bayernfan
Well-known
i believe the primary reason Leica did not make 14-bit uncompressed DNG files an option in the M8 was due to card size and write speed at the time it was released.
leica fixed the SD-HC issue with a firmware update, however, they never made uncompressed 14-bit DNG available in the standard menus. i speculate they left it handicapped to make the M9 seem that much better, when really it's not.
the uncompressed m8 files are truly stunning given the resolution of the sensor. not quite as nice as the M9, but not as far as we're led to believe when comparing M8 DNG to M9 DNG.
leica fixed the SD-HC issue with a firmware update, however, they never made uncompressed 14-bit DNG available in the standard menus. i speculate they left it handicapped to make the M9 seem that much better, when really it's not.
the uncompressed m8 files are truly stunning given the resolution of the sensor. not quite as nice as the M9, but not as far as we're led to believe when comparing M8 DNG to M9 DNG.
user237428934
User deletion pending
I played with this Raw+Software while I had the M8 back then and did some intense pixel peeping. I couldn't find a single photo of the comparison shots that I did with different ISO settings that showed me a visible difference in noise or transitions of colours. None. Nada.
Only the work overhead was more and the colours came out different so that meant extra work in post processing.
Only the work overhead was more and the colours came out different so that meant extra work in post processing.
willie_901
Mentor
Wow, I had no idea out-of-the-box M8 raw was compressed.
That's not good at all.
That's not good at all.
dfdann
Member
I shoot with my M8 at 1250 ISO, DNG. Correct in Lightroom and convert to B&W. Up to 12X14 Prints give excellent results. I have had my M8 since new and have never had a problem. Just use it now for B&W along with my M7 and Nikon F100.
Cheers, Dan
Cheers, Dan
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
This is the JPEG1 from normal M8 DNG. ISO 2500.
What is "not good at all" here?
This is "real life" JPEG1 from ISO 1250 normal RAW M8 file:
What is "not good at all" here?
This is "real life" JPEG1 from ISO 1250 normal RAW M8 file:
dfdann
Member
My point exactly! The M8 is a tremendous bargain.
Cheers Dan
Cheers Dan
willie_901
Mentor
The point isn't what is good or not good enough. The point is how can you make an image with the highest-possible signal-to-noise ratio. The answer for the M8 (any other cameras from the same era) is to raw files at ISOs where the read-noise levels are lowest. Just use the aperture and shutter time required for the task at hand and increase the global brightness in post-production.
The shadow regions in the first image are "not good at all". The color-noise level (read noise) for the small doll on the bottom right is very high. There's almost no detail at all in her long hair. The green fabric below her also has a low signal-to-nose ratio. The purple dress on the left is another example. The scene is brighter at the top. The signal-no-noise ratio in this area is good. The detail in the doll's white lace collar (highest SNR) is also very good for ISO 2500. The lower half of the dress is another story. There's less light and the SNR is low to the point where the read noise level is similar to the signal level. The detail in the bright (high SNR) yellow region is excellent for an ISO 2500 JPEG.
The detail in the people in the second shot is marginal. Maybe this is just a focus issue. But in my experience this kind of detail loss occurs when read noise and signal levels are similar. The detail for the on-screen text is good. Also, it is possible to see individual wood floor boards in the well-lit area near the subjects. Nearby floor boards in darker (less SNR) areas are not resolved indicating the detail loss is related to SNR. Except for the on-screen text, this image is similar to to high ISO JPEGs I made APS-C Nikon DSLRs from the same era as the M8.
It's all about maximizing the signal-to-noise ratio for the camera you have.
Lss
Well-known
While it is an old, and therefore outdated, yet fairly expensive camera, it really remains quite the bargain when you look at the alternatives.
The good-light performance remains very competitive, the low-light performance is generally acceptable. What you basically don't get vs. newer cameras/sensors is high shutter speeds in low light. Otherwise it is the old story of rangefinder vs. SLR. The other mirrorless cameras are basically the SLR cameras of today. System size is driven more by lenses than the camera body.
In practical use, the weakest point of the M8 is its sensor size (crop and pixel count). To some it matters, to others it doesn't. I would personally like to leave the 10MP world behind already, but there aren't that many options really. The M9 is not a better camera than the M8 (but it solves the sensor size problem), and everything else just gets really expensive and/or adds new problems. The M8 is a good buy for many photographers.