M8 and Eos 1Ds Mk II

chewbacca

Member
Local time
8:33 AM
Joined
Jul 11, 2006
Messages
15
Hello fellow photographers

Couple days ago, I had an opportunity to “meet” M8 for real, first time. When camera was realest, I went to shop and played with it but I don’t count that. My Friend Denis just porches M8 and broth it to me on a fashion shoot. So we put it to a test and I wont to share my impressions. This is not meant to be technical review; but more likely personal observation and as such it is subjective.
Before I start let me say something about my self. Am not big fan of digital. Don’t get me wrong; tool is tool and it is there to serve us as creative individuals. At the end of the day it comes to one thing: are you satisfied with your creation; or not? Equipment that we use doesn’t reflect on what we have to say in our photos.
I am cinematographer with more then 20 years of experience in photography. Last couple years I do some commercial photo work, mainly in fashion and advertising. Beside that I constantly am working on my art projects. I’m using M system for 19 years now and I don’t have any other 35mm equipment. In my M toolbox I have: 2x MP and M3; 35mm, 75mm Summilux’s; Elmarit 21mm ASPH, 35mm, 50mm, 90mm summicron’s ASPH; VC 12mm and 15mm. that is my working set. Beside that I have some older Leica lenses that I use from time to time. My main work is on Hasselblod and LF system. Am processing my films on Jobo ATL-1500 and scanning on my Imacon 868. Only digital camera that I have is canon G9 and I use it as “digital Polaroid”, so it is far to say that I am as analog as it gets.
On the other side my wife is photographer and she is big fan of digital. In last couple of years she didn’t shoot tow rolls of film. She is using Canon Eos 1ds mkII with L lenses. I gave a try with Eos but in numerous occasions it disappointed my expectation. On the other hand she is working much more then me and in her world speed is important; so I understand completely and am always backing up in domestic disputes film VS digital.
Now to go back to the subject of this post. I was shooting catalog for jewelry on Hassey and I broth all leica lenses and MP with Provia as reference. We also borrowed Eos from my wife. After I was dun with a job it was time to play, and I asked model if she could stay and spend some time with tow old nerds. Then we restage scene under same conditions, and first I took some pictures with MP using
50mm summilux at f1.4, then 75mm at f2, then summicron 50mm at f2.8 and 90mm at f4.
It was a time to see digital beasts in action 1ds mkII VS M8. Eos had 24L, 35L, 50L, 50 macro and 85L. On M8 we decided to go with Elmatit 24, Summilux 35, Summicron 50 and Summicron 90. First problem in lining them side by side was the image size, so M8 was tighter then Eos and we didn’t won’t to use canon zooms to compensate on that. Idea was to put best canon lenses VS leitz. On the other side canon had bigger chip with more elements to compensat. Finally we decided to compose shoots centrally in order to crop canon image to same physical size as M8 (that sound weird). During the shoot we were constant imagining frame lines on canon focus screen (common thing to do with motion picture camera).

Canon is definitely faster system; it is build for speed and that is noticeable instantly. On the other hand we were in studio with a model not on the soccer game, but never the less, canon was ripping and making impression of much more faster camera in total. Other conceptual difference was that we are putting rangefinder opposed to AF SLR. We used strobes for that setup and rangefinder was in his element by my standards, having a big advantage over SLR. This M8 is firs Leica for my friend Denis, so hi was much slower then me with Leica, and much faster with Eos. One big point on my behalf for M8 was that I really didn’t have impression of holding digital camera. When my eye is on viewfinder and finger on focus; it feels more-less, like any other M with winder. I was more familiar with canon software and commands and I was confused couple times with Leica’s interface. But taking in consideration that I have almost on experience with digital, that’s not add. I must say that for someone like me M8 is much more familiar ground to step in digital world then Eos.
So for this part of the test I must give point to M8 over Eos 1ds mkII. But this is highly personal opinion based mainly on SLR and rangefinder deferens and photographer’s preferences. Not to mention physical size of canon compared to leica.

Long before we started this test I read a lot on M8 and Ds Mk II. My experience with digital cameras is limited but am not stranger to digital images. I have good knowledge of digital postproduction; scanning my films for more then 10 years now and working on Photoshop since version 2.0; so I was aver of what can I expect in terms of image quality. It was clear that M8 had some issues; but so thus canon and any other tool. When I told my wife what we wont to test she simply told me that canon would deliver better and bigger image and that is unfair fight… There was couple of similar comments from my friends. I was aver of numbers, but I have to say that I rely don’t like to count lines and dots; and especially when that method is used to determent esthetical value in photography. I would say that some of most important artwork in photography was made by “low” quality equipment by today standards. Somehow I don’t think that Robert Mapplethorpe, Henri Cartier Breson, Robert Capa, Diane Arbus, Irving Pen, Joel-Peter Witkin, Nan Goldin…, would be affected by number of pixels in there cameras and algorithms in ROW to tiff conversion.
Camera is a tool for photographer and as such can be compared with a photographer in a first place. Philosophy aside, my idea was to see how suitable M8 is in my case and Canon was there as a benchmark in digital SLR.
Canon delivers decent picture, but I don’t like canon optics. In my humble opinion whole L series is over rated and completely misinterpreted by some individuals, but that is whole different subject. Don’t get me wrong, that is good camera but with lot of room for improvement. Personally I don’t like SLR and size meter in my case. And I was hoping that M8 would be able to deliver similar results agents all adds.
I must say that result was much more then I initially expected. Canon shows all attributes that I was aver of. On the other side M had excellent sharpness, fine color rendering (I didn’t notice any major problems) and dissent dynamic range. But it had a “character”; definitely made by leica lenses. This is a first time for me to see a character in any digital camera ever.
Summicron 90 gave best performance and look, by my opinion. During whole test we could see radical difference in performance of Canon and Leica lenses.
M8 had a bit more noise and some artifact; but again we are talking about digital cameras.
To conclude:

1. Canon Eos 1 Ds Mk II is superior Body to Leica M8, but personally I don’t care, my opinion is that if you need huge digital picture; use digital beck! Any other case Canon and Leica are capable to delivering enough for normal Leica format printing.

2. M8 is optically superior to Canon by far. That difference is huge in my opinion; blessing M8 with personality capable of producing “leica vibe”. On the other hand 1Ds is full frame and that is biggest advantage of this camera.


M8 is definitely Leica, and with all down sides it is unique tool. It is only digital rangefinder and in my book that is a huge plus. Idea that I can just slip digital camera in my already existing M system is excellent but I am aware that without full frame sensor, M8 will turn in to “digital Polaroid ”.

On the other side, I can say that M8 is by far best digital photo camera that I ever had to use. Canon is grate camera but its not my cup of tea; niter any other SLR for that matter. I hope that Leica will work more on M9 and that we will have full frame in future to enjoy.


Thus are my 2-cent on a fact. I am sorry if I was to long or if I unwillingly offended someone. English is not my first; niter a second language, and I apologies for some misspelling I made in this post.

Luka :cool:
 
Wooow... I haven't read the post and I won't since I'm not a canon user. But I'm not sure to understand " M8 is optically superior to Canon by far"...
 
Luka, thank you for your post. I just printed it so I can give it a second read. I have appreciated your work in the gallery and hearing a little about your use of the tools of the trade is valued.
 
Hi thanks for feedback,

NB23, I didn’t won’t to separate camera body from lenses. I was viewing final product not technical capabilities of camera body’s. By optically I was referring to optical systems used on both cameras. Sorry for misunderstanding.


Thanks Rover
 
Shutterflower thanks for feedback,

Studio work and rangefinder is for me personal preference. I like to see moment of flesh going on, reaction of model in that moment and so on. When using 50, 75 and 90 I use strictly M3 and I am viewing with camera on right eye and with open left eye. M3 is almost 1:1 (0.95 if am not mistaking). In this way I can see 3D image with frame “hanging” in the air. Focusing isn’t big problem for me.

And if can add; in my mind that is a whole point of RF, photographer can see actual moment of taking picture, not as on SLR where you are looking dark faze. It comes wit a price, but it is meter of practice, and reword is high.
Some more things; am considering camera as extension of my mined. And in that constellation I don’t separate camera body from the lens that am using and a film inside; in my had that all is just one thing and id is extension of me. I pick different combo for different thing, but after that moment I don’t question. I act on it. Maybe this is weird, but it is my way and it serves me good so far. So at the end of the day I have what I was wishing to get. Am pointing agene that all this is personal view based on my concept of creative work and my attitude toward photography. I was teaching cinematography on university and my unorthodox views was put for discussion often.
 
Last edited:
sitemistic said:
The 1DS Mk II smokes the M8 in image quality. Even among Leica fans, I don't think I've heard your take before. A 16 megapixel full frame sensor simply steps all over a crop sensor M8.

Your take is, indeed, subjective. And, it wasn't a fair comparison for the M8. Compare it to a Canon Xti. that would be a fair fight.

Edit: Besides, a 1DS Mk II is not a crop sensor camera. People don't routinely crop out an APS size chunk of each photo. You crippled the 1Ds and then declared the M8 the winner.


Arguing opinion with opinion, but apparently yours is fact? It makes you look foolish.
I'm an M8 Owner, I'd trade it for a 1dsII, so this isn't bias speaking.
 
sitemistic

I pointed that Ds is better camera. But that was not my point of observation. I was talking about M8 as Leica that appear to be digital. Many users and rewires are not far to M8 by compeering it in pixel count with other cameras. Am saying we should stop counting pixels and start-enjoying photography’s that we make as we did before. M8 is best digital rangefinder and it come to be leica. I can easy afford one but am not buying one, but that isn’t a reason to not admire what leica achieve with this one. Excellent point. Maybe my English is not so good and I probably passed wrong message. sorry
 
shutterflower said:
At the moment, the D3 looks like a beautiful machine, but it's heavy and big...and 12MP is not enough resolution to make sense of its size. Nice and noiseless, though.


really? why not?
 
My wife disagree wit me on this matter. She thinks also, that se II smoker M8. And is she prepay Ds MkIII and waiting for delivery in mid December. My point: Leica keep on working you are on good track. It is easy to comer something with equal or les capable system. But if you comer it with something seriously and camera hold its ground by showing character a signature of real value; it is big thing in my book.
I repeat this was observation from old-dog on some new bones. I can also say that DS MkIII don’t stand ground agents my Linhof, Schneider, Fiji, Imacon combo, but what that prove except that I am prick. M8 put a fight and show me that it is not electronic junk, but truly Leica with some problems to be solved. And if that make me fool; so be it. But at the end of day I have my photos that talking for me and am satisfy man. Am not owner of M8 nether a fan. Just some one who wonted to sheer his personal observation without insulting anyone. Sorry again.
 
Interesting, and good to see personal opinions/conclusions - as a comparison, this is one of the few I've found to be readable and considered. I myself have Canon 1DS bodies with 24/35/50/85 L Primes and an M8 with the 24/2.8 Asph, 35/2 (version 4) and 50/2 (latest). Although its early days for me and the M8 I'm well convinced already that there are very substantial optical differences between the 2 systems. I'm very wary of really comparing the systems though because, bluntly, they have very different strengths and weaknesses, but in many instances I certainly prefer the Leica results. As for the comment that the MkII 'smokes' the M8 in terms of image quality, personally I'd have to disagree. My M8 experience so far actually tempts me to try R glass on my Canons for some types of work - Canon's 20mm for instance HAD to go and I'm not a huge fan of zooms!
 
I don't own the 1Ds Mk2 nor the M8 (at least not until my R-D1 packs up) but for what I have seen so far the 1Ds Mk2 seems to run circles around anything that is not at least MF, (and I think it is reasonable to think that probably the 1Ds Mk3 will start to compete with lower end MF backs) of course if you take the images from a 1Ds Mk2, crop it down to 10Mpixels and compare to the output of the M8 than the absence of an AA filter is bound to give some advantage to the M8, however I think that people don’t buy a camera like the 1Ds to crop it down to 10Mpixels so the test seems a bit pointless to me.

About the optical quality I think Canon (like Nikon, Pentax and a few others) have figured out how to design lenses, and even if Leica still produces the best glass, the difference seems to be quite small, and Canon top quality primes are very close.

Even a 5D is be able to provide an image quality comparable to the M8 at less than half the price, and it keeps your wides wide!

On top of that, as soon as you push the ISO over 800 and even a humble 10Mpixel cheap consumer SLR seems to run circles around the M8.

So why the hell I still shoot with a 6Mpixel Dinosaur like the R-D1 and once it will break down beyond repair will replace it with a super expensive 10Mpixel camera like the M8 that also suffers for significant design flaws?
Well either I am an idiot, or I think that a rangefinder camera offers a photographic experience very different from an SLR, and that is the main reson behind it, there is also the fact that to carry around a top of the line DSLR with two or three lenses you need quite a big backpack, but with a RF system you can get away with a small camera bag.

RF people are usually less concerned with lppmm and stuff like that, and are well aware that going street shooting with a 6lbs cannon around your neck ain’t going to work, and is pretty uncomfortable too.

So here is my take:

Is the image quality of the M8 comparable to the top of the line Canon DSLR?
No

Is the image quality of the M8 better than the 5D?
Probably not

Does the M8 cost twice as much as a DSLR with a similar image quality?
Yes

Do I care?
No
 
Luca, do not be sorry. Your review is excellent and well done. I agree with your point of view - having dumped all my Canon gear in order to buy in to the Leica system. Very glad I did.
 
I have a huge 17-lb aluminum Gitzo tripod with a 4-lb Arca-Swiss B2 head on it, that in terms of sturdyness and steadyness "smokes" my 0-series Gitzo carbon-fiber with small Kaiser ballhead, although both cost me about the same. However, me carrying that big Gitzo around the streets of Rome or up Macchu Picchu is completely out of the question. The little Gitzo is remarkably solid and it does what I need (holds rock-steady a 3-5-lb setup up to 300mm) unlike similar-sized tripods that cost a tenth the price but which are wobbly. The same situation holds true with the M8 vs a 1Ds Mk II (or III). But if I was a studio photographer, or any pro with an assistant (or was young with a strong back) I would probably own the Canon because I would need its features.
 
I can understand the enthusiasm for the M8 from the POV that it's the only real alternative if you want a digital RF. Plus it seems to have a bit more dynamic range than most digital sensors, and, of course, you get to use Leica M lenses with it. But enthusiasm doesn't excuse silliness, does it? From the standpoint of overall IQ, the M8 has a hard time keeping up with a 5D - many would argue it simply can't - never mind Canon's 1D series. I have yet to see a really clean looking image from an M8 shot over iso 640, never mind the iso 1600 that any recent Canon DSLR can pull off with ease. And there are DSLR's on the near horizon that are going to make even that performance seem tame. What excuses will M8 users be offering then?
 
Aha, but is the M8 better at sport photography compared to the DS Mk2 for street :D ??

when it comes to the merits of Leica lenses, I agree that they are generally outstanding. However, my Canon 135f2L and Zeiss ZMs are in my subjective opinion just as good. I am therefore skeptical of the Leica glass changes everything argument, but not having done the digi comparison posted cannot claim the contrary!

Personally, I would use the DS Mk2 where bulk was not an issue and use the m8 for stealth/street/travelling light. Kinda simple really (as one poster pointed out!!!).....

as an aside I have a digital Rebel XTi and my gripe is not with image quality but that the autofocus is crap....really crap!

Personally, the M8 does not appeal, but a 16+mp M9 full frame would...a lot, esp if as small as the film bodies. Yes please!!!!!
 
kevin m said:
I can understand the enthusiasm for the M8 from the POV that it's the only real alternative if you want a digital RF. Plus it seems to have a bit more dynamic range than most digital sensors, and, of course, you get to use Leica M lenses with it. But enthusiasm doesn't excuse silliness, does it? From the standpoint of overall IQ, the M8 has a hard time keeping up with a 5D - many would argue it simply can't - never mind Canon's 1D series. I have yet to see a really clean looking image from an M8 shot over iso 640, never mind the iso 1600 that any recent Canon DSLR can pull off with ease. And there are DSLR's on the near horizon that are going to make even that performance seem tame. What excuses will M8 users be offering then?

That's just dslr talk, IMO. Shooting with a Leica is something else. It's a style in itself and for that, I dont, think shooting clean iso3200 shots is necessary. A M8 stands by itself. I don't see the need to compare it to a Kwanon a Neekon. A Leica is a different animal and anyone who uses a Leica and compares it to other cameras is simply wrong. IMO.
 
Back
Top Bottom