Upcoming Canon 4D and M8

[pcsmythe]

The Online Photographer has posted an article about Canon's upcoming 4D. He writes that the 15.5 MP mode is "said to better the sharpness and resolution of cameras with no anti-aliasing filters (think Leica M8)." Read the article here.

[jaapv]

So? Sharpness comes mainly from the lens and for normal prints up to quite large there is very little discernable difference between a resolution of 10 and 15 Mp...Undoubtely it will be an excellent camera, but of no interest to rangefinder users. A comparison to the mythical R10 would be more to the point. Let's wait and see what reality brings, as opposed to speculation.
I might add that this article was posted yesterday

[stunsworth]

And the date that the article was posted on was...

[jaapv]

March 32nd

[arthury]

Occasionally, TOP does not live on earth, I guess.

[rweisz]

Originally Posted by jaapv

Sharpness comes mainly from the lens and for normal prints up to quite large there is very little discernable difference between a resolution of 10 and 15 Mp...Undoubtely it will be an excellent camera, but of no interest to rangefinder users. A comparison to the mythical R10 would be more to the point.
Let's wait and see what reality brings, as opposed to speculation.

The difference in mp BTW is not only discernable on large prints. Even small prints made from significant crops of the original file will benefit from more pixels. And it isn't so much a question of sharpness, than of pixelation and other artifacts, which have nothing to do with the lens.

A significant percentage of Leica users always have and always will insist the Leica product is better than everything else no matter what the reality is, so frankly I don't see much to be gained from those comparisons even when they aren't speculations. I've seen it written the M8 bests the Canon 1DS-MKII, but I have them both and it's closer than the # of megapixels would make the uninformed people think, but with the right workflow, the Canon takes it. And I now have the 1DS-MKIII and it runs a length or two ahead of the M8, sorry but that's not speculation. Yes it's a brick, and yes for most cases the M8 (if and when it's working reliably) is more than adequate, so it's still a very viable choice today, as are other 10 and 12mp cameras.

[Jamie Roberts]

Originally Posted by rweisz

{snipped} I've seen it written the M8 bests the Canon 1DS-MKII, but I have them both and it's closer than the # of megapixels would make the uninformed people think, but with the right workflow, the Canon takes it. {snipped}.

I have no doubt the M3 Canon bests the M8 in terms of resolution, and I've been hearing great things about the newest Canon zoom lenses too, especially at the wide end.

However, having owned a 1ds2 for a long time and an M8 I think the times where the 1ds2 bests the M8 are rare in the extreme. The problem is mostly with the way the sensor interacts with Canon glass, but even with Leica glass on the 1ds2 at lower ISOs I like the M8 file better--again, given the right workflow.

Apart from the glass, I suspect that's mostly due not to resolution so much as to bit depth and better AD conversions in the M8.

Again, the 1ds3 is likely to be much better in this regard...I've only played with a 1d3 so far and for me the jury is out on digic3, but it always takes a while to get the best out of a camera, so I'll trust you on the 1ds3

[sdai]

When comparing the M8 to 1Ds2, you should realize:

The M8 has a higher pixel density and if its Kodak sensor was cut to 35mm full frame size, the M8 should have 18.7 MP, which is 2 mega pixels more than the 1Ds Mark 2's 16.7 MP. So if you are seeing better result from the Leica, it's given, not a surprise.

Even the 1Ds Mark 3 has only 3 megapixels more than a would-be 18.7MP full frame M8 so what's the big fuss?

[jaapv]

Originally Posted by rweisz

The difference in mp BTW is not only discernable on large prints. Even small prints made from significant crops of the original file will benefit from more pixels. And it isn't so much a question of sharpness, than of pixelation and other artifacts, which have nothing to do with the lens.

A significant percentage of Leica users always have and always will insist the Leica product is better than everything else no matter what the reality is, so frankly I don't see much to be gained from those comparisons even when they aren't speculations. I've seen it written the M8 bests the Canon 1DS-MKII, but I have them both and it's closer than the # of megapixels would make the uninformed people think, but with the right workflow, the Canon takes it. And I now have the 1DS-MKIII and it runs a length or two ahead of the M8, sorry but that's not speculation. Yes it's a brick, and yes for most cases the M8 (if and when it's working reliably) is more than adequate, so it's still a very viable choice today, as are other 10 and 12mp cameras.

It is all very nice, but this is an April fools day thread....

[pcsmythe]

You know, Jaap, I didn't even think of April Fool's Day. I don't have an M8, but came across it and thought the forum guys would like to read it. It appears to be a joke.

[dseelig]

To me they are very different cameras for different purposes. I do not take long walks with my 1ds mk 111. It is an asssigment camera I do take long walks with an m8. I stroll the streets of new Orleans with an m8 not a 1ds mk 111 but if someone is paying me for fast work it is the canon. Right tool for the right job.