I know this is blasphemy; why M8 over film M?

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>Matt, skipping the "which is better" discussion for a moment, why would you believe

that any digital camera would hold its value over a few (2-3-4?) years? Especially when

every camera released to-date has proven otherwise.</I><P>And what exactly makes you

think a film based camera is goign to hold its value any better?

<P>here is how you measurethe value of a digital camera vs. a film camera

 

digital camera: price of camera + media cards + storage media + software processing

tools.

 

vs.

 

Film camera: price of camera + film and processing for the same number of exposures

made + transporataionexpenses of going back and forth to camera store and lab (or

shipping if you use mail order) + storage facilities. (this does not include the fixed and

expendable expenses of a darkroom if you process and print the photographs yourself).

 

Those are the real bare bones economics of the situation

[matt_m__toronto_]

if you shoot a lot as a business/professional, it's hard to ignore the financial and time benefits that digital brings. however, if you shoot as a hobby like myself and many others on here, digital makes this hobby even more expensive than it already is...unless you're shooting a LOT.

 

digital black and white (to date and to my eye when viewing prints) does not come close to matching a 35mm trix shot print. we're talking art/hobby here and not business. most professional photographers shoot in colour and that is how their work is viewed.

[Brad_]

>>> digital black and white (to date and to my eye when viewing prints) does not come close

to matching a 35mm trix shot print.

 

I've seen outstanding digitally captured and printed B&W photographs that IMO exceeds the

aesthetics of 35mm tri-x. And have made some myself.

 

The first step is acknowledging there *can* be something better.

[matt_m__toronto_]

brad, nowhere did i say that digitaly shot and printed black and white images were not outstanding or of poor quality.

 

i said the two dont compare. if you want the quality/texture of a black and white print that 35mm trix or hp5 offers, there's no discussion really.

[Brad_]

>>> brad, nowhere did i say that digitaly shot and printed black and white images were not

outstanding or of poor quality.

 

Huh? Where did I say you said that? I was commenting on your "do not come close to

matching."

 

As I said, to my eye, digital can be aesthetically better. And at this point in time, routinely so

and without a lot of fuss.

[matt_m__toronto_]

i just want to state that i'm not pro film/digital or anti film/digital.

 

both have there place in the industry. that being said. when i look at black and white prints, i tend to like the 35mm shot ones better. the digitaly captured images are nice, and clean and sharp and not sub par at all, just for my tastes, i prefer the texture and grain in the35mm shots.

 

i've shot some portraits in the past with my nikon f3 and also my nikon d70. the clients were happy with both. depending on the nature of the shot/final product , i'd shoot digital.

[matt_m__toronto_]

brad i took this line of yours as you telling me that digital can be good: <The first step is acknowledging there *can* be something better.>

 

so if i misunderstood that line, then i appologise. but you dont need to tell me that 'the first step is acknowledging there *can* be something better.

 

we're not talking 'better' here. that is a mistake i think you make too often in these conversations. it boils down to what works and what doesn't. for my eye, digitaly captured and nicely printed black and white images, seem to lack that texture that tri x and hp 5 give. some people hate that trix / hp5 quality. i love it.

 

it's the same reason why some films shot on super 8mm work better than films shot on 35mm. comes down to the 'artists' vision of how the final product should look. granted if the final product is to be viewed on p.net compressed and at 72 dpi, you might as well shoot on a camera phone :P

[Brad_]

>>> but you dont need to tell me that 'the first step is acknowledging there *can* be

something better.

 

No, Matt, that wasn't directed towards you. But to the audience at large where many feel that

a wet print from tri-x is the pinnacle in photographic excellence - and can never be touched,

let alone exceeded aesthetically. Everything else changes, mostly for the better - there's no

reason B&W printing/photography should be exempt after decades of stasis.

[matt_m__toronto_]

>"and can never be touched, let alone exceeded aesthetically."<

 

i guess that's where we have a difference of opinion. i dont think a digital shot/print can 'touch' a trix print(at least right now and from what i've seen). the same way in which film cant touch digital when it comes to workflow/cost/savings/convenience etc.

 

and 'exceeding in aesthetics' can only be measured by the person making the final decision on how the final product looks.

 

i was amazed at a recent art show, how many of the photographers had on display digitaly captured and printed images that showed artifacts around hard edges and just a lack of resolution overall.

 

so yeah, i guess these guys thing that there prints have 'exceeded aesthetical' that of a film capture/print, but i and others would say they would be wrong and that they need to learn how to treat there image process with care. probably some steps in the printer area (profiles,calibration etc) could be improved upon.

[al_gorman]

it boils down to what works and what doesn't. for my eye,

 

For my eye it's the abiliy of the photographer to produce work of richness of vision. Anything else is just talking about the differences between prints from various photocopiers.

 

If quality of print is such a concern use MF or larger.

 

He has fixated on the new Leica M8

 

I would suggest to your friend to get a fixtation on understanding the art of photography not on toys in shop windows.

[jerry_kirkwood]

<i>you say the photos they put up in 'defence' of using this camera. i dont think anyone is putting up photos in defence of anything.

 

a lot of m8 buyers have a range of leica lenses. purchasing the m8 allows them to continue shooting in the style they like and with the lenses they already own. would be far pricier to buy a new 5d and range of lenses that some of these buyers already own in leica mount.

 

size and weight is also a factor. ability to focus easier in lower light, another. </i></p>And those are valid points, which I am not disputing. However some people are not satisfied to leave it at that, they somehow feel the need to tout the M8 as being capable of producing superior image quality to a Canon 5D (which BTW I do not own and am not of the opinion is the be-all and end-all of digital photography) yet none of the pictures I've seen support that claim. Since the 5D has both more pixels and a larger capture area, all else being equal, the laws of physics say it should be able to out-resolve the M8. I have yet to see any photos that prove it. And by that I do not mean RAW-vs-RAW or both RAW's run though identical post-processing, both of which give inaccurate comparisons of the potential of each camera. In addition, the weak or absent AA filter on the M8 makes the RAW file look sharper but introduces moire, and at higher ISO's, noise. Reducing those in post-processing detracts from the sharpness just as Canon's approach probably reduces it in-camera. There are pros and cons all around and I am not arguing that. What I am arguing is that some people have said the M8 is inherently more capable of better image quality than a 5D (repeating again: I do not own either, so I have no agenda to defend the intelligence of my purchase), and since their theoretical arguments in support of that claim can all be debunked rather easily, I'm still waiting for the photographic proof.

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>i was amazed at a recent art show, how many of the photographers had on display

digitaly captured and printed images that showed artifacts around hard edges and just a lack

of resolution overall.</I><P> Bad craft is bad craft. It doesn't mean the tools are bad, just

the users.

[barmijo]

". . . the weak or absent AA filter on the M8 makes the RAW file look sharper but introduces moire, and at higher ISO's, noise. Reducing those in post-processing detracts from the sharpness just as Canon's approach probably reduces it in-camera . . ."

 

Recording the detail gives the photographer options of how to deal with such issues during post processing. IMHO, most folks for whom this camera is intended aren't shooting and processing in bulk, so if there is no moire or noise in an image then the detail can be retained. Placing an AA filter on the sensor works great for mass market consumers, but eliminates the choice for advanced users, because all detail beyond a certain frequency simply isn't recorded.

 

When I'm shooting sports I'll take a thousand frames a day so post processing needs to be streamlined, so my 1DmkII's AA filter is a godsend. However, when shooting interiors or portraits it can't capture texture. Different task - different tool.

[jtdnyc]

With apologies in advance for deconstructing your post, which always seems a little rude to me but is the norm around here nowadays:

 

<Since the 5D has both more pixels and a larger capture area, all else being equal, the laws of physics say it should be able to out-resolve the M8.>

 

True, but all else is not equal. Each sensor is part of a system, and optimizing one element in a system doesn't necessarily optimize the sytem as a whole. Off center, my Minox might actually resolve more than a Holga, despite the latter's larger "sensor."

 

<I have yet to see any photos that prove it.>

 

Andy Piper has offered in another thread to circulate actual prints from M8 files among forum members. You might want to sign up to take advantage of his generous offer. Such prints might not be "proof" but they would be a starting point for comparison.

 

<In addition, the weak or absent AA filter on the M8 makes the RAW file look sharper but introduces moire, and at higher ISO's, noise.>

 

I get your point but, in the manner you state it, I don't believe it is technically true. The absence of a filter does not "introduce" moire; if it did, then we should see moire in all photos taken without an AA filter, which is not the case. This is more than just a semantic distinction, as it admits the possibility that each camera might be the better performer under certain circumstances, while your way of stating the point forecloses that possibility.

 

<What I am arguing is that some people have said the M8 is inherently more capable of better image quality than a 5D...and since their theoretical arguments in support of that claim can all be debunked rather easily...>

 

Personally, I have no idea which camera produces better files. I suspect the Leica might do a better job when moire is not an issue and the Canon does the better job when it is. But I think the relevant comparison is of systems, not cameras, and I should not be surprised if the combination of Leica glass, rangefinder focusing and no AA filter were to produce, under certain circumstances, files that yield superior prints. User reports have indicated the M8 yields more realistic skin texture (though the IR filter might usually be necessary for accurate skin tone).

 

And, as mentioned by other posters, the main argument in favor of the M8 is not its supposed superiority over the 5D but rather its rangefinder viewing system and compatibility with Leica lenses.

[Brad_]

<I>i was amazed at a recent art show, how many of the photographers had on display

digitaly captured and printed images that showed artifacts around hard edges and just a lack

of resolution overall.</I><P>

 

Should I express my amazement and draw conclusions based upon some poorly made

darkroom prints I've seen displayed? How about based on some film-based images posted on

photonet that were technically poor?

[matt_m__toronto_]

the conclusions that i drew from it were this:

 

this was a difficult show to get into and quite expensive at that. about $2000 per booth space. not just some artists with their work hung at a coffee shop. this would suggest to me that with the flood of digital capture/printing, there has been a decrease in quality and the bar is actualy set lower than it has been. if these were the guys that got into the show, think of all the applicants they sifted through that got rejected.

[david k.]

"How about based on some film-based images posted on photonet that were technically poor?"

 

At 511 pixels anything would look poor, doesn't sound like a technically sound comment Brad. Matt is at least talking comparing actual prints (where the rubber meets the road IMHO) in a show environment.

 

I know in my own case, I have purchased technically superb prints from other photographers to use as direct comparisons of printing technique. I would recommend it to any photographer working on printing skills.......digital of film based.

[Brad_]

>>> "How about based on some film-based images posted on photonet that were

technically poor?"<P>

<I>At 511 pixels anything would look poor, doesn't sound like a technically sound

comment Brad. Matt is at least talking comparing actual prints (where the rubber meets

the road IMHO) in a show environment.</I><P>

 

That's a little disingenuous. If you considered my complete comment, you would have

noticed that was in addition to technically poor prints I've seen on display. Agaain, for your

benefit: <I>"Should I express my amazement and draw conclusions based upon some

poorly made darkroom prints I've seen displayed?"</i><P>

 

In any event it is a sound comment. On this forum I've seen so many images that were

washed-out, lacking in contrast, out of focus, etc. Are you really saying that prints from

these posted images would somehow magically become much better? <P>

 

And, similarly, are you really saying all images reduced to 511 pixels and posted on the

internet

automatically look poor? That's not been my experience. I can point you too some

websites if needed.

[david k.]

"Are you really saying that prints from these posted images would somehow magically become much better?"

 

No Brad, I'm saying compare apples with apples, If the end product (as I believe it to be) is a print, as apposed to a web image or even a computer monitor image, then compare prints directly.

 

People need to get out from behind their monitor and look at quality prints to know what one actually looks like. I think that was Matt's point is, that people seem to have lost, or have never had, an appreciation of what a fine print actually is.

[david k.]

"I think that was Matt's point is,"

 

Yeah I know, I should proof read some of this stuff before posting ;-(

[matt_m__toronto_]

brad: "Should I express my amazement and draw conclusions based upon some poorly made darkroom prints I've seen displayed?"

 

i explained why i was amazed at the poor quality - due to the show being a. HARD to get into and b. EXPENSIVE. 1 conclusion i have is that the market is being flooded with shoddy work the bar has been lowered. care to comment?

 

i know in the film industry, there are tons of films being flushed into the market because anyone and everyone has access to a camera and editing these days. alliance atlantis has now started limiting material they accept to being true HD or of higher grade. (no more prosumer HDV or anything) TRUE HD or Higher. this would be the same as a show limiting photographers to film only.

[Brad_]

<I>No Brad, I'm saying compare apples with apples, If the end product (as I believe it to

be) is a print, as apposed to a web image or even a computer monitor image, then

compare prints directly.</I><P>

 

And as I said previously: "Should I express my amazement and draw conclusions based

upon some poorly made darkroom prints I've seen displayed?"<P>

 

So what are you talking about?<P>

 

 

Matt was trying to draw wide conclusions about digital B&W in general based on an

anecdotal viewing of some bad digital prints. My response to that, was, should one draw

similarly wide conclusions about darkroom printing based upon my anecdotal viewing of

some poor darkroom prints on display.<P>

 

Try and soak in the whole story rather than trying to play gotcha on a statement out of

context. Your comment wasn't germane to my point; ie casting wide-based

conclusions on a single anecdotal viewing experience.<P>

 

<I>People need to get out from behind their monitor and look at quality prints to know

what one actually looks like. </I><P>

 

Directed to anyone in-particular. Or another broad brush without any support?

[matt_m__toronto_]

brad...you are king of the 'gotcha game'

[Brad_]

Matt, rather than take the low road taking it personal, why not address my point about

making

broad-brush conclusions based on a single anecdotal viewing?

[david k.]

One last time:

 

"And as I said previously: "Should I express my amazement and draw conclusions based upon some poorly made darkroom prints I've seen displayed?"

 

So what are you talking about?"

 

Only that poor prints are just that......poor prints, regardless of how they were generated.

 

"Matt was trying to draw wide conclusions about digital B&W in general based on an anecdotal viewing of some bad digital prints. My response to that, was, should one draw similarly wide conclusions about darkroom printing based upon my anecdotal viewing of some poor darkroom prints on display."

 

Again poor prints are poor prints.

 

"People need to get out from behind their monitor and look at quality prints to know what one actually looks like.

 

Directed to anyone in-particular. Or another broad brush without any support?"

 

No, why would it be directed at anyone in particular? It is simply my experience, that I am recommending to people as a way of educating themselves in print technique.