M8 and Canon 5D Comparison Pix and High Isos

[kevin m]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Wow! Thanks for the replies, that's good to know. I assumed everyone using Leica glass on a Canon must be doing it just for the wides, but it's good to know that longer glass works, too.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Be surpirsed the long stuff too

[eronald]

1. The camera is small and light.

2. The lenses are small and light.

3. The lenses are superb at all apertures

4. Nocti.

5. (and the one that people seem to miss in these comparisons) it's a rangefinder not an SLR.

 

Just off the top of my hear

 

 

Yes, it's small and light. For the rest, I assure you that the fast Canon lenses (F1.2) are quite as good as the Leica. Which is small and light.

 

No, the M8 does not come close tot a 1DsII with the 85/1.2. Not in image quality. Nor in Hi_ISO . But it weighs 3 times less.

 

Edmund

[gdeliz]

Ay Carumba guys!

 

The shots aren't *exposed* the same! One thing you need to do with all digicams--especially at high ISOs--is feed them enough light!

 

SNIP

Here's a nightime M8 snapshot I took last night @ ISO 1250, pushed at least a stop in C1 (worst case scenario), chrome profile, 35 Summilux @ 1/22s / f2.0.

 

The 5d would do no better, and without the 50 1.2L, I'm not sure it would have done as well, overall.

 

Yes--that's red light causing some magenta

 

A little bit of objectivity please. We are being asked to ignore a series of comparison shots between two cameras and instead to accept the result of one shot with one of the cameras along with an unsubstaniated claim that the other camera "would do no better". Does that seem reasonable to you?

 

George Deliz

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Yes, it's small and light. For the rest, I assure you that the fast Canon lenses (F1.2) are quite as good as the Leica. Which is small and light.

 

No, the M8 does not come close tot a 1DsII with the 85/1.2. Not in image quality. Nor in Hi_ISO . But it weighs 3 times less.

 

Edmund

 

 

 

LOL. I like to see that test Edmund with either the 75 lux or the 75 cron. Show me

[Guest umb]

A little bit of objectivity please. We are being asked to ignore a series of comparison shots between two cameras and instead to accept the result of one shot with one of the cameras along with an unsubstaniated claim that the other camera "would do no better". Does that seem reasonable to you?

 

George Deliz

 

Applause.

[sean_reid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I was talking the raw file is mush. Look at Seans review and look at his noise comparision the 5d is softer in detail to the M8 on every shot.

 

Hiya Guy,

 

I think I've seen that review. The 5D does get noise filtered a bit at ISO 1600 and 3200 (before the RAW is written) but it isn't mush, it's just a bit softer. In the final sharpened files, however, it looks pretty darn good. The 5D at ISO 3200 at a wedding has saved my bacon more than once. As you know, I shoot with both the M8 and the 5D on my body. At 1600 or 2500/3200 (for color work that is going to a client) I prefer the 5D . Below that speed, I prefer the M8. In B&W, I'll happily take the M8 all the way to 2500 but I do it knowing that a "clean" file is not what I'm after. If I recall, you personally don't need to use high ISO much, right?

 

They're very different cameras but I wouldn't give up either one of them. The Leica does, however, have a very special kind of quality in its files that is unique. If I was forced to choose only one body I that could keep (of all the digital cameras I've owned) it would be the M8 but I can still appreciate the excellences of other cameras, esp. the 5D.

 

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[John Maio]

Hiya Guy,

 

I think I've seen that review. The 5D does get noise filtered a bit at ISO 1600 and 3200 (before the RAW is written) but it isn't mush, it's just a bit softer. In the final sharpened files, however, it looks pretty darn good. The 5D at ISO 3200 at a wedding has saved my bacon more than once. As you know, I shoot with both the M8 and the 5D on my body. At 1600 or 2500/3200 (for color work that is going to a client) I prefer the 5D and trust it more. Below that speed, I prefer the M8. In B&W, I'll happily take the M8 all the way to 2500 but I do it knowing that a "clean" file is not what I'm after. If I recall, you personally don't need to use high ISO much, right?

 

They're very different cameras but I wouldn't give up either one of them. The Leica does, however, have a very special kind of quality in its files that is unique. If I was forced to choose only one body I that could keep (of all the digital cameras I've owned) it would be the M8 but I can still appreciate the excellences of other cameras, esp. the 5D.

 

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

I would also not give up the 5D for certain (paid) work. In fact, for several reasons, its the very few cameras available that could have made this shot from a live theater performance of "Waiting For Godot". This is at IS0 1600, 70 - 200 IS f/2.8 at 140mm 1/50. Everything is inside a sound blimp - which is mandatory for live performances or live take movie stills. This is straight from the camera (CR2 original) - no noise reduction or extra sharpening applied.

 

BTW - That's Guy on the left

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[sean_reid]

You guys--this isn't film. As Homer Simpson says, Jeebus!

 

Every digital camera exposes differently. Sorry--but ISO 800 on a digicam is a guideline. If you don't have the external meters to check it out, then I'm sorry.

 

Read Sean's review if you want to see the difference between the Canons and the M8 in terms of ISO indication. They're both wrong; the Canons are more sensitive than they claim by a long way.

 

Hi Jamie,

 

They both are just a bit more sensitive than rated (1/3 stop). It's an asset, I think, but it's only 1/3 stop for each. There are quite a few 5D/M8 comparisons in that series. I haven't seen Tina Manley's thing yet but it sounds like her results are different from what I saw.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[Srf_Cast]

Lurking . Here is the problem just try and convince a 5d owner that the Canon 1dsMKII is the better camera and that arguement will go on forever. It comes simple to the fact that it cost 3200 dollars and for some unknown reason that is better than paying 7400 dollars on the 1dsMKII and damnit my 5d is better. i don't know what drugs are rubbing off that eyecup but there simply is no way to convince them that there maybe better out there. ROTFLMAO . I will bet 100 dollars this will go on past the weekend this thread.

Don't get me wrong i owned one and it sat quietly in my bag while the DMR did the work. It is a nice camera

 

You really have to make up your mind if you're lurking or posting LOL

In any case you're the only one in this thread who posts about the cost and that it is somehow debatable that the MKII is a better camera then 5D.

Let's stick to the original high ISO noise topic and samples. Sorry, but I can't see no amazing micro contrast anywhere, all I see is the noise in Leica images. The first 5D image shows severely blown out window showing some haze. There is no comparable Leica image, but all the other Leica windows look blown out too minus the haze.

[sean_reid]

I just had a chance to look at the Tina Manley comparison pictures. I know that Ms. Manley is well-respected and has been helpful to many photographers. The results seen in these comparisons are not consistent with what I have seen, having done various 5D/M8 comparisons for the reviews. There certainly is a difference between the two cameras at high ISO but its not well represented (at least for RAW files) in Ms. Manley's series. I'm not sure what her process and workflow were for these but I would urge people to, at least, look at other comparisons as well. There seem to be several of them out there.

 

Were these perhaps recorded as JPEGs?

 

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[mahler_one]

Andy,

 

you see I have been right.

 

Guy,

 

maybe a Zoom will be better for you.

 

If you have the M8 with TRI16-18-21 - 21 - 24 - 24shift - 28 - 35 - 50 - nocti - 75 - 90 -135 mm lenses you will need too much time to think about what lens to use and will miss a lot of opportunities while you are changing lenses.

 

I travel with Leica M (2 Bodies M6TTL (ISO100/400) + CV15 - 28/2.0asph. - 50/1.4 - 90/2.8 or CV15 - 28/2.0asph. - 35/2.0asph. - 90/2.8) and can take all pictures I want to.

For example: the difference between 28 and 24mm is one step.

VIEW-Magazin: Serie: Cuba 2004

 

I have also done a report on one week in Kiew just with one Nikon D200 + 12-24/4 - 24/2.8 - 50/1.4

Stefan M. Prager -photographie-

 

Leica of course has the best optics but the Kodak sensor is far away from being the best on the market.

 

Stefan

Nice work Stefan! Thanks so very much for taking the time to post your images. I hate to ignite another fire storm, but one really wonders if these images would look appreciably different if they were taken with the M8 or the Canon 5D!.

 

Edwin

[Guest guy_mancuso]

You really have to make up your mind if you're lurking or posting LOL

In any case you're the only one in this thread who posts about the cost and that it is somehow debatable that the MKII is a better camera then 5D.

Let's stick to the original high ISO noise topic and samples. Sorry, but I can't see no amazing micro contrast anywhere, all I see is the noise in Leica images. The first 5D image shows severely blown out window showing some haze. There is no comparable Leica image, but all the other Leica windows look blown out too minus the haze.

 

 

Ist i think I said the 1dsMKII and not the 1dMKII as far as micro contrast i would suggest putting your glasses on or look at some more M8 images, it's there is spades and frankly I would not even bother using these images as a comparision. they look like Putz work that makes no sense . Underexpose any image and bring it up and there is more noise. That is a fact.

 

 

Btw i do shoot high ISO stuff once in awhile when needed

[sungnee]

With the M8 the power of detail/noise arbitration remains with the photographer.

 

That is what a pro-level camera should do.

 

Leica should really do a much better job at explaining this.

 

Do a video, show the noise reduction slider going back and forth and how the noise/detail combination changes, and show why their design philosophy makes sense.

 

I am only posting this because I know Leica reads this forum.

[jrc]

I just had a chance to look at the Tina Manley comparison pictures. <snip> Were these perhaps recorded as JPEGs?

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

Sean,

They were all jpegs.

 

JC

[rvaubel]

Tina is a great photographer, but maybe something is wrong in her M8...

 

The M8 is not on par with 5D as far as clean high ISOs (what is...) but it's not so bad like in Tina's samples.

 

I just received my new M8 (latest firmware 1.09) and I get nothing like that at 1250 ISO, either Raw or Jpeg.

 

Below you'll find two links to 100% crops.

I set the camera to DNG+Jpeg, 1250 ISO, no IR filter. Artificial light.

 

The first crop is from the Jpeg (the camera has quite bad auto white balance btw...) and second from the DNG converted with RawDeveloper 1.6.1

No noise reduction applied.

 

Please copy the link and paste it into the address bar, otherwise you get a forbidden message... sorry

 

http://ct.pbase.com/o6/98/10898/1/71290148.bhbtuMX8.L6jpegcrop.jpg

 

http://ct.pbase.com/o6/98/10898/1/71289350.E2VYfHN3.L1000006crop.jpg

 

I'll let you be the judge...

 

These two files show what 1250 ISO looks like on the M8. For the record, I ran the 2nd one (100% crop DNG) thru Neat Image defaults

 

The 1st is before Neat Image. The 2nd is after Neat Image

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[KJB]

Sean,

They were all jpegs.

 

JC

 

Another flawed "test". My theory on this type of stuff is if you are going to do it then get it right b/c otherwise you are doing yourself and the larger community a disservice.

 

1. Shoot in RAW using a gray card

2. Correct for WB (especially indoors)

3. Get equivalent exposure! Use histogram or manual exposure.

4. Shoot on tripod to eliminate camera shake (especially indoors!)

5. Confirm proper focus. Make sure scene has enough depth to rule out back or front focus.

6. Get equivalent magnification. This can be done by using lenses of the appropriate focal length that compensates for a crop factor. Basically it means making sure the subject of comparison takes up the same % of the frame in each picture.

7. Use equivalent RAW processing software. This is hard to do but helps to use i.e. C1 for both shots

8. Use equivalent ISO. And once again need to get the exposure right!

9. Ensure consistent lighting between shots. Indoors not a problem but outdoors don't wait a few hours between shots.

10. Make sure you have properly calibrated camera bodies and lenses. This is a must.

11. I'm sure this list could go on and on but do everyone a favor and at least satisfy the majority of these before posting what you consider to be a legitimate and reliable comparison test. Equavalent exposure for example is critical to doing a high ISO comparison and was not even close here. WOW

[rvaubel]

And for the bookcase shot above I wasn't even trying hard. One of the things I love about the M8 files is the are so clean, the noise cleans up really well.

 

Rex

[reddawn]

Hiya Guy,

 

I think I've seen that review. The 5D does get noise filtered a bit at ISO 1600 and 3200 (before the RAW is written) but it isn't mush, it's just a bit softer. In the final sharpened files, however, it looks pretty darn good. The 5D at ISO 3200 at a wedding has saved my bacon more than once. As you know, I shoot with both the M8 and the 5D on my body. At 1600 or 2500/3200 (for color work that is going to a client) I prefer the 5D . Below that speed, I prefer the M8. In B&W, I'll happily take the M8 all the way to 2500 but I do it knowing that a "clean" file is not what I'm after. If I recall, you personally don't need to use high ISO much, right?

 

They're very different cameras but I wouldn't give up either one of them. The Leica does, however, have a very special kind of quality in its files that is unique. If I was forced to choose only one body I that could keep (of all the digital cameras I've owned) it would be the M8 but I can still appreciate the excellences of other cameras, esp. the 5D.

 

Thanks Sean, for putting in a voice of reason in this thread with regards to the "5D is mush" nonsense, and for putting across clearly the way you exploit the strengths of each body in actual use.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[sean_reid]

Another flawed "test". My theory on this type of stuff is if you are going to do it then get it right b/c otherwise you are doing yourself and the larger community a disservice.

 

1. Shoot in RAW using a gray card

2. Correct for WB (especially indoors)

3. Get equivalent exposure! Use histogram or manual exposure.

4. Shoot on tripod to eliminate camera shake (especially indoors!)

5. Confirm proper focus. Make sure scene has enough depth to rule out back or front focus.

6. Get equivalent magnification. This can be done by using lenses of the appropriate focal length that compensates for a crop factor. Basically it means making sure the subject of comparison takes up the same % of the frame in each picture.

7. Use equivalent RAW processing software. This is hard to do but helps to use i.e. C1 for both shots

8. Use equivalent ISO. And once again need to get the exposure right!

9. Ensure consistent lighting between shots. Indoors not a problem but outdoors don't wait a few hours between shots.

10. Make sure you have properly calibrated camera bodies and lenses. This is a must.

11. I'm sure this list could go on and on but do everyone a favor and at least satisfy the majority of these before posting what you consider to be a legitimate and reliable comparison test. Equavalent exposure for example is critical to doing a high ISO comparison and was not even close here. WOW

 

If only there was already a comparison like that for these two cameras...hmmm <G>

 

I'm with you on 9 out of 10 and factor them into my own comparison tests. #6 is a matter for debate because using two different focal length lenses with the same subject distance introduces a (sometimes significant) difference in depth of field even at F/8. My own tests of the M8 and 5D (over a month ago) kept field of view roughly equivalent for the first set and focal length equivalent for the second set. I'm tending the favor the latter now, having worked with the former for years. The problem, that some people seem not to understand, is that unless one controls the kinds of variables you list, the results will be anecdotal but not necessarily a valid comparison. I'm emphatically in favor of "real world" evaluation but a comparison test has to make sure that the variable is the camera (or camera/lens combination) and not other factors. If one doesn't control the confounding variables (to the extent possible) the results are of limited usefulness. There's a degree of basic scientific method in comparison testing. Ideally, one gathers both kinds of info.: controlled tests and results from normal use.

 

By the same token, any test of dynamic range that doesn't consider and factor in lens contrast also has limited usefulness. It call one what to expect with a given camera and a given lens...and perhaps *only* with that given lens.

 

Sean