Leica M8 review on Luminous-Landscape
Kinon O'Cann
home run with this one.
I'd like to see some direct comparisons between this camera and the Canon 5D
with L primes. Would be interesting.
Scott W
The test photos makes it look like the 5D is blowing it out of the
water.
Note on the flags crop that not only does the 5D have much less noise
but you can easily make out the double lines around the crest on the
flag in the Canon photo and the Leica more or less blurs it all
together.
I really think Leica's offering here falls far short of where it
should when they are asking that amount of money.
Scott
Dennis Pogson
Then buy a 5D.
If I could afford one without re-mortgaging the house, I would buy one. I
would just about get enough dosh by selling my BMW, but then, I would want a
Ferrari.
Guess my D70 will have to do for now. There's always the Lottery.
Dennis.
frederick
It's bling. Any of the dslr makers could churn out something better.
Alfred Molon
W says...
> The test photos makes it look like the 5D is blowing it out of the
> water.
> Note on the flags crop that not only does the 5D have much less noise
> but you can easily make out the double lines around the crest on the
> flag in the Canon photo and the Leica more or less blurs it all
> together.
That's at the highest ISO levels, which normally you wouldn't use. ISO
3200 is an emergency mode anyway and you'll do most of the shooting at
lower ISO levels.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E300, E330, E400 and E500 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus E330 resource - http://myolympus.org/E330/
bmoag
is clearly adequate for the Leica mystique.
The reviewer takes great pains to point out that the rangefinder camera
experience is the core value of this camera and you either like it or you
don't.
I wonder if the recent spate of Leica M film clones will make the digital
transition or if they are dead end products?
deryck lant
from "Kinon O'Cann" <some...@over.the.rainbow> contains these words:
As the review says:
In the case of the Leica M8 I am pleased to report that overall image
quality is
second to none. Only the Canon 5D and 1Ds MKII are better at high ISO,
and at ISO 400 and lower the M8 is their equal. Then again, right now there
are no other cameras producing as clean high ISO images as these two Canons.
But when combined with the superior quality of Leica lenses, and the
fact that
the M8 does not have a resolution reducing AA filter, I would argue that
there
are no current 35mm format cameras which offer superior image quality to the
Leica M8 at ISO 400 and lower.
David J. Littleboy
"deryck lant" <der...@deryck.com> quoted:
>
>> www.luminous-landscape.com
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> As the review says:
>
> In the case of the Leica M8 I am pleased to report that overall image
> quality is
> second to none. Only the Canon 5D and 1Ds MKII are better at high ISO,
> and at ISO 400 and lower the M8 is their equal. Then again, right now
> there
> are no other cameras producing as clean high ISO images as these two
> Canons.
> But when combined with the superior quality of Leica lenses, and the
> fact that
> the M8 does not have a resolution reducing AA filter, I would argue that
> there
> are no current 35mm format cameras which offer superior image quality to
> the
> Leica M8 at ISO 400 and lower.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
A Bayer camera without an AA filter is a color Moiré disaster waiting to
happen on every shot. The MF back users were just beginning to figure this
out when I stopped following those lists.
Sure, the images look just like Foveon images (snap-to-grid pixel-level
sharpness), but find some patterns that repeat at the wrong frequency, and
you'll be dead in the water. IMHO, the Foveon snap-to-grid pixel-level
sharpness itself is bogus, but at least it doesn't do color Moiré.
Sheesh. Leica is so off the wall, they have me saying nice things about
Foveon. That's impressive.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Scott W
> In article <1162234474....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Scott
> W says...
>
> > The test photos makes it look like the 5D is blowing it out of the
> > water.
> > Note on the flags crop that not only does the 5D have much less noise
> > but you can easily make out the double lines around the crest on the
> > flag in the Canon photo and the Leica more or less blurs it all
> > together.
>
> That's at the highest ISO levels, which normally you wouldn't use. ISO
> 3200 is an emergency mode anyway and you'll do most of the shooting at
> lower ISO levels.
light, partly because there is no mirror slap and partly because you
can shoot with the lens wide open. But the 5D will blow away the Leica
in low light shooting and for a whole lot less money. If your selling
point has been low light photography for years you better make a
digital that can work at high ISOs.
Scott
Paul Rubin
> Except we have heard for years about how great the Leica is in low
> light, partly because there is no mirror slap and partly because you
> can shoot with the lens wide open. But the 5D will blow away the Leica
> in low light shooting and for a whole lot less money. If your selling
> point has been low light photography for years you better make a
> digital that can work at high ISOs.
The traditional Leica low light shot was also black and white, while
the M8 (and 5D) use a color Bayer filter that kills somewhere between
one and two stops of the light reaching the sensor. Leica gets
interesting when they use a full frame, monochrome CCD.
David J. Littleboy
Reality check. The 5D at ISO 1600 will make 13x19 B&W prints that look
better than ISO 400 8x10s from a Leica loaded with Tri-X that will later be
developed in Rodinal.
deryck lant
from "bmoag" <ae...@hotmail.com> contains these words:
As an optimist I think that as the cost of digital implementation drops then
the major players will make the transition. That great legacy of supreme
glass cannot be ignored.
Deryck
Scott W
but also pretty limited in appeal.
Scott
Paul Rubin
> Reality check. The 5D at ISO 1600 will make 13x19 B&W prints that look
> better than ISO 400 8x10s from a Leica loaded with Tri-X that will later be
> developed in Rodinal.
Why stop there?
Paul Rubin
> But Paul is suggesting a monochrome FF CCD, which would be pretty neat
> but also pretty limited in appeal.
Limited in appeal compared to what? B&W film was also limited in
appeal.
Fuji is now selling an IR version of the S3 Professional DSLR. That
has to be even more limited in appeal than a monochrome camera.
Jim
"deryck lant" <der...@deryck.com> wrote in message
news:3130303031383...@deryck.com...
Jim
Scott W
But you can't really do IR with a standard DSLR. Sure you can sort of
do it will a filter and very long exposures but it does not come close
to what a camera that does not have the IR blocking filter can do.
But a color DSLR can do a pretty go job of B/W for those who like that
look.
And from reading a lot of post froms B/W fans many of them would not
want to do their B/W work with a digital camera. They claim to like
the look of silver prints that are done on enlarger and claim that they
like the process of making the prints by hand.
I am not saying that there would not be a market for such a camera but
I think it would be a very small market. Still it would be a whole lot
more interesting than the M8.
Scott
David J Taylor
[]
> A Bayer camera without an AA filter is a color Moiré disaster waiting
> to happen on every shot. The MF back users were just beginning to
> figure this out when I stopped following those lists.
>
> Sure, the images look just like Foveon images (snap-to-grid
> pixel-level sharpness), but find some patterns that repeat at the
> wrong frequency, and you'll be dead in the water. IMHO, the Foveon
> snap-to-grid pixel-level sharpness itself is bogus, but at least it
> doesn't do color Moiré.
> Sheesh. Leica is so off the wall, they have me saying nice things
> about Foveon. That's impressive.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
Of course, it would be OK if the lenses had an MTF cut-off equivalent to
the AA filter. But being Leica lenses, they don't....
David
David J Taylor
[]
> But Paul is suggesting a monochrome FF CCD, which would be pretty neat
> but also pretty limited in appeal.
>
> Scott
"Which camera do I take today - the monochrome M8M or the colour M8?"
Leica might sell twice the number of cameras! <G>
David
Kamal R. Prasad
deryck lant wrote:
> The message <HPt1h.17549$GR....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>
> from "bmoag" <ae...@hotmail.com> contains these words:
>
> > I would get one tomorrow if I could justify the cost. The sensor technology
> > is clearly adequate for the Leica mystique.
> > The reviewer takes great pains to point out that the rangefinder camera
> > experience is the core value of this camera and you either like it or you
> > don't.
He takes great pains to explain that a rangefinder has plus points
provided you know how to use the equipment.
> > I wonder if the recent spate of Leica M film clones will make the digital
> > transition or if they are dead end products?
>
you mean they have clones?
> As an optimist I think that as the cost of digital implementation drops then
> the major players will make the transition. That great legacy of supreme
> glass cannot be ignored.
>
>From what I gather, the instant gratification of seeing the shot
-rather than have it developed, has forced early adoption of digital.
The technology doesn't seem to be ready despite consumers clamouring
for it.
regards
-kamal
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
There are many cameras that beat the Leica M8 at high ISO.
The sensor in the Leica is a Kodak KAF-10500 according to
slin100 in the "Digital P&S and color bit depth" thread:
The sensor has a full well of 60,000 electrons with 6.8 micron
pixels. But the read noise is 15 electrons. Canons 1D Mark II
has 80,000 electron full well and 3.9 electron read noise.
High ISO images need low read noise. Canon's D20, D30, 350D
have 6.4 micron pixels, full well ~ 51,000 electrons and read
noise around 3.6 to 3.7 electrons. That read noise allows the
20D class to go 4 times fainter (2 stops).
Roger
Kinon O'Cann
"Scott W" <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162234474....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I've taken a closer look at the pix and test results, and while the Canon is
less noisy, at lower ISOs, like 800 and below, the Leica is simply
excellent. The sharpness shown in the Leica shots exceeds the 5D. The Leica
edge definition is superior to the 5D, which is probably lens-dependent. The
image quality, plus the "rangefinder experience" that M users seek will make
this cam a huge seller, for sure. I'd still like to see a direct comparison
between the M8 and 5D with the 5D using L primes. Without paying for it, of
course...
>
> Scott
>
Scott W
> I've taken a closer look at the pix and test results, and while the
Canon is
> less noisy, at lower ISOs, like 800 and below, the Leica is simply
> excellent. The sharpness shown in the Leica shots exceeds the 5D.
Where are you finding these shots, I can't seem to find 100% crops from
the Leica execpt
the high ISO ones?
Scott
Alfred Molon
W says...
> Except we have heard for years about how great the Leica is in low
> light, partly because there is no mirror slap and partly because you
> can shoot with the lens wide open. But the 5D will blow away the Leica
> in low light shooting and for a whole lot less money. If your selling
> point has been low light photography for years you better make a
> digital that can work at high ISOs.
Then just make a cooperation between Canon and Leica, placing the sensor
and electronics of Canon into a Leica M8 body. Combine the best of both
worlds - Canon's low noise electronics with Leica's no-mirror and shoot-
wide-open camera.
David J. Littleboy
"Alfred Molon" <alfredDEL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Scott W says...
>
>> Except we have heard for years about how great the Leica is in low
>> light, partly because there is no mirror slap and partly because you
>> can shoot with the lens wide open. But the 5D will blow away the Leica
>> in low light shooting and for a whole lot less money. If your selling
>> point has been low light photography for years you better make a
>> digital that can work at high ISOs.
>
> Then just make a cooperation between Canon and Leica, placing the sensor
> and electronics of Canon into a Leica M8 body. Combine the best of both
> worlds - Canon's low noise electronics with Leica's no-mirror and shoot-
> wide-open camera.
If you actually look at the sort of images Leica street shooters have
produced, what you see is grainy, blurry, out of focus mush that is
interesting and forgivable for its content. If you really tried, a 5D with
the 35/2.0 (or other prime in the 24 to 85mm range) would produce worlds
better images for that work. You can do the same zone focus game (and
produce the same out of focus mush) as the Leica, or you can just turn on
all the AF points and actually get your subject in focus some percentage of
the time. Mirror slap simply isn't an issue at the shutter speeds and focal
lengths used.
The Leica is a buck-nekked emperor, the 5D the far better tool.
jdear64
Did you read this little gem:
"And since the camera lacks an AA filter I have found it possible to
res-up files for very large prints to a greater extent than ones from
cameras that do have an anti-aliasing filter installed. I have also
found that M8 files need considerably less sharpening than those from
Canon DSLRs."
Or this:
"What he told me is that the M8's DNG files are definitely 8 bit, not
16 bit."
So you can't get >8 bit depth pictures but Leica makes it up to you by
giving you all the aliasing a bayer filtered sensor can give. Great.
Anyone who buys this camera deserves what they get.
JDear
Rich
The Japanese have no concept of modularity or upgrading expensive
products.
If they did, you'd be able to remove the colour CCD and replace it with
a monochrome CCD for black and white work.
David J Taylor
[]
> If you actually look at the sort of images Leica street shooters have
> produced, what you see is grainy, blurry, out of focus mush that is
> interesting and forgivable for its content. If you really tried, a 5D
> with the 35/2.0 (or other prime in the 24 to 85mm range) would
> produce worlds better images for that work.
... and loose 90% of the character which is in the shot!
"Noise-free" isn't the only game in town.
David
David J. Littleboy
"David J Taylor" <david-...@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
wrote in message news:gdX1h.45010$r61....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
That's BS. Look at one image, and grain is cute. Look at a series of 10 or
15 images, and you'll realize that there's no detail in people's hair, that
all surfaces have the same bogus texture.
The only reason we put up with the cr@p is that (a) they were there and we
weren't, and (b) at that time there wasn't any other way to get the shot.
Bresson (sp?), Winogrand (sp?), and those guys sold on the content, not the
quality.
David J Taylor
You prove my point nicely. The character is in the image, not in just
seeing the last strand of someone's hair.
David
Barry Pearson
[snip]
> "What he told me is that the M8's DNG files are definitely 8 bit, not
> 16 bit."
>
> So you can't get >8 bit depth pictures but Leica makes it up to you by
> giving you all the aliasing a bayer filtered sensor can give. Great.
> Anyone who buys this camera deserves what they get.
The look-up table in the M8 DNG file, used by raw converters to
generate the linear values, is the equivalent of squaring the 8-bit bit
values then dividing by 4.
(I've read elsewhere that the M8 has 16-bit values internally and takes
the square root of them to yield the 8-bit values, but I can't confirm
that).
So this isn't the same as a linear 8-bit value. It is equivalent to
holding a 14-bit value but with only just over 250 values, with unequal
spacing, used within that range.
--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
David J. Littleboy
"David J Taylor" <david-...@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
wrote in message news:UTX1h.45020$r61....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
BS again. Looking at page after page of grainy grit gets old quick. The
grain detracts from the images, not enhances them.
Beside, if you capture clean, you can always add noise. (And some people do,
although I think it ridiculous.)
Philip Homburg
Rich <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The Japanese have no concept of modularity or upgrading expensive
>products.
Hmm. If I take a look at the Nikon F, then maybe they should have made it
more modular such that you can replace the shutter as well (and maybe
also the mirror) but those are just the only non-modular parts of the
system.
>If they did, you'd be able to remove the colour CCD and replace it with
>a monochrome CCD for black and white work.
As far as I know, there have never been digital cameras where you could do
that. Of course, with digital backs, you can replace one back with another
(for example, Kodak made both color and B/W backs), but those where
expensive enough that you sort of got the camera for free.
--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Philip Homburg
Barry Pearson <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:
>The look-up table in the M8 DNG file, used by raw converters to
>generate the linear values, is the equivalent of squaring the 8-bit bit
>values then dividing by 4.
>
>(I've read elsewhere that the M8 has 16-bit values internally and takes
>the square root of them to yield the 8-bit values, but I can't confirm
>that).
>
>So this isn't the same as a linear 8-bit value. It is equivalent to
>holding a 14-bit value but with only just over 250 values, with unequal
>spacing, used within that range.
That's gamma of 2.0. Not that different from the 2.2 commonly used in
other systems.
Both leaving out the AA filter and the lack of a true RAW format strike
me a strange design decisions.
The RAW format should just be a firmware update. I guess that the lack of
an AA filter can be compensated by stopping down well beyond the
diffraction limit (or by shooting wide open and not focusing correctly).
Philip Homburg
David J. Littleboy <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>BS again. Looking at page after page of grainy grit gets old quick. The
>grain detracts from the images, not enhances them.
That maybe true for you, but I quite enjoyed HCB's pictures, even as poster
sized prints. I have to admit that this was an exposition, and it was
possible to stand at the right distance to admire what he had done.
The only pictures that bothered me, were the ones where he should have
gotten the focus better.
David J. Littleboy
"Philip Homburg" <phi...@ue.aioy.eu> wrote:
> Rich <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>The Japanese have no concept of modularity or upgrading expensive
>>products.
>
> Hmm. If I take a look at the Nikon F, then maybe they should have made it
> more modular such that you can replace the shutter as well (and maybe
> also the mirror) but those are just the only non-modular parts of the
> system.
Or the Mamiya 645 system. Or lots of other products as well.
>>If they did, you'd be able to remove the colour CCD and replace it with
>>a monochrome CCD for black and white work.
>
> As far as I know, there have never been digital cameras where you could do
> that. Of course, with digital backs, you can replace one back with another
> (for example, Kodak made both color and B/W backs), but those where
> expensive enough that you sort of got the camera for free.
Not always "sort of". At one point, one of the mfrs was throwing in a free
Mamiya 645 AF model with the back. And there may have been a similar Rollei
6000 deal as well.
Barry Pearson
[snip]
> That's gamma of 2.0. Not that different from the 2.2 commonly used in
> other systems.
>
> Both leaving out the AA filter and the lack of a true RAW format strike
> me a strange design decisions.
The Leica DMR back didn't have an anti-alias filter either. I know 2
users of DMR backs who favour not having an anti-alias filter! They
said they don't want anything interfering with the sharpness.
Apparently, Leica consulted their users and were told by a majority not
to have one.
I've seen results from the DMR showing very sharp results, with just a
few of them having aliasing problems in relatively small areas. Mostly,
this wasn't causing the users any problems. The users were willing to
cater for the occasional problems some other way.
The Nikon D70 (and perhaps other Nikons?) is claimed to have a lossy,
but "visually lossless", compression of raw data before storage. This
was apparently to achieve smaller raw files. I assume the M8 has it for
the same reason. It enables the raw file for a 10 MP camera to be 10 MB
without any other compression, and if it is run through the DNG
Converter to (losslessly) compress it, that typically reduces to 7 MB
or less. (And the D70 had a weaker than normal anti-alias filter).
> The RAW format should just be a firmware update. I guess that the lack of
> an AA filter can be compensated by stopping down well beyond the
> diffraction limit (or by shooting wide open and not focusing correctly).
The users of the DMR back that I know typically don't appear to have
significant problems with the lack of an anti-alias filter, and were
getting very sharp results bigger than A3. They were not using such
techniques to compensate!
Reviews of the M8 suggest that the use of 8-bits isn't causing
problems. I've had a look at 3 M8 DNG images myself (ACR 3.6 &
Photoshop CS2) and those looked good to me. (I haven't attempted to see
if I can use "vigorous" Photoshop editing to generate banding or such
visual problems). If users are happy, why would Leica change the
firmware? I suspect Leica are very aware of what they are doing - in
fact, I think this is the first use I've seen of the DNG
LinearizationTable feature to achieve this form of compression, so this
was a very deliberate choice by Leica, different from the DMR back.
David J Taylor
[]
> BS again. Looking at page after page of grainy grit gets old quick.
> The grain detracts from the images, not enhances them.
Whatever works for you - I do not think that technical excellence or
complete freedom from grain is essential for an image to be worth looking
at, or for me to enjoy.
David
Philip Homburg
Barry Pearson <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:
>On Nov 1, 9:10 am, phi...@ue.aioy.eu (Philip Homburg) wrote:
>[snip]
>> That's gamma of 2.0. Not that different from the 2.2 commonly used in
>> other systems.
>>
>> Both leaving out the AA filter and the lack of a true RAW format strike
>> me a strange design decisions.
>
>The Leica DMR back didn't have an anti-alias filter either. I know 2
>users of DMR backs who favour not having an anti-alias filter! They
>said they don't want anything interfering with the sharpness.
>Apparently, Leica consulted their users and were told by a majority not
>to have one.
>
>I've seen results from the DMR showing very sharp results, with just a
>few of them having aliasing problems in relatively small areas. Mostly,
>this wasn't causing the users any problems. The users were willing to
>cater for the occasional problems some other way.
Well, it strikes me as strange trade-off. But it is true that Leica has
to cater to their users.
If seems to me that the point where you see the difference between
cameras with and without AA filters, is also the point where who will be
able to see aliasing effects.
>Reviews of the M8 suggest that the use of 8-bits isn't causing
>problems.
I haven't seen any reviews of the M8 where they really try to push
the limits of the sensor (i.e. masking in Photoshop to bring out more
shadow details).
8-bits (gamma corrected) is enough for properly exposed frames. It is only
when you want something special that you need all the bits.
Even if there is a use for 8-bit RAW, how much would it have cost Leica
to provide a losslessly compressed version as well?
>I think this is the first use I've seen of the DNG
>LinearizationTable feature to achieve this form of compression, so this
>was a very deliberate choice by Leica, different from the DMR back.
Usually it is the goal of RAW formats to provide the user with all the
bits captured by the sensor. Lossy compression is at odds with this idea.
Barry Pearson
> bits captured by the sensor. Lossy compression is at odds with this idea.
The sensor itself doesn't capture bits. I thought it typically
collected electrons as a result of being struck by photons? Then those
collections, although integral, are treated as analogue amounts to be
converted by an ADC to a number in a CHOSEN range?
I'm not trying to quibble - I'm pointing out that the numbers in a raw
file are always derived numbers. For some Nikons, I read that they are
further lossy-compressed (but claimed to be visually lossless). Other
changes might take place before we see the numbers - is the
black-subtraction after a long exposure applied to the raw data? Might
there be other corrections too?
I tend to think of "raw data" as "what the camera manufacturer claims
to be raw, and certainly less processed than JPEG or TIFF". But I don't
believe it is some ultimate distilled truth!
Furthermore - I've seen an M8 menu that didn't say "raw" or "Raw" or
"RAW". It said "DNG" (and JPEG). "Raw" is a bit ambiguous.
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/leicam8/page8.asp
John McWilliams
Without too much stretching, it seems as though you and the other David
J might actually be more in agreement than otherwise.
But I was wrong once before on this NG....
<s.>
--
john mcwilliams
David J Taylor
Oh, quite possibly! I just don't mind a little noise in an image, and
feel there are times when grain or noise can positively enhance the
character of an image. Like David, I probably wouldn't want to look at
page after page of such images, nor would I expect significant grain in
"daylight" condition images....
David
Annika1980
Kinon O'Cann wrote:
> Reichman's review is up, and if you wish to believe him, Leica has hit a
> home run with this one.
>
> www.luminous-landscape.com
That review makes me want to go out and buy a new camera ... a Canon 5D.
frederick
<snip>
>
> The Nikon D70 (and perhaps other Nikons?) is claimed to have a lossy,
> but "visually lossless", compression of raw data before storage. This
> was apparently to achieve smaller raw files. I assume the M8 has it for
> the same reason. It enables the raw file for a 10 MP camera to be 10 MB
> without any other compression, and if it is run through the DNG
> Converter to (losslessly) compress it, that typically reduces to 7 MB
> or less. (And the D70 had a weaker than normal anti-alias filter).
>
Have you seen examples comparing lossy with lossless raw format on a
camera that has both options?
That I haven't seen any posted on the internet perhaps indicates that
there's nothing to see? Perhaps I haven't looked hard enough.
frederick
je ne sais quoi intangible qualities that Leica offers.
Shakti stones have many more published favourable reviews than the M8
itself.
http://www.shakti-innovations.com/audiovideo.htm
The patented Noise Reduction Technology should be exactly and perfectly
as effective on digital cameras as it is for audio applications.
Then again, if they work for the M8, they'll also work for the 5d.
Scott W
That is too funny. When we use to do EMI testing of new products we
always had a big box of ferrites, which is what I am sure that stone
it. Sure it reduces EMI but you can get the same thing for a fraction
the cost at many places. The idea of just placing the ferrite near the
device in question is pretty funny as well. Mostly they don't do a
thing to improve performance, more to keep a device from radiating too
much EMI.
Scott
Barry Pearson
[snip]
> Have you seen examples comparing lossy with lossless raw format on a
> camera that has both options?
> That I haven't seen any posted on the internet perhaps indicates that
> there's nothing to see? Perhaps I haven't looked hard enough.
Good point. No. I've seen lots of largish prints from people with D70s,
and haven't identified an issue.
Since I started using a digital camera, I've only shot raw. But it
isn't because I have been obsessed with every last bit! It is largely
because it is the simplest and most flexible way for me to take photos.
frederick
Just like the M8, Shakti Stones have reviewers singing their praises.
The Leica M8 and Shakti stones are targeting exactly the same
econo-intellectual demographic. Shakti and Leica should work together.
Scott W
> Oh you cynic!
> Just like the M8, Shakti Stones have reviewers singing their praises.
> The Leica M8 and Shakti stones are targeting exactly the same
> econo-intellectual demographic. Shakti and Leica should work together.
I can't argue with that :)
scott
acl
frederick wrote:
> Have you seen examples comparing lossy with lossless raw format on a
> camera that has both options?
> That I haven't seen any posted on the internet perhaps indicates that
> there's nothing to see? Perhaps I haven't looked hard enough.
frederick
Well, I am using a high-end diamondtron monitor, and closed the blinds
in my office, double-checked gamma setting, and did some eye-exercises
in preparation. I looked very very closely at the sample images full
scene and 100% crops. Those observations have made one thing very clear
to me. If I upgrade my D70 and decide on a D200 rather than a D80, then
availability of uncompressed raw with the D200 is of academic interest
only - as it shows incredibly small or no practical benefit at all.
I know that if I struggle to see any difference in 100% crop on screen,
then I'm going to see nothing at all in a print.
Rich
Daylight doesn't effect noise, exposure does. If you shoot a scene in
daylight, and some parts are in deep shadow and you expose them -5 or
-6 stops under, you're going to see the same noise as a night image
exposed in the same way.
acl
Yes. I also did some experiments involving taking two versions of the
same raw file, one compressed and one not, and doing acrobatics in
various raw converters and photoshop. Even knowing what I had to do to
see the difference I couldn't; so I switched to compressed raw.
frederick
It is good to know that. Sometimes you read/hear criticism of
compressed raw - yet have no counter-argument apart from detailed
technical analysis which could (and it seems sometimes does) lead to an
incorrect - or at best wildly exaggerated - conclusion.
Annika1980
frederick wrote:
> If you fit some Shakti stones to the M8, then you will clearly see the
> je ne sais quoi intangible qualities that Leica offers.
Just don't forget to wash them in the Seismic Sink.
Surely you aren't suggesting that the fine folks at Leica use snake oil
on their salads?
frederick
Do they make one to fit an iPod?
Scott W
Annika1980 wrote:
> frederick wrote:
> > If you fit some Shakti stones to the M8, then you will clearly see the
> > je ne sais quoi intangible qualities that Leica offers.
>
> Just don't forget to wash them in the Seismic Sink.
Scott
David J. Littleboy
Welcome to my world...
frederick
David J Taylor
> David J Taylor wrote:
>> Oh, quite possibly! I just don't mind a little noise in an image,
>> and feel there are times when grain or noise can positively enhance
>> the character of an image. Like David, I probably wouldn't want to
>> look at page after page of such images, nor would I expect
>> significant grain in "daylight" condition images....
>>
>> David
>
> Daylight doesn't effect noise, exposure does. If you shoot a scene in
> daylight, and some parts are in deep shadow and you expose them -5 or
> -6 stops under, you're going to see the same noise as a night image
> exposed in the same way.
I was drawing the comparison between when I would find image noise
acceptable or not, not when or how the noise was generated.
David
m.m....@gmail.com
David J. Littleboy schreef:
> "Alfred Molon" <alfredDEL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Scott W says...
> >
> >> Except we have heard for years about how great the Leica is in low
> >> light, partly because there is no mirror slap and partly because you
> >> can shoot with the lens wide open. But the 5D will blow away the Leica
> >> in low light shooting and for a whole lot less money. If your selling
> >> point has been low light photography for years you better make a
> >> digital that can work at high ISOs.
> >
> > Then just make a cooperation between Canon and Leica, placing the sensor
> > and electronics of Canon into a Leica M8 body. Combine the best of both
> > worlds - Canon's low noise electronics with Leica's no-mirror and shoot-
> > wide-open camera.
>
> If you actually look at the sort of images Leica street shooters have
> produced, what you see is grainy, blurry, out of focus mush that is
> interesting and forgivable for its content. If you really tried, a 5D with
> the 35/2.0 (or other prime in the 24 to 85mm range) would produce worlds
> better images for that work. You can do the same zone focus game (and
> produce the same out of focus mush) as the Leica, or you can just turn on
> all the AF points and actually get your subject in focus some percentage of
> the time. Mirror slap simply isn't an issue at the shutter speeds and focal
> lengths used.
>
> The Leica is a buck-nekked emperor, the 5D the far better tool.
>
I feel better now.
John McWilliams
Some folks in the SF Bay Area are, too. Doesn't shake up real estate
prices much, though.
Oddly enough, the most damaging quake in all of the U.S. is likely to
occur in the "Middle West" - the Mississippi Valley. There, the plates
aren't fractured, so a large one will cause extensive damage over many
hundreds of miles.
--
John McWilliams Eight miles East of SF, right on the Hayward Fault.
Bill Funk
Now, if they could only corner the market in cow magnets, they'd
*really* have something!
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
pr...@prep.synonet.com
> Kinon O'Cann wrote:
I shot 2 snaps of my daughter the other day. 50 f1.4, hand held, shop
lighting. About as bad as it can be. I really should not have, there is
no way I can find the $$ :(
--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.
pr...@prep.synonet.com
> Barry Pearson wrote:
If you go to the iris software site, and track links from there you
will find an article on this. A search on `NEF Mode 3' may also work.
Sorry, I don't have the URL anymore.