M8 as a landscape camera

T

Tuolumne

Mentor
Local time
12:51 PM
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
3,005
What do you think of the M8 as a landscape camera? Its image quality has been described as very close to (as good as?) that of a medium format camera. This, combined with the legendary Leica optics, should make for one hell of a great digital landscape camera. My question is: Does it?

I shoot mostly landsacpes and would like to know if the Leica M8 cuts it for this application. Most of my enlargements are big, 12x18 or larger, so sharpness and detail rendering are a big consideration.

Thanks,
/T
 
if you shoot landscapes, and you dont need the portability of the leica, wouldn't a 5d make more sense (seeing how its cheaper and has a better sensor)... unless you really like using rangefinder focusing, which i can understand,
 
Well, it is not as good as a medium-format camera and so if you are thinking of using it as a substitute for one I would think again.
 
einolu said:
if you shoot landscapes, and you dont need the portability of the leica, wouldn't a 5d make more sense (seeing how its cheaper and has a better sensor)... unless you really like using rangefinder focusing, which i can understand,
Click to expand...

I use a Nikon D200 for DSLR work, so I don't feel like investing in a complete other DSLR system for landscape work. On the other hand, I own alot of Leica glass, so if I could press that into service for landscape work, that would be great.

/T
 
i'm not sure how much better the leica is than a d200... not significantly better anyhow. the leica is a wonderful portable camera, but if you aren't going to be taking advantage of that then it just becomes a very overpriced digital camera.
 
ywenz said:
D200 is a damn good camera.. check out the awesome landscape shots this guy's capturing with his D200. I don't think the M8 is any better than this image quality wise.

http://www.j-roumagnac.net/index.php?x=browse&category=24

Want ~MF quality without actual MF? Step up to the 1DS MK II ..
Click to expand...

Those are, indeed, very nice. I have been very happy with the landscapes I have shot using my D200. I just thought with all the balyhoo over the M8, perhaps it would be even better.

Thanks,
/T
 
Tuolumne said:
What do you think of the M8 as a landscape camera? Its image quality has been described as very close to (as good as?) that of a medium format camera. This, combined with the legendary Leica optics, should make for one hell of a great digital landscape camera. My question is: Does it?

I shoot mostly landsacpes and would like to know if the Leica M8 cuts it for this application. Most of my enlargements are big, 12x18 or larger, so sharpness and detail rendering are a big consideration.

Thanks,
/T
Click to expand...

A better tool for this job is a medium format camera; the best tool for this application is a large format camera, given your criteria for large prints, and where sharpness and detail rendering are a big consideration.

I don't see how this can be argued.
 
T has contradictory requirements.. on one hand, he's willing to make a compromise and settle with a "MF-like" camera. On the other hand, raw resolution and imaging information is a huge consideration..

Well, you can't achieve the latter by settling with an imitator. Accept only the genuine article.
 
FrankS said:
A better tool for this job is a medium format camera; the best tool for this application is a large format camera, given your criteria for large prints, and where sharpness and detail rendering are a big consideration.

I don't see how this can be argued.
Click to expand...

Don't be too sure Frank :D
 
Why not use a Leica for landscape? It works for my personal non professional needs. OTH size does matter and the larger the format the better if you are willing to put up with the extra cost, weight and bulk of the gear to get those huge enlargements.

Bob
 
Nikon Bob said:
Why not use a Leica for landscape? It works for my personal non professional needs. OTH size does matter and the larger the format the better if you are willing to put up with the extra cost, weight and bulk of the gear to get those huge enlargements.

Bob
Click to expand...

of course he could buy it and take landscapes with it, its just that they wouldnt be much different than the landscapes he takes with his d200...
 
ywenz said:
T has contradictory requirements.. on one hand, he's willing to make a compromise and settle with a "MF-like" camera. On the other hand, raw resolution and imaging information is a huge consideration..

Well, you can't achieve the latter by settling with an imitator. Accept only the genuine article.
Click to expand...

ywenz,
I don't have alot of expertise in scanning. All of my landscapes get printed from digital files. So, I have to go through that intermediate digitizatiion step if I use a medium format film camera. I assume that must introduce some quality degradation that makes the comparison between a medium format negative and a straight 35mm digital image capture somewhat more comparable. At least, so it seems to me.

/T
 
if you want an m8, just get it. there's no sense hoping it's a replacement for medium or large format.
 
Funny how ideas come up in several places at once - serendipidy. In any case I had been planning to run a comparison between film in my 'blad (likely Plus X), film in a Leica M body, and M8 digital capture at ISO 160. I plan to use my sharpest normal lenses (80 / 50) on both cameras. Film would be developed, printed to the best of my ability, and scanned. I know that this all is imprecise, that the fields of view won't be the same, the FoF will be difficult to compare, and the like, but I have been so impressed with some of my more careful M8 work, that I feel it needs the comparison.
 
Tuolumne said:
ywenz,
I don't have alot of expertise in scanning. All of my landscapes get printed from digital files. So, I have to go through that intermediate digitizatiion step if I use a medium format film camera. I assume that must introduce some quality degradation that makes the comparison between a medium format negative and a straight 35mm digital image capture somewhat more comparable. At least, so it seems to me.

/T
Click to expand...

Good point, to "maximize" any images captured on film, you'd need a good scanner. However, large negative + sub par scanning can still be better than small digital crop sensors..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top