What's going on ? M8/EOS5D

R

rejcd

Newbie
Local time
4:57 AM
Joined
Aug 12, 2007
Messages
5
Hi there !!! The M8 has a sensor 18x27mm or a real estate of 486 square millimetres packing 10.3 million pixels. The EOS 5D has a sensor of 35.8x23.9mm for an area of 855.62 square millimetres with 12.8 million pixels; if my calculations are correct, it goes like this
10.3:486x855= 18.1, therefore to have the same density of pixels as the M8 the Canon sensor would be 18.1 million pixels
Are we beeing dupped by marketing here ?:mad: i had both cameras, and i finally let go the Canon, the quality of my pictures was nowhere near the results from the M8, and the Canon with the Kit zoom L lens + flash was close to 2,3 kilograms. And to top this, the 5D has a sandwich of three filters in front of the sensor, no wonder the pics are soft, lack punch etc. etc.
The IR and AA filters should be left to the individual photog as in the Mamiya ZD, you need it or you dont, lets yourself be the judge and not some design committee.:bang:
 
Huh?

(because the forum doesn't like short-and-sweet answers, I have to superfluously add words -- so hereby I say again: )

Baking powder?
 
Yeah , you have to use the un-sharp masking filter with Canon dSLRs. (in Photoshop)

Some Canon owners also complain that the L series lenses are not as good as their price suggest.
 
I think the answer to this is that we should not assume that the two cameras have the same pixel density. Work it the other way, and the M8 would come out with fewer than 10.3MP. The density is simply greater in the M8, compared to the Canon. The Canon's lower density should, at least in theory, allow the use of larger individual pixel receptor sites. And in theory, that should permit lower noise at the higher ISO settings.
 
Hmmm... And Canon's EOS 400D has an even higher pixel density than their flagship 1DsMkII, what's with that?? 10Mpx Olympus cameras go even higher but are nothing compared to super-zoom wonder-digicams. Could it be that the relationships between the qualities of images and sensor size, pixel density, sensor design, focal lengths, registration distance etc. etc. might be alittle more complex than you imagine?

Just a thought.

...Mike
 
Thardy said:
Some Canon owners also complain that the L series lenses are not as good as their price suggest.
Click to expand...
Some owners of any equipment complain. Sometimes it seems to be the primary power source for the internet...

...Mike
 
A learned fool is more foolish than an ignorant one !!! try the baking powder, it could open you to new horizons. azinus azinas azinum.
 
Who thought up "pixel density" ?

A high pixel density is not like fine grain, or anything like that.

Big pixels are better than small pixels, as pointed out, because of a better signal to noise ratio.

The M8 may produce better pictures because of the lack of filters and because of the special Leica Fairy Juice (extracted by Wetzlar fairies on Midsummernight from Bellis perennis leitziensis). This stuff is INCREDIBLY expensive and used to coat all lenses and sensors.


colin
 
Heh. The one thing I do know is that Colinh is right. Its not the megapixel count or the density its the size of the pixels and the size of the sensor itself.

Oh, and the fairy juice.
 
I had both aswell, the 5D is not in my opinion a good camera. It's a FF consumer camera, that's about it.

Do I need to say I don't have the 5D anymore, but I did get the M8 and loving every second with it.

I never used a zoom lens with my 5D, but good quality primes, got simply tired of the low contrast and soft images.
 
ywenz said:
You mean these kinds?

http://jessicaclaire.net/index.cfm?catID=4



Your experience with the 5D looks like a classic case of operator deficiency
Click to expand...

Your absolutely right, some day I hope to be as good as you.

I know that with a bit of Photoshop magic you can get good pics from any camera. But I can't say I care too much about the burnt-out wedding dress she's wearing in the picture you linked too.

I'm sorry that my opinion of the 5D does not equal your opinions, but anyway I'm entitled to my opinion, and I couldn't care less for the 5D. Being a Canon user for a long time, I've used almost all of the Canon 1 series cameras, digital and analog. The Canon L lens is great! The cheaper Canon primes are great, but I personally prefer the CCD chip without the jungle of filters in front of the sensor.
 
Hmmm...interesting....

I have one M8 and two 5D's. I am on a good paying commercial shoot in Cabo San Lucas Mexico at the moment, in between shoots.

While I find the M8 is a great camera and does produce very nice files, it stayed home for three reasons.

1. My IR filters did not show up before it was time to leave for the shoot.

2. No matter what I use to process the files with, Lightroom, ACR-4 or Capture One Pro, the brighter areas of detail in medium to high contrast break up, look over sharpened and blob out, this is with all kinds of settings used. I shoot with only aspherics.

3. This is a big one: M8 DNG files crash iView Media Pro, my primary data asset manager of over 5 years.

After exhausting tests and comparisons, the 5D files edge out the M8 files in the fine details by about 8-15% depending on contrast levels. With the 5D I shoot with the 16-35-II, 24mm 1.4L, 35mm 1.4L, 50mm macro, 85mm 1.2L and 70-200 2.8 IS.

One of my 5D's has about 68,000 frames on it, the other about 114,000. Both have seen flawless professional use in all conditions imaginable.

And I am talking flawless....

So in my reality, a $45K shoot in Mexico, the 5D is a much better choice than the M8.

Sorry to break it to you, but that is absolutely *my* reality.
 
Last edited:
KM-25 said:
Hmmm...interesting....

I have one M8 and two 5D's. I am on a very high paying commercial shoot in Cabo San Lucas Mexico at the moment, in between shoots.

While I find the M8 is a great camera and does produce very nice files, it stayed home for three reasons.

1. My IR filters did not show up before it was time to leave for the shoot.

2. No matter what I use to process the files with, Lightroom, ACR-4 or Capture One Pro, the brighter areas of detail in medium to high contrast break up, look over sharpened and blob out, this is with all kinds of settings used. I shoot with only aspherics.

3. This is a big one: M8 DNG files crash iView Media Pro, my primary data asset manager of over 5 years.

After exhausting tests and comparisons, the 5D files edge out the M8 files in the fine details by about 8-15% depending on contrast levels. With the 5D I shoot with the 16-35-II, 24mm 1.4L, 35mm 1.4L, 50mm macro, 85mm 1.2L and 70-200 2.8 IS.

One of my 5D's has about 68,000 frames on it, the other about 114,000. Both have seen flawless professional use in all conditions imaginable.

And I am talking flawless....

So in my reality, a $45,000 shoot in Mexico, the 5D is a much better choice than the M8.

Sorry to break it to you, but that is absolutely *my* reality.
Click to expand...




I won't argue with a professional, I'm a simple amateur. I stated a hint of this in my earlier post :)

I have the "luxury" of having photography as my hobby :D (no offence)
 
KM: I would love to see some of your commercial work. Do you maintain a site?

bayerish: It's okay, as long as you mention that it's you, not the camera...
 
Last edited:
...my 2c... as a enjoyer/lover/amateur shooter:

I use the 5D. I came to it after using the 10D, 20D, 30D. I have used but not owned the 1D Mk2. I got it "used" from a NatGeo shooter :)

I use the 5D without da batt pack (the 5D size and weight therefore more satisfactory to me than a 1D series and anyway I'm not a pro sports shooter). I have gone away from cropcams because of sensor noise; the 5D CMOS 1600iso and 3200iso is usuable, and I find 1200iso is great for my needs. I have gone away from cropcams because I can't see the use of owning 35L and 135L glass and other WA primes and using only the central 66pc of the lens. On full frame those L primes are a very nice experience and other MF glass is wonderful too. The 5D is also fantastic value for money, now selling used for around USD2000 in excl cond.

I used Rawshooter and I got dragged into Lightroom under protest but I love it now. I'm getting some skills in Raw. http://www.camerajuice.com/sea

I don't get why Leica went to DNG or CCD...

A neighbour has offered me his M8 to try out. A week ago. But I haven't run over to him in a rush. One reason why is because I don't yet own a dreamy creamy Summilux (but I'd like a 75mm!). Other than the beautiful colours of 'lux experience.... I'll pass.

Meanwhile I'm getting deeper into full frame RF Leicas... and looking for a film scanner.

Disclaimer: I've been to enough exhibitions to see that medium format imagery is way way way way better, but again, its the size/weight thing for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom