M8 Pics!

oh allan....

Allen..... at least get the name right,Troll.

ok allen...happy now?

back to beneath my bridge.

ok allen...happy now?

Yep, manners maketh man. A thought for you on your journey of life.

'Yep, manners maketh man'

would that quote make you a little school girl then?

would that quote make you a little school girl then?

Matt, the forum is about Leica, nothing else. I think i've contributed in every way. With respect, mate, you are sounding like a old punchy boxer. Time to take of the gloves.

To be honest, even me, would not bother someone like me.Be happy my friend...

Time to call it a day.

cheers allan, you provided an old sod with some entertainment tonight.

nitey nite. :)

an old sod with some entertainment tonight

Hey, some pennies in Heaven.

Allen, you're out of order.<br><br>

I've been bored to death by this silly squabble. And, for no reason other than I can, I'll tell you something about your photos. The images you posted in this thread are unsubstantial - nothing more than weak snapshots that demonstrate the very defects you're arguing against.<br><br>

From what I've seen on this forum, there's no reason to get concerned about dilution of the Leica heritage. Whether using an M6, M7 or M8, the mediocre mediocre photographer will still be able to produce mediocre images.<br><br>

Thank you Travis for posting these images.

Whenever someone says these could have been taken with "any digital p'n's" could be blind. They might not see the shallow DOF, they might not see the astonishing detail in the shirt @2500 (3200, really). A bit of de-noising and that quality is nothing short of amazing.

Someone was "disappointed" with the high-ISO quality? That someone should get a life. Ever seen a scan of a Delta 3200 or a scan of a Fuji 1600 pushed a stop? Yeah, the 5d has a bit less noise @3200 - but not really more information within the file.

That camera is a specialist tool for people that know what to use it for. For people that either are determined to spend that much on their hobby or pros that believe they can improve their style in a digital age.

All this childish "it's too expensive/it's not so good for wildlife/macro, it's doesn't have 8fps, it doesn't have AF / a live preview" bickering is premature.

Not all things that are too expensive for your budget are too expensive for everybody else. You can't afford a Maserati? Fair enough, neither can I. But I wouldn't put people down who buy one.

"Someone was "disappointed" with the high-ISO quality? That someone should get a life."

That was me. And I've scanned plenty of Delta 3200, Neopan 1600, NPZ pushed etc etc; the samples are spread all over this website and my own. And I do indeed have a life last time I checked. But I'm still disapointed with the M8's noise performance. Might buy one though . . .

matt,

that high noise crop has not been passed through any noise control software. that is part of the process when it comes to digital imaging. i think once you see a properly treated high iso image from the m8, you may be happy. let's wait and see :) i'm by no means digitaly 'aware' of what's out there, but i have seen some interesting work and learned a bit.

cheers

Some post processing might indeed make a differenece, but I haven't been too terribly impressed with what you can do with various noise suppression routines. It's a multi variable trade off involving noise, detail, dynamic range and color fidelity.

In any event, I'm basing my impression of the M8's noise characteristics on the images Sean Reid has in his review, in which he has M8 and 5D images side by side including examples with the chroma noise suppressed. His comparisons show the 5D having significantly less noise without losing detail.

I'll be the last person to advocate choosing a camera system based solely on noise performance; heck, I bought a D80 even though it has noticeably more noise than Canon's products. But given the RF's inherent advantages for low light photography, I'd hoped that Leica would have recognized the potential and gone for a sensor with better noise performance. This hope was perhaps unwise given Kodak's generally poor track record in this area.

If I had $5000 to spare at the moment, I'd happily plop it down for an M8. Given that I've already got all the lenses, in the long run it would be cheaper than building up a comparable DSLR system. Maybe next year.

Matt,

I apologize for my choice of words. Still, how could you expect Leica to come up with a sensor that has less noise at 1600+ than the current "king of the hill"? If that had happened I would have been the first to buy Leica shares on a loan.

Leica, however, did manage, to introduce a camera that seems to have about the same noise characteristics at 100% as my Canon 1DMK2 cameras. Given that the M8 has two more MP and is lacking an anti-aliasing-filter that should result in images wich are a bit better those of my MK2. Now, if you add 1-2 stops of better "hand-holdability" of a rangefinder (no mirror-slap) - to my mind - Leica has a winner in the low-light shooting world. (Hey, you can even focus better at -2EV than with an AF camera)

Thus, actually, my very own expectations have been met and exceeded.

Happy, you have a life - I'm (when not typing in these forums) have an off-line life myself, sometimes :-))