M8 - lack of MP for photo agencies

Its great news that Leica has brought to market the M8. This is exciting territory for most of us waiting

for this camera to mount our slew of lenses.

One thing that concerns me is the 10 megapixel count. Most photo agencies are demanding 12MP files

as minimum, and I can only see this rising to around the 18-22MP mark. Ok, you can you software to

rez up the file but only too a certain degree. I am just surprised Leica did not release this camera with a

higher pixel count as most pros who shoot for agencies would require this.

I would be interested in your thoughts and comments. The answer that almost all pros are using a 1DS

or 1DSII might be partly true. But what about NG photogs? the M8 would be close to the perfect travel

camera for them. There isn't much mention of sealing on the M8 either, did Leica miss this?

(((I am just surprised Leica did not release this camera with a higher pixel count as most

pros who shoot for agencies would require this)))<br><br>

If I was a pro, the last camera that I would buy is the M8. This is only for the always-

spending-silly-huge-money hobbyists... like me :O)<br><br>

(((I would be interested in your thoughts and comments. The answer that almost all pros

are using a 1DS or 1DSII might be partly true.)))<br><br>

Correct, because some use D2Xs too...<br><br>

(((But what about NG photogs? the M8 would be close to the perfect travel camera for

them.)))<br><br>

? WHY ?

Tommy, the 10 meg size is the RAW file size, not the processed size which is what you

provide photo agencies.

An uninterpolated (not res'ed up) 10 meg RAW file from the M8 will produce an 8.6" X

12.92", 28.7 meg. 8 bit file at the standard 300 dpi.

In addition, the M8 sensor size is a 1.33X crop factor verses many other DSLR's that are

1.5X or 1.6X. A bit larger sized sensor also helps with image quality.

In other words, no problem.

> (((But what about NG photogs? the M8 would be close to the perfect travel camera for

them.)))

> ? WHY ?

pretty obvious! its light, compact, plus equally light and compact fast quality prime lenses

Mark,

> Tommy, the 10 meg size is the RAW file size, not the processed size which is what you

provide photo agencies.

Yes I knew that

> An uninterpolated (not res'ed up) 10 meg RAW file from the M8 will produce an 8.6" X

12.92", 28.7 meg. 8 bit file at the standard 300 dpi.

Yes, which yields only an A4 sized native print. Which is why most fashion, magazine

editors prefer 48-52 meg files for double page spreads, ie A3 sized print files

> In addition, the M8 sensor size is a 1.33X crop factor verses many other DSLR's that are

1.5X or 1.6X. A bit larger sized sensor also helps with image quality.

Yes, 1.5x and 1.6x are consumer crop factors. most Pros are using 1.33x minimum. with

full-frame as prefered

> In other words, no problem.

Not quite. How would you supply a requested 48 meg file to a photo agency when your M8

only has a native file of around 29? -- the only way is by software interpolation. but this is

not ideal

My own experience is that I have generally provided 4 Mp images to magazines, and the files were jpegs of around 700 kb in size. Never had a complaint, and the published results have always been fine. If you're shooting for publication at normal reproduction sizes, 10 Mp is more than ample. Large posters is a different ballgame, of course.

Frankly, I'd rather have a very clean 8 Mp file than a noisy 16 Mp file. You save on storage and can upsize the image using specialised software if necessary, while already having an image which is perfect for most publication requirements.

> My own experience is that I have generally provided 4 Mp images to magazines, and the

files were jpegs of around 700 kb in size. Never had a complaint, and the published

results have always been fine.

which at 300dpi means the print size was around A5 with a file size of 12.5 meg. Or did

they upsize to a full bleed A4?

> If you're shooting for publication at normal reproduction sizes, 10 Mp is more than

ample.

Not convinced. you still need to up-rez

> Large posters is a different ballgame, of course.

Yes agreed

Come guys its quite clearly a toll.

cause the M8 aint no good. Canon is much better that�s why all the pros use um.

I�m just wondering when Canon will finally get off its complacent arse and manufacture a

decent set of wides that take can advantage of their "full-frame" high res sensors?

Seems little Leica can come out with high quality wide optics to go with M8, when is Canon

going to catch up in the ball game?

In answer to Mr. Tri-Elmar:

"If I was a pro, the last camera that I would buy is the M8. This is only for the always-

spending-silly-huge-money hobbyists... like me".

So, as a non-pro you have never lugged around a ridiculously priced $8,000. brick of a

DSLR and it's giant lenses for 8 straight hours to shoot a wedding or event ... right? The

M8 will offer relief of that back-breaking, shoulder-deforming, arthritis-aggravating

situation for many pros like me and others who like less intrusive rangefinder cameras for

candid work up close and personal, but need the solution to be a digital one.

In answer to the 1Ds and 1DsMKII, (which I have and use) as well as the D2X ... the M8 is a

different tool. For many, a DSLR is indispensable, for others like me, it is just one tool for

certain jobs and the M8 can be an alternative for other tasks, a solution that is easier to

carry and produces a different shooting experience.

In addition, rangefinder wide angle lenses are for the most part better corrected than their

DSLR counterparts ... even taking into account the M8 crop factor of 1.33X, Leica wides are

far better corrected than any Canon wide I've used, and I've used them all.

As to travel: depends on the type of travel work. Much easier to carry a M8 and set of

lenses with you on the plane, than a roller bag full of giant DSLR gear. Some don't mind

doing that, but I do. And again, the Leica wides are better than their Canon counterparts

when shooting historic locations with buildings in the shot. Canon wide angle barrel

distortion is a notorious problem for any shot with straight lines in picture area.

True, I can't think offhand of an occasion when I had a full page bleed. On the other hand, my photography is journalistic, not fashion - I suspect that most photographers shooting fashion in the studio would be using MF digital backs.

Having said all that, I think my next camera will likely be the Nikon D2Xs, which seems to be the best compromise in terms of price, robustness and image quality on the market (I also like the use of a croppped sensor to get the best from your lenses), or alternatively, the D200. The 1DSII is just too expensive, and 16 Mp is far more than I need, quite apart from the lens issue.

And, having said all _that_, if I had unlimited funds for a manual focussing digital camera, I'd probably want the M8 - it looks beautiful and very functional.

Tommy, if you shoot RAW files you don't res them up in Photoshop, you do it in Adobe

Camera RAW where there is the most native digital data.

I have the Leica DMR as do others who do commercial work that occasionally post here.

The sensor size and meg count of the DMR is the same as the M8. I have no problem at all

producing files for use in double truck magazine spreads ... including some cropping to fit

and bleed.

But it does depend on the subject. For detailed product work that will fill the spread and is

of jewelry or clothing, then I'd use a MF digital back even over the 1DsMKII which I've tried

to use and found lacking in those circumstances.

For those type jobs, I wouldn't even consider using a rangefinder.

However, for lifestyle, certain type travel, and candid work, even at double spread size, it

would be a serious consideration over the 1DsMKII for the reasons posted above.

(((pretty obvious! its light, compact, plus equally light and compact fast quality prime

lenses)))<br><br>

Right... Could you please name the fast quality primes that would cover the 24-300mm (in

35mm equivalent focal lengths) that two f/2.8 zooms would easily cover in another system?

(for example 17-55mm and 70-200mm in Nikon's 1.5 factor). <br>

Will this combination still be light and compact? What about changing lenses all the time?

What about dust? (...see? I didn't mention the cost...).<br>

You asked about pros, not hobbyists, remember?

Mark, don't get me wrong, I really like (and want :O) the M8.<br>

It is just my opinion that very few pros will pay to buy one. I don't say nobody will, just not

many.<br>

By the way, my name is Jordan. Tri-Elmar is just my favorite lens :O)

"You asked about pros, not hobbyists, remember?"

Which you admit you are not.

You are stating things as absolutes as if all commercial photographic work was the same,

while dismissing anything that doesn't fit your amateur POV.

Some pros are dedicated to certain type work and others are more diversified. Some

supplement their studio MF digital backs with a DSLR and a few zooms for location work.

Some (like sports shooters and celeb Paparazzi need the long lens option. Others have a

full DSLR system and rent MF digital backs. And some use rangefinders for the reasons

mentioned above.

Now that Leica has finally offered a digital solution, some (like me) will use that in place of

the DSLR and zooms because I don't need zooms to shoot a wedding and in fact I don't

use zooms on my Canon DSLR because: 1) they're to slow 2) the distortion is horrible

> Tommy, if you shoot RAW files you don't res them up in Photoshop, you do it in Adobe

Camera RAW where there is the most native digital data.

Yes I have noticed the options in ACR and DPP. I am assuming these options are

essentially a RAW type of up-res'ing? which in all intents and purposes is software driven

> I have the Leica DMR as do others who do commercial work that occasionally post here.

The sensor size and meg count of the DMR is the same as the M8. I have no problem at all

producing files for use in double truck magazine spreads ... including some cropping to fit

and bleed.

By using ACR in RAW. Have you ever used Genuine Fractals or Print resize pro?

What I am trying to say is that IDEALLY you want a camera to produce native file sizes

straight out of the cameras sensor as opposed to using ACR to increasing it to fit

MP is not everything. Looking at the M8 specs (16bit, no AA filter) I would expect that the files play in the same league as Canon full frame cameras. It should be no problem at all to upsize the files to A3.

It looks very much like I will come back in the Leica camp if the M8 will deliver according to my expectations.

BTW, you may be surprised how many "shoot for money" folks will consider this camera

now that it has gone digital and altered the shutter so wider apertures in daylight, and fill

flash can be achieved.

In addition to many I personally know, I know for a fact that some famous shooters have

ordered one, because my dealer tried to put them in front of me in the waiting line : -)

Mark, your pro point of view didn't let you see the obvious self-sarcastic mood of my initial

answer.

> (((pretty obvious! its light, compact, plus equally light and compact fast quality prime

lenses)))

> Right... Could you please name the fast quality primes that would cover the 24-300mm

(in 35mm equivalent focal lengths) that two f/2.8 zooms would easily cover in another

system? (for example 17-55mm and 70-200mm in Nikon's 1.5 factor).

just to clarify, this is made with reference to TRAVEL photography (and street photography

to a certain degree). which is why I think it would be near perfect. Wide angles are a strong

point in the leica lens lineup. The longest FL for the M is 135mm, but for travel the FL's

from 21mm to 90mm suffuce 90% of the time. The fast quality primes are the 21 ASPH,

28/2.8 ELMARIT, 28/2.0 APSH, 35/2.0 APSH, 35/2.0 PRE-ASPH, 35/1.4 ASPH, 50/1.4 &

1.4 ASPH, 70/1.4, 70/2.0 ASPH, 90/2.8 Elmarit, 90 pre ASPH, 90/2.0 ASPH. and i might

have missed out a couple. these lenses are usually half the size and weight of SLR lenses

> Will this combination still be light and compact?

Yes

> What about changing lenses all the time? What about dust? (...see? I didn't mention the

cost...).

most would have 2 M's. one with a wide and one with a short tele like the 90mm. Dust? -

this is prevalent on all digital cmaeras with interchangeable lenses till they design dust-

proofing

>You asked about pros, not hobbyists, remember?

yes, i did. and i bet the pros will be putting down their deposits if not already. This is tool

that has been missing from the shed

Yes Tommy, I have found that the slight amount of up-res needed to achieve a spread file

in ACR has no visual effect at all on image quality with the DMR. But, that depends on how

the file was shot in he first place (what ISO, how well exposed, etc.).

The Canon 1DsMKII produces a larger native file but has a filter in front of the CMOS

sensor and is 12bit. So, in many circumstances I've equalled the 1DsMKII files using the

DMR, and in some cases surpassed it in image quality. Again, horses for courses. It's hard

to beat the Canon 1DsMKII and 5D for high ISO shooting ... which I don't do much of.

The Genuine Fractals option is one I no longer exercise any more as the resolution from

these cameras is good enough for 98% of the work I do. If I have a poster or billboard

application, then I use a Hasselblad H2D/39 ... an option that can be rented for the few

times that occures for most pro shooters ( I own one, but that because of the amount of

commercial studio work I do).

(((...i bet the pros will be putting down their deposits if not already. This is tool that has been

missing from the shed. )))<br><br>

I do hope you are right. I want the same with you after all. If M8 is a success, then Leica will

be financially healthy again and will give us more nice stuff in the future.

> Yes Tommy, I have found that the slight amount of up-res needed to achieve a spread

file in ACR has no visual effect at all on image quality with the DMR. But, that depends on

how the file was shot in he first place (what ISO, how well exposed, etc.).

ok. makes sense

> The Canon 1DsMKII produces a larger native file but has a filter in front of the CMOS

sensor and is 12bit. So, in many circumstances I've equalled the 1DsMKII files using the

DMR, and in some cases surpassed it in image quality.

great thanks for this Mark. this is going to make it harder for me to resist the M8. wheres

the black paint with engraving version? ;0)

> Again, horses for courses. It's hard to beat the Canon 1DsMKII and 5D for high ISO

shooting ... which I don't do much of.

for low light shooting good high iso performance would be preferred. though the noisier

files may (hopefully) look like B&W film grain!

> I do hope you are right. I want the same with you after all. If M8 is a success, then Leica

will be financially healthy again and will give us more nice stuff in the future.

RIght on buddy. I am eagerly waiting for the first sample shots. I want to see if there is an

increase in DR

"One thing that concerns me is the 10 megapixel count. Most photo agencies are

demanding 12MP files"

Your basic premise is wrong. While Getty's "Creative" division has made a (pretty dumb)

list of approved cameras - at least one of which comes in at 10MP just like the Leica - the

editorial side of Getty is happily pushing 8MP (and, historically, lower) images. Getty's the

Walmart of agencies and if you look at more credible sources, like magnum and Vu, you'll

find

photographers using all kinds of cameras, including supposedly amateur 20Ds and their

Nikon equivalents.

"most fashion, magazine editors prefer 48-52 meg files for double page spreads, ie A3

sized print files"

Most magazines happily take way smaller file sizes for spreads and covers. Photographers

and agencies supply the image files at their native size and the production department of

the magazine does the uprezzing. It's totally routine.

"I think my next camera will likely be the Nikon D2Xs, which seems to be the best

compromise in terms of price, robustness and image quality on the market (I also like the

use of a croppped sensor to get the best from your lenses), or alternatively, the D200. The

1DSII is just too expensive, and 16 Mp is far more than I need, quite apart from the lens

issue."

Bob, you'd be making a big mistake if you shelled out on the Nikon. It's the absolute duffer

of the SLR world: it's too big, the rubber peels off if you take it anywhere hot and humid,

and it's noisier (it goes all the way up to 12) than Spinal Tap above 400ASA. Get yourself a

couple of 5Ds (plus a 28mm f1.8 and a 50mm f1.4) - they're affordable and give a great

image file. There's nothing else to touch them, the 1 series cameras are way too big, and

20/30Ds have really ropey focusing. I've no idea why you imagine that a cropped sensor

will give better quality - it won't.

The M8 looks really nice to me. It's lower priced than I would have imagined, it retains

the "feel" of it's predecessors, and the file size is big enough. The only dumb thing about

it is the affectation of having to take the base plate off to remove/replace cards.