M8/1DsMarkII Comparison Test in the Studio

[colorflow]

Originally Posted by ptomsu

I also like Leica glass and what you say about the quality is partly true, but not in a general way. There is also galss from other vendors which is excellent and I would say Leica is not always leading - example for me are the Nikon 2.8/28-70, 1.4/85 and 2.8/70-200VR.

With regards to the DMR - well this is actually a Imacon design and development, so credit should at least go 50% to Imacon. And in case of the M8 this is similar with Jenoptic. So Leica has problem here still, because they are buying know how for their digital systems and o not have critical mass in house I would say. And this can be quite dangerous and show stopping, as the example of dicontinued DMR shows.

But lets hope they are getting out of this and can bring a top DSLR for the R system soon.

Peter

Peter, your concerns are obviously valid, but Leica would be really foolish if they did not learn from the DMR/Imacon deal and again leave their fate to a third party. Hopefully they have structured the partnership with Jenoptic so they can learn/acquire the necessary digital core skills. May be wishful thinking, but a Leica DSLR with a competitive price point is possible. The Digilux 3, although not quite it, is a good start.

Alan

[guy_mancuso]

Leica has done a lot on there own this time with the M8

[ptomsu]

Well, lets hope they get it right :-)

[colorflow]

Just getting it right with the M8 may not be enough. Leica needs to be more than a boutique in the long run IMHO.

Alan

[carstenw]

Alan, Leica is clearly trying to distance itself from that past. The hiring of certain key employees is a clear sign of that. Marketing will be bigger, and Leica is at least aiming to be more central in the future of photography again.

[colorflow]

Originally Posted by carstenw

Alan, Leica is clearly trying to distance itself from that past. The hiring of certain key employees is a clear sign of that. Marketing will be bigger, and Leica is at least aiming to be more central in the future of photography again.

Carsten, that's great to hear. A couple of new DSLR product lines at a price point of 15 to 20% above Canon and Nikon would get them there IMHO.
We are all pulling for them
Alan

[carstenw]

I doubt that there is much which can be done with Leica's pricing. They use hand labour so much, and extensive checking (yes, it's not perfect) of quality and so on, and top materials. This is all very expensive. Leica would have to do what Zeiss does to bring the prices down, and I doubt that will happen. I sure hope not.

What might make much more sense would be to extend the lens range with more cheap options, like the 50/2.8, 28/2.8 and so on. These lenses are still great, yet much more affordable. I would love to see a range of lenses with the best optics in the world at very competitive max apertures, like the 50 Lux Asph, 35 Lux Asph, 28 Cron Asph, and so on, and then a second range of lenses with one stop less, for much more affordable prices, and with much more compact sizes. This already exists for part of the range, but work needs to be done to fill this in. They also need to add options at the lower end, like 15/2.8 and 15/4, and maybe an 18/4.

I would love to have a Leica 15/4 and 21/4 for competitive prices.

[Konbau]

I have both cameras. It's wonderful comparison and thank you.

[gabrielma]

Originally Posted by deltoid1

Can you point me to some full-size M8 ISO 1250 and 2500 samples? I'd like to see some converted from raw with no noise reduction done in the converter.

They are heartbreakers, you don't want to, trust me. I shoot in JPEG mode when shooting at ISO 1250 and 2500. The noise reduction in-camera takes care of much of the noise pretty well; the noise in the shadows makes the shadows unusable and irrecoverable, at least in my experience. If somebody else has a different experience, please, let's compare notes. My gut feeling is that my M8 needs a trip back to Solms (and it's a "post-Christmas" production body)

[batmobile]

Originally Posted by rosuna

Well, if you shot hand-held a new variable is introduced into the equation. It is very difficult to know what is explaining the observed differences in those pictures.

When shooting flash, the duration of the flash is so brief this is the effective shutter speed, so really hadheld studio shots are effectively at an insanely high shutter speed, assuming it is not a case of some gentle fill flash but the main illumination. The truth is that a handled shot under ambient light with a 50mm lens at say 1/500 or faster is not going to be distinguishable from a tripod shot.

[Olsen]

The pictures refered to gives an impression of what is possible, - I would believe, to do with the M8 files to make them look as good as the 1Ds II files.

I have both cameras too, but I am not that much of a computer software jocky to make the M8 files look anything close to the Canon's. Sorry. What I see when looking up the files 'right out of the boxes' is that the 1Ds II files are with better color balance, general sharpness and with greater potential for sharpening. The Canon files are also larger which gives further greater potential to enlargement. Sorry, but that is what I see.

Even though I set the 1Ds II in-camera sharpness to 'off' and the M8 to 'low'. - I prefer to do the sharpening in PS. I still havn't found the ideal tuning of the M8 yet, though, while I have had my 1Ds II for three years. I will appreciate inputs and advice on how to get rid of this 'paint' look that the M8 files has at 100% in PS.

Sometimes the M8 do hit a better color temperature, but when it is off it is way off. No big deal, though. The 1Ds II pulls off and gets way ahead when you turn the ISO wheel. On high ISO possibly only the new 1D III is a better camera on the market.

What the M8 is better at is sharp shots hand held at 1/15. Amazing! The 1Ds II equaliants look 'wooly'. Further; the LCD is better on the M8 and the M8 is lighter and far more compact. And cheaper, mind you.

[DaveEP]

After doing some recent tests (including a recent shoot where I did a little side by side), I have also decided to keep my 1Ds2 for the studio shoots. The M8 is king when it comes to leaving the studio by virtue of it's size and weight, but in the studio - until I can afford a Hassy 39MP, the 1Ds2 is still my camera of choice.

Don't get me wrong. I am nt criticising the M8. It does a fantastic job. But for me, there 'are' times when the 1Ds2 'can' out shine the M8. For those times, I will use it. For the rest I will use the M8. YMMV.

Going on vacation tomorrow..... looking forward to going walkabouts with M8 only

[Jamie Roberts]

It's funny, but I reached the opposite conclusion, and sold my 1ds2.

In controlled light, the M8 stomped on my 1ds2 for colour and enlargability (very large prints)--especially skin tones. And this was pre-filter; with the Leica filters skin tones are downright phenomenal.

Yes, the white balance on the M8 needs to be manually set, while Canons is preternaturally acceptible (not fabulous) on AWB, even!

And yes, at very high ISOs the Canon is much smoother with less noise, and you can hammer nails with it, develop your upper body and back muscles, and configure it a million ways to Sunday!

But this is the studio, where a lot of that edge-condition stuff doesn't matter!

So I sold the 1ds2, bought a 5d (which is, if anything, a little better at high ISOs than the 1ds2), and is certainly lighter! I also got a DMR for completely controlled stuff (which really does rock in the studio!).

So I have an excellent AF camera, a great street-shooter (the M8, of course) and what I consider a pseudo, "near-MF" studio camera, the DMR.

The truth is they're all good in the studio, and they're all good outside it (though exact framing with the M8 is always a bit of a hassle).

But they're good in different ways: when the action is fast and the light is low, it's the 5d (I don't do sports, or it would be a 1d3)--though the Noctilux gives you a full 3 stop advantage over an f2.8 zoom!; when I don't want to be seen or I want to do wide angle work to crop and blow up, the M8; when I can take my time and want the best possible colour and tonality from a carefully framed shot, it's the DMR.

[Sergio44]

Thank you for the test. I am in the midle of the debate pre - buying an 85 mm f/1.2. I found
your direct (very easy to understand) test very, very interesting. I still prefer the 85 mm, even if the 50 1.2 and 1.4 are optically better. As you say, it is a bunch of very nice cristals, and they are all at the top. It is a matter of personal preference. Please, time permitting, I would like to see some more.
Kind regards
Sergio

[markowich]

well, i do not know about the canons, but my nikon d3 (in 14 bit RAW) kills the m8 in dynamic range by at least 1,5 stops (particularly in the highlights). the m8 files are not in the least as workable as the d3 files.
also the lens comparism gets closer and closer. for example, the summicron 24mm is only slightly better than the 14-24mm nikon zoom (nano coated) at the 24mm end and at most equal in resolution to the nikon 24mm PC-E lens. i have the feeling (no scientific tests yet) that the WATE gets beaten by the 14-24mm nikon, in acuity and microcontrast. as far as i am concerned the m8 only beats the new nikon generation in weight (of course, it still produces ok files but....).
peter

[ammitsboel]

In my opinion both the Canon 50mm 1.2L and the Summilux 1.4 ASPH has hard unattractive bokeh. The Canon 50mm 1.4 is sharper than the 50mm 1.2L by the way.

I miss a test for the most beautiful lens...