5D mkII owner with general questions on m8/m8.2/m9

Ben Z said:
Coming in late on this thread so excuse if I say something that's been said already.

I have a 5D-I and an M8, only used a Mk-II for an afternoon, likewise an M9, so I can't weigh in on those models other than to say that the MK-II didn't wow me more than my Mk-I, and neither did the M9 wow me more than the M8.

As for color, I don't understand where people are getting their comparisons from. Even if you limit it to RAW/DNG and rule out JPEG entirely, the color still depends within each camera on the raw converter and the chosen profile. I use Capture-One v.4 with my M8, and there are 3 OEM profiles, none of which I care for. The one I use most of the time was made by David Farkas of Dale Labs, and occasionally I use one made by Jamie Roberts. They are all very different in the way they render the colors. Plus, I always use their "film profile" called "wide latitude" (or something like that). Before v.4 I used CS2's ACR which I found much better color-wise (and other ways too) to Capture One LE that came with the M8. OTOH I've tried Capture One for my 5D and found their profiles much less pleasing to me than either Canon's proprietary converter or CS2's ACR. Bottom-line, depending on what converter/profile I use, I could form totally opposite opinions comparing cameras.

I also do not see a whit of superiority of prints from the M8 than the 5D. If I processed the M8 prints using my 5D workflow I'd say the M8's prints were worse; vice-versa if I used the M8 workflow on 5D files. If I standardized on a single workflow for both cameras, I might say they both were worse than a DLux-3 if that workflow happened to be optimal for the DLux. I'm not into comparing anything but final prints, because that's the name of the game for me. In that respect, the IQ of both cameras is equal in my estimation, except the 5D is at least 2 stops cleaner in the noise department from 800 up. However when the 5D does get noisy (ISO 3200) the noise doesn't look as film-grain-like as the M8 at 2500.

Focusing, I've never had a problem with the 5D's AF in low light with fast lenses (35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8), or with manual-focusing those lenses (or some fast Pentax and Nikkor manual lenses adapted to the 5D mount), and that's with the standard focusing screen. And I'm nearsighted w/asitgmatism, need bifocals, and am close to the half-century mark.
Click to expand...
An incandescent beacon of common sense.
I could not agree more.
If one is itching to have a change from Dslr's to RF or vice versa I say go for it. It is not an irreversible process. The silly comparisons do get tedious though.
Richard
 
Ben Z said:
As for color, I don't understand where people are getting their comparisons from. Even if you limit it to RAW/DNG and rule out JPEG entirely, the color still depends within each camera on the raw converter and the chosen profile.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely right. But no Raw converter and no profile gives me the output I want for every single photo. So I have to touch most photos I print or put online. From my experiments with some Raw converters and profiles I came to my conclusion that it's easier for me to get the desired output-colour from my Canon files than from my M8 files. Of course both shot in RAW.
 
jaapv said:
That does not make it less nonsense, as the latest firmware has gone a long way in correcting the issue, proving it is not a hardware thing.
Click to expand...

The last thing I want to do is get in a pissing contest over someone's camera that they enjoy.
 
Last edited:
Jamie123 said:
I can think of a lot of reasons to go with an M9 instead of a 5DII but focus accuracy surely isn't one of them. The center spot on the 5DII is pretty decent and surely more accurate than your eyes with an M9. When it's too dark for the AF you can either use an ST-E2 or just use manual focus. You can even put a split screen in it if you like.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what i would suggest.

Try this and learn your camera and how to get the best out of it first. Leica isn't a magic bullet. Your images are only as good as you are not your camera.
 
tom.w.bn said:
You are absolutely right. But no Raw converter and no profile gives me the output I want for every single photo. So I have to touch most photos I print or put online. From my experiments with some Raw converters and profiles I came to my conclusion that it's easier for me to get the desired output-colour from my Canon files than from my M8 files. Of course both shot in RAW.
Click to expand...

It looks to me that you're looking for the camera to read your mind and do everything for you. That's not the way it works. Spend some time and invest a little money for a seminar on photoshop and image processing. You will have the same problem with any cameras files if you don't learn what to do with them first. It takes more time than many want to invest to learn how to produce stunning images. I've been using digital now in my commercial studio for about twelve years now and I'm still learning and improving.
 
Most digital users miss the point of shooting digital. I guess we all have our reasons but the big one is the versatility in file processing. I shoot Canon digital 1 series in my work so I'm not up on the 5 series files but all digital files share common traits. For me the big advantage other than cost and speed of delivery to the client is the ability to create my own look. it's like designing a custom film emulsion for each job. You have the ability to dictate the final outcome where as with film you're stuck with the look that the engineers at Kodak, fuji, Agfa etc. have built into the emulsion. You design the emulsion through profiles, curves, post processing and what have you. It's totally up to you and if you're not getting what you want form a camera of the level of the 5 Canon then it's most likely your fault.
 
Having bought a 5dmk11 a few months ago to use with my mk3s its the best camera canon has ever made as far as I can see no other digital camera comes anywhere near it, nothing wrong with the colours and the focus is fine.
 
I have a dumb question... I was looking on eBay for some cheaper, used lenses and found a 135mm f/4 Leica lens from the 60s or so and it said "screw mount" lens...

If this is the same lens that Ken Rockwell tested on his M9 then the lens will work, but I'm not sure what they mean by "screw mount"... Do I have to thread some screws in order to keep the lens on the camera?
 
animefx said:
I have a dumb question... I was looking on eBay for some cheaper, used lenses and found a 135mm f/4 Leica lens from the 60s or so and it said "screw mount" lens...

If this is the same lens that Ken Rockwell tested on his M9 then the lens will work, but I'm not sure what they mean by "screw mount"... Do I have to thread some screws in order to keep the lens on the camera?
Click to expand...

Older Leica cameras were made with the screw mount (IIa, IIIf, etc.), opposed to the newer M-Mount (M3, M4, M2, M6, M8, etc.). You'll need a LTM (Leica Thread Mount) adapter to use these older lenses with the M-Mount. They run anywhere from $35-$60 depending on make. Voigtlander makes a good adapter, as I am using one right now with the M9.

The older lenses have a nice charm but are much difference in performance in regards to newer lenses. Right now I have a 1933 Leica 50mm Summar attached to my M9. The ability to use so many lenses spanning 80 years on the Leica M8/9 is such a great feature.
 
Fraser said:
certainly not going to be anywhere near as good as a canon 135mm f2!
Click to expand...

I know someone with the EF 135/2 and we happened to be out shooting at the same place once, and we swapped each others lenses for a trial. My 135 is the Leica Tele-Elmar f/4 (ca. 1966, the black one, not the just-plain-Elmar f/4 with the Vulcanite band) which the head and rear baffle unscrew and attach to a Universal Short Focusing mount (Visoflex) and an M-to-R adaptor (14167 I think) plus a Fotodiox R-to-EOS adapter. We looked at our files later and we both agreed the Tele-Elmar has better contrast and edge performance (EF stopped down to f/4 for fair comparison). Not suggesting it as a replacement for the autofocus F/2 lens, but just making a point wrt IQ.
 
x-ray said:
It looks to me that you're looking for the camera to read your mind and do everything for you. That's not the way it works. Spend some time and invest a little money for a seminar on photoshop and image processing. You will have the same problem with any cameras files if you don't learn what to do with them first. It takes more time than many want to invest to learn how to produce stunning images. I've been using digital now in my commercial studio for about twelve years now and I'm still learning and improving.
Click to expand...

Either you didn't read what I wrote or I just wrote it ambiguous. Because I'm such a nice guy I think it's the latter 🙂

I said that no Raw converter or profile can produce the output that I want. That's exactly what you said in general. No camera and raw converter can read my mind, like you said. So I get a result from the raw converter and I have to invest some work (either in the raw converter or photoshop) to get the final result. Independent of camera brand.
All I was saying is, that I tested several raw converters and profiles in conjunction with m8 files and 5D files. Taking the ideal combination, I need slightly more steps to get the final-colours I like from M8 files.
 
jaapv said:
That does not make it less nonsense, as the latest firmware has gone a long way in correcting the issue, proving it is not a hardware thing.
Click to expand...

Your logic escapes me. There can be software fixes to hardware problems (ex. correcting lens distortion in photoshop). That doesn't mean the corrected problem doesn't originate in the hardware.
 
Tim Gray said:
Your logic escapes me. There can be software fixes to hardware problems (ex. correcting lens distortion in photoshop). That doesn't mean the corrected problem doesn't originate in the hardware.
Click to expand...
Yes- but there is no way to correct a misaligned sensor/lens flange in software. In this case there was some jumping to the wrong conclusions at first. That in turn was caused by a post of Mark Norton on LUF, in which he concluded the battery was too big for full-frame ( not true in retrospect), causing some "experts" to think something had been offset in the M9 - which is not the case.
It is, in fact, a known problem with certain full frame AA-filterless sensors in certain software configurations. The Kodak 14 DCS (ff,AAfilterless) was particularly prone to it, as opposed to the (smaller frame) Nikon it was based on. In any case, for all practical purposes, it has been solved by Leica (aka Jenoptik) with the latest firmware.
 
jaapv said:
Yes- but there is no way to correct a misaligned sensor/lens flange in software. In this case there was some jumping to the wrong conclusions at first. That in turn was caused by a post of Mark Norton on LUF, in which he concluded the battery was too big for full-frame ( not true in retrospect), causing some "experts" to think something had been offset in the M9 - which is not the case.
It is, in fact, a known problem with certain full frame AA-filterless sensors in certain software configurations. The Kodak 14 DCS (ff,AAfilterless) was particularly prone to it, as opposed to the (smaller frame) Nikon it was based on. In any case, for all practical purposes, it has been solved by Leica (aka Jenoptik) with the latest firmware.
Click to expand...

I dare you to admit any oh-so tiny fault with anything Leica related. Anything.

martin
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom