I Love My M8!

Status
Not open for further replies.
WTF are you talking about? (Do we have any actual photogs here?) :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I'm talking about the noise, which is clearly visible on my well-calibrated monitor when I view the image at its original 2282 x 3394 size, the jacket under the right arm and the trousers especially, and pretty ugly (no, it looks nothing like film grain).

I think I'm an actual photographer, in the sense that I take actual photographs. There's no need to be so aggressive. Look a bit more closely at the full size image in the first link, and you should be able to see a lot of colour noise. If you can't, check your monitor.

And if you can't adopt a civil tone, expect to be on my ignore list quite soon.

Edit: you were too late with your edit, I saw your original words.

Ian
 
Last edited:
I think that is a pretty good and expressive photograph, Ted (btw the pedestrian's shoes are magenta - it must be the M8...;):D) And what is the problem with a bit of noise? Would my comment on that photo, had it been taken on 200 ISO slide-film be: "It has a lot of grain"? The point is: It is not neccesary to produce noise at ISO 640, see my low-light shot, which had no additional noise-reduction applied apart from the C1 default. So it may well be an artistic choice. I know that I deliberately shoot at ISO 1250 when planning to convert to B&W to get more "life" into my images. I like that possibility.
 
Last edited:
Jaap, Ted questioned whether there is any noise, so your comments are a bit moot.

Digital noise can certainly be acceptable, but there's a lot in that image, it's quite ugly and obvious, it really isn't like film grain, and I'm assuming the shot wasn't made at high ISO because the prevailing conditions look pretty bright. Which is why I mentioned it, it looks much noisier than I would expect, and noisier than other M8 images I have seen (I'm not making an anti-M8 point, just commenting on this specific image. If you post an image you should expect feedback, and not necessarily only positive).

Ian
 
iml said:
Jaap, Ted questioned whether there is any noise, so your comments are a bit moot.
Click to expand...

I questioned no such thing- I was pointing out how some people (you) miss the forest for the trees- big time.
 
Last edited:
Well, I would be annoyed if I was routinely producing images with that amount of noise, so we'll just have to agree to differ. Frankly I can't be bothered to respond to you any more, you're far too defensive to have a sensible discussion with.

Ian
 
I see the noise you mean, although it does not bother me as much as it seems to bother you. However I have feeling it was the raw conversion. At ISO 640 it should not be there in this amount - and C1 will remove it largely if left at default.
 
jaapv said:
At ISO 640 it should not be there in this amount.
Click to expand...

That was my point really. I haven't seen other M8 images this noisy even at high ISO, it doesn't look right to me.

Ian
 
Sailor Ted said:
San Francisco's Chinatown in the house! (click on links for the full rez story- amazing!)

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=395131499&size=o
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=395131502&size=o
Click to expand...

Ted, do you not use IR filter? Or was that really the color of his sneakers? I would advocate the over-zealous use of the IR filter. I'm not fond of the IR polluted colors in those images. I find usccharles' M8 images to be highly agreeable, I wonder what his secret is with regards to pleasing, rich colors.
 
Last edited:
Ted, no offense to your photography, the content is delightful. But the pictures *are* noisy, and I'm interested in why. I've seen many M8 pictures at 320 that were not very noisy, yet these are. Possibilities include:

- Underexposure (particularly in the last picture, where there are splashes of sunlight tha may have skewed the exposure). The boys' hair is very noisy, and the clothing is as noisy as some ISO 1250 pictures I've seen.

- Different RAW converters, or an NR setting in the converter.

- Without the IR filter, the camera reads too much IR light, and underexposes. With the filter, things are back in the visible spectrum only, and things are more as they should be.

- Sample variation in the sensor or electronics.

- Proximity to a source of RF interference.

- Demons, gremlins or poltergeists.

For what it's worth, I recently spent a day with a friend shooting his M8 (V. 1.09, recently back from Solms). We shot at various ISOs with an IR filter. We didn't get noise like this until 1250/2500. We shot one sequence of portraits in very dim light with the M8 and a Nikon D200. The M8 shot was unbelievably good. The D200 had the knd of noise the shot with the kids has (worse, though)--there was uniform noise everywhere, and the hair blocked up into black with very ugly color blobbing at the interfaces between pure black and a little detail. He was not using Capture One--I think he used ACR, but not absolutely sure.

Sorry, I don't have the pictures, so I can't post them.

--Peter
 
I´m GOING TO love my M8

I´m GOING TO love my M8

On this day of all days I was glad to see a thread speakinng of love and the M8 at the same time - all on a positive M8 note!

It´s like this; on Friday afternoon I sat at a café table in Oslo, negotiating the purchase of my (beautiful) Zeiss Ikon with a 5,6/12mm. On both sides of the table and coffe cups we agreed that now was not the time for an M8. in half a year or so, when the prices for a used sample have dropped to the half or less, then ... :angel:

Today, three days later I ordered an ... well, an M8. I did get a good financial offer. I did! And I AM GOING TO LOVE that camera!:D

Would someone care to offer some congratulations?? *scraping gravel with tip of shoe"

leif e
 
Leif, congratulations! That is a committment, and you're going to love your M8... :D
 
leif e,
Congrats you'll love it- shoot it, learn it, love it ; )

Peter,
The light I was shooting in was EXTREME. Anyone who knows SF at this time of year can attest. The difference between the buildings in direct sunlight and shaded areas are probably 3 to 4 stops (or more). This exceeds the dynamic range of digital (and film). I just printed an 8x10 size image of the "Stinkers" and it does not look noise as on the monitor. Also I am playing with different color and saturation settings, not applying noise cancellation, and shooting for maximum sharpness for print settings. I'll go over the aforementioned images later tonight after work and see what I can come up with. In more standard lighting I do not have these issues however this is a new tool to me and as with any new tool you need to push the envelope to find out what is possible, and what is not. I am looking to maximize my M8 images based on the M8's strengths.

At the end of the day I am looking for stunning print quality- if noise takes away from my prints I'll adjust my workflow. Thanks for you input and stay tuned I'll try a few different post process tricks and I'll also try C1 (as opposed to Lightroom). If anyone has any profiles to share please post links.

Regards,
Ted
 
Congratulations.

It would be very interesting if we could truly find out how many M8's have been sold and how many people have been happy - v unhappy.

I'm probably going to get one, but I am being hesitant mainly because the price of this camera plus a decent lens is not a decision I can take lightly.

I do believe that the camera will evolve into a legend, but I have the shared concerns of many posters here who just think that for whatever reason Leica have not truly got their act together.

To me, owning a Leica is supposed to mean owning a solid reliable piece of technical excellence. I'm not sure that the M8 meets that criteria but I'm willing to have a go.

I have seen some lovely pictures made with this camera and so on this basis I am inclined to believe that the existing issues can be overcome.

Anyway, good luck and enjoy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top