M8 and Eos 1Ds Mk II

Yes, the banding is well spotted, this camera was before the update. Leica uses the same ISO calculation as Canon. 1250=1600.
 
Fair - So now that there are some samples on the table, I feel the comparison has much more meaning. No doubt you're a good photographer and know how to use your gear. If I could have an m8 I would, but the 5d for the price is in my opinion near unbeatable. I would still like to know if you regard my samples as plasticky and oversmoothened.
As people said before, comparing canon/nikon DSLRs to rangefinders is not easy because you're comparing 2 different types of cameras.

Anyone else feel free to add some more samples to the table - this thread had been viewed HEAPS so it must be of interest to people.
 
No I don't, and at this level the differences obviously are small, maybe too small for a monitor. But looking at those images I do feel that a photographer like you could, obviously a good one, have gotten a slightly more -artistic- for want of a better word, result. Probably more the lens than the sensor.
 
jaapv said:
No I don't, and at this level the differences obviously are small, maybe too small for a monitor. But looking at those images I do feel that a photographer like you could, obviously a good one, have gotten a slightly more -artistic- for want of a better word, result. Probably more the lens than the sensor.
Click to expand...


Of course there are trillions of better low light shots to be had than those, but I just wanted some quick examples. In all of this the skill matters more than the camera being used, I have seen large prints from a canon 1d which was a 4.2mp 1st generation DSLR which were magnificent in every way.
 
I cannot be surprised - the 1D is legendary for the quality of its pixels - and it is a CCD camera :p :D
 
sitemistic said:
Leica, whether for technical or economic reasons, didn't create in the M8 the quality of camera, given the technology, as the M3. They knew higher resolution, full frame sensors existed. Canon put one in the 5D for under $5,000. They apparently understood the compromises necessary to put a digital camera in an M size and shape body. So they compromised. Because they knew the camera had to look and feel like an M or they couldn't sell it. Which would be o.k. for Canon or Nikon.
Click to expand...

I do not fully agree with you. Fullframe in a small camera - that is not that easy to manage. You may imagine the problems Leica had when they did not succeed in putting the IR filter in front of the sensor. 1mm thicker! And problems with the light - as well as with vignetting - are evident with fullframe. Maybe the M9 will come out with ff - but let's wait which failures it will produce in the beginning ... that's why Leica is so reluctant in exactly giving a schedule.

But what I see with the M8 - despite its faults it produces pictures of astonishing density. Just try to reduce size of a Adobe RGB picture in a JPEG (made from DNG) to an amount of 300k! you wouldn't succeed. Then try the same with a Canon CR2 ... you will evidently see the difference.

But Leica has always been about uncompromised quality. That's why folks pay a premium for them. So why did Leica photographers jump on a compromised camera from Leica? Because they desperately wanted a digital camera. And one that would use their Leica lenses. And then a lot (no, not every M8 owner feels this way) of them seem to get on internet forums and make the argument that the camera blows away all the other digitals on the market. That there is some pixie dust inside that makes magic. Instead of being critical of Leitz for creating a compromised camera, they defend them by declaring that camera superior.
Click to expand...
The M8 isn't a compromise. Or it is as much a compromise as all digital cameras are. It ist far too expensive, I agree! but that is Leica's pricing policy. It is different to that of C-N etc., because they won't change their models every one or two years. And don't forget: there is no competitor. Noone who builts digital rangefinder cameras. The only one was Epson, and they gave it up. What a pity! This is a really fine camera, and produces very "analogue-like" pictures, esp. in bw. But - probably the development costs were too high measured to the amount of bodies to produce ...

Cheers,
dacaccia
 
fdigital said:
Both are RAW processed in ACR with NO adjustments to ANYTHING. NO noise reduction, NO sharpening.
Click to expand...

As far as I understand, every RAW to RGB Bitmap conversion is a form of interpretation. Thats why you get different JPGs from different RAW converters. A "neutral" RAW conversion is not possible by definition. There are no conversion standards (demosaicing algorithms, clipping color gamut, handling bit-depth etc.) and to make things worse every manufacturers RAW format needs different treatment.

What we see in your example is how you, the EOS 5D and ACR handle certain types of images under certain conditions. It doesnt say anything about other people, other cameras, other conditions and other RAW converters.
 
Prosaic said:
As far as I understand, every RAW to RGB Bitmap conversion is a form of interpretation. Thats why you get different JPGs from different RAW converters. A "neutral" RAW conversion is not possible by definition. There are no conversion standards (demosaicing algorithms, clipping color gamut, handling bit-depth etc.) and to make things worse every manufacturers RAW format needs different treatment.

What we see in your example is how you, the EOS 5D and ACR handle certain types of images under certain conditions. It doesnt say anything about other people, other cameras, other conditions and other RAW converters.
Click to expand...


Well thats the nature of the beast. ACR is more or less the standard for raw conversions, in my testing I've found it superior to the Canon raw converter, the dxo one etc etc. In the end the differences between the converted raw file are tiny between all the converters - you may as well pick the one with your favorite interface. It's sort of like comparing film. You send a fuji c41 out to one lab, and kodak out to another lab. The minor processing differences will be there but the characteristics of the film still show and are still there.

Comparing 2 raw files from 2 different cameras IS valid, because thats what you have - theres no way to standardize testing perfectly and each person must choose what is right for them. Comparisons between cameras have been made, are being made and will be made.

Comparing RAW is much more accurate and fair than comparing JPEG files - I'm sure I don't have to tell you why...
 
jaapv said:
I cannot be surprised - the 1D is legendary for the quality of its pixels - and it is a CCD camera :p :D
Click to expand...

My second camera is a 1d, and I can tell you that speed of shooting (9.5fps, if you're into that sort of thing) and weathersealing are the only things better than the 5d. Image quality isn't even on the same plane.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand your argument, or what you're trying to say. I'm not a canon diehard, I use their cameras for professional work. I also use leica rangefinders, nikon/olympus SLRS. No idea what you're trying to get at, sorry.
 
sitemistic said:
And to think, it all started with the Digilux 1, possibly the worst image quality ever. And yes, I owned one for a week, and couldn't get rid of it quickly enough. I bring this up only to point out that Leica has a sorry history of putting their names on some awful cameras since the digital dawn. Leica had to have known that the Digilux 1 image quality sucked compared to even low end p&s digitals of the time. Why would they do that?

I've never figured that out.
Click to expand...

Because they were trying to make a buck. It's a similar situation with the M8. the camera may make very good images when it works, but as a tool for someone who needs reliability it's an obvious dud. It's pretty clear Leica knew about the camera's problems before they released it, but they released it anyway. Evidently they made the right decision. All those folks out there with a lifetime collection of Leica lenses, plus a bunch of others who just wanted people to see them shooting with a Leica, jumped on the bandwagon. The question now is: how long will the bandwagon keep going before the wheels come off?
 
rsl said:
with the M8. the camera may make very good images when it works, but as a tool for someone who needs reliability it's an obvious dud.
Click to expand...

I agree. All those pros on LUF and GetDPI.com are blathering idiots that will be brought to bankruptcy soon by this camera......
 
I didn't need to justify buying my M8 to anyone I actually know, so I don't need to justify it to anyone here. I bought it, I use it. If I sell it I may loose money, I may regret it, but I won't bleat on about it. I am enjoying taking pictures with my camera, maybe they are not as technically good as they could be, but I'm enjoying myself.
I hope there will be an improved camera, not that I need it - but hey I'll still buy it. At that time, even if it isn't as good as the best of the day, it will still be better than I need, and I suspect this forum will still split hairs, guys keep it up! It makes for some entertainment in the cold wet miserable evenings ...
 
Sitemistic, MikeL, thats what I mean :)
Sometimes I'm amazed with the clarity of the arguments .. the quality of the language used is an education for me.
Keep it up guys .. it pure gold ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom