digital dilemma

[alastair_anderson]

What are we going to do? I'm not happy with the quality provided by the M8.

This may simply be because for some reason I only ended up with jpegs rather

than raw files on my lap-top. So perhaps the M8 does yield adequate quality.

I'm not convinced. And yet I find it necessary to go digital. I'm very happy

with the quality I get from my film Leicas but on occasion I need to provide

that quality over the internet. Scanning the negs isn't good enough.

Right, so I thought I'd get a Canon or Nikon DSLR. After much research I was

drawn to the D3, until I saw the size of the lenses that is. The camera/lens

combination is just too obtrusive.

Well what about a "prosumer" kit? I just don't like the idea of anything short

of full frame. What about a Canon 5D then? Horrible less than 100% viewfinder.

I guess the only answer is to wait for a full frame Leica M, but it may never

happen. Any thoughts? Does anyone else share this frustration?

[ralph_jensen]

I use Canon for digital and have no experience with digital Leicas, but I think most M8 reviewers agree that you can't judge the Leica by its jpgs. DPReview: "You really need to shoot RAW to realize the potential of the camera. Disappointing in-camera JPEG engine delivers sub-par results (jagged artifacts, moire, lower resolution) especially when you see what's available from RAW." (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/leicam8/page21.asp)

 

And yes, a lot of photographers share your frustration, and will until full-frame cameras are common enough that there are multiple compact and lightweight examples to be found. (Btw, most SLR lenses will *always* be much bigger than Leica M lenses, so if you're looking for compactness, no SLR is unlikely to satisfy you anytime soon.)

 

Not sure what you found "horrible" about the 5D viewfinder; for many users it's one of the best features of the camera. To quote DPReview's "Pros" of the 5D: "[The 5D's] very large, bright viewfinder really fills your vision" (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/page32.asp)

[ant_nio_ferreira]

If you shoot RAW you'll get amazing results with a good modern Leica lens, such as the

aspherical Summicrons or Summiluxes. IMO there is no equivalent in the ease of operation

and nonobtrusiveness in other brands. Wait for the latest M8 with the new shutter if you

can.

[andy_piper2]

I don't. (share this frustration)

 

But I shoot RAW, and the M8 jpgs definitely lose a lot over RAW.

 

Electronic "anti-alias" filtering + noise reduction + sloppy sharpening routines +

compression all eat away at the image and remove a substantial amount of detail (and the

WB was pretty bad until the most recent firmware upgrade). None of those apply to RAW

images.

 

I just pulled a 15" x 15" print cropped from an M8 .dng today, shot with a 30-year-old 90

'cron. Looks like a Hasselblad brochure image in terms of grainlessness, detail, tonality

and color clarity. So I'M effing ecstatic!

 

But it DOES require a RAW original.

 

Not that most top-end DSLRs can't do just as well - and you even get a free body-building

weight included!

 

But I have been where you are - back in the fall of '05 before the M8. None of the SLRs

then thrilled me (good and huge, or small and limited). Actually a 5D was a bit tempting,

but I didn't want to get into a whole new SLR system for just one year, and I knew the M8

was close.

 

I found a stop-gap (Sony R1), and I think that's what you will have to settle for - a stop-

gap digital camera that requires the fewest compromises and will keep you going until the

M9 arrives.

 

WHICH of the many options out there is the best compromise is something you have to

calculate for yourself - size/quality, viewfinder, cost, etc.

 

I do wonder that you condemn the 5D for "less than 100% viewfinder" - given that Leica M

framelines only show about 85% of the final image captured, and are 0.72x life-size (or

thereabouts). I'm not thrilled by ground-glass viewing of ANY size, but the 5D seems

better than many.

[ronald_moravec1]

JPEGS are not the answer. Shoot raw.

 

I find my M film camera scanned on my Minolta 5400 are about the same as Nikon D200 done raw or maybe a have a small edge. Leica glass is special and I see things I can not produce with the Nikon.

 

I used a M8 at a product demo and the sales person set the camera to JPEG. I was not impressed in the least. But when I checked the downloaded file, Leica had placed a picture if a falcon head in there. It was the most phenominal digital image you could imagine. The detail in every feather was visable and tiny hairs I did not know the bird had were clearly showing.

 

Give the camera a chance with properly sharpened raw images.

[vincenzo_maielli]

In the italian forum www.leicapassion.com, i know many forumist that are very happy with their Leicas M8. They are using only the DNG files that are printing only on the chemical photographic paper, both in colour or black and white photographs. The Leica M9, with FF sensor, are coming soon.

Ciao.

[alastair_anderson]

Well you've all made me feel better and that's much appreciated. Ralph and Andy, my negative comment about the EOS 5D viewfinder is nothing more than a personal quibble. I just wouldn't want to pay serious money for any SLR that doesn't have a 100% coverage. Leica's are different. (My favourite is probably the uncluttered M2 finder.)

 

I could buy a Nikon D300 but hate the DX format. The D3 is best but too big and expensive.

 

With 1000BP I might be able to get a really competent Canon system (40D with appropriate lens) but that's a lot of money and I wouldn't be happy.

I think I've just been persuaded to stick with Leica. Trouble is my 21 lenses are super-angulons which won't work with the M8 as far as I know. I do have the rather special 28 'cron as well as a 28 summaron that I actually tried on the M8 demo. It performed very adequately by the way, except that the colours may need tweaking.

 

I have another question. Can one use a visoflex on the M8. I have the impression that it wouldn't fit. I have 4 viso lenses (65,200,280 and 400) that might be nice to be able to use for digital.

 

I conceed that it would be better to invest in a DSLR system rather than use the above lenses which are pretty much dinosaurs. But the real importance of the visoflex for a Leica M digital system would be the macro/micro capability it affords.

[charlie_chan2]

Sounds like you're asking the M8 to do too much. Macro/micro work is the domain of the

SLR. Personally i don't own a M8, but I do have R9/DMR. Again, there's no contest between

the RAW and jpeg files. I shot jpeg once and never again.

 

If you like the M shooting style (as opposed to wielding a large SLR), then persist with the

M8 and learn more about your digital workflow. Pick a RAW converter that you're happy

with, LR, Aperture, C1 or whatever and when funds permit, buy another second hand lns.

 

Charlie

[alastair_anderson]

CC, It's not asking the M8 to do anything the MP can't do. (Admittedly the M6ttl and M7 are too tall.)

 

The M8 is a little expensive to "persist with". I'll buy one when I'm convinced there's no better alternative. I certainly do like M shooting style.

 

Forgive me, what is 'lns'?

[john_shriver]

Alastair, I think you're suffering the digital darkroom learning curve. It's steep.

[godfrey]

<center>

<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/godders/04-daisy.jpg"><br>

<i>Panasonic DMC-L1 + Pentax-M 50mm f/1.4</i><br>

</center><br>

I don't understand this obsession with so-called "full frame". It makes no sense to me.

<br><br>

Capture in RAW. Use Adobe Lightroom to import, process, and output the photos to JPEG

or print. I'd love an M8, a wide and a portrait tele lens, but can't afford it right now. The

Panny L1 used with an adapted manual focus lens does well in the meanwhile.

<br><br>

Godfrey

<br>

[blakley]

That's a great shot Godfrey. How do you print digital B&W? I've not found anything yet that looks very good to me.

[stan_blevins]

Hi Alastair, Many folks are using the Visoflex III on the M8. Keep searching the web and you will find all kinds of comments and advice. The Viso doesn't fit "exactly," but it's close and works fine. Stan

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

You don't need a new camera, you need a new format--raw. Go back to "school" and learn

about shooting raw. If you buy a D3 or 5D or whatever you fancy and just shoot jpegs you're

wasting the potential of digital. Same with M8. STOP shooting jpegs with it. Shoot raw. Get

Adobe Photoshop CS3 and go to work. You'll be astounded (I am serious) at the results.

[alastair_anderson]

Godfrey I very much like your picture. I'm light years away from having the technical know how to do something like that.

 

The "obsession" with full frame doesn't require much explanation. You simply get better quality from a bigger format. It's analagous to the difference betweeen 35mm and 6x6.

[akochanowski]

Alastair, with all due respect, if you truly are light years from being able to do something similar to Godfrey's photo (which is very nice but technically pretty simple) then there is <i>nothing</i> photographically-speaking that you cannot accomplish with an APS-C DSLR. In other words, whatever technical perfection you think exists in the M8 or in a film camera will make zero difference to your final product.

[andy_piper2]

"lns" = "lens"

 

Visoflex III works on the M8 - Viso II and earlier versions have to be used without the eye-

level finder, since the M8 is a bit taller than pre-M7 cameras.

 

21 SA lenses are permitted on the M8. Primarily for B&W though, since I don't think Leica

supports them as to coding for use with the IR-blocking filter. So in color you must be able

to fix green corners (with filter) or IR-distorted color (without filter) by yourself.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Does the M8 have a raw + jpeg mode; like the Epson RD-1s does?

[mharris]

Nice shot Godfrey! Alastair I use the same camera as Godfrey but with the Leica lens and it's an amazing combination. The need for full frame is a market directors dream. They sell, sell, sell. We buy, buy, buy. Find what works and use that.

[andy_piper2]

"The need for full frame is a market directors dream. They sell, sell, sell. We buy, buy, buy.

"

 

Yep - as in, get a full-frame camera and buy a $500 Canon 20mm and a $150 28mm - or

get a cropped-sensor camera, and buy a $1700 Canon 14mm and a $500 20mm.

 

I wonder how much the marketing directors have made off everyone having to realign their

lens lineups for cropped sensors in transitioning from film?

 

Anyone who has shot a cropped Nikon/Canon vs. a 5D or D3 @ iso 6400 can tell it ain't

JUST marketing hype. Same for anyone who's shot with a 40D vs. a 1Ds (or even just

compared the viewfinders).

 

Full-frame has real advantages. Not everyone needs them.

[neilambrose]

<p><em>This may simply be because for some reason I only ended up with jpegs

rather than raw files on my lap-top</em></p>

 

<p>I found this statement interesting. It's open to some interpretations - one of them

being that you don't yet have a thorough knowledge of the camera or digital workflow.

No reason to 'end up with jpegs for some reason' unless you either consciously decided

to shoot jpg, or unless you incorrectly set the camera, or failed to download the DNG

files from your card.</p>

 

<p>If you deliberately decided to shoot jpg then you're missing the point about the

camera and aren't even close to exploring what it can do. And if you got jpgs because

you made a mistake when using it - either in the camera settings or your digital

workflow - then you don't have enough experience working with the M8 to make an

informed decision about its imaging quality. Sounds like you might have borrowed one

for a quick test shoot, which is hardly sufficient to reach a final conclusion.</p>

 

<p>As an observation, amongst the many users of the M8 are some well-known figures

who are exacting commercial photographers and photojournalists (including a few

members of Magnum). They're all getting excellent results from it. Now what's more

likely - that they're all wrong, or that you haven't yet got to grips with the M8 properly?

</p>

[alastair_anderson]

Neil I did conceed that the M8 may provide adequate quality and your (and other) posts confirms that it does. It was the case that I borrowed one for a quick test shoot. The Leica dealer had set it to produce raw and jpeg, I then put the card straight into my laptop. The pictures that I can now access are jpegs and the quality is unacceptable. Fine, so I have to shoot raw and I need to get to grips with some software.

 

As I said, I'm feeling better. It also seems that I can use a viso flex, and even that I can use my 3.4 super-angulon (and for that matter the f4 because if I knew what I was doing I could probably correct the vignetting).

 

There still remains the full frame issue. If I want 21 I need a 21/1.333 lens, ie a 16mm lens. So I need to buy the wate or better perhaps the Zeiss ZM 15, presuming that will work on the M8. Ok, I'm sure someone will tell me about a perfectly acceptable cv substitute.

 

I currently use the 3.4 super-angulon all the time. So this is an issue for me.

 

I may spend a lot of money and then discover that the full frame M9 will be available shortly.

 

In any event I think I have been convinced not to buy a D3

[steve_larese1]

Hi Alastair,

 

What kind of scanner are you using?

[alastair_anderson]

Steve, I don't have a scanner. I get Jessops to scan to a cd when they develop the film.

[marc_bergman1]

"I get Jessops to scan to a cd when they develop the film."

 

I think that just like doing your own darkroom work can help in the evaluations of both negatives and prints; either scanning or uploading RAW images can help one to develop (pardon the pun) an eye for evaluating digital image parameters.