To M8 or not

"I suggest you re-examine your biases and try using either the M8 or DMR before making any more foolish statements."

 

I have used the M8, I've said so many times. I haven't used a DMR, but like I said, it's mute because they are discontinued. I admit I have biases just like everyone else who opines on the internet, whether they admit it or not. And I don't see why you need to call my statements foolish, IMO it is in very poor taste. Your entitled to your opinion and perhaps others here share it but at least they've managed to keep it above the belt.

Well I just checked your link to Adamson and wasted 10 minutes surfing his website looking for any reference to Leica, Canon or any other brand of camera and found none. Which is like I'd of suspected of a pro in this biz unless he's being paid for an endorsement or is more of a gearhead than a photographer. So I Googled "Adamson" and "Leica" and found <a href="http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/9022-30-x-40-inch-m8-prints.html">THIS THREAD</a> where he's talking about it on a forum. Now I have grate respect for the man (never heard of him before but he's doing Wegman's work and I have heard of him!)but after scrolling thru 13 pages of posts I couldn't find where he mentioned the 1DS-II specifically. He did say in one of the first few pages, responding to a direct question, that he never printed from a DMR and his comments applied only to the M8. He got a lot of conflicting opinions in that discussion (funny, nobody called anyone else foolish). It was a very interesting read, thanks. Maybe I will reevaluate the M8 at some point, and e-mail Adamson if he'll let our printer in on his M8 workflow. As for the DMR, once again, it's a discontinued product. Even if I could find one used I couldn't convince my boss to buy it, he won't touch used digital gear.

Tom, here's what you wrote: "<I>The IQ of the 1DS-II is very obviously ahead of anything Leica has offered thus far. Everyone with an unbiased mind sees it</I>"

<P>

In this craftily-worded statement you've insulted the intelligence of a master printmaker and a working commercial photographer whose livelyhood depends on producing high-quality photographs. Handling an M8 in a store is no substitute for actually working with its output day in and day out, as Guy Mancuso and David Adamson have.

<P>

Since these two do not agree that "The IQ of the 1DS-II is very obviously ahead of anything Leica has offered thus far" and since both Mancuso and Adamson are far more interested in high quality photographs than in brand-consciousness it seems that your statement above is either foolish or irresponsible or both.

Shoot!! Photo.net doesn't automatically take HTML. D'OH! Here's <a href="http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/9022-30-x-40-inch-m8-prints.html">THE LINK</a> again.

Doug, FWIW, Guy M. has some business connection with Leica. He will not divulge the details of it. It is similar to Erwin P.'s case. Even if they have something genuinely good to say because of their experience/knowledge, it will not be 'unbiased'.

 

I have handled the camera briefly, I like it very much for its UV response which is better than my Epson R-D1s. If they drop their price by a few thousands I will buy and use it happily.

 

I would strongly encourage anyone who has the cash to buy it, to buy it

( buy a backup body as well, for a good measure!). These folks keep the company that makes a digital RF cam afloat.

Vivek, as far as I know Guy had no business connection with Leica when he compared his 1DsII with the DMR.

>>> In this craftily-worded statement you've insulted the intelligence of a master

printmaker and a working commercial photographer whose livelyhood depends on

producing high-quality photographs.

 

Uh, where was his intelligence insulted? Just curious, has anyone heard of David Adamson

before the leica comment? Any skeptics on the 4x5 film remark, or is all taken as solid

truth. If he said the M8 is on par with 8x10 film would people still say, Ayup? What were

his conclusions on nikon/canon/etc with respect to 4x5 film quality?

 

Regarding the "commercial photographer," well, we've seen his pix here and it's difficult to

reconcile that with the pix he's posted on the forum here and the resulting comments. He

does have a terrific rotating "Batman" symbol with some cool Peter Gunn sounds when you

go to his web page - very impressive...

>>> well, we've seen his pix here and it's difficult to reconcile that with the pix he's posted

on the forum here and the resulting comments.

 

Should be: ... well, it's difficult to reconcile that with the pix he's posted on the forum here

and the resulting comments.

Brad, if you can't understand it there's no point trying to explain it to you.

"commercial photographer," well, we've seen his pix here and it's difficult to reconcile that with the pix he's posted on the forum here and the resulting comments.

 

They were poor.sorry, just being honest. Of course, even Leica users are not allowed an opinion anymore as far as the fondlers are concerned.

 

Every cam Leica produces is wonderfull...understand......no other opinion is tolerated. Please conform.

 

We were happy with the new Magenta M8...yes,we were,until they upset us.

 

Tony,tony......

More like Leica users are not allowed an opinion, period.

More like Leica users are not allowed an opinion, period

 

Doug, until Marc Williams pointed out the Magenta issues with the M8,not another err user noticed. He was an actual user...like myself.

 

Yourself, i have respect,great photos. But i don't do the blind faith thing....it does not do any favours to Leica,either.

*yawn* ...

 

did someone say something? still bitching about the M8 ... after all these months ... get a life ... move on ... sell all your Leica equipment if you don't like the direction Leica is taking ...

Um, just some facts, and then an opinion or two:

 

--Phil Askey's DP review was right on the money in my books; the M8 has some AWB and JPEG flaws that prevent it from being a real point and shoot type of camera.

 

--Most pros I know wouldn't care. Some, though, who do shoot JPEG, most certainly would. So DP was right to mention that, and Leica should fix the artifacts in the JPEG engine. I have no doubt they will.

 

--Guy Mancuso had no business relationship with Leica when he switched from his Canon 1ds2s to the Leica DMR.

 

--He had no business relationship with Leica when he acquired his M8s (plural).

 

--He became a vocal advocate of the M8 based on the quality, at first, of the DMR

 

--He became a vocal advocate of the M8 next, as Doug as mentioned, based on the quality of the M8 files :) He sold his DMR (but kept his R lenses) to finance more M glass.

 

--He now does some beta testing and customer advocacy for Leica, but to the best of my knowledge, and I know Guy pretty well, there has been absolutely no business relationship with Leica other than that of customer with XK$$ worth of Leica gear. Does he have the ear of Leica US and Germany on issues of the M8? Yes. I think any customer with $30 or $40K worth of Leica gear could too. I daresay someone with that much Canon equipment would still have to go through CPS; this is one of the benefits of investing in a relatively small company :)

 

--I *also* switched my 1d2 and 1ds2 for a DMR based on Canon's inability, at the time, to produce decent glass under 50mm :) After bolting Leica normals and wides on the 1ds2, and struggling to focus (with all kinds of screens) the DMR was a welcome relief. The 5d does just fine as a small but capable ff AF.

 

--I bought an M8 as a "mini-DMR" and was actually quite shocked at how good it was for large prints, even when it was released. So was David Adamson, who prints for all kinds of photographers, including folks like Annie Leibowitz.

 

--IMO, and after owning all the subject cameras as a pro, the image quality of the DMR and M8 is absolutely comparible to the 1ds2 / 5d in large prints at lower ISOs

 

--IMO, and to go out there, the M8 / DMR have about 2 stops more shadow detail than either the 1ds2 or 5d at ISO 640 and under), and with the right workflow, despite Canon's extra pixels, you can get about a page size better enlargement with the M8 / DMR because you're not sharpening something that's blurry to begin with. You just need to know how to process RAW files and enlarge properly.

 

--YMMV :)

Tom what's a Leica fanboy? Is it anything like a Canon fanboy? Why don't I see all the Leica users over on the Canon threads busting huevos on the Canon users for the autofocus problems the new Mark III has to offer? Why is it that Canon users constantly feel the need to compare their cameras to Leica? I'll state it again for you where someone else spends their money is their business pro or not, not yours. And by the way Arthur are you happy you got this ball of snot going again? I've had enough I think I'll go take some pics.

Basically, everything Doug and Jamie are saying is true. A few of you might remember me from the old days when I was nearly shunned from this forum because I sold all my Leica M film gear to fund a complete immersion into Canon digital :) Doug and Jamie will remember me from then for sure. And for full disclosure, Guy is a friend of mine too... For fuller disclosure, I still own a whole lot of Canon and regularly shoot with the 5D.

 

Anyway, that intro out of the way, I have owned every high end Canon camera ever made, so speak with some authority, and I can assure you the 1Ds2 does not "blow away" the DMR or the M8, even upon cropping. In fact, the 1Ds2 is only slightly more detailed than its smaller brother, the Canon 5D. The fact is, all of these are top-notch cameras, as is the Nikon D2X, and are capable of making great prints.

 

The M8 however seems unique in its ability to take digital upscaling and I have printed stunning 32x40" prints from its files. Yet I cannot make the same claim for the 5D files, and even compared to 1Ds2 files, the M8 at that size are superior. (I don;t shoot Nikon so cannot comment specifically on D2x files at that size.) No it doesn't make logical sense that an 11MP file can out perform a 16MP at that size, and I don't know exactly why it works that way... I have educated guesses, but the bottom line is, the proof is in the final prints.

 

All that said, the M8 is not without its operational warts -- but nobody can argue the outstanding quality of the M8 file.

 

Cheers,

 

Jack

I'm another user who owns both a 1dsMk2 and an M8. If i were interested in the final print being large (> 16x20), i'd be shooting it with the Canon. If i need a focal len > 100mm, i'd shoot it with the Canon. For everything else, I have used the M8 ever since buying it, and haven't picked the Canon up since. Personally, I feel the image quality of the M8 is better than the Canon (on prints up to 16x20). The fact that it's a blast to use is an added benefit. I could care less who makes a camera.. it's a tool.. and despite the issues around the M8, it's an excellent one.

I've had a couple of fairly strong disagreements with Guy over at the Leica user forum, and I'm probably not on his Christmas card list, but really, this trashing of him is typical of the ghetto that Photo.net, or rather this part of it has become.

 

As has been said above, to the best of my knowledge Guy's only connection to Leica is that he is on the M8 beta testing program at Leica. In such a capacity he gets to suggest improvements and changes to the firmware. Leica are of course free to disregard anything he suggests. I am totally unaware of any connection that involves money changing hands, or equipment being given to him. If anyone claiming otherwise has any evidence of this feel free to post the evidence - or shut up.

 

This kind of unjustified innuendo is why I'm spending less and less time here these days.

 

Oh, and I also have a 5D and an M8. Haven't used the 5D since I bought the Leica. Your viewpoint may differ.

Tom said:

 

<BR><BR><I>"The IQ of the 1DS-II is very obviously ahead of anything Leica has offered

thus far. Everyone with an unbiased mind sees it, including numerous pros who own an

M8 as well. It comes up because a few Leica fanboys keep bringing it up trying to convince

others that the laws of physics don't apply to Leica."</I>

 

<BR><BR>Tom, I don't have much of an issue with most things you have said, but this

doesn't ring true at all (and is pretty insulting, for no apparent reason, other than possibly

some arguments you have had with someone else, somewhere else, at some other point in

time).

 

<BR><BR>First of all, I know many pros who were hugely disappointed with the 1Ds2

when it came out, and felt that the 1Ds was much better, for image quality. The M8 keeps

up with the 1Ds pretty well, so where does that leave us?

 

<BR><BR>The issue is too complex to reduce to such simple-minded statements. About

all you could say is that "The <B>resolution</B> of the 1DS-II is very obviously ahead of

anything Leica has offered thus far." I don't think that anyone would disagree with you

there. Resolution isn't the answer to everything though, and the images coming out of the

M8 and DMR are so much more satisfying than those from the 1Ds2, before editing. Sure,

you can edit a 1Ds2 image and make it look good, but the point to many, perhaps not you,

is why should we have to?

 

<BR><BR>I agree about the 5D and M8 having pretty comparable imge quality, and that

the 5D has better high ISO, but I also sold my 5D and all my Leica R lenses, and bought an

M8. I have not had much chance to regret it yet, and I am nearing 10,000 shots. The M8

just delivers really nice files, right out of the box, and I find that they scale better than the

5D results, so the difference in technical terms between the two is really very small.

This kind of argument or discussion, in an effort to keep this civilized, is fruitless in some circles but not valueless. Tom and others are certainly entitled to have their opinions. Those of us who use an M8, should not be deterred or insulted. Everyone has opinions. I own both dslrs and an M8 for their strengths, not for their weaknesses. If you do not need an M8's virtues, then by all means don't try to justify it or insult others who have and use them. IF you do not "get it" that is fine. Different horses for courses...

As I get older, I want to carry less, not more, thereby, my current camera selection. If my needs change, then the equipment will also. Do not see why some find it pathological for others to change equipment as their needs change. If using the same gear you had five yrs ago works for you, fine, if not, OK too. All our needs are different and uses also, M8's serve the needs of some, not others, just the same way a Ferrari F430 serves the needs of some, and a F350 truck others. Neither owner would be happy using the other for their intended purposes. One would not begin to appreciate the other, so what. JMHO...fwiw..

To stir the pot, a bit more...

I have been using 1D/1Ds Mark IIs as bread and butter for last 3 years. I skipped 1D IIn as I did not need an upgrade. Now, I don't shoot film any more and since selling my (panoramic) RF combo of xPan/TX2 I was missing all that rangefinder shooting style gives. I got M8 and few lenses (used, ZM or VC- I am not "hooked" only on Leica glass. If I win lottery I will be!). So now, I use them all. I will not be buying 1D MKIII since my MKII still clicks great after 87000 times.

On the other hand, I just ordered second M8. Go figure...<div></div>

"...has found that M8 files print as well as 4x5 scanned film and better than any other small-format digital camera at sizes as large as 30"x40""

 

Pure rubbish. I have used and like the M8. I have two 4x5 cameras plus 5 lenses. I use an Imacon scanner for film. The M8 doesn't come close to scanned 4x5.

 

If someone is claiming otherwise - I'd be highly suspect of anything else he/she may say; and/or their film scanner; and/or workflow.

 

Unless you're using a low grade flatbed scanner - scanned 4x5 is a whole different league than the images from the M8. The M8 makes very nice digital files - but, I can still get images with far more detail in large prints with my 6x7 and film. The 4x5 images kill the 6x7 for detail.

At this point I am thousands of euros less than capable of buying any of the cameras specified in this argument, so if I may I ask, what digital camera would you say is the highest picture quality that can be bought today for let us say a top limit of 75% of the price of a Canon 5D? I presently use a Leica DLux-3 and I am very much disappointing because I cannot get good pictures from above 200 ISO. I use raw files and Noise Ninja, but that suffers detail.

<< ... The M8 doesn't come close to scanned 4x5.

If someone is claiming otherwise - I'd be highly suspect of anything else he/she may say; and/or their film scanner; and/or workflow. ... >> <p>

 

Someone is indeed claiming otherwise: <a href=http://www.adamsoneditions.com/EDITIONS/EDITIONS_pubs.html>this man, a professional printer</a>. <p>

 

I don't know the gentleman. Nor do I have 4 x 5 cameras or an M8, for that matter, so I truly have no dog in this hunt. <p>

 

<a href=http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/9022-30-x-40-inch-m8-prints.html>A discussion Adamson began in November, 2006, </a>has continued on another forum for quite some time, often without him. I haven't followed it carefully, but I did see his most recent post:<p>

 

"Hi all,

I have been busy lately and I am glad to see this thread goes on without my input!

Just returned from the Arles photo festival where many M8's were in evidence, great place to visit in July.

Last week in Edinburgh for a show of William Eggleston's works that I printed on the prototype Epson 11880, Bill had fun playing with the M8 and showing me the .9 canon lens on his rdp1.

I still prefer the M8 overall although my new Iphone does an excellent job !!

Best

David" <p>

 

If Adamson is printing for Eggleston, Chuck Close, Wegman and others, I suppose there is a remote possibility he knows a little something about printing photos.<p>

 

But what do I know ? :-)

>>> Pure rubbish. I have used and like the M8. I have two 4x5 cameras plus 5 lenses. I

use an Imacon scanner for film. The M8 doesn't come close to scanned 4x5.

 

It's refreshing seeing that at least someone else holds a healthy amount of skepticism on

the claims bandied about with respect to LF film and the M8. Seems everyone else nods

their head in lockstep with respect to the claim. No doubt produces output as good as

8x10 too; ayup.

 

Herd mentality at its finest...