M8 and Canon 5D Comparison Pix and High Isos

[tom0511]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I would be interested in reading at least 5.

 

 

dont have the M8 yet but can speak about rangefinder in general (currently have M6, M7 and rd1...and also a 5d):

 

Here some advantages of a rangefinder:

1) unobstrusive because of small size of body and lenses (important IMO) example: 85/1.2 vs 50/1.4asph (or Noctilux)

2) very short shutter lag (My M6 is faster than my d2x faster than a d200 faster than a 5d)

3) you see the action around the frame and therefore its easier to get the right moment (instead of seeing 95% of the frame)

4) no mirror slap

5) no blackout when you take the image

6) more accurate wide angle focusing

7) higher quality wide angles available

8) M8: vignetting correction allready done in raw (vs the 5D where you have to do it in post)

9) Lower shutter-noise

10) lower weight to carry a set of lenses

11) smaller size-> easier to carry

12) consistent support of cameras even for older lenses. Try to use a 50 yearold Canon lens on a 5d

13) bright viewfinder even when you use f4 lenses

14) posibility to use lenses from Zeiss, Leica, VC and other without having to modify the camera (no things like "mirror shave" needed)

15) simple user interface, easier to concentrate on the image instead of wondering about how to change settings

16)M8: no AA-Filter => sharp images

17) M8: great Dynamic range

18) metal body

19) great built-quality of lenses (brass etc.)

20) lenses keep their value if you buy them used

 

Of course we could aslo find 20 points where the 5d has advantages.

 

So is this really about the question, if the 5d IQ or the M8 IQ is a little better?

[macusque]

Rex,

 

the image did clean up very well in Neat Image.

I have Noise Ninjia but I haven't used it yet on the M8, need to give it a try!

[stunsworth]

Of course we could aslo find 20 points where the 5d has advantages.

 

Indeed, both cameras are excellent but they are different. The idea is to choose the one (if you have to) that suits your shooting style - and pocket - the best. For me that's a rangefinder, for someone else it's an SLR. The world is big enough to accomodate both!

[Jamie Roberts]

Jamie,

 

I dunno, try taking the filters off the 85/1.2, stop it down to F8 and ***use the sharpening in DPP***, and then tell me again what you think of the 85/1.2 re. sharpness - I really don't think my 75 Summi and the M8 are in the same league as either my 1Ds2 or my 1Ds when the lens gets stopped down (ie. when you are actually looking at detail). The 5D has never impressed me for detail somehow, even though it's known to be the reigning price/weight/quality ratio champion. Although it's clear that the M8 beats it re weight/quality.

 

Edmund

 

Edmund--just a friendly dig They're all wonderful lenses.

 

Honestly, though, it's exactly stopped down--and completely filter-less (I never use them)--that I'm talking about, and I'm no stranger to DPP; The 75 lux is pretty sharp even wide open; both the 80 R Lux and the 85 Canon L are "softer" wide open (though the Canon is way sharper than the Leica at 1.4, no doubt about it).

 

But beyond f2, I find the opposite; the 75 lux and the 85 lux are actually sharper than the Canon on a 1ds2 in prints (my 5d is still pretty new).

 

The 80 Lux--on the 1ds2--has the distinct advantage of not producing green / purple fringing shooting high contrast into the light as well, which detracts somewhat from the 85L's excellent resolution

 

And this is probably more of a contrast statement / system statement than, say, a MTF statement, where, I think, the Canon reigns)--even with DPP (which I don't like because it doesn't hold highlights as well as, say, C1).

 

FWIW, the 5d is definitely not as good as the 1ds2, in my book, except on a price / performance ratio; I had two 1ds2s which are both sold now (also waiting to see what Canon brings out!). The 5d is now a backup / low light camera for the DMR (and M8, which is a different thing).

 

DPP truly is a marvel on Canon files--we agree there. But I have a feeling from looking at prints from the M8 that they're more like the 1ds2 than anything else I've owned (they're not really comparible, except in controlled light, to the DMR, because noise affects the DMR so much more than the M8.

 

In final prints, the M8 shots look sharper / contrastier to my eyes... but that could be any number of workflow variables, too...

 

BTW--and sort of completely off topic--I just saw the first few shots of the Canon 50 1.2L. Definitely worth a look, I think

[AlanG]

Shooting manual exposure in RAW (at equivalent ISO) to get the two exposures as close as possible on the camera's histogram and then doing fine adjustments in C1 EC to get the histograms as close as possible is in my opinion the best practical method. Compensating exposure by adjusting ISO in my opinion would defeat the purpose of this test that is comparing high ISO performance.

 

Just because you set each camera at ISO 1250 doesn't mean that they both truly are set for the same snsitivity.

 

If you do it that way, you'll have no idea what the ISO of the camera actually is. The way ISO was tested with film was to shoot a step wedge on a sensitometer. Then you'd have to process it and take measurements in order to make sure the D log E curve meets the ISO standards for base + fog and gamma. The whole characteristic curve had to match the ISO standard. Apparently with digital, each manufacturer marks the ISO any way they want. So until someone first adjusts the two cameras via their ISO settings to a matching sensitivity response, any comparison of noise will be prettty meaningless.

[tmanley]

Hi, Guys - Thanks to Elliot for letting me know this conversation was going on about my experiment. I think a lot of you are misunderstanding what I did and why. I've been using Leica M's professionally for over 25 years. I often take photos in very low light and used my fast Leica lenses and pushed B&W film to high ISOs. I love Leica M's and was very reluctant to give them up when I moved to digital. I chose Canon because they had the reputation of performing best in low light, but I didn't sell any of my M cameras or lenses. I used a loaner M8 right after they came out and ordered one immediately. As soon as it arrived I began testing it, like I do any new equipment. This experiment was just one test. It was intended to give me a starting place, not a finishing one.

 

The shots from the Canon 5D and Leica M8 were both from RAW files. I did absolutely no adjusting when converting the RAW and I used Capture One which comes with the M8. I wanted to see the unmanipulated results from each camera. I did say to the LUG when I posted the results that I wasn't sure what this experiment would prove since all digital photos require some adjusting - white balance, sharpening, noise removal - whatever; however, I didn't want to test the conversion software. I had already done that with another experiment:

 

comparisons Photo Gallery by Tina Manley at pbase.com

 

And I got such a wide range from each software I tested, I didn't want to throw any of the variables of the different conversion software into this experiment. I know I can get better results from the M8 at 2500 using white balance, noise removers, etc.

 

L1041058.jpg photo - Tina Manley photos at pbase.com

 

but that is not what I was testing this time. This was just an experiment. Just like I used to do with different films, developers, temperatures, and times. All this particular experiment was intended to do is give me a starting place. I never intended for anyone to consider these high ISO experiments a final result for either camera. I'm not going to stop using my M8 for high ISO photos but I will be more careful with it and with the processing of the digital files. I've learned, from these experiments and suggestions from others, that the M8 will do better underexposing and using lower ISOs. That will definitely affect how I use the camera in the future. I'm still learning to use it and will continue with more experiments before I depend on the M8 exclusively for any assignments.

 

Thanks!

 

Tina

images by Tina Manley

[stunsworth]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi Tina, welcome to the forum. You may see one or two familiar names if you hang around for a while :-)

[jrc]

How do you know? In the initial post it says all files were "opened with Capture 1".

 

BTW, if they were really JPEG's it could also be assumed that the 5D would have produced better results too shooting in RAW.

 

This is my mistake; Tina says later that they were shot in RAW and the converted to jpg in C1. I was misled by the fact that under each photo it says .jpg -- most people don't post that on a web page unless it was SHOT as .jpg, understanding that if it's displayed on the web, it almost certainly is a jpg at that point.

 

In any case, my bad.

 

JC

[Guest umb]

28/2.0 asph

vc 28/1.9

 

both 32mm equivalent

 

 

???

 

28 * 1.33 = 37.24

 

At least Excel calculates it this way, what kind of math's are you doing?

[messsucher]

28/2.0 asph

vc 28/1.9

 

both 32mm equivalent

 

 

28 x 1,33 = 37,24

 

isn't it?

 

 

edit: Oh i'm sorry. umb was a "little" faster. But it seems, he uses the same calculator as i do.

[KJB]

Agreed, hence the use of the word "equivalent" in my comments.

 

Just because you set each camera at ISO 1250 doesn't mean that they both truly are set for the same snsitivity.

 

If you do it that way, you'll have no idea what the ISO of the camera actually is. The way ISO was tested with film was to shoot a step wedge on a sensitometer. Then you'd have to process it and take measurements in order to make sure the D log E curve meets the ISO standards for base + fog and gamma. The whole characteristic curve had to match the ISO standard. Apparently with digital, each manufacturer marks the ISO any way they want. So until someone first adjusts the two cameras via their ISO settings to a matching sensitivity response, any comparison of noise will be prettty meaningless.

[eronald]

Edmund--just a friendly dig They're all wonderful lenses.

 

BTW--and sort of completely off topic--I just saw the first few shots of the Canon 50 1.2L. Definitely worth a look, I think

 

Maybe the 400D w 50/1.2 is an ideal price/weight/performance combo

I have enough Canon lenses to last me; in fact I think it's Canon sales time.

 

For now I'm getting sub-5D (or maybe 30D ?) quality but not 1D or 1Ds2 quality out of the M8/75 Summi combo in good light, and in bad light it all falls apart.

 

I just sent the camera to Leica anyway (banding fix) and asked them to check the sensor at Hi-ISO. Some people here are having more luck with the M8 than others - good luck to them !

 

In a way the big Canons have spoilt me. I guess I'll have to move to digital MF now for a quality boost. It's not the Leicas which are bad, it's those other bodies which are too good ...

 

Edmund

[reddawn]

Hi, Guys - Thanks to Elliot for letting me know this conversation was going on about my experiment.

 

hi tina, welcome to the forum.... u will find that it's not as friendly as a place as the LUG sometimes, but interesting nonetheless

[thrid]

I appreciate Tina taking the time to do this test, but at the end of the day we all hopefully understand that if you take a great picture, no one will give a hoot how grainy it is.

 

 

PS: Tina is a great shooter; everyone should take a look at her work from South America. Great stuff.

[tom0511]

28 x 1,33 = 37,24

 

isn't it?

 

 

edit: Oh i'm sorry. umb was a "little" faster. But it seems, he uses the same calculator as i do.

 

ok, you convinced me

[abrewer]

Just browsing through here...as I have no experience with either camera and nothing to add except:

 

Welcome Tina and John to the Forum!

 

Thanks.

 

Allan