M8 IQ vs 5D

D

dfoo

Well-known
Local time
3:13 PM
Joined
Nov 24, 2007
Messages
1,908
At the risk of starting a huge argument, how does the M8 IQ stack up against the Canon 5D? I see the 1.3 crop factor as a big turn off, but I'm debating selling my 5d & L lenses and picking up an M8/M8.2 + some more Leica glass... When I shoot my 5D I typically shoot 100-200 ISO, but do use high-iso as the light goes down.
 
I own both and in my experience, roughly equivalent with the edge going to the 5D. This of course depends on what you are looking for. At high ISO's the D5 is the "winner" in terms of smooth tonality, but this comes down to personal preference too. M8 files need less or no sharpening, in my experience.

For what I do (mostly candid handheld portraiture -- final output no larger than 11x14 inkjet) either has plenty of IQ.

Ben
 
Apples and oranges. If you don't need zooms, long lenses and macro, either will probably work. If you do, the M8 is useless, regardless of its IQ. These threads are getting tedious.
 
I would have to agree that the 5D will make a technically better image where it comes to the technology but I really dont think you should make or break a buying decision because they are such different platforms to work with and if you really click with rangefinders no 5D will do.
 
It depends how you measure "image quality" - if that means resolution on a test chart, the 5D does a little better than the M8. The M8s files are better than the 5Ds in other areas which are a little more difficult to measure. I own both and use them for very different applications. The M8s high ISO performance is not as good as the 5Ds. Both systems have very different strenghs and weaknesses - I wouldn't get hung up on the difference in image quality between the two - they are sufficiently close. If you need huge prints, stitch or get a 4x5... I currently have an M8, Sigma DP1, Canon 40D and a 5D. I use the 5D the least. The strenghs of the other cameras in real world photography tend to outweigh any marginal benefit the 5D may have in shooting test charts.
 
"This thread is about IQ, not SLR vs rangefinder."

If you are going to use both cameras for the exact same thing, the IQ in a practical sense is going to make little difference.
 
dfoo said:
At the risk of starting a huge argument, how does the M8 IQ stack up against the Canon 5D? I see the 1.3 crop factor as a big turn off, but I'm debating selling my 5d & L lenses and picking up an M8/M8.2 + some more Leica glass... When I shoot my 5D I typically shoot 100-200 ISO, but do use high-iso as the light goes down.
Click to expand...


Frankly, who cares? The M8 -as the 5D- is a camera you get for the ergonomics and use you want to put it to. The image quality of both cameras is excellent, but for the choice between the two incidental. Choose your system first and then your camera. Not that there is much to choose in digital rangefinders;) If you are after maximum image quality you are looking in the wrong camera class. That is the province of the medium format cameras. Wait a few months and you can buy a Leica S2 system. I guarantee you that will blow just about anything away by its quality.
As an example, I think the M8 is one of the best performers in the 135 class, despite its relatively low Mp count. It holds its own with, in the eyes of quite some users even surpasses, the 5D. The DMR, I know by experience, produces clearly better files than the M8. Still the camera I use most is the M8.
 
Last edited:
jaapv said:
Frankly, who cares?...
Click to expand...

I care. I would like to move to the M8, but I don't want to give up the 5D image quality. What is confusing?

In addition, I already have a medium format camera system, and I love the IQ from that too. However, shooting medium format and 135 is an entirely different proposition, and not comparable.
 
Ok. In quality you won't see much difference in print, in character you will see a lot of difference in print, with the balance going to the M8.
 
One is a rangefinder, the other an SLR. One takes Leica lenses. I once picked the other one up but it did not do anything for me. Thats all I need to know.

Richard
 
By any quantitative measurement the 5D is going to be the big winner. And really, everything else is just wankery. If you like Ms and M8s that is fine, but people are far too defensive here.

If you want to use a Leica and you want it to be digital, you have one option, and it's an M8.
 
I can't compare the two.

I have used both a 5D and RD1s for low-low shooting.

The RD1 was backfocusing so I dug out the 5D a couple weeks ago and started shooting with it again. Here are two galleries as examples, pretty much every shot above 800 iso, most at 1250, some at 1600 and 3200. I can add the exposure exif info if anyone is interested, and up the quality level you can view:
Shot Monday evening:
http://ederek.smugmug.com/gallery/7203555_NPJTn/1/462716839_mqJDy

Same venue - much less light this night:
http://ederek.smugmug.com/gallery/7026728_o7s5C/1/449951881_YwBed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom