Canon 5D MK II vs Leica M9

5d looks better, esp color, also corner is much better on 5d, even with not L lens, also look like your Ultron has problem with left side, it is blury, but right side is OK.
 
With regards the pink flower images, I should think despite setting both cameras at the same iso, the Canon image looks about half a stop too light, I don't think you can dial in the same iso/shutter/aperture settings on both cameras and get the same exposure, I've read that the Canons tend to be more sensitive sensors at corresponding iso's to other makes.
 
Hi Swoop, Great job.
The 100% crop to show the details will help to tell more truth. Please show us some if you have time.
The 100% cropped imagines from my M8 and others' M9s in the net are quite supprising to me, not in a good way though.
 
Last edited:
There appears to be something off on the M9 shot of the backyard. I have both the 5D MkII and the M9 and they both give great results though I have sent in my M9 and all my lenses due to a constant focus issue of back focus and front focus. For the money, and this come from someone who started using Leica in 1969 with a IIIC, which I still own and M2 and M3's, the Canon is a better deal. I do love using my Leica though, if only the focus wasn't such a pain. Hopefully it will be corrected.
 
I have been shooting with my 1Ds III together with my M8. The 1Ds III is far better, most of the time. Particularly at high ISO. Even my ex. 1Ds II was better than my M8. That is why I have not bought a M9. - Except for the hilarious price, ofcause. I want to see some more fundamental improvements before I renew my M8. Most likely, Canon will be out with a 1Ds IV before Leica has a M10 on the market.

But I do take some very nice pictures with my M8 which has been impossible to reproduce with my 1Ds III. Of reasons I can't explain. It has to do with the excellent Leica glass I suppose.
 
Probably not worth mentioning unless you're someone who can actually only afford one of these cameras and the Leica is certainly not an option for most.

Considering that the results are really not that much different that only leaves the price ... what percentage of the Leica's price does the Canon represent?

And it does matter!
 
Keith said:
Probably not worth mentioning unless you're someone who can actually only afford one of these cameras and the Leica is certainly not an option for most.

Considering that the results are really not that much different that only leaves the price ... what percentage of the Leica's price does the Canon represent?

And it does matter!
Click to expand...

Well if you have an M-Mount camera and lenses, then buying a canon means you have to buy into canon mount lenses too so the difference between an M9 and canon is very little. And you have a lot more kit to carry if you want digital and film with you at any one time. (well that's how I'm trying to convince myself that I'll be better off with an M9 )
 
Last edited:
tlitody said:
Well if you have an M-Mount camera and lenses, then buying a canon means you have to buy into canon mount lenses too so the difference between an M9 and canon is very little. And you have a lot more kit to carry if you want digital and film with you at any one time. (well that's how I'm trying to convince myself that I'll be better off with an M9 )
Click to expand...



Of course ... I forgot that point! If you already have money tied up in M mount glass then the M9 is not such a hit!

Starting cold with no lenses for either system is where it really changes I guess. When I bought my D700 I didn't have an F mount lens and had to spend another $500.00 or so on a used 50mm Planar ... by the time I eventually add a quality 35mm and maybe an 85mm I'm still not in the zone of the M9 body but it does make a difference!
 
Last edited:
Sebben said:
Indeed. The Mark II is amazing, but I always seem to grab the M8.
Click to expand...

Word.

But for arguments sake, I dont think the 5d is the obvious champ here.
I mean, look at the blue in the lower right corner in the PP images. The blue from the M9 looks more attractive to me, and I can say the same for the red pillow under the persons head.

That said, the M9 sensor decided to expose a little bit more than the 5d, but I cant attribute the prettier colors to an increased exposure. Also, with the M9 increased exposure, there is more shadow detail in the upper right above the pooch in the M9 shot. The consequence, of course, is that the whites in the M9 in the center of the picture are more exposed than the 5d. But you can burn in highlights in PP easier than lightening shadows with less noise.
And althoug I like the quality of the black object in the lower left in the 5D than the M9, I could probably burn the black in a bit more on the M9 image to get the black quality I want.
As the devil's advocate, I'll stick with the M9.
 
Swoop thanks for posting these. The battle of the Full Frames wages on. I'm seeing more of the difference between the CMOS and CCD technology in this test and others, but your ability to compare lenses of reasonable equality here is unique. It would be nice to pixel peep on larger files and 100% crops but at the end of the day both cameras seem to be reasonably close to one another... despite a huge price discrepancy.
 
Just a quick question: Who cares?
The first choice is surely the camera type. One chooses an RF system or a DSLR system, and only then the respective quality of the image comes into play. And even then, it is secondary to the quality of the lenses and the ergonomics, once a basic image quality standard is met. It would be far more interesting to see this comparison between Canon and Nikon, as those are comparable systems. Comparing to the M9 only serves to confirm that all high-end systems are in the same quality range, so the issue can be ignored when choosing.
 
I agree with Jaapv.
The iq of both cameras is top notch but the systems are utterly different and a preference entirely subjective.
 
jaapv said:
Just a quick question: Who cares?
The first choice is surely the camera type. One chooses an RF system or a DSLR system, and only then the respective quality of the image comes into play. And even then, it is secondary to the quality of the lenses and the ergonomics, once a basic image quality standard is met. It would be far more interesting to see this comparison between Canon and Nikon, as those are comparable systems. Comparing to the M9 only serves to confirm that all high-end systems are in the same quality range, so the issue can be ignored when choosing.
Click to expand...

I cared when I made my choice. I can use either a DSLR or RF system, makes no difference for a lot of what I shoot. With digital you are buying a lifetime (of the camera) supply of film, specifically the sensor. I ended up with a D700 as I saw no advantage to the M9's sensor performance. I already had lenses for both systems so that did not skew the process either. OTH, if for whatever reason you absolutely must have/ need an M9 and paying almost 3x more to get it doesn't bother you, go for it. Just don't ever think you are getting 3x superior sensor performance.

Bob
 
When I used to shoot film on Canon and Leica, the lens quality of the Leica lenses was very apparent, however with the short time I had with the m9 I didn't see the quality of the lenses shine through to the same extent, I wonder as you have both cameras to compare, do you find the image quality of the lenses is noticeably different in the two systems?.......R
 
Nikon Bob said:
I cared when I made my choice. I can use either a DSLR or RF system, makes no difference for a lot of what I shoot. With digital you are buying a lifetime (of the camera) supply of film, specifically the sensor. I ended up with a D700 as I saw no advantage to the M9's sensor performance. I already had lenses for both systems so that did not skew the process either. OTH, if for whatever reason you absolutely must have/ need an M9 and paying almost 3x more to get it doesn't bother you, go for it. Just don't ever think you are getting 3x superior sensor performance.

Bob
Click to expand...

No, but if you are into high-end gear the last 1% doubles or triples the price, as do a number of other considerations. I care greaty which tool I use, so the choice for a rangefinder is a very considered one in my case .
 
Last edited:
jaapv said:
I care greaty which tool I use, so the choice for a rangefinder is a very considered one in my case .
Click to expand...

Agreed... a more comfortable tool will make you feel better when making images... it makes a huge difference to me. Others don't seem to have issues with this... I wish I didn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom