Putts thoughts on upcoming M8

[jaapv]

He sold a lot of his Leica lenses a couple of months ago at Marktplaats.nl (All the ASPH and APOS he raved about in his reviews) ......... he is on Canons pay list now

Is that a fact? I hope you got your hooks on a number of them!

 

[jonasv]

wasn't he comparing it to the r-d1?

Unlikely, he wouldn't refer to the RD-1 as "the rest of the bunch", would he?

Rex, I completely agree with you, the amount of megapixels is not the end all and I too have heard the DMR performs at least as good as other DSLR with more megapixels. But Puts' isn't referring to performance, resolution or image-quality, he literally states "the amount of megapixels". And that's just wrong.

Oh and Wim, you'd be surprised how many PJ's still shoot 35mm sometimes or often, my three favorite belgian PJ's for example: Stephan Vanfleteren, Tim Dirven and Bruno Stevens. Bruno Stevens latest series can be seen here: http://digitalrailroad.net/bruno/Fr...d=2aa1cf8d-cebc-42c6-b550-a12feb6f3d40&rcp=11 shot on color negative with a Leica M2 (I do like his B&W work better though).

 

[John Camp]

I've used digital SLRs and digicams since they came out, and have owned a D1x, a D2x and two Kodak full-frames, along with several pocket digitals; and my son owned a Canon 1Ds. I no longer pay much attention to megapixel claims, because so much depends on the chip itself and the firmware and software behind it. One problem that is constantly encountered in Internet examinations of these issues is simple lying -- the people who claim to have knowledge of various cameras have never used them, and after a while, you can tell that. Many Canon freaks have never really used a Nikon, and vice-versa. You simply CANNOT tell how a system will work until you have it and have tried it. There are also practical aspects: Canon keeps going for more megapixels, when, in truth, you really can't tell the difference now between a 16mp Canon 1DsII and a 12mp Nikon D2x when printed as a double-truck in the best-quality magazines, because the printing on high-speed presses -- even the best presses -- is so much less good than what either camera can do, that the differences are obliterated. There are also distinct benefits to a Nikon-sized sensor; and there are distinct benefits to a Canon-sized sensor. (I refuse to use the term Full Fame here because it no longer makes any sense, and never did make much.) My feeling is, and I certainly could be wrong, is that the M8 will match both Nikon and Canon for almost any practical purpose, although it might not match a 1DsII in resolution when the 1DsII is mounted with Leica R lenses longer than 35mm. With any lenses shorter than 35mm, the 1DsIII is going to have corner problems, but that's another issue.

The critical aspect of the M8 is its size and handiness. As I write this, I have a D2x on my desk along with an M7. The D2x (which is a great camera) is about twice as tall as the M7; iun fact, it is TALLER than the M7 is WIDE by, I would say (just eye-balling) about an inch. It's also wider by at least an inch, and, on the hand-grip portion of the D2x, thicker by an inch and a half -- it is more than twice as thick as the M7, and it weighs a ton. I keep an RRS backet on the D2x, and that makes it even wider and taller and heavier. The lens on the D2x, an 18-200 zoom, is, at its shortest length, almost as long as the M7 body, and when I heft it, the lens alone feels almost as heavy as an M7 with a 35 Summilux ASPH attached.

The 1DSII is significantly bigger than the D2x.

The point here is, Ms and SLRs are radically different cameras, and are used differently. I doubt that many workaday photojournalists will get M8s, because SLRs are more flexible, and flexibility is what workaday PJs need more than anything. The M8s will go mostly to the art crowd; and the art crowd is actually quite large.

If I actually knew how to post photographs on this forum, I'd take pictures of the two systems and post them...but just sitting here looking at them, comparisons between a top end SLR and an M7 are like comparing a roadster to a hardcore SUV. Which is best depends on what you're planning to do.

JC

 

[jaapv]

If I actually knew how to post photographs on this forum, I'd take pictures of the two systems and post them...but just sitting here looking at them, comparisons between a top end SLR and an M7 are like comparing a roadster to a hardcore SUV. Which is best depends on what you're planning to do.

JC

One of the most sensible posts I've seen in some time. Posting images: either use the "manage attachments"button in the advanced reply box, or link to your pic somewhere else on the net, a blog, a hosting site, your site,and paste the URL of the image in the image button over your advanced reply box.

 

[Nemo]

The total number of pixels is an important thing.
Increasing the Nyquist limit of the sensor the total resolution of the system will increase too, and this means more detail in prints. Leica lenses have very high resolution power, and the best way of exploiting this is by means of higher resolutions in the sensor.

See this:

http://www.stockphotoonline.com/C01_NotesOnPhotography/Resolution.htm

 

[Toby]

The total number of pixels is an important thing.
Increasing the Nyquist limit of the sensor the total resolution of the system will increase too, and this means more detail in prints. Leica lenses have very high resolution power, and the best way of exploiting this is by means of higher resolutions in the sensor.

See this:

http://www.stockphotoonline.com/C01_NotesOnPhotography/Resolution.htm

Well yes and no because Leica is going to use an APS size sensor so the final image will enlarged more than a canon with a 36x24 sensor so some of that advantage will be lost. Also an APS size sensor of 10mp or whatever will tend to be more noisy than a 35mm sensor ( I don't know why but clever people tell me it is so). Plus the smaller pitch of the pixels will place more demands upon the glass so 'worse' canon lenses will look better than 'superior' leica lenses when mounted on their respective camers.

 

[Trius]

JC: Best post I've seen in quite a while; bravo. FWIW, I am not a wealthy man, and if I were to buy an M8, I'd be divorced and poorer if my missus discovered the price. Yet ...

 

[jaapv]

The total number of pixels is an important thing.
Increasing the Nyquist limit of the sensor the total resolution of the system will increase too, and this means more detail in prints. Leica lenses have very high resolution power, and the best way of exploiting this is by means of higher resolutions in the sensor.

See this:

http://www.stockphotoonline.com/C01_NotesOnPhotography/Resolution.htm

This is a rather too simplistic approach: Pixel size, Max COC and Airy disk diameter are virtually identical on a 1.3x 10 Mp and 35mm 16 Mp sensor. That means lens performance will be rendered identically. With the advantage for Leica of not having a AAdiffuser in front of the sensor so edge contrast will not be impaired. The total pixel number only gets into play at quite large enlargements, say larger than billboard at less than 5 m, when the printing resolution starts to exceed the native resolution of the sensor or at extremely close viewing distances, like a 100% crop on your monitor. For all other viewing situations the 10MP sensor will far exceed the resolving power of the human eye.In all those normal shooting situations we can expect the M8 to render results that will be better than the current Canon 1DsII, as the DMR, with similar specifications as the M8, does.

 

[Mark Norton]

...which is a compelling argument in favour of the M8, even before you factor in the size, weight, quiet and convenience of the thing compared to a DSLR. There are lots of detrators here but for me, this is the most important Leica camera since the M3. Cannot wait.

 

[anselwannab]

My dream set-up will be:

A Canon 5D (or follow-on FF) with my 17-40/4L (I must have a good copy).
A dRF with 35, 50 and 75mm lenses.
My 20D with my 70-200/2.8L IS with a 1.4x when I need it.

Right now my EOS630 fills the 5D gap and my CL fills the dRF gap.

I love walking around with my CL or Zorki6 with I-50 in my pocket, and will enjoy it more when I can do it with out spending time dunking my tmax100 and scanning and dust removing!

 

[Gary R]

All this technical talk about the quality doesn't really add up till much until we have some RAW files available for download or we have the camera in our hands. I don't give a flying [insert expletive of choice here] what the camera does compared to a full frame Canon DSLR. I would like one of those too, but for much different reasons. I am a novice when it comes to my Leica, so maybe I just don't get something here but SLR's and rangefinders are two different beasts. Like the analogy made earleir between a roadster and a SUV, they are both photographic tools but differ in many ways. I don't think we should stress over the files the M8 produces when we haven't even seen them. Lets calm down and wait a few months until we start comparing it to other cameras we can actually hold.

 

[Ben Z]

I fully agree that talk of comparisons in image quality are pointless without a working example of the camera in hand. I also fully agree that a Leica and an EOS 5D are 2 different things with individual strengths and weaknesses, but whereas I accepted a lower image quality from 35mm than from larger formats because of ergonomics, the ergos between an EOS 5D and a Leica aren't compelling enough that I would sacrifice appreciable image quality, especially considering how much more the Leica will cost. But I've got faith in Leica on that score, though not quite enough of it to buy the M8 sight-unseen

 

[Dougg]

...whereas I accepted a lower image quality from 35mm than from larger formats because of ergonomics, the ergos between an EOS 5D and a Leica aren't compelling enough that I would sacrifice appreciable image quality, especially considering how much more the Leica will cost. But I've got faith in Leica on that score, though not quite enough of it to buy the M8 sight-unseen

This goes to show how very different our priorities can be. I've been surprised before by comparisons of the Epson with some dSLR with more features for less money... when in my humble opinion there flat out is no possible comparision because the ergonomics/interface issue is overwhelmingly important.

Same with buyers choosing 128k RAM Apple Macintoshes over IBM PCs in 1984; IMO it was ALL about the interface, baby! When I saw MacPaint and MacWrite run on that sharp little screen, and learned there was no BASIC language included, I KNEW that was my kinda computer! Somehow I see a parallel here and now with the Epson R-D1 and the Leica M8, marginal products perhaps, but for those valuing the analog interface over modal menus, there just is no other choice in an interchangeable lens digital cam... But I'm unlikely to buy sight-unseen either, so there we agree.

 

[MarkM6]

Whooooooooooot?

Whooooooooooot?

Get the camera to:
1) full-frame
2) get the price point down to $2000

#2 Will *never* happen; period.

 

[MarkM6]

Imho

Imho

the ergos between an EOS 5D and a Leica aren't compelling enough

Ben, you do own the Leica M and the Canon 5D; right? How can you say that the ergo differences between the two bodies are not compelling enough?

Even Ray would argue with you!

But I've got faith in Leica on that score, though not quite enough of it to buy the M8 sight-unseen

No one should make the final buying decision before seeing the result. I am pretty sure that the M8 will be a lot better than R-D1!!!

 

[Mark Norton]

The M8 will only be a success - and Leica will only survive as an independent camera manufacturer - if it provides the very best image quality, taking on the best from Nikon and Canon. It has an unfair advantage - the inherent quality of the M lenses - but doing this requires a single mindedness to do their own thing rather than follow the herd.

So when Erwin quotes the New York Times articles written by some staffer and talks about it being a "a rather conservative camera that relies on manual focus, manually operated aperture ring, a classic-style rangefinder and a close resemblance to the classical M-look", I say of course, were you really expecting anything else?

Leica is a tiny company - 1/50 the size of Nikon - probably the world's smallest digital camera maker - and they cannot hope to compete by matching feature to feature. There will be those who pass them by because the camera which comes free with tokens from Cheerios has more pixels, but these people are not the target market. For me, the real success of the M8 will come from the image quality and the simplicity of the camera, not the complexity.

 

[Ben Z]

Ben, you do own the Leica M and the Canon 5D; right? How can you say that the ergo differences between the two bodies are not compelling enough?

You (mis-)quoted me out of context. What I said was that the ergonomics aren't compelling enough that I would accept a significant loss in image quality especially given that the M8 will be about double the cost of the 5D. The ergos are indeed important to me, that's why when I travel I continue to shoot my Leicas and go through the expense and inconvenience of film. BTW I have a 20D, which I bought used for under $900, not a 5D. The ergos are nearly the same though.

 

[MarkM6]

Exactly!

Exactly!

For me, the real success of the M8 will come from the image quality and the simplicity of the camera, not the complexity.

Well said!

 

[jaapv]

Surprising it's actually getting bigger though....you mean a bunch of chips and electronics takes up more space than metal gears and springs designed 55 years ago?

Battery? Memory card? Interface? LCD screen(s)? etc....

 

[majid]

6 MP is plenty for most of us.

Agree

Get the camera to:
1) full-frame

Won't happen due to the angle of incidence.

2) get the price point down to $2000
and I will happily add a M(8+x) to my kit.

So would I. Actually, I probably will even at $5K. But considering the M7 retails for $3500, that's a tad unrealistic