Hah. Would you like some evidence?
DPREVIEW IMAGES FROM ABOVE
Load RAW file into Adobe Camera RAW (Auto mode disabled)
Set Sharpness to 0 (all other settings default)
Open file to Photoshop
Apply a Unsharp mask: 80%, Radius 1.0, Threshold 0
M8 + Leica Summicron-M 50 mm
5DMARKII + Canon EF 85 mm F1.8
Now bare in mind the canon has been downsampled and the M8 Has been upsampled. So which is going to produce the better quality larger sized print with more detail?
That really is a tough one.
I do think that the Leica does very well for a 10mp Camera, and I do love the images I am able to produce with it. However, it doesn’t magically produce better quality images which is often claimed. I am looking forward to see if the M9 and its larger sensor will make a difference to pixel level image quality.
Regardless all these minute details hardly matter in practice, I just want to make a statement against the Leica Reality Distortion Field. Just because you love the brand and have spent a lot of money doesn’t mean it is automatically and undoubtedly the best.
DPREVIEW IMAGES FROM ABOVE
Load RAW file into Adobe Camera RAW (Auto mode disabled)
Set Sharpness to 0 (all other settings default)
Open file to Photoshop
Apply a Unsharp mask: 80%, Radius 1.0, Threshold 0
M8 + Leica Summicron-M 50 mm
5DMARKII + Canon EF 85 mm F1.8
Now bare in mind the canon has been downsampled and the M8 Has been upsampled. So which is going to produce the better quality larger sized print with more detail?
That really is a tough one.
I do think that the Leica does very well for a 10mp Camera, and I do love the images I am able to produce with it. However, it doesn’t magically produce better quality images which is often claimed. I am looking forward to see if the M9 and its larger sensor will make a difference to pixel level image quality.
Regardless all these minute details hardly matter in practice, I just want to make a statement against the Leica Reality Distortion Field. Just because you love the brand and have spent a lot of money doesn’t mean it is automatically and undoubtedly the best.
Last edited:
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Well-yes....
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
jaapv's point is well taken. Just about any decent $600 DSLR will produce images with resolution and sharpness well beyond anything most folks here do with their cameras. We argue the theoretical far more than the practical.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
This has absolutely no value at all. Firstly you cannot compare downsampled and upsampled and secondly you can't compare images with different focal lengths- even different lenses of the same length is doubtful, but clearly cannot be avoided. If you start looking at pixel level, btw, sensor size has nothing to do with it -unless you invalidate your test by upsampling etc. again.Hah. Would you like some evidence?
DPREVIEW IMAGES FROM ABOVE
Load RAW file into Adobe Camera RAW (Auto mode disabled)
Set Sharpness to 0 (all other settings default)
Open file to Photoshop
Apply a Unsharp mask: 80%, Radius 1.0, Threshold 0
M8 + Leica Summicron-M 50 mm
5DMARKII + Canon EF 85 mm F1.8
Now bare in mind the canon has been downsampled and the M8 Has been upsampled. So which is going to produce the better quality larger sized print with more detail?
That really is a tough one.
I do think that the Leica does very well for a 10mp Camera, and I do love the images I am able to produce with it. However, it doesn’t magically produce better quality images which is often claimed. I am looking forward to see if the M9 and its larger sensor will make a difference to pixel level image quality.
Regardless all these minute details hardly matter in practice, I just want to make a statement against the Leica Reality Distortion Field. Just because you love the brand and have spent a lot of money doesn’t mean it is automatically and undoubtedly the best.
RichC
Well-known
Sebben - I couldn't find the Raw M8 file on DP Review so I used their M8 JPG: if I'd used the Raw file, my MG image below would be even better!
First image is a crop from the original JPG, the second is this image resampled to match your Canon 5D Mk II image, the third image is your Canon 5D Mk II image (no changes - simply put there to make comparison easy).
Both images have been sharpened in Photoshop, and the resampling, which is the critical stage, uses the oversample/sharpen/downsample technique (see Digital Outback Photo).
As you can see, with good technique, the M8 and Canon image quality is extremely close. If I had the raw file instead of the JPG and took a bit more time in Photoshop, I could improve the resampled M8 image further.
And that's not taking Jaap's points about fair comparisons into account.
First image is a crop from the original JPG, the second is this image resampled to match your Canon 5D Mk II image, the third image is your Canon 5D Mk II image (no changes - simply put there to make comparison easy).
Both images have been sharpened in Photoshop, and the resampling, which is the critical stage, uses the oversample/sharpen/downsample technique (see Digital Outback Photo).
As you can see, with good technique, the M8 and Canon image quality is extremely close. If I had the raw file instead of the JPG and took a bit more time in Photoshop, I could improve the resampled M8 image further.
And that's not taking Jaap's points about fair comparisons into account.
Last edited:
Yes I agree that you can get the resampled M8 Image close to the down sampled Mark II file.
However, you can’t get the M8 file to the same quality as the raw 5D Mark II file, and you defiantly can’t get it to the same quality as an enlarged 5D Mark II file.
Yes, you can squeeze more detail here and there but overall there shouldn’t be any doubt that the Mark II is capturing more detail. Regardless of lenses etc.
Ultimately I would like to see how the new M9 does.
Full Res 5d
M8 17MP DPREVIEW UPRES
However, you can’t get the M8 file to the same quality as the raw 5D Mark II file, and you defiantly can’t get it to the same quality as an enlarged 5D Mark II file.
Yes, you can squeeze more detail here and there but overall there shouldn’t be any doubt that the Mark II is capturing more detail. Regardless of lenses etc.
Ultimately I would like to see how the new M9 does.
Full Res 5d
M8 17MP DPREVIEW UPRES
Last edited:
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Sebben, this is a debate you can't win. The Leica faithful have "proven" that the M8 blows away any camera in image quality short of a 4x5 with a scanning back. It's all over the web and has gone on since the M8 was introduced.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Of course the amount of detail is different. We are talking different pixel counts here. But that has nothing to do with the quality of the file. The only thing that does is limit the M8 filess to A3 size and the 5D files to A2 size in print - without upressing that is. And it is no excuse for faulty methodology.
OK, I admit defeat.
pachuco
El ****
I've used both the 5DMKII and the M8 (Classic!) and all I can tell you blokes is that they both rocked my world.
Yes, 1800 for a used M8 would be killer and you bet I would pick one up as a back up!
Yes, 1800 for a used M8 would be killer and you bet I would pick one up as a back up!
RichC
Well-known
Sigh ... no one here's saying that the M8 "blows away any other camera"!
I'm not going to rehash all the arguments: they all boil down to the fact that M8 files are suitable for any normal use - whether exhibition-quality prints on a gallery wall or reproduction in a top-quality book. It's my job to know that - have been working in photo reproduction since 1985!
Quality - judge that for yourselves from the 100% crop and sampled M8 images above, and also compare them with the Canon 1D Mk IV (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1268817&postcount=37) and Canon 5D Mk II (a few posts above).
And of course a camera with more megapixels gives a file with more detail. For professional use, the ideal is about 16-20 MP - into which category Canon's pro 1D and 1Ds cameras fall. As I mentioned, my photo agency requires me to supply, as a minimum, 18 MP files - which means I have to resample my M8 images. As I've proved with my example resampled images, this does not compromise quality - my agency examines all the images I send them, and will reject any that show any artefacts or softness. To date, they have not rejected any of my M8 images.
10-12 MP is the absolute minimum for pro use - file sizes below that (e.g. 6-8 MP) fall apart when resampled to 18 MP (this size is chosen as it is that required for theoertically perfect image reproduction at A3 (equivalent to a typical magazine spread).
It'd be more convenient not to have to resample my M8 files - so I'd love an M9 (= 18 MP), but, as I've mentioned in the post linked to, the M9 may produce larger files and have some advantages, but they aren't huge. If the difference in image quality were significant, I'd buy an M9, but they aren't.
If you're not a pro who's images end up in books and magazines and just make photographic prints for display, then 10-12 MP is perfectly adequate.
So, yes, megapiixels have an important role, but if you're measure image quality solely by the number of megapixels as you seem to be doing, well, I think your priorities are skewed...
To get the thread back on track: M8 produces pro-quality files + uncommon + people not selling = price remaining high.
I'm not going to rehash all the arguments: they all boil down to the fact that M8 files are suitable for any normal use - whether exhibition-quality prints on a gallery wall or reproduction in a top-quality book. It's my job to know that - have been working in photo reproduction since 1985!
Quality - judge that for yourselves from the 100% crop and sampled M8 images above, and also compare them with the Canon 1D Mk IV (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1268817&postcount=37) and Canon 5D Mk II (a few posts above).
And of course a camera with more megapixels gives a file with more detail. For professional use, the ideal is about 16-20 MP - into which category Canon's pro 1D and 1Ds cameras fall. As I mentioned, my photo agency requires me to supply, as a minimum, 18 MP files - which means I have to resample my M8 images. As I've proved with my example resampled images, this does not compromise quality - my agency examines all the images I send them, and will reject any that show any artefacts or softness. To date, they have not rejected any of my M8 images.
10-12 MP is the absolute minimum for pro use - file sizes below that (e.g. 6-8 MP) fall apart when resampled to 18 MP (this size is chosen as it is that required for theoertically perfect image reproduction at A3 (equivalent to a typical magazine spread).
It'd be more convenient not to have to resample my M8 files - so I'd love an M9 (= 18 MP), but, as I've mentioned in the post linked to, the M9 may produce larger files and have some advantages, but they aren't huge. If the difference in image quality were significant, I'd buy an M9, but they aren't.
If you're not a pro who's images end up in books and magazines and just make photographic prints for display, then 10-12 MP is perfectly adequate.
So, yes, megapiixels have an important role, but if you're measure image quality solely by the number of megapixels as you seem to be doing, well, I think your priorities are skewed...
To get the thread back on track: M8 produces pro-quality files + uncommon + people not selling = price remaining high.
Last edited:
Turtle
Veteran
This discussion is ridiculous. You know a M6 makes much more sense 
As for film being hard to get at reasonable prices... what baloney! Try Freestyle for $2 for rebadged TriX or Neopan 400.
M8s would be more appealing at $1800 were it not for the insane repair costs if you have trouble with them. Abou 800 Euros for a new shutter is the same price as a used M6 complete - madness! Used digital Leicas can bite you if you are unlucky and it seems M8 gremlins are not exactly rare.
As for film being hard to get at reasonable prices... what baloney! Try Freestyle for $2 for rebadged TriX or Neopan 400. M8s would be more appealing at $1800 were it not for the insane repair costs if you have trouble with them. Abou 800 Euros for a new shutter is the same price as a used M6 complete - madness! Used digital Leicas can bite you if you are unlucky and it seems M8 gremlins are not exactly rare.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Hmm- I remember a repair to my M4-2 in the 1980-ies. 1800 Deutschmark
MCTuomey
Veteran
RichC: kudos to you for taking the time to contribute. you're a breath of fresh air in the dank gear closet (where i seem to spend way too much time). whether i agree (and i do) is not important: your posts are superb.
RichC
Well-known
Philip Whiteman
Well-known
I've been down the R-D1 route – where Rich was a guiding light – but had decided that I would in the end be better off sticking to Nikon for the professional stuff using relatively cheap, quality digital bodies, and return to using my M lenses with film for the fun, amateur stuff.
Now he's got me thinking one of those £1,700 M8s might not be such a bad idea after all…
Now he's got me thinking one of those £1,700 M8s might not be such a bad idea after all…
MCTuomey
Veteran
Rich: i figured you did so, and more than passing well!
Philip, my take: i reached that conclusion once the M8's pricing fell within my range. i would do it again in a heartbeat. like you, i have a dSLR kit. for sports mostly. the M8 gets more and more use. the M8 is now at a price that i believe it makes sense to buy used or refurbed and give one a good trial. if it's not for you, then selling it shouldn't result in much loss at all, if any.
Philip, my take: i reached that conclusion once the M8's pricing fell within my range. i would do it again in a heartbeat. like you, i have a dSLR kit. for sports mostly. the M8 gets more and more use. the M8 is now at a price that i believe it makes sense to buy used or refurbed and give one a good trial. if it's not for you, then selling it shouldn't result in much loss at all, if any.
alecgold
Established
RichC, wonderfull etna picture!
I've been thinking a lot about the M8 lately and I came to the conclusion that when (if ever) I can make such good pictures that the M8 stops being adequate, I'm gonna think of saving for another one.
But as I'm most likely never be good enough for gallery stuff, why bother? With 10Mp I can print any A4 I want and even crop some.
I bought myself a superb demo that I will use for years and years to come. If it doesn't break down, or get stolen, dropped on concrete, soaked in whiskey
Below a picture I took today. Isn't perfect yet, but I like it.
I've been thinking a lot about the M8 lately and I came to the conclusion that when (if ever) I can make such good pictures that the M8 stops being adequate, I'm gonna think of saving for another one.
But as I'm most likely never be good enough for gallery stuff, why bother? With 10Mp I can print any A4 I want and even crop some.
I bought myself a superb demo that I will use for years and years to come. If it doesn't break down, or get stolen, dropped on concrete, soaked in whiskey
Below a picture I took today. Isn't perfect yet, but I like it.
