interesting website

Most of the quality/sharpness perception of the Leica M8 is due to the lack of an AA filter over the sensor.

The Kodak 14n and SLR/n give almost identical perceptions, with a full frame.
 
um..................No big surprise is it? This site only tells a little bit of the story anyway, in the end you got to get away from the computer to take some pictures.
 
One mistake already - they didn't take the compression of the DNG file into account,as the curve shows 8 bits for the whole dynamic range, which is incorrect. It is 14 in the deepest shadows to virtually nil in near-white. So they probably tested Jpegs. And we all know about M8 Jpegs...There is nothing to fight about with such a test.
 
I looked through their documentation of the testing protocol, and they are evaluating raw files, not jpegs. As people have noted, you really have to get out and take your own pictures to find out what you like. But the site does appear to give some useful information about what each camera's sensor is capable of doing.

jaapv said:
One mistake already - they didn't take the compression of the DNG file into account,as the curve shows 8 bits for the whole dynamic range, which is incorrect. It is 14 in the deepest shadows to virtually nil in near-white. So they probably tested Jpegs. And we all know about M8 Jpegs...There is nothing to fight about with such a test.
Click to expand...
 
I havn't tested any Nikon camera myself, but use a 1Ds III regularly. My impression is that much of the 'high ISO/low noice' from Canon is clever in-camera noice reduction - that just as well can be performed in post processing on a M8.
 
Thanks for the informative link.

Knowledge = Power

I found the Pentax results quite interesting as I have some nice M42 Mamiya-Sekor lenses that would be fun to recycle. I was also impressed how well Olympus does with the tiny. crowded 4/3 sensor. The P&S cameras get hammered, which confirms my decision to avoid 6X crop-factor sensors.
 
They test the raw files and couldn't do that without understanding the compression. The dynamic range is not limited by bit depth but by the noise floor - hence the dynamic range of the Leica is broadly similar to that of the canon 5D. Actually the Leica does quite well comapred to the 5D, predictably underperforming at higher isos.

I use a 1Ds3 as well and I continue to be impressed by the raw files. According to DXo the 5D is slightly cleaner on a per pixel basis, but the higher number of pixels on the 1Ds3 results in a lower noise image overall (to paraphrase) - that is born out in my experience. The Nikon D3 offers even lower per pixel noise than the 5D, but the overall performance on the DXo metric is very similar to the 1Ds3 - probably as you would expect given similar technological development now that Nikon has caught up.

Mike
 
I have used both a Nikon d700 and an M8 extensively. The raw file high ISO results on the D700 are vastly superior to anything that can be done with the M8 files in post processing. Of course, the M8 is much more fun to use and I do use it whenever I don't need the high ISO or are in situations where the M8 shutter noise is not an issue.

Olsen said:
I havn't tested any Nikon camera myself, but use a 1Ds III regularly. My impression is that much of the 'high ISO/low noice' from Canon is clever in-camera noice reduction - that just as well can be performed in post processing on a M8.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for the information. I enjoyed playing with the site comparison tools. I like sites like this and dpreview to use a starting place for doing research. Otherwise we're left with the manufacturers' hype and the widely varing opinions of users.

I still say that the only useful comparison, one that I'll never be able to get, is to see comparison prints on a wall... 'where the rubber meets the road'. :)
 
Jamie Pillers said:
Thanks for the information. I enjoyed playing with the site comparison tools. I like sites like this and dpreview to use a starting place for doing research. Otherwise we're left with the manufacturers' hype and the widely varing opinions of users.

I still say that the only useful comparison, one that I'll never be able to get, is to see comparison prints on a wall... 'where the rubber meets the road'. :)
Click to expand...

The great advantage of this comparison is that it is 'numeric', and without subjective adjectives like 'good', 'better', 'not so good' etc. - But like just anything else on the Net; don't take it for granted that it represents 'the truth'....
 
Most users that are not allowing the bias of their selected camera to influence them would concur that DXO-Marks results are very close to what they see in real life. However, we all know there are other factors, some more subtle than others, that influence what we actually buy. There are issues of size and shape, weight, color, color produced by the camera, other features, types and characteristics of available lenses and so-on. However, this is a good objective place to start, not withstanding that the Leica M8 only came in at the middle of the pack at 33rd.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom