Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Erwin Puts reviews the Leica M8

Reply
Thread Tools

Erwin Puts reviews the Leica M8

 
 
Annika1980
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-17-2006
Erwin Puts, the noted Leica shill, has posted part 1 of his M8 review
here:
http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/m8report/t006.html

Since it was first posted yesterday he has taken a few things out of
his preliminary report. The version I read last night had some
comparisons between the M8 and the Canon 5D, but those have since been
removed from the report probably because Leica has asked the reviewers
not to comment on the actual quality of the photos taken from early
samples.

"Yes, Mr. Putz, we'll let you review our new camera just so long as you
don't tell anybody how bad it is."

In the report I read last night, Puts said that the M8 and the 5D were
"about equivalent" in image quality even though his testing showed that
the 5D was superior. He even noted the 5D's superior high-ISO
performance as compared to the M8. And of course he claimed that the
Leica lens he was using, a "2/75" as he called it, was far superior to
the Canon 24-105 f/4L IS that he was using on the 5D. Yeah, whatever.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
John Bean
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-17-2006
On 17 Sep 2006 06:45:23 -0700, "Annika1980"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>And of course he claimed that the
>Leica lens he was using, a "2/75" as he called it, was far superior to
>the Canon 24-105 f/4L IS that he was using on the 5D.


Well that part is absolutely true. Any modern Leica prime
rangefinder lens will give better performance than a zoom.
*Any* zoom.

>Yeah, whatever.


Do some research, open your mind.

--
John Bean
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David J. Littleboy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-17-2006

"John Bean" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 17 Sep 2006 06:45:23 -0700, "Annika1980"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>And of course he claimed that the
>>Leica lens he was using, a "2/75" as he called it, was far superior to
>>the Canon 24-105 f/4L IS that he was using on the 5D.

>
> Well that part is absolutely true. Any modern Leica prime
> rangefinder lens will give better performance than a zoom.
> *Any* zoom.


I wonder if that's not largely counting angels on heads of pins. The cheap
Tamron 28-75/2.8 coughs up amazingly sharp images on the 5D. To the point
that asking for anything better is seriously silly. (Or, more particularly,
being willing to give up price or weight or the convenience of being a zoom
for images that might be better on a sensor with 16 times as many pixels but
are indistibuishable at 12.7MP is seriously silly.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


 
Reply With Quote
 
John Bean
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-17-2006
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 00:41:23 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>"John Bean" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On 17 Sep 2006 06:45:23 -0700, "Annika1980"
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>And of course he claimed that the
>>>Leica lens he was using, a "2/75" as he called it, was far superior to
>>>the Canon 24-105 f/4L IS that he was using on the 5D.

>>
>> Well that part is absolutely true. Any modern Leica prime
>> rangefinder lens will give better performance than a zoom.
>> *Any* zoom.

>
>I wonder if that's not largely counting angels on heads of pins. The cheap
>Tamron 28-75/2.8 coughs up amazingly sharp images on the 5D. To the point
>that asking for anything better is seriously silly. (Or, more particularly,
>being willing to give up price or weight or the convenience of being a zoom
>for images that might be better on a sensor with 16 times as many pixels but
>are indistibuishable at 12.7MP is seriously silly.)


I don't disagree that there's probably no advantage to the
optical superiority of the Leica lens in this situation, but
that doesn't alter the reality that it *is* optically
superior... which only a Canon fanboy like Brett could
dispute.

A lens' optical perfomance is nothing to do with
convenience, nor on the imaging medium - as well you know -
and my comment was about lens performance, nothing more.


--
John Bean
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bart van der Wolf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-17-2006

"Annika1980" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
> Erwin Puts, the noted Leica shill, has posted part 1 of his M8
> review
> here:
> http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/m8report/t006.html
>
> Since it was first posted yesterday he has taken a few things out of
> his preliminary report.


That might explain why I couldn't access that review when I tried.

> The version I read last night had some comparisons between the
> M8 and the Canon 5D, but those have since been removed from
> the report probably because Leica has asked the reviewers not
> to comment on the actual quality of the photos taken from early
> samples.


Which is of no importance to real Leica shills, the logo matters. The
most important feature for photography, the image quality, remains
unknown. I do wonder how much of the lack of AA-filter they were able
to disguise in postprocessing, especially with sharp Leica lenses.

--
Bart

 
Reply With Quote
 
Annika1980
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-17-2006

Bart van der Wolf wrote:
>
> > The version I read last night had some comparisons between the
> > M8 and the Canon 5D, but those have since been removed from
> > the report probably because Leica has asked the reviewers not
> > to comment on the actual quality of the photos taken from early
> > samples.

>
> Which is of no importance to real Leica shills, the logo matters. The
> most important feature for photography, the image quality, remains
> unknown. I do wonder how much of the lack of AA-filter they were able
> to disguise in postprocessing, especially with sharp Leica lenses.


>From what I can remember from the original review, Puts claimed that

the superiority of the Leica lenses didn't really reveal itself in his
tests. I took that to mean that the M8 was so bad that it couldn't
really test the lens to it's capabilities. Contrast that with the top
Canon bodies like the 5D or the 1DsMKII, which are known for their
abilities to reveal even the slightest flaw in the lens.

One wonders why Leica would release a product that obviously isn't
ready for "prime" time.

 
Reply With Quote
 
David J. Littleboy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-17-2006
"Annika1980" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Bart van der Wolf wrote:
>>
>> > The version I read last night had some comparisons between the
>> > M8 and the Canon 5D, but those have since been removed from
>> > the report probably because Leica has asked the reviewers not
>> > to comment on the actual quality of the photos taken from early
>> > samples.

>>
>> Which is of no importance to real Leica shills, the logo matters. The
>> most important feature for photography, the image quality, remains
>> unknown. I do wonder how much of the lack of AA-filter they were able
>> to disguise in postprocessing, especially with sharp Leica lenses.

>
>>From what I can remember from the original review, Puts claimed that

> the superiority of the Leica lenses didn't really reveal itself in his
> tests. I took that to mean that the M8 was so bad that it couldn't
> really test the lens to it's capabilities. Contrast that with the top
> Canon bodies like the 5D or the 1DsMKII, which are known for their
> abilities to reveal even the slightest flaw in the lens.
>
> One wonders why Leica would release a product that obviously isn't
> ready for "prime" time.


Sheesh, what a bunch of obnoxious negativity. You guys sound like me!

By the way, in real life, the 5D is the ultimate cheap glass camera; the fat
pixels mean that even cheap consumer zooms produce great images if you stop
them down a bit to minimize vignetting (which is really obnoxious wide open
on the plastic fantastic (US$100 used) Canon 55-200). It's only fairly
extreme wide angle lenses that have problems in the corners.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


 
Reply With Quote
 
Bart van der Wolf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-17-2006

"Annika1980" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
SNIP
> The version I read last night had some comparisons between the
> M8 and the Canon 5D, but those have since been removed from
> the report [...]


Of course Google cached the page with images :
Search for <http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/m8report/t006.html> ,
without the angled brackets, and select the "Cached" page. Not
surprising mostly Black and White images (which hides False Color
moire), and False Color moire on the color ones.

The vignetting seems a bit decentered, the angled microlenses do add
another complication to the manufacturing process.

Resolution, a bit overstated for both due to the type of target used,
is 60 cy/mm on sensor for the Canon, and 70 cy/mm for the Leica (which
reduces to 53 cy/mm if output magnification differences are
equalized). The lenses used differ, as does the postprocessing, so
there may be other differences caused by that.

My prediction for the DPreview resolution test based on these images
would be: 5D = 2356 LPH, and M8 = 2062 LPH, after correction for
output size differences and target type used.

--
Bart

 
Reply With Quote
 
David J. Littleboy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-17-2006
"Bart van der Wolf" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> Of course Google cached the page with images :
> Search for <http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/m8report/t006.html> ,
> without the angled brackets, and select the "Cached" page. Not surprising
> mostly Black and White images (which hides False Color moire), and False
> Color moire on the color ones.


http://vgrin.front.ru/M8/

> The vignetting seems a bit decentered, the angled microlenses do add
> another complication to the manufacturing process.
>
> Resolution, a bit overstated for both due to the type of target used, is
> 60 cy/mm on sensor for the Canon, and 70 cy/mm for the Leica (which
> reduces to 53 cy/mm if output magnification differences are equalized).
> The lenses used differ, as does the postprocessing, so there may be other
> differences caused by that.


I was surprised that the sweater image looks so bad. Also interesting was
how well the 5D handles that star chart (no surprises about how badly the M8
does, though). Of course, that star chart is a square wave pattern, not a
sine wave pattern, so is problematic.

> My prediction for the DPreview resolution test based on these images would
> be: 5D = 2356 LPH, and M8 = 2062 LPH, after correction for output size
> differences and target type used.


FWIW, Dpreview calls the 5D at 2000 lph. Dpreview resolution numbers seem
totally random. For starters, the lpw should be 1.5x larger than lph for 2:3
cameras and 1.333x larger for 3:4 cameras, but it never is...

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


 
Reply With Quote
 
Bart van der Wolf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-17-2006

"David J. Littleboy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:eekgv8$6tk$(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Bart van der Wolf" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

SNIP
> I was surprised that the sweater image looks so bad. Also
> interesting was how well the 5D handles that star chart (no
> surprises about how badly the M8 does, though). Of course, that star
> chart is a square wave pattern, not a sine wave pattern, so is
> problematic.


Yes, such a square wave target overstates the sinusoidal wave (cycle)
resolution by a factor of 4/Pi, so I corrected for that. Since unknown
postprocessing in CS2 was applied it complicates a direct comparison.
Maybe the sweater was Red in the full color version. The brick example
on the other hand looks blocky at the given screen resolution. The
Siemens star target is also less critical (fewer sectors) than the
original Siemens star, I'm not sure if that was on purpose to reduce
the False Color artifacts.

> FWIW, Dpreview calls the 5D at 2000 lph. Dpreview resolution numbers
> seem totally random. For starters, the lpw should be 1.5x larger
> than lph for 2:3 cameras and 1.333x larger for 3:4 cameras, but it
> never is...


That is partly because the cut-off point is somewhat arbitrary and the
target is not really suited (nor intended) for quantification.
Different sampling apertures in Hor/Ver dimensions can also account
for resolution differences.

The 9-line hyperbole targets are meant to be visually compared. Since
they are also square wave patterns, (mis-)alignment with the sensel
array will change the results. That's why I suggest a sinusoidal star
target (for limiting resolution), or a slanted edge target (for 4x
sub-sampled sensel MTFs), for more robust measurements.

--
Bart

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
what's the diff between puts y and puts "#{y}" in class_eval Raj Singh Ruby 4 01-29-2008 10:16 PM
What is best (non-Leica) digital slr back for Leica R lenses? TJ Digital Photography 13 12-23-2007 10:46 PM
Is Lumix Leica real Leica? John Navas Digital Photography 1 11-18-2007 09:16 AM
Suggestion: swap name of "puts" and "print" and rename "puts" to"put_s" Michael Brooks Ruby 22 03-27-2007 04:57 PM
Erwin Puts on AA filters (in his M8 review) Philip Homburg Digital Photography 6 11-17-2006 09:37 AM



Advertisments