M8 - first day

Brad seemed pretty clear about 'visible tones'. you know, the ones that render within the visible spectrum for our eyes?

 

daniel

Vinay, the filters solve the IR problem. All they are doing is manipulating what light out of the spectrum gets to the sensor - in the same way that we use filters with b&w film to control what light gets through to the film.

Is the extra IR sensitivity help you achieve black and white infrared effects with say a dark red filter attached (and probably a tripod)?

 

For me I had just about settled on using 2 M2's and a few modern lenses when the M8 was introduced. Despite the fact that I was willing to pay a fair amount for a new digital camera, I just couldn't get past the price ($5000 for the body and $2500 or so for a new wideangle to take the place of my 35 which would now be a "normal" lens). I don't think any of the M8's foibles would have been a problem for me. Instead I bought a Canon 5D and a 24-105/4L and a 50/1.4. It was half the price and Canon has been making digitals for a while and it shows in the thoughtfulness of their design. But if money was no object, I would certainly have bought an M8 (maybe in addition to the 5D ;-)

 

Have fun with your new M8. I'm envious.

 

p.s. Interestingly, before digital I was a lot more promiscuous in terms of what camera I was using because I tended to favor vintage cameras and their "user interfaces" were similar enough so that they didn't require much study to remember the features. Now with the 5D there are SO many features, so much complexity that you almost have to stick with the same camera all the time just to remember how to set the features. I don't like that, but it seems to be a fact of life in the digital age.

No Steve, not like that at all. We use filters on colour film to correct imbalances, eg daylight film under incandescent lights. That's what WB does (or at least is supposed to do)on a digital camera. Some DSLRs even have "built in" black and white filters. That's how things are in the paradigm of digital photography/digital cameras. With an M7 you have to stop and re-load film every 36 exposures. Would you consider it acceptible if the M8 only took SD cards with 36-exposure capacity? (Actually I bet some people here would).

 

The IR filters do "solve" the IR issue...in the same way a hat "solves" baldness.

David, yes the sensor is sensitive enough to IR to allow the use of a dark IR filter and allow the camera to be used for IR shots - and apparently can also be handheld. Some images I saw posed on the LUG looked quite impressive.

 

Vinay, I was referring to b&w. When I shoot b&w with my M6 I'll have a yellow filter on the camera 90% of the time. Why? Because I want to adjust the tonal response of Tri-X or FP4 in the blue end of the spectrum. Rather than moan at Kodak or Ilford I use a filter to give me the effect I want. Same thing with the M8.

Steve, Very valid point about the yellow filters for B&W films.

"Vinay, I was referring to b&w. When I shoot b&w with my M6 I'll have a yellow filter on the camera 90% of the time. Why? Because I want to adjust the tonal response of Tri-X or FP4 in the blue end of the spectrum. Rather than moan at Kodak or Ilford I use a filter to give me the effect I want. Same thing with the M8."

 

Not at all the same thing. With a digital camera you could set it to Monochrome and use a yellow filter just like with film, but also you can use the camera's firmware processing to replicate the effect of a yellow filter (if the camera has such a feature), OR you can shoot in colour and then convert to b&w in Photoshop after applying the yellow filter effect using Channel Mixer. That is how digital b&w differs from film b&w. Many people go digital for the advances and conveniences it offers. If you prefer to restrict yourself within the same old limitations of film, why spend $5000 for a digital camera?

Jay, I think you are completely mistaken about the use of PS in "replicating" what an UV cut or an IR cut filter does. Try it, they are not the same.

Andy, I just saw your posted photo and it does not look superior to me. It looks like a scan

from an underdeveloped negative. Do you have other samples to show why you think the

M8 is superior to film?

OK. To me I look for detail throughout the tonal range. In the shadows, in the highlights. No blocked up shadow and no blown highlights. There should also be some "shine" to the midtones. The M8 seems to give this straight off the sensor unlike other digital cameras. Now whether you can see this on screen is another thing altogether. It depends a lot on how your monitor is set up for example. Also contrast and tonality are to some extent personal preferences.

 

I hope this one shows it better. I've only had the M8 a couple of weeks and the weather has been lousy, so I don't have a great deal of examples as yet.<div></div>

Hmmm. Doesn't look as quite impressive when it is so small on-screen. Perhaps you'll have to take my word on it ;-)

Andy, differences in monitors aside, I think you might just need to give those images a bit more contrast for web presentation. The second example you posted has a much more evenly distributed histogram, but there's still not much going on in the highlights. On top of that, there's essentially no pure black in the image, which tends to contribute to a lack of perceived contrast.

 

In my experience, the way digital handles highlights encourages a photographer to underexpose, with some cameras doing this as default. With film, I do the exact opposite; I tend toward overexposure know that I can dialing it down later and still retain details throughout the range.

 

I'm sure you can get great B&W out of an M8, but I think it needs a bit more dialing in than has been suggested by many.

 

In any event, the expressions make both of those photos shine regardless of disagreements about B&W.

Andy, what Matt said. 10 seconds in photoshop and your first image popped and became

alive. It's the postprocessing - not the camera, image size, or monitor.

Indeed, but my point was to show the image straight from the camera.

It certainly does. Here is a version of your first image, Andy.<div></div>

Uh, Andy, please ignore my post above.

with a ten-second PS contrast-adjustment, the image pops off the screen. in addition, we can get rid of the 'shadow detail', because frankly, who is interested in the bookshelves in the background? and bringing the whites up lends a glow and point-of-interest to the true subject.

 

this 'shadow detail' obsession has to be the absolute worst-concept, that photographers feel they need to adhere to, forgetting the deeper-purpose of photography is to be expressive and to assist the viewer in finding its essence.

"If you prefer to restrict yourself within the same old limitations of film, why spend $5000 for a digital camera?"

 

Indeed, but when the only alternative M compatible digital rangefinder sports something as antiquated as a wind on lever it doesn't appear too bad :-)