Leica or B&W branded, manufactured by Schneider, essentially, there is only one kind as far as I know… I should emphasize they don’t seem to produce any negative side-effect. B.
|
Thank you Bruno, do you have any work you did in Iran online?
|
|
|
Bruno, Good stuff from Iran, man. On average, how much time did you spend per image in PS? Cheers, Bill.
|
Well Bill, it depends, as you probably noticed, I have given a very specific tone to this series of pictures. So to answer your question, some images a few seconds, some a bit more, especialy when there are a lot of faces and backlight, but as I said, with “normal” light, the raw files are amazingly good and very close to the finished picture.
B.
|
I am surprised, I thought in color work. very good b/w conversion! would be interesting to see real prints out of it. thank you.
|
Stefan, It is more than just BW conversion. I tend to use PS as a digital darkroom, to give a ‘tone’ and a specific ‘caracter’... B.
|
yes I can see it, thats why I said “very good”. normally b/w conversions look most of the time boring.
|
Thanks, Bruno.
If you’re really saying that the images you can get from an M8 are better than what you can get with film in a mechanical M, then the question sort of answers itself. I knew they were close, but didn’t realize that the quality had surpassed film.
Hmm… Need to let this sink in a bit…
Jim
|
Thanks a lot Bruno for the report and link to your images. We all appreciate you taking the time to fill us in!
One thing I notice in your shots, the 28/2.8 seems to have just a bit of wide-angle distortion, at least more than I would expect… While the look is very nice in that Leica way, it does seem more like a cropped 28 (which of course is what it is) than a true 35 in terms of dimensionality, lines being just a bit ‘curvy’... know what I mean? My 35/2, by comparison, tends to have very straight lines and I recall a friend saying that even his Leica 24 had little or no distortion.
What are your thoughts on this? Of course, after re-reading your original post, I just realized that maybe the shots where I’m seeing the slight distortion were taken with the Tri-Elmar?? So, bottom line – did you notice any distortion issues with either lens, compared to what you’re used to?
Cheers, Bill
|
Jim, That’s what I have been dwelling on since yesterday: if files from the M8 equal 6×9 film scans, why bother with film at all, in a Leica or even medium format? Sticking with film because of doubts about digital archiving would not be reason enough for me…
|
David and Jim, I didn’t say the M8 files “equal” 6×9 scans. The quality of both is at a similar level, but the caracter of the images is different, it also depends on the type of film used in the 6×9 and the type of photography. I used this comparison to give an indication of the subjective quality of the M8 files which is very high indeed… What remains true and surprising, is that the M8 files exhibit more of a film feeling than the other digital cameras I am used to, as well as a true Leica M pedigree, which is a lot.
Bill, no I didn’t notice any distortion, certainly not with the 28mm asph., of course, the Tri-Elmar is very wide and very much an ultra wide angle, I used it on the 18mm position which equals to a 24mm in 35 format, and I didn’t really see a quality difference between the Tri Elmar and my beloved Elmarit 24mm on film…that says a lot as the Elmarit is an outstanding lens. However, you can’t expect NOT to see a difference between a cropped 18mm and a Summicron 35 on film…but I repeat, the Tri Elmar is a gorgeous lens, very sharp and capable of producing true wide angle images on a digital M…
B.
|
Film vs digital:
Their both have their strengths.
Digital has lower noise (grain) and better color accuracy, especially in mixed light.
Digital ‘sees’ deeper into the shadows and film handles highlights better,
Film negative has greater exposure range, 10-18 stops depending on whom you believe.
Digital has more dynamic range than slide film , but less than negative. With the exception of the Finpix S5 Pro, pretty much every DSLR on the market delivers about 8 stops of usable dynamic range. Usable being the keyword here. The Finepix S5 PRO gets 10 stops, because of it’s high dynamic range SuperCCD, but it’s only 6MP.
Film also tends to have greater color resolution, but that is changing as manufacturers up the resolution of their A/D circuitry, which will also increase the useable dynamic range. There is a noticeable difference between the results you get with a 12bit and 16bit A/D converter.
One reason why the M8 may deliver more film-like images is due to it’s use of a CCD, rather than a CMOS chip. CCD’s tend to deliver images that have a more film like quality.
I’ve seen tests where the 16MP Canon 1Ds MkII runs neck to neck with a 6×7 negative and delivers less grain over 400asa. The film negative will have better tonality and greater dynamic range.
But in the end they are different media, like oil paint and acrylics. I prefer the look of Tri-X, so that’s what I shoot. Sometimes digtal is the better choice. I just use the tool that offers the best solution for the job.
Feli
|
Hi all,
As part of the Leica M8 Axis of Evil testing tour, I’ve recently returned home from Iraq where I was on assignment for the NY Times. I brought two M8s and wrote a review for Popphoto
I feel pretty much the same way as Bruno. I love them, and there’s no way I’m going back to Nikon after using them.
Here’s the link
|
Wow! Good luck with the book Ashley. I shall be getting a copy shortly. You know, I thought I was so over the Leica thing. I had a marvelous Hexar for quite a while and now have a D200 system which is excellent. But for the work I like to do for myself, I would so love to have the M8 but it’s completely out of my reach with two kids and a sluggish career. First up I need to upgrade my computer. However, given yours and Bruno’s accounts of M8 experiences I will put a hold on all future Nikon purchases in case I can somehow find a way to make the switch. I have a dream again.
|
Ashley, “As part of the Leica M8 Axis of Evil testing tour”...LOL!!!
Thank you for your testimony, and be sure to upgrade your cameras with the latest firmware and IR filters, the magenta quirk is definitely a thing of the past!
Good to hear you are back safe from Iraq after learning of Dima’s tragedy!
Also, I will be going to Leica headquarters in a couple of weeks or so for a complete debriefing with both production and R&D departments…watch this space!
B.
|
Bruno, how did you feel about the accuracy of the frameline coverage?
Last month I got to handle my friends M8, with my 35/50 Lux and it appears that you end up with a good deal more on your ‘neg’ than you expected. I wasn’t expecting 100% accuracy (it’s an RF after all), but it seemed about as bad as the tight 50 markings on the metered M film bodies, which are pretty far off for focusing on anything that’s more than 3 meters away.
We didn’t have a 28mm, but from what I hear it may be the best match and most accurately framing lens for the M8.
Also, have you tried a 2/40 Summicron or 1.4/40 Voigtlander on the M8? That should give you a nice 52mm.
thanks,
Feli
|
Feli, You are right, there are precision issues with the VF framelines with some focal lengths. The 28mm is by far the most accurate, since 35mm(film) is what I most shoot with, this worked great for me. The second lense I used during this trip is the new wide-angle Tri-Elmar, but it needs an separate VF. I used the small Leica zoom VF, apparently very accurate with that lens…
During my visit in Solms, I will suggest Leica to remove some of the lines in the M8 VF, as I feel they are too many lines in some configurations…the most apparent of which is the 24mm/35mm config: the 24mm frame is very near the edge of the VF and in fact too small…the visible limit of the VF being almost exactly the frame recorded with the 24mm Elmarit (I hope this explanation is clear).
I haven’t tried a 40mm on the M8. The Summicron 35mm f2 asph. produces extremely sharp images.
B.
|
|
|
Feli, You are right, there are precision issues with the >VF framelines with some >>focal lengths.
My pet peeve with all Leicas since the introduction of the M6, when Leica shrank the framelines. The 50 suffered the most, to the point that I avoid shooting with one on anything but my M2 or M4, unless I absolutely need a meter.
(the older framelines frame more accurate)
I underdstand Leica’s thinking behind this. Show the photographer the absolute minimum they will get on their negative. The only problem is that as lenses were able to focus closer, the discrepency between what the lens is seeing at lets say .7 meters and most working distances of approximately 3-10 meters grew bigger. And forget about framing accurately at infinity.
I understand that a RF is not going to show framing as accurate as a Nikon F. But with the smaller markings we’ve gone from the frameing being reasonably accurate, to them at times being ridiculously far off.
Interestingly Westlicht has a M prototype for auction with a rangefinder unit that not only corrected for parallax in X and Y, but also shrank and grew the framelines, as you changed the focus distance. Maybe it’s time for Leica to dust off the blue prints for that design.
Anyhow, that’s just me moaning…
The 28mm is by far the most accurate, since 35mm(film) is >what I most shoot with, >>this worked great for me.
That’s good to hear. I’m a 35 man myself.
thanks,
Feli
|
Hi Bruno, Very interesting comments. I was very dissappointed by all the initial colour issues, but glad to hear the filters and firmware have sorted this out. I may just have to start thinking about Leica again! Quick question; does the IR filter reduce any light get through as far as exposure is concerned? If one’s using a hand held meter (yes, yes, I know, I’m very old fashioned!!), can the reading just be dialled in or is a compensation needed??
Cheers,
Edmond
|
Edmond,
There is no exposure compensation needed for the IR filters, the “official” Schneider/Leica figure being 0.1 stop light absorption.
Best,
B.
|
Bruno,
Cheers for that. Much appreciated.
Edmond
|
No problem, you’re welcome, B.
|
If someone is still on the fence about film vs. digital, or isn’t comfortable taking a $5,000 on a first generation digital camera, the M8 is not going to make you happy.
First, this is a camera for those who own M-mount lenses, those who used to own M-mount lenses and miss them, and those who don’t need to earn back the cost of the camera and lens collection. Many people (myself included) have been waiting patiently for the day that Leica (or anyone!) gives us a platform for shooting digital with M lenses. Epson came through with the R-D1s, and that was a good stop-gap body while Leica worked out the next generation of M body. Now that the M8 is out, it’s clear to me from my extensive use of it over the past 5 months that the image quality is capable of at least hanging with the best non-MF digital bodies available, and in some aspects, bettering them. Bruno is entirely correct to emphasize the microdetail preserved in these files. Coupled with the sharp lenses and a very healthy dynamic range, even shots in ISO 1250 or 2500 are coming out with more depth and dimension than DSLR equivalents, and ISO 320 and 160 are looking a lot like film, if processed correctly.
This brings me to my second point: digital processing. The reason that this camera is not for novice digital shooters is that it requires a fair amount of tweaking to get superb images. First, you need the IR filter in place. Second, you need 6-bit coded lenses for all focal lengths under 50mm, as the IR cut filter will impose cyan vignetting otherwise. This means that you need to send Leica lenses to Leica for coding (at $100 a pop) or you need to “hand code” Zeiss, CV or other lens brands by using a sharpie on the mounting plate. Third, you need to shoot RAW (which is DNG format in this case). The auto white balance is finicky and changes from shot to shot—as Bruno notes, accurate WB can be done in post, but not in camera. This makes shooting JPEGs more or less useless, unless you prefer to chimp black and white previews on the LCD. Fourth, you will need to really process these images in post. C1 LE comes with the camera, and is probably the best converter to use from an image quality standpoint. But for convenience of use, ACR and LR win. This means you’ll have to calibrate presets for the camera and you’ll find yourself tweaking a fair amount in post. Why? Because it’s insanely fun…the M8 DNG files can tolerate more push than any RAW file I’ve ever seen. Again, Bruno mentions shooting underexposed, which is a good practice for this camera. Other digital cameras do better at recovering highlights, but the M8 is exceptional at recovering from shadow. As long as there is no highlight clipping in the file, you are almost guaranteed to have a brilliant print. You’ll bring up the noise as you push to the right of the histogram, but that noise is the prettiest I’ve ever seen (another point Bruno gets dead-on).
Finally, don’t forget to consider total cost of ownership when looking at the $5,000 price tag. The hidden costs are computers, storage, printers, print supplies, and that damn lens addiction that is worse than heroin and will have you on the phone with your “dealer” far too often to be healthy. On the other hand, you are buying total control over your output, from capture to print and everything in between. A laptop and a nice printer can eliminate labs from your life altogether, if you’re not careful.
|
When you guys give Leica your feedback, you should petition them to allow the OPTION of writting uncompressd DNG files.
It appears that during the compression from a 20MB to a 10MB DNG Leica is tossing more information in the highlights, than in the shadows and midtones.
A colleague of mine who’s a noted imaging expert and the co-author of one of the most sophisticated pieces of image manipulation code on the planet, took a look at what they are doing and this really appears to be the case.
Leica swears up and down that their compression is lossless, but frankly I believe my friend, whom I have worked with for nearly 15 years. I also find it difficult to believe that there is no loss, when you are cutting your file size in half.
The 16bit DNG files would be twice as big, but there should be more information in them. Interestingly the prototype M8 cameras wrote 20MB, 16bit files.
The M8 would also have to process twice as much information and the storage capacity of your SD card would be cut in half, but it would be nice to have as an option when maxium image quality and dynamic range is needed.
The DMR back for the Leica R8/R9 writes uncompressed 16bit files. Color fidelity is extremely impressive.
Feli
|
Sol,
Interesting comments…but I have to (friendly) disagree on a couple of points, of course we are venturing into the subjective here:
- I feel the M8 raw files processed right through PS Camera Raw with minimum adjustments require much LESS adjustements than say Canon EOS 5D files before getting to the final image.
- In my opinion, but again, this could be subjective, the M8 is not exceptionnal only at recovering shadows, there you are absolutely right; but also at recovering highlights…now, when I process the Raw, this is the ONE step I am very careful about, I make sure on the histogram that NO burned highlight is present. This can be done two ways, first by “underdevelopping”, and as the underexposure recovery ability of the M8 files in PS is outstanding, this makes 80% of the trick, but for some images, I go to the curve page on ACR and take the top right point of the curve (highlights) just down from the corner…and I find that somehow, I manage to extract more details in PS that way without burning the highlights…not very “kosher” but damn effective!
Oh, and the in-camera auto white balance seems to have improved with the current firmware as well…but in “stable’ light conditions, the “manual” option (shooting one frame at a white paper or cloth) produces pretty impressive results…
Feli,
I will definitely raise the point. “Optional” 20Mb/16bits DNG…from the M8…yummy!
B.
|
Bruno,
I take your point on processing…especially given your earlier comments on unsharp mask for the 5D, etc. I suppose there is no avoiding fairly intensive digital “development” for any camera (including scanned film) at this point, so perhaps you are correct that the M8 is typical in this respect.
The trick you describe for pulling highlights sounds a lot like what I do in Lightroom: apply just enough “recovery” to recapture detail in the highlights while not losing the topmost white point, and just enough “fill light” and exposure boosting to bring out the shadow detail. I’m also impressed by how the M8 recovers both highlights and shadows, even despite the 8-bit compression.
There was an extensive debate about having uncompressed output at the Leica user’s forum, and there is still some disagreement on the point. It is true that Leica claims no advantage to it.
A more immediately useful feature would be menu-based selection of lens profiles in the firmware, as hand-coding wide-angle lenses by putting Sharpie marks on the mounting plate is a bit of a hassle.
| |
