'Updated' M8 - some results

My dealer kindly replaced my M8 with the updated version yesterday. Today I decided to try it in difficult

conditions (a gloomy English priory church) with a difficult lens (Noctilux) at higher ISOs (640 and 1250).

Nothing technical here - just examples from ordinary use. All taken at f1, naturally!<p><a href="http://

www.flickr.com/photos/paul_hart/327183320/" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://static.flickr.com/

140/327183320_fc729b77fe_o.jpg" width="800" height="538" alt="The Pulpit" /></a><p><a

href=" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://

static.flickr.com/142/327183280_10cd86b6b7_o.jpg" width="800" height="538" alt="The Pulpit 2" /></

a><p><a href=" title="Photo Sharing"><img

src="http://static.flickr.com/139/327183377_a56d160c83_o.jpg" width="538" height="800" alt="Scary

Lectern 2" /></a><p><a href=" title="Photo

Sharing"><img src="http://static.flickr.com/143/327183195_e7d1b254c5_o.jpg" width="538"

height="800" alt="Lancaster Priory" /></a>

There still appears to be a lot of magenta in the shadows. Nice pics, though. Love that limited depth of field.

 

Best regards,

 

Frank M.

Frank: two points - as I understand it, the fixed models don't address the magenta issue;

that's being done via the filters; and second, there aren't many synthetic fabrics around this

place!

Paul, what does the 'update' consist of? Are you able to tell me where you got the M8? I'm probably going to place an order in the next few days and I want to find out what order times are like. I'm in Cambridge, UK. Nice pics BTW. Harry

Harry: I'm in the NW of England and got mine from Wilkinson Cameras. I think you'll do well

to get one before next year if you don't have your name down already.

 

As I understand it, the update has addressed the banding and ghosting issues, and has

updated firmware too. The banding and ghosting issues needed something more than

firmware tinkering, as obviously that could have been done without sending cameras back.

As to what that 'something more' is, I've no idea!

nice pics Paul - Did your dealer let you trade in your old M8 with the new one ? or you actually had to send in your old M8 and have it updated by Leica Sohms. Thanks

Charles: they did a straight swap, and my first one is going back to Solms.

Sweet Paul - That's what I call great dealer service. Enjoy the new M8 .

Wow! Very nice pictures, Paul. Since I don't own one (yet) I am avoiding the controversy

concerning the M8. It is plain to me, however, that you are concentrating on the most

important aspect of the M8: it is capable of assisting you to make beautiful pictures. Now,

that is not intended as a slap to the "gearheads' here. It is just to say that there are some

of us who take most of our pleasure from photography in the taking of photographs, not

in becoming too worried about the shortcomings of our instruments. By the way, I am still

quite satisfied with my Leica Digilux 1. I believe I am gradually mastering most of its

quite?considerable capabilities.

I'm not saying the M8 isn't a good camera, but I'm not seeing anything particularly special about any shots I've seen coming from it that puts it above other good-quality digitals. Maybe when folks start trying to make images with it instead of test shots looking for bugs or proving they're cured, we'll start to see why it's worth so much dough.

Jerry.....please tell me that you understand that jpegs, displayed on Photo.net, by a wide

range of photographer's with widely varying experience and capabilities, cannot 'prove' or

'disprove' the merits or value of any particular camera. We could display 20 different

images

from 20 different digital cameras, from a $100 Kodak to an M8, and we'd all have a hard

time

differenitating one from the other on technical merit. On aesthetic merit.....well, that's

another story. Just something to think about when we critique images here, based on

hardware used....or the price of the camera, for that matter.

 

PS: Paul: my comments are not directed at the images you posted.....they're quite

handsome.

<i><b>Jerry.....please tell me that you understand that jpegs, displayed on Photo.net, by a wide range of photographer's with widely varying experience and capabilities, cannot 'prove' or 'disprove' the merits or value of any particular camera.</i></b></p><i>I</i> understand it, but I'm not sure about the guys who put up their shots with statements like "Today I decided to try it in difficult conditions (a gloomy English priory church) with a difficult lens (Noctilux) at higher ISOs (640 and 1250)." which suggests there's some kind of camera test going on and therefore the shots are supposed to prove something about the camera.

The good news is . . . if one didn't read your text, your post could just as easily be a test of the Noctilux lens rather than the camera. In other words, the camera use is irrelevant. That's good news for me. People who keep asking what justifies the money for the M8 should realize by now that it's the same justification for any digital camera: to get rid of film without sacrificing the expected level of quality that we're used to getting from film. It's not even how many years worth of film you'd have to use up to match the cost of the camera. It's simply convenience of having photos instantly and avoiding the whole film development process. It's looking more and more like the M8 has accomplished what it set out to do. The cost is only relevant to those who have better uses for the money. That would have been me 20 years ago, but not today. My only hesitation now is that I still like what I get back from film. A lot. Nice photos . . . now, what lens did you use?

Jerry: not so much a formal test, as an an attempt to see how it holds up in circumstances a

little more taxing than average. And an attempt to post some 'ordinary' M8 shots as opposed

to test charts. Nothing more than that.

Paul,

 

Excellent shots and thanks for sharing. Have you been please with the high iso noise with the Leica M8. The high iso shots I have seen have been pretty noisy, and that is worrisome.

 

Thanks,

Steve

Stephen: having checked the files, I think all these shots were taken at 1250. I hardly ever

find the need to go faster than that. These were RAW images downloaded into Adobe

Lightroom (beta 4) and given very little post-processing. A slight tweaking of levels, no

sharpening, small fiddle with saturation, and that's about it.

 

Noise/grain is a subjective thing, but I find it acceptable. It's even better when converted to

greyscale via Lightroom. Below 640 it's hardly there at all.

I can see an M8 type (RF) digital camera in my future.

 

1. When the technology matures so I can print poster sized.

 

2. If and when I ever get "settled" down in one place for more than several months at a time (I'm a road warrior).

"When the technology matures so I can print poster sized."

 

Really? How often do you make poster sized prints. I've done it exactly once. :-)

Poster sized ? <p>

 

<a href=http://www.leica-camera-user.com/digital-forum/9022-30-x-40-inch-m8-prints.html>This post by a professional photo printer describes poster-sized prints (30" x 40") of M8 photos made by the professional</a>, who was the original poster in the thread. The post is followed by extensive discussion. <p>

 

Note: a link to this thread was previously posted ... by another poster. :-)

Semantics...I want the "capability" to print poster sized, which IME is "currently" possible with 135 film. I won a company photo contest with a shot of a reactor using an "old" 50/1.4 'lux. The prize was a token "turkey" gift certificate and a custom, in company, long gone, hand print of a 24"X36" framed print. The print is quite good. That's what I want. I didn't mean to imply a digi vs. film arguement. If digi can match 135 film I'll be happy.

Jerry: Understood. Thanks....and I agree.

Poster size? Depends on what you call poster size. I have 30 X 40 or depending on the crop, size photos every time our office goes to trial. Sometimes, and in fact until I started much of the photowork, we did them off of throwaway camera's. Now, I do it with a D200, pretty much same file size as your M8. Now the print standards do not have to be fine art for these blow-ups. But some of them look alright and they all do the job or we wouldn't us them. You don't look at a photograph like that with a loop, you stand back and look at it, that's why its big.

I was one of the ones who posted a link to David Adamson's 30x40 print thread at the Leica User Forum. I can also speak from personal experience; I've had my lab make (three, to date) 16x20 prints from M8 JPEG (not even RAW) files, and the prints are fantastic when I don't screw something up at the taking stage or in post-processing. If you're waiting for poster-sized printing, you have no reason to wait longer.

"Poster size? Depends on what you call poster size. I have 30 X 40 or depending..."

 

I don't know if there is a precise definition, but I think of poster sized as a minimum of 30 x 40 (16 x 20 definitely would not qualify).

The digital-virgin in me (never ever used one) is simply amazed by the pix you can produce with your M8. And I really don't mind about the "magenta shadows" (reminds me of warmtone FB papers...) :-)