Sample image comparison M9 and 5DMKII

Can't see much of a difference - guess one would have to go pixel peeping. Maybe a 100% crop of each?
I would expect the M9 to be sharper if those pics are out of camera jpgs (due to the insanely strong AA filter on the 5D - why did you do that Canon???).
What lens did you use on the 5D?
 
Yepp, let's compare a small jpeg web version of two full frame, high resolving cameras ;-)

Add some RAW mate or it's a pretty useless waste of time this.

Furthermore, 5D mk II looks sharper/better.
 
Not to be rude but I really fail to see the point in this comparison. Different ISOs, different f-stops and I really can't see which one is supposed to be better.
 
Pointless to compare anything other than prints IMO. And then there are a dozen more variables involved (papers, inks, PP techniques and on and on).

Better to use each tool to best advantage to take the kind of pics, and make the kind of prints, you intend. If your prints aren't wonderful using either of these fine cameras, then the photographer is the issue, not the camera (or lens).

Jeff
 
Pointless, really. As mentioned before, comparing apples and oranges. Not being a pixel peeper or anything, my eyes were immediately drawn to what was positioned at the center of the frame (a lamp?). Didn't care for anything else as the photos were similarly uninteresting to begin with and quickly moved on without any thought.
 
I've still got the 5D-Mark I, and the prints compare quite evenly with the M9. I have no reason to compare unprocessed raw files, as all that matters to me is print quality.
 
My ipad already decided for me that the comarison is uninteresting, because it refuses to load the page. Now apple truly decides my opinion for me...
 
I was completely shocked at the dramatic differences in the photos, and demand that the manufacturer of the inferior optics undertake an immediate investigation of their quality control procedures. Sophisticated users of these cameras and lenses like ourselves need to be assured this can never happen again.
 
different f-stops, different lenses, different iso ... what everyone said above.

what IS the point? i have both cameras (lucky that way), use them for different reasons. i'm very happy to use either. judging from prints they're both excellent.
 
Thanks for sharing !

I for one find it interesting to compare. In particular since I don't own all the different top cameras and lenses.

IMO the bashing and looking-down attitude responses tells more about the responders than adding any useful information.

Please keep adding useful information such as this comparison.


Edit: I really dont understand this apples versus oranges argument. We are comparing apple-pies versus apple-pies (photos) made by the same chef by different means (different equipment).
 
Last edited:
There doesn't seem to be any bashing going on. It is simply that to compare things it is best and most useful to have as few variables as possible. With cameras it is very easy to control a good number of variables. In the end it only really matters what tool you prefer for the job at hand. It's fun to compare them but unless it's done correctly it is nothing more than that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
What is the MOST gear you've ever carried on a trip?
2 3
Replies
51
Views
2K
Ray Vonn 2023
Ray Vonn 2023
Rob-F
AI is helping me decide whether to buy a Leica M10!
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
2K
Rob-F
Rob-F
A
Thinking about a SL2-S yet again vs Panasonic S1
2 3
Replies
43
Views
5K
Archiver
A
A
Cameras of Permanence - does anyone else feel this way?
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
4K
Out to Lunch
O
J
  • Article Article
The Leica as a work of ART: Selling the image of elegant exclusivity
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
Pioneer
Pioneer
Back
Top Bottom