M8 IQ vs 5D

"Sorry if I hurt your feelings."

i think he was wondering where you came up with this definitive point? care to share it with us?
 
In response to the OP.

I used to have an M8. I have a Canon 5D. You can, of course, compare the IQ, but that is just one factor. In real world shooting there isn't a lot in it. The 5D is better at high ISOs, but you can hand hold the M8 at lower speeds (obviously IS evens the score here). In terms of sharpness and overall resolution there isn't much in it either. DR doesn't really open up any advantage for either camera. Basically, you can take IQ out of the equation at lower ISOs and concentrate on handling and usage preferences.
 
Another option would be to replace your 5D with a 5D mark II (instead of an M8.2) and use the extra money (about $3300) to buy an R-D1, a bunch of memory cards, another L lens, and a nice dinner.

That way you will have better IQ than the M8 and a digital RF (although not in the same camera).
 
I'm not a pixel-peeper. The M8 and the 5D seemed roughly equal to me in IQ, except that the 5D is less noisy at any iso above 800. Ergonomics and handling are much more important to me, and in that regard, the 5D flatly trumps the M8. The M8 with a compact lens makes for a tidy package, but that's the only advantage it has. All the access to functions that is necessary with a digital camera is easy with the 5D and a PITA with the M8.

I, for one, hope the M9 doesn't look like an M3.
 
That doesn't sound good... I find the 5d's ergonomics leave much to be desired. I always loved the Nikon D200's ergonomics, but hated the crop factor.
 
I had the 5D and now the m8. As people have said already, the IQ is 'different' but comparable. 5D is warmer & better at high iso's whilst the m8 is sharper/crisper. These days I prefer the m8 photos because like a good wine the m8 files don't hit you immediately but over time, you grow to really like it's more subtle flavours. 5D is a wow, this is great drink from first sip but one may bore of this over time.

Otherwise, it's mainly down to (and in my mind, more importantly) the RF vs SLR debate, lens choices, how big you like to print and iso performance.
 
I have both, with good prime like 50/1.2 5D has better IQ with good bokeh than M8 with Elmarit 28ASPH or Summicron-C, but not too much, for small camera M8 has very good IQ with great shadows detail, I need both, M8 is portable camera, 5D is fast workhorse.
 
The 5d has better technical image quality as far as signal to noise and all that stuff goes, however in truth both have very high overall output, and how you use them is much more important than the technical aspects - they're so different.
 
May no longer be valid

May no longer be valid

Sam N said:
Another option would be to replace your 5D with a 5D mark II (instead of an M8.2) and use the extra money (about $3300) to buy an R-D1, a bunch of memory cards, another L lens, and a nice dinner.

That way you will have better IQ than the M8 and a digital RF (although not in the same camera).
Click to expand...

I used to think this way and had the 5D and RD1s.

Then, I sold off the RD1s in Oct 2007 5D in Dec 2007 and bought a mint conditioned 1Dmk2 in Mar 08 and got some cash back and sold the RD1s.

The reason being there is really very little supprt for the RD1s beyond 2010 and most of the photographic repair shops can help very little withh the eventual electronics issue.

The M8 is the obvious choice. I might not have considered the M8 or RF if there was not the M8.2. The M8.2 told me Leica was committed to preserve the intrinsic value in every Leica machine and considers upgrade pathways albeit at a price. Better than no 5D->5DII or D3 ->D5 in future.

The RD1s is a deadend. We should never assume we will be able to swtich on the cam and it works all the time. Support is key.
 
aizan said:
dxomark to the rescue!

leica m8 vs. canon 5d
Click to expand...


Thanks for that link! I had no idea that tool existed. I use DXO Pro Optics software with my 20D and I love what it does, have lots of respect for that company. I tend to believe their comparison with the 5D, because I pulled up their stats on my 20D and it's extremely close to the M8 on all counts, which exactly mirrors my findings after owning/shooting both M8 and 20D cameras together for almost 2 years.

But I think just comparing the raw output isn't as relevant as it's cracked up to be, and can be made to "prove" one camera is "better" than another when in reality it isn't. For me the important thing is what the final print looks like, and that has a lot to do with getting the right workflow. I've seen files from some very pedestrian digital cameras finessed into some outstanding prints, and likewise some mediocre prints made from files generated by top-level pro cameras. Like with the artistry of the photographs, the IQ has a lot to do with the skill of the person.

All said though, for me at this point if I were choosing it would be between the M8 (M8.2=same IQ) and the 5D-II (which costs new about as much as a used M8.0).
 
Last edited:
Ben Z said:
For me the important thing is what the final print looks like, and that has a lot to do with getting the right workflow. I've seen files from some very pedestrian digital cameras finessed into some outstanding prints, and likewise some mediocre prints made from files generated by top-level pro cameras. Like with the artistry of the photographs, the IQ has a lot to do with the skill of the person.
Click to expand...

true, though if you apply the same level of skill to raw material of higher quality, the resulting print will be that much better.

i'm looking forward to $2000 used m8s. :)
 
Why do people seem obsessed with comparing avocados and aardvarks?

While we are doing this pointless comparison, let's compare the 5D with an 8x10 Deardorf.
 
Don't be so ridiculous, deliberately insulting and provocative. Both are 35mm digital cameras. Of they are comparable!
 
Well they are all cameras so they should be comparable. Since when is it "ridiculous, deliberately insulting and provocative" to point out the emperor may be in the buff. And the M8 is not a 35mm camera. It has a 1.3 sensor. I would say they aren't comparable.

By they way I have both and the are very different tools for different thing. There's more to photography than image quality.
 
Last edited:
I've had the 5D since it came out, and now the MkII. I also have a couple of M8's. I generally prefer the images I get with the M8's, but that's probably in large part because I take different types of pictures with the RF.

Looking purely at IQ, I find the M8 and 5D files approximately equivalent, with the 5D having about a stop better noise control at the top. The MkII is very, very slightly better but significantly better in this regard if you downsample properly into the range of the 5D or M8, and then has nearly 2 stops better noise performance.

Other image quality factors seem overall about equal; the Canons have a little better highlight info (can retrieve a bit more without crossovers) but the M8 files seem to respond better to underexposure and bringing up things in software. The Canon files seem muddier to me.

Part of the issue is that I can't really compare the two without their respective lenses, and though I have about 9 or 10 L lenses, only in the telephoto range are the Canon lenses comparable. So if I have images with a 90 degree angle of view taken with M8 or 5DII, the M8 files will almost always be better in IQ by a big margin because I've taken the M8 picture at any aperture with the WATE or 15 CV and the Canon picture with the 16-35 or 12-24 Sigma (my Sigma is very slightly better) at around f/8 or f/11 to bring the corners into some kind of shape. There goes the high ISO advantage. I'm anxiously waiting for the 21 ZE.

The Canon 35/1.4 is quite decent, but the 28 Summicron is better. Here, at least, the Canon is faster and is very usable for low light shots where the corners are not as important.

In very low light the Leica is still hard to beat. AF on the 5D and 5DII is not that great in very dark conditions, and I get way more keepers with the Leica, and as I mentioned before the Leica files respond nicely to boosting exposure in LR or PS.

So the Canon gets used for things like the 24 TSE (not really an outstanding lens; a friend promised me I'd get to try his 24 Nikon shift soon) in decent light, fisheye, macro and with lenses like the 70-200 IS and longer. Also with the 12-24 Sigma at 12 to 20mm as the 12 CV is difficult on the M8.

But, as others have said, the main thing is that the cameras are different and the image quality is really a secondary consideration as both are truly and in the best sense adequate.

I put together a vacation photo book (mostly for the benefit of my parents-in-law who are Ukrainian) at blurb recently:

http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/detail/507559

It's in their largest format, and while blurb is hardly the very highest quality, it's fairly demanding and typical of what you often need/want. I only used M8's on this little trip of 6 days with my wife, and it indicates that camera quality is certainly not lacking. With all files I had to throw away some resolution/quality to fit onto the page. I would not have done better with a Canon on this trip, and would not have been able to shoot many of the pictures I did. I would have been able to shoot others, but not these.

I will continue to use both, but for my personal stuff I generally prefer the Leica images.

Henning
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom