Erwin's M8 Review

[gary_ferguson1]

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/m8report/t006.html

[martin_patek_strutsky]

The test provides no information at all about what workflow and what camera settings have been used for creating the test pictures. Did he shoot JPEG or RAW? What degree of sharpening was used? What Raw converter has been used?

 

In my opinion this test tells nothing more than that the author still needs to learn a lot about digital.

[steve_unsworth1]

I'm not sure what you can learn from pre-production firmware. Better to wait until the release version is available.

[tommy_baker]

the canon images look MUCH better from this initial posting. lets see some with proper

firmware

[paul hart]

<<In practical shooting situations with 3-D objects the Leica images are not better than

what the 5D delivers. The inherent superiority of the Leica lenses (the 2/75 is definitely a

better performer than the Canon zoomlenses used here) cannot be capitalized on. And

when you study test charts, the Leica images are not as good as the Canon images. Canon

has the higher level of detail resolution and you see that the Leica has trouble with the

colour information.>>

 

Whether he knows what he's on about or not, EP isn't usually disposed to making remarks

like this unless they are justified. He's normally being criticised on this forum for being too

gushing about Leica stuff.

[Troll]

I wonder if the lack of a low-pass filter indicates that it's usable for infrared photography?

[dstate1]

Another example of how to take a bazillion dollars worth of equipment and make nothing but garbage images. These pseudo-technical tests tell nothing of what a PHOTOGRAPHER can do with the equipment.

 

The man has a resolution fixation. In a day when even cheapo 8mp DSLR's can create 8x12 prints with more resolution than the eye can absorb I fail to see the meaning of his eyelash tests.

 

The rangefinder photo style and the advantages of size and construction quality are what the M8 are about.

[gary_ferguson1]

Erwin concluded,

 

"The overall performance of the M8...is most certainly a match for the best players in the market (the advanced and professional DSLR-models), but they cannot be beaten."

 

In other words, the M8's image quality is pretty similar to top performing DSLR's like the Canon 5D. Isn't that what we'd expect? Sure, there'll be subtle differences with future firmware upgrades, and some tests will show marginal differences in specific circumstances. But when the dust has settled the bottom line will be that for most shots there'll be hardly any image quality difference between an M8 and any other 10-12MP camera.

 

The reasons for choosing the M8 will be rangefinder handling, compact dimensions, and the inherent advantages of non-retrofocus wide-angle lenses. If these are useful for your photography you'll get the M8. But if you need auto focus, or long lenses, or macro, or ultra high ISO settings, or rapid frame rates, then you'll get a DSLR. However, making that decision in anticipation of superior and consistent image quality would be a mistake. If you can actually get the shots then they're all likely to be pretty similar no matter what the camera.

[vinay_patel]

Leica's problem with flagging M sales was digital, not the features or functionality of the camera. They needed to get digital into an M, not reinvent the M itself, in order to sell to their market. Their mission is not now nor will it ever be, to compete head-on with Canon or Nikon SLRs.

[henry_a]

Notice he did the comparison with Canon at f5.6 and f8. That pretty much removes the advantage for Leica lenses which are most often superior to other makes at wide apertures. Stopping down is the great equalizer of lens performance. Practically any modern lens at f8 is going to be very good.

 

The M8 is a winner if its in the same category image quality wise with the best DSLRs. I suspect we'll see an advantage to Leica when real world use of wide angle lenses and wide aperture performance is factored in.

 

Add in the higher shutter speeds and the higher flash sync and the M8 becomes a more viable alternative to current DSLRs (and most 35mm film SLRs of the past 25 years) which have had those capabilites all along. The M system just caught up to the feature set of newer cameras in some important ways and kept the best characteristics that made it a cult camera.

 

I'm really looking forward to seeing what comes out of production cameras used by good photographers. Looks like the M8 is going to be a wonderful camera.

[mark_theken]

I think Vinay's post sums this up. The bigger question for me is whether customers who have never owned a Leica camera will buy the new digital products. The Leica customer age demographic is most likely the oldest in all of photography. Leica will need new and younger customers to survive another generation.

[derek_stanton2]

"These pseudo-technical tests tell nothing of what a PHOTOGRAPHER can do with the equipment. The man has a resolution fixation... I fail to see the meaning of his eyelash tests."

 

What is he supposed to do - test YOUR ability to make an interesting image? A digital camera is a device that 'resolves.' Any examination of such a device that does not consider its capacity in that respect is worthless. Puts says, squarely, "You will be hard pressed to get these details on the printer." He illustrates the differences, and then mitigates them. Sounds rather objective to me.

[brambor]

<i>If you need auto focus, or long lenses, or macro, or ultra high ISO settings or rapid frame rates then get DSLR</i>

<p>

Does anyone else think this is a little bit funny?

[jtk]

Well-thought-out review, well-written.

 

Canon's superiority noise-wise is surely no surprise to anyone. An it's always been obvious that if one needed extreme lenses, maximum detail resolution, or high speed performance, Canon's was game. If Leica's traditional virtues are sought, Canon's not a contender. Apples, oranges.

 

I'm starting today to save for the Panasonic version.

[gary_ferguson1]

"I suspect we'll see an advantage to Leica when real world use of wide angle lenses and wide aperture performance is factored in. Add in the higher shutter speeds and the higher flash sync and the M8 becomes a more viable alternative to current DSLRs"

 

I take your point that the M8 looks like a wonderful camera, but I disagree that it'll compete effectively with current DSLR's or offer much in the way of consistent and material image quality advantages over other 8-12MP cameras.

 

If the M8 succeeds beyond the first wave of "sight unseen" orders, then it'll be due to its handling and portability characteristics, not because it takes higher quality photographs.

[vinay_patel]

"Leica will need new and younger customers to survive another generation."

 

Agree with you Mark, but their problem is less technology than economic. Many men of my age group (I will be turning 41) can't afford a new Leica camera or lens without making what seems like a disproportionate sacrifice in some other part of their lifestyle. That's apparent from the level of anxiety expressed over the $4700 price tag of the M8. I also don't doubt it's as much of a problem for many people who are in the typical M demographic, older, retired and on fixed incomes. I'm certain Leica understands all of the issues, thus the fact the M8 is what it is represents to me a purposeful intent on Leica's part to sell to a specific economic group more than an age demographic.

[trex1]

Well so much for that. You can forget about this one winning any competitions. Leica, in

order to succeed with the M8 needs to be best, not second best, which is clearly what it is, in

comparison to the Canon. Truth is that everyone's sensors are second best to Canon. That is

why Canon dominates the market for professional gear.

 

I'm glad Erwin did this test, it clears a lot up. Feel bad for leica though. Maybe they should

have hooked up with Canon instead. Now that would make for some interesting products, or

perhaps someone could pursuade Canon to get back in the RF game. Make their own full size

RF with hypersonic lenses, full time mf af, now you're talking!

[brambor]

I don't put much on Erwin's conclusions but...

 

If Erwin's conclusion was that the image is superior to the Canon then I would have thought that testing a prime lens vs a Canon zoom isn't fair but...

 

Getting spanked by Canon zoom isn't groovy either.

 

P.S. I still believe that the M8 is a great camera capable of great images in the right hands.

[feli]

Is he showing images from a pre-production camera, with beta firmware?

Didn't Leica say that was verboten, a big no, no?

 

I read Erwin's book and think his lens reviews are very accurate, but frankly I have not been

impressed with his excursions into the digital domain. I'm going to wait for a review from Phil

Askey at dpreview.com He is very methodical and tests every camera under the same

conditions etc., so you can make a true comparison.

[marlo_.]

Well, according to this...

 

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1038&message=20056433

 

....there weren't supposed to be any pre-production M8 samples posted/shown anywhere, plus Erwin's 5D images even get slated.

 

So, hold fire....until someone who knows how to conduct a thorough test posts a reveiew.

[joel_matherson]

Erwin better check his maths again. 90mm with a 1.33 crop factor doesnt equal 100.

[marlo_.]

Err, sorry, that should have read 'review'....(I find bad spelling embarrassing).

[henry_a]

Nah........

 

The M8 is a new and different category of camera just as the Leica M film camera was its own category before the DSLR onslaught. Its obviously not going to replace DSLRs for shooting football or for long range wildlife photography.

 

All this assumes that its imaging quality is near equal to the current top end DSLRs. So far, from the little we've been shown, that seems to be the case. The nitpickers will pick and the shooters will simply buy the camera for what it does.

 

What it is is everything the M was before, with the addition of higher shutter speeds, faster flash sync and of course its digital. This is a different camera from the Canon and Nikon pro DSLRs and thats good. The M8 can be a compliment to that gear or for some folks it might be a replacement for that gear. The main thing is that the M8 is a unique product and will fill a niche that is big enough to support its existence. The M8 does not have to replace everyone's DSLRs to be a success.

 

As far as all the advantages for the M8 we'll have to wait and see the whole equation. Obviously its small size and weight are a big plus, high speed shutter and sync, direct mechanical focusing and bright viewfinder add more. If we are shown superior performance in wide angle use (an often discussed drawback in the DSLR world) we have another important factor in favor of the M8. Every little crack the M8 can fill will insure its survival and even that it thrives.

[User_502260]

The question with any piece of equipment is what you are going to do with it. If my car is capable of reaching 175 mph but the highest legal speed limit in my area is 65 then I can be proud of owning such a car but it is not likely that I will ever go 175 in it. The car might get to 60 in only 6 seconds and that's something I can use in getting into traffic more quickly. Showing scans which are the equal of extreme enlargements is good for scientific knowledge of the equipment but tells us very little about how it might actually be used. If I take Leica's most expensive 35mm wide angle and shoot fine grain film and make an 8X10 or an 11X14 and then do the same with my Bronica ETR and a 50mm Zenzanon, the results with the Bronica equipment will be much better than those with the Leica equipment. It doesn't matter that a scientific test of the Leica lens will show it to have higher resolving power. The 8X10 or 11X14 shot with the Bronica will be much better.

 

It has already been mentioned that the lens used on the Canon was a zoom. I'm sure that if a prime lens is used the comparison with the Leica will be even more favorable. With all of the improvements in digital equipment it might be possible to make an 8X10 or an 11X14 with a 7MP fixed lens digital camera that costs $500 that is equal to or better than the 8X10 you would get with the Leica. That doesn't mean you shouldn't get the Leica if that's what you want but it may mean that in the digital age the practical advantage of using Leica equipment is greatly reduced.

[arthuryeo]

I think the difficult problem stems from their deep desire to keep the M8 compatible with previous M's in terms of the look and usability. The trade-offs were made accordingly and that's what we have. And, I have no objections with Erwin trying to push the M8 to its upper limits to see how far it can go. After all this is a higher-end product and we would really like to see its paces.

 

The Leica-wall vs Canon-wall test made the trade-off glaringly clear. Put in the low-pass filter and use firmware to fix it resulted in artifacts.

 

The chart test clearly showed the disadvantage of a missing low-pass filter. This is well-known and it is proven yet again.

 

In general, the softness in the images from the 75mm Summicron seems to indicate that the M8 body failed miserably to harness the optical superiority of this highly regarded lens.