jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Actually the resolution on the M8 is higher than the 5Diii. As it is a cropped sensor the 10 MP equals 18 MP on a full frame sensor. The 5Diii does have a nominal 22.3 MP, but it loses 30% of its resolution to the AA filter, leaving it with 16 MP equivalent in reality.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Which means absolutely zilch in this context as DXO measures nothing that pertains to sharpness.
willie_901
Veteran
Since almost 100% of all digital cameras in existence employ IR filters, why wouldn't you think IR light contamination causes significant problems? Unlike anti-aliasing filters, properly engineered IR filters have no inherent disadvantage (except may the a very limited potential for flare or artifacts due to reflections from an additional surface),
If you look a at a wide variety of IR photographs, you will see IR light is not just limited to limited situations. IR affects color fidelity and clarity to some degree in every image where IR light is present. Only in the case where IR contributions are strong are the effects undeniable. Often they are subtle. But when IR light is present the result is degraded to some degree.
If you look a at a wide variety of IR photographs, you will see IR light is not just limited to limited situations. IR affects color fidelity and clarity to some degree in every image where IR light is present. Only in the case where IR contributions are strong are the effects undeniable. Often they are subtle. But when IR light is present the result is degraded to some degree.
willie_901
Veteran
I would be interested in seeing the data used to compute the 30% figure.
zauhar
Veteran
Do you have your sample images in a consistent order ? Is m8 1st or 2nd in each set?
kur1j
Member
I get the "putting more pixels on a subject" but can you explain your math that goes from 10MP to 18MP on a full frame? Also where did you get that you lose 30% of the resolution due to the AA? I can't find anything stating that and to me that is pretty significant.
kur1j
Member
zauhar
Veteran
So that was too much trouble ?
It's clear to me that one camera is consistently shifting to yellow, that's the m8?
YYV_146
Well-known
1. Using the IR filter will enhance sharpness. The IR spectrum needs to be focused differently and will overlay an out-of-focus image onto your original shot. Not noticeable in some circumstances, very annoying in others.
2. I don't have a 5d mkII but I have extensively worked with one. It is a better camera than the M8. Better DR, metering, AWB...and of course it is a 20+mp FF. Downsizing the file would only give it a greater advantage. I would recommend cropping the center of a 5d+35mm prime file and comparing it with the M8+35cron file. The lack of an AA filter improves resolution slightly, but not enough to offset the resolution difference.
2. I don't have a 5d mkII but I have extensively worked with one. It is a better camera than the M8. Better DR, metering, AWB...and of course it is a 20+mp FF. Downsizing the file would only give it a greater advantage. I would recommend cropping the center of a 5d+35mm prime file and comparing it with the M8+35cron file. The lack of an AA filter improves resolution slightly, but not enough to offset the resolution difference.
pepeguitarra
Well-known
jaapy:
I looked at your webiste and love the photos. All taken with the M8. It makes me feel better because I only have praise for this little camera. And, I am just starting. Thanks Pepe
kur1j
Member
I corrected the image layout.
You are correct. The M8 is the one shifting to yellow.
Thank you.
1. I really wasn't aware of this particular issue until now. I knew there was the blacks and and dark fabrics turning a dark magenta color but I wasn't aware of the fact that it would cause my images to to be muddy and extremely flat (I knew it was IR causing it but I wasn't aware of the fact it was that bad I guess). I've mentioned it before but I've got a B+W cut filter on the way it should be here tue. Just out of curiosity does the M9 have these issues? I know the M Type 240 doesn't.
2. I think you are the first person to actually admit that (not just in this thread
). I was actually thinking it would have been the opposite, down-resing would have caused less detail as it was stripping out detail to drop the resolution. But I guess I was wrong. I didn't even think of it that way but this will actually be perfect. I've got a 35L that I'll slap on the 5dm3 and crop down and do the comparison again when I get my IR-cut filter.YYV_146
Well-known
I corrected the image layout.
You are correct. The M8 is the one shifting to yellow.
Thank you.
1. I really wasn't aware of this particular issue until now. I knew there was the blacks and and dark fabrics turning a dark magenta color but I wasn't aware of the fact that it would cause my images to to be muddy and extremely flat (I knew it was IR causing it but I wasn't aware of the fact it was that bad I guess). I've mentioned it before but I've got a B+W cut filter on the way it should be here tue. Just out of curiosity does the M9 have these issues? I know the M Type 240 doesn't.
2. I think you are the first person to actually admit that (not just in this thread
The M9 has an IR cut filter in front of the sensor. IMO it is a very bad idea for any camera to not have one, unless you are intending to use it for astrophotography.
kur1j
Member
Sorry I forgot to also ask this.
Would I still see this problem with B/W images (not having the IR-Cut filter)? Everyone seems to recommend not using the IR-Cut filter if you shoot B/W as you get better looking images. As commented here http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2183239&postcount=7. How true is this?
Based off this test, top is M8, bottom is 5d. http://imgur.com/a/H64ih. To me the 5d image looks more constraty and overall better B/W image and that is with the M8 not having a UV-Cut filter. Which people say is where the M8 really looks good and is "so unique and is so sharp" because of the lack of the IR filter. So is this comment I linked accurate?
YYV_146
Well-known
Hmmm...I don't shoot B&W all that much, but IR is associated with extra tonality (Think of it as a weak flash that you can't see but the camera can). The M8's CCD is also fundamentally different from a CMOS, better control of shadows and highlights.
...Or maybe it's a result of more people shooting B&W with the M8 than the 5d. More B&W images = more great B&W images.
j j
Well-known
Save yourself some grief and sell it. If you are looking for a camera that out performs (or even matches) a 5D3 you will not find it in a crop sensor camera from several years ago. There are many reasons to like the M8 but matching a much newer full frame sensor with more than twice the pixel count is not among them.
pepeguitarra
Well-known
MCTuomey
Veteran
Especially so when the method used to compare the two cameras' performance is designed and executed as the OP has done. Look at the rigor of Lensrentals or Sean Reid (to name just a couple folks who do this regularly for web publication) when assessing the resolving power of various cameras and lenses. And, despite their apparent care, they still prefer to refrain from absolute conclusions.
pepeguitarra
Well-known
My Canon 5DIII AF and high ISO would have frozen that hammer/hand changing completely the meaning of the photo.
Fragua2-1 by Palenquero, on Flickr
Fragua2-1 by Palenquero, on Flickr
kur1j
Member
Well I guess its just where my expectations are with the camera for the most part in the IQ department. The other aspects I'm extremely happy with.
I love the cameras small package, I love the lenses, I love how small the lenses are, I love the usability, I love the handling, I love how it makes you think about the picture before you take it instead of taking 20 pictures of the same subject, I still find it unique and interesting focusing with the RF system. Obviously it is really the only "mature mirrorless" system on the market.
What I'm not a big fan of is the promotion of how people compare the sensor to today's technology. The persona with the comments of "They [images] had a level of detail I haven’t seen before." I do not like. Sure the M8 can produce great images, a different look, with unique features not doubting that. It just doesn't appear to hold the technical capabilities of new technology. Based off what I have seen over the past 6 months of using the camera, the sensor doesn't hold its own as well as everyone claims compared to new tech. Rightfully so as it is almost 7 years old so I can't hold it against the camera.
I feel I am a technologist and I guess it is partly my fault for thinking my "attitude" of a picture could overcome the massive technology advancements between these types of cameras. I am looking at it from a perspective of this; if I carry one camera and I put my eye up to the viewfinder and hit the shutter button, which image am I going to want to work with? The 5d3 or the M8? If I'm out shooting for fun it doesn't matter, but if I'm out shooting with a purpose I can't justify using the M8.
I hate to leave the ecosystem as I love everything surrounding it with the history and the support for the M mount system but these things seem to big to overcome and it causes me not to pick up the camera. Maybe with the M9 I wouldn't have thought any of this and I wish I knew someone close that had one that I could try out but I don't. I'm still playing with what I want to do and I'll be thinking about it and considering what I want to do in the next week or so.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
If you really like the M8 as a digital range finer and want up-to-date IQ the solution is simple: the M (typ 240)