swoop
Well-known
I'm just that good. =)
lol. It took about 3 or 4 tries, but I used one, had the other in my lap and then quickly switched. Sitting in my chair across the room and kept the center on Emma's face. Using the center focus point on the 5D, and the rangefinder patch with the M9. Not too hard.
I think some of you may be right where Lightroom is reading the RAW file weird. Or doesn't know how to interpret the M9 file, as in there is no preset. It makes sense. Seeing as the white balance was set manually. So it should be the same but obviously isn't. I guess I need to just figure out how to make a preset.
Someone also noted that the M9 noise is "ugly." I'm not bothered by it much here. But it is slightly more visible. But I don't think it's that drastic. And it won't even be noticeable once the image is printed. Also note that in camera noise reduction on the 5D was turned off since the M9 also lacks noise reduction in camera.
It seems obvious though that the 5D gives a better image "out of the box" but the M9 is a lot more fun to work with.
I'll be trying the same comparison again in daylight.
Last edited:
swoop
Well-known
I noticed this too. Even though both were set to 5000k manually, they both gave me different colour temps after being imported into Lightroom.
And the daylight balanced bulbs are different from the regular ones. They're more blueish. At least to my eye. I got them from Target, there's a whole selection with colour temps written on the front even.
Nikkor AIS
Nikkor AIS
It's clear the Canon image looks better.
Last edited:
Indeed. The Mark II is amazing, but I always seem to grab the M8.
Jamie123
Veteran
In-camera noise reduction on the Canon only matters if you shoot jpegs. If you shoot RAW it doesn't really matter whether or not you turn on noise reduction. All the NR will be done by the RAW converter on your computer.
swoop
Well-known
Another pair. Outside, RAW, Aperture Priority, F4, ISO 160 and Auto White Balance on both M9 and 5D mk2. This time exported using Lightroom 3 on an iMac. Focus point and image center for both is the pretty pink flower.
Unedited Canon 5D
Unedited Leica M9
Unedited Canon 5D
Unedited Leica M9
user237428934
User deletion pending
Here the M9 photo looks better to me. You see? With two cameras that have similar performance, you compere the quality of the raw-converter and not the cameras. Use C1 and it will look different again.
swoop
Well-known
Another thing I noticed is using Lightroom 2 on my Win7 laptop at my standard export settings of 800px wide, sRGB, and 100% quality, the 5D images would be around 100K smaller than the M9 pics. 291KB for the 5D, and 381KB for the M9.
With Lightroom 3 on my iMac, both images are larger. but the size difference isn't as great. 472KB for the 5D, and 495KB for the M9.
With Lightroom 3 on my iMac, both images are larger. but the size difference isn't as great. 472KB for the 5D, and 495KB for the M9.
Last edited:
ederek
Well-known
That's what I see as well, more detail in the highlight areas with equal or better detail in the shadows.
mfogiel said:
Digital is nice practice though..
I recently put the M9 and a 5D V1 head to head at an event, shooting with both cameras. The 5D was easier & faster to focus (manually) and gave me better files from a noise perspective (whitebalance wasn't an issue).
I carry the M9 every day, and would only use the Canon for gigs where I was the "designated photographer".
Swoop - hope you enjoy both cameras!
Jamie123
Veteran
I agree. Also, ACR (so I image Lightroom aswell) has ''Adobe Standard" as default profile setting. If one was to compare 'unedited' output setting one would have to change the profile to ''Camera Standard'' (or Faithful, Natural, etc. etc.). Although that's probably also just Adobe's interpretation of the camera profiles.
Jamie123
Veteran
I think that's just the contrast setting in the RAW converter. You can see that in the edited versions both retail about the same amount of highlight and shadow detail.
Renzsu
Well-known
Not sure about that, it's easy to make highlights blown out yourself.. It would be harder to get the 5D image to resemble the M9 image (putting back detail in an area that is a flat white). Then again, you may be right and turning down the contrast or exposure on the 5D image might reveal detail that wasn't there before.
Regarding the comment from page 1, that you would want white walls to look white.. to me that wall (and staircase handle) looks like it's on the point of self illuminating, I'm pretty sure that's not the case in real life. It's purely a matter of clipping. The M9 image didn't clip, the 5D image did.
Jamie123
Veteran
At least with ACR I know that there's a contrast curve applied to the 5DII's files as a default. You get a lot more highlight and shadow detail once you set it to linear. Don't know if it does the same with files from the M9.
I've never used an M9 but my personal experience with the Canon 5DII files and Adobe Camera RAW are that by default the software is set to make the images 'pop' which also reduces the DR. At first I really struggled with this until I figured out how to take out all the auto settings.
Ben Z
Veteran
No conspiracy theory, just a remark, the dog's right ear has moved
From one long-time dog-owner to another,
.Paul Luscher
Well-known
Hey, you're supposed to shoot the M9 in black-and-white mode only. Isn't that the Leica Way?
Voe
Member
Is it me or the M9 appears to have a better dynamic range. For example compare the shadow details in the first set of images. Also in the second set of images (the ones with the leafs) the M9 didn't blow highlights as much as the Canon (compare the highlights in the leaves).
swoop
Well-known
bobby_novatron
Photon Collector
Interesting thread, thanks for posting the comparo.
I think in all honesty, both cameras are doing a really great job. There are subtle differences between the two -- I agree there's perhaps a bit more DR in the M9 photos. I'm noticing especially in the outdoor shot -- the M9 foliage looks "better", there's a bit more subtle depth to the gradation in colors, but the difference is slight.
The 5DmkII is doing a great job though. I've owned a 5DmkII for almost 2 years now, and it's a great camera for the price. Maybe I'm biased.
I think that both cameras have their strengths and weaknesses. We are very fortunate in this era to be able to use such amazing equipment. The stuff that these cameras can do was only a sci-fi dream 20 years ago.
I think in all honesty, both cameras are doing a really great job. There are subtle differences between the two -- I agree there's perhaps a bit more DR in the M9 photos. I'm noticing especially in the outdoor shot -- the M9 foliage looks "better", there's a bit more subtle depth to the gradation in colors, but the difference is slight.
The 5DmkII is doing a great job though. I've owned a 5DmkII for almost 2 years now, and it's a great camera for the price. Maybe I'm biased.
I think that both cameras have their strengths and weaknesses. We are very fortunate in this era to be able to use such amazing equipment. The stuff that these cameras can do was only a sci-fi dream 20 years ago.
swoop
Well-known
Another set of images. This time using 28mm lenses. On the 5D a 28mm f1.8 USM. And on the M9 the 28mm f2 Ultron. Focus point is the tree in the rear.
Both cameras set to f2.8 1/180 ISO 400
Interesting bits. The 5d mk2 RAW is 31MB, and the M9 RAW is 17MB.
Edited 5D image
Edited M9 image
My neighbor saw me fussing with them in the yard and asked if I just came home from work and I told him I was just trying to figure out which I liked better. He said the Canon looked heavier, and I told him not so, and handed them over and he was surprised by the heft of the M9 despite it being smaller. With an ordinary prime lens they do weigh about the same. He also mentioned that the 5D looks more professional. Go figure.
Both cameras set to f2.8 1/180 ISO 400
Interesting bits. The 5d mk2 RAW is 31MB, and the M9 RAW is 17MB.
Edited 5D image
Edited M9 image
My neighbor saw me fussing with them in the yard and asked if I just came home from work and I told him I was just trying to figure out which I liked better. He said the Canon looked heavier, and I told him not so, and handed them over and he was surprised by the heft of the M9 despite it being smaller. With an ordinary prime lens they do weigh about the same. He also mentioned that the 5D looks more professional. Go figure.
Last edited:
cnphoto
Well-known
i should be getting a 5D Mk II on Friday for some (paid) work and a few other things coming up that digital, and colour, would be better for. i'll be using Leica R lenses on it though - so is that the best of both worlds then?
I think that, all things considered, the differences here are relatively trivial. I would (and probably will) shoot the 5D Mk II erring on the side of slight (1/3 - 1/2 stop) underexposure on all images, with the better noise handling of the 5D, one should (in theory) be able to 'bring up the shadows' easily in post and prevent those highlights from clipping a little more easily.
I recently shot with the Leica R lenses (which I have had for a short while now) on a friends 5D Mk II and the results where pretty damn amazing... B&W on the M3 still trumps B&W on the 5D (IMO anyway)
I think that, all things considered, the differences here are relatively trivial. I would (and probably will) shoot the 5D Mk II erring on the side of slight (1/3 - 1/2 stop) underexposure on all images, with the better noise handling of the 5D, one should (in theory) be able to 'bring up the shadows' easily in post and prevent those highlights from clipping a little more easily.
I recently shot with the Leica R lenses (which I have had for a short while now) on a friends 5D Mk II and the results where pretty damn amazing... B&W on the M3 still trumps B&W on the 5D (IMO anyway)
Last edited: