EP-2 vs M8 as budget, spare or 2nd camera

[Ivo_Afrikanac]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The 4/3 sensor is 12.3 X 13mm = 224.9 mm/sq - crop factor 2.0

 

The APS-H sensor as used in the Leica M8 is 27 X 18 mm = 486 mm/sq crop factor 1.33

 

As you can see, the Leica M8 sensor is more than twice the size as measured by either area, or by diagonal (for crop factor).

 

Other common sensor sizes are:

 

The APS-C sensor as used by Canon is 22.5 X 15 mm = 337.5 mm/sq crop factor 1.6

 

The APS-C sensor as used by Nikon is 23.7 X 15.5 mm = 367.35 mm/sq crop factor 1.5

 

The APS-H sensor as used by Canon is 28.7 X 19.1 mm = 548.17 mm/sq crop factor 1.30

 

The FF sensor as used by Nikon is 35.9 X 24 mm = 861.6 mm/sq crop factor 1.0

 

The FF sensor as used by Leica is 36 X 24 mm = 864 mm/sq crop factor 1.0

 

Most Medium Format Digital Sensors are 48 X 36 mm exactly twice the size of FF 35 mm

 

Regards .... Harold

 

Thanks. I stand corrected, although 17.3 x 13 = 224.9

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Jerry_R]

I still think M9 is the greatest tool (I realy wish to have one), but should recognize it is a compromise as well, as all things in life.

Yeah, absolutely, but we talk about M8, not M9. I do have M9 and see a lot better IQ against u43. But my friend has M8 - and I see NONE advantages in terms of IQ against u43.

 

In my eyes - M8 is just for Leica fans, who have lenses or just wanted to move from analog to digital.

But from digital camera maturity perspective, and in comparison to other digital cameras on the market - is very, very poor device, no doubts created by Leica as intermediate solution on digital rangefinders path.

 

That is what I wanted to explain to oryginal poster.

 

The 4/3 sensor is 12.3 X 13mm = 224.9 mm/sq - crop factor 2.0

The APS-H sensor as used in the Leica M8 is 27 X 18 mm = 486 mm/sq crop factor 1.33

Yes, I still would like to point, that what matters, and what Mr. Wrotniak tried to highlight - is DIFFERENT ASPECT RATION. APS is simply wider. If you cut off side parts - the difference is almost forgetable. Of course u43 has bigger DOF.

 

* * *

PS:

CRaig Mod - Anapurna with GF1: Annapurna Moonrise: Night Photography at Base Camp

David Clapp - Landscape: Panasonic GF-1 in the Landscape

[diogenis]

Omg Jerry, I suggest you prepare and get dressed in your full armored, bullet protected suit for the upcoming assault you're gonna get in a couple of hours

[tom0511]

Yeah, absolutely, but we talk about M8, not M9. I do have M9 and see a lot better IQ against u43. But my friend has M8 - and I see NONE advantages in terms of IQ against u43.

 

In my eyes - M8 is just for Leica fans, who have lenses or just wanted to move from analog to digital.

But from digital camera maturity perspective, and in comparison to other digital cameras on the market - is very, very poor device, no doubts created by Leica as intermediate solution on digital rangefinders path.

 

That is what I wanted to explain to oryginal poster.

 

 

Yes, I still would like to point, that what matters, and what Mr. Wrotniak tried to highlight - is DIFFERENT ASPECT RATION. APS is simply wider. If you cut off side parts - the difference is almost forgetable. Of course u43 has bigger DOF.

 

* * *

PS:

CRaig Mod - Anapurna with GF1: Annapurna Moonrise: Night Photography at Base Camp

David Clapp - Landscape: Panasonic GF-1 in the Landscape

 

I dont agree with your theory. Having used M8, M9 and GH1 I would say the IQ difference between the micro 4/3 and the M8 is bigger than that between the M8 and M9.

I am talking about dynamic range, micro detail and tonality.

Cheers, Tom

[haroldp]

Thanks. I stand corrected, although 17.3 x 13 = 224.9

Thank You, I mistyped it is 17.3 X 13

 

Regards ... Harold

[Jerry_R]

I dont agree with your theory. Having used M8, M9 and GH1 I would say the IQ difference between the micro 4/3 and the M8 is bigger than that between the M8 and M9.

I am talking about dynamic range, micro detail and tonality.

Let it stay, as it is is. For me above is joke, for you my observations are joke.

 

I would suggest Ivo Afrikanac find an opportunity to get E-P1 and M8 for one week, shoot with both.

But probably LEICA lenses will drive his decision, I absolutely understand that.

 

Cheers!

[jsrockit]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

To me, an M8 makes more sense.

[brianv]

The Leica M3 is the perfect 2nd camera to a Leica M2.

 

Regards ... Harold

 

I could not possibly argue with that. I bought the M3 first, followed by the M2.

 

Same with the Nikon SP, followed by an S3.

 

And just to request: has anyone used an M9 with the Hot Mirror Filter left in place on the lens? Does it cause a problem? I can try one on a 24/2.8 on the Nikon.

[tom0511]

Let it stay, as it is is. For me above is joke, for you my observations are joke.

 

I would suggest Ivo Afrikanac find an opportunity to get E-P1 and M8 for one week, shoot with both.

But probably LEICA lenses will drive his decision, I absolutely understand that.

 

Cheers!

 

I have the oportunity to shoot a gh1 every time I want and own both a M8 and M9.

You call it a joke an I beliebe my eyes more than your words.

Micro 4/3 is fine but M8 delievers better IQ.

Anyways, using both and judging on own impression is probably the best thing one can do.

[tom in mpls]

The 4/3 sensor is 17.3 X 13mm = 224.9 mm/sq - crop factor 2.0

 

The APS-H sensor as used in the Leica M8 is 27 X 18 mm = 486 mm/sq crop factor 1.33

 

As you can see, the Leica M8 sensor is more than twice the size as measured by either area, or by diagonal (for crop factor).

 

The APS-C sensor as used by Canon is 22.5 X 15 mm = 337.5 mm/sq crop factor 1.6

 

The APS-C sensor as used by Nikon is 23.7 X 15.5 mm = 367.35 mm/sq crop factor 1.5

 

The APS-H sensor as used by Canon is 28.7 X 19.1 mm = 548.17 mm/sq crop factor 1.30

 

The FF sensor as used by Nikon is 35.9 X 24 mm = 861.6 mm/sq crop factor 1.0

 

The FF sensor as used by Leica is 36 X 24 mm = 864 mm/sq crop factor 1.0

 

Most Medium Format Digital Sensors are 48 X 36 mm exactly twice the size of FF 35

Just for amusement, what size are typica P&S sensors?

[jonoslack]

Just for amusement, what size are typica P&S sensors?

 

Hi Tom

I rather like the concept of 'pixel density' in these discussions - clearly, the significance of the smallness of the sensor relates to this. I think it's a great deal more relevant than the sensor size, in that it also takes into account the MP: Here are some figures:

 

Eos 1D Mk IV: 3.1MP/cm2

Eos 7D: 5.4MP/cm2

Canon G11 23mp/cm2

Canon A3100: 43mp/cm2

Olympus SP-800: 50mp/cm2

Olympus EP2: 5.1Mp/cm2

Nikon D3s: 1.4mp/cm2

Nikon D3000: 2.7mp/cm2

Nikon D300S: 3.3mp/cm2

Nikon D3x: 2.8mp/cm2

Leica X1: 3.3mp/cm2

Leica M8: 2.1mp/cm2

Leica M9: 2.1mp/cm2

 

So, significant staging posts:

1.4mp Nikon D3s

2.1mp Leica M8/M9

3.1mp Canon 1ds Mk Iv

3.3mp Leica X1 & Nikon D300

5.1mp Olympus EP1, Panasonic GF1 etc.

23mp Canon G11 (that is a very big gap

50mp Olympus SP800

 

Figures taken from dPreview (typos are my very own.)

 

I think that the point of this is that m4/3 is less, but in the same ball camp of all the cropped sensor dSLR cameras - moving to 'point and shoot' cameras - even the much lauded Canon G11 is a huge gap.

[tom in mpls]

An even better comparison would be individual pixel diameter. Isn't that part of the equation with MF backs?

[250swb]

The 'Amateur Photographer' magazine last April 09 did a comparison test between the Nikon D3 and D300 and the Panasonic G1, and the simple results are that the Panasonic with its higher pixel pitch has a higher resolution than either, whether using a common Sigma test lens (which the m4/3 sensor isn't even designed for), or the Panasonic kit lens.

 

So there is no doubt that m4/3 can resolve detail better than a typical high quality 12mp full frame sensor. Of course DR etc are an issue. But between then and now the GF1 and Olympus EP-2/EP-1 have moved on again in DR. So the gap isn't so great between an M8 in simple IQ terms.

 

Steve

[jonoslack]

An even better comparison would be individual pixel diameter. Isn't that part of the equation with MF backs?

 

HI Tom

I think density is better than diameter, in that it's a function of area rather than just linear.

[tom in mpls]

HI Tom

I think density is better than diameter, in that it's a function of area rather than just linear.

 

Both, I think. Larger pixels should be superior to smaller pixels of the same density.

[haroldp]

The 'Amateur Photographer' magazine last April 09 did a comparison test between the Nikon D3 and D300 and the Panasonic G1, and the simple results are that the Panasonic with its higher pixel pitch has a higher resolution than either, whether using a common Sigma test lens (which the m4/3 sensor isn't even designed for), or the Panasonic kit lens.

 

So there is no doubt that m4/3 can resolve detail better than a typical high quality 12mp full frame sensor. Of course DR etc are an issue. But between then and now the GF1 and Olympus EP-2/EP-1 have moved on again in DR. So the gap isn't so great between an M8 in simple IQ terms.

 

Steve

 

Steve:

 

I have been unable to find the report you cite, so I apologize in advance if I am incorrectly inferring the test conditions.

 

That being said, It is not valid to test sensors of different sizes with the same lens, the sensor with the smallest pixel pitch will always win this. In effect they are 'cropping' the larger sensor to the size of the smallest. Your cellphone would beat them all if they could mount the lens.

 

When using sensors of differing sizes in a real photographic situation, the focal length of the lens used will be adjusted by the photographer to get the same field if view, hence the 'crop factor', and that is how they should be tested,.

 

One valid test would be with a 75mm lens on the D3 (or D700, or M9), a 50mm lens on the D300, and a 37.5mm lens on the 4/3 sensor, then they will cover the same frame area from the same distance.

 

I actually use A D3x, A D700, a D300, and an Olympus E-3 ( and an M9 and M8 )(for different situations ) all with the best lenses available from each manufacturer. In fact I believe the Olympus lenses I use to be very slightly sharper than the Nikons. Most likely, correcting for a smaller image circle lets the lens designers do this.

 

When photographing the same covered frame from the same distance, The D3x has the most resolution, followed by the D700, followed by the D300, followed by the E-3. It is not hard to tell on a 24 X 36 ( or 24 X 32 ) print.

 

They are all very good, and acceptable for most situations. Indistinguishable on an 11 X 17 size print.

 

I hope this is helpful:

 

Regards ... Harold

[Jerry_R]

Micro 4/3 is fine but M8 delievers better IQ.

As you say so, it means you did not push u43 to its limits. Maybe you used JPGs? As you say, you use different cameras for different purposes. That explains clearly your approach and how you treat u43.

I was using u43 several months, after selling 5D II. I had no other camera at that time. I was using it hardly in different conditions. I processed RAWs always. Maybe that explains our different look on IQ.

You also do not mention higer ISO quality - where M8 is really FAR behind such E-P1. For some people it matters, for some not of course.

 

Just for amusement, what size are typica P&S sensors?

 

[diogenis]

Basically IQ is directly coupled to how big the sensor behind your lens is. And to get the less possible noise, how big is also a single pixel on that sensor. And this is why what Jono shows is important.

However, as you enlarge sensors you also need larger lenses and this is not easily done, because it leads to weight. So we have to sacrifice here.

The problem with very small sensors is, that you need a super duper lens in quality to record fine details, because the sensor area is small, and because that you also get a lot of noise.

This is why the D3s is being regarded as #1 night champion, while on the exact opposite is a Canon G11.

The u4/3 is a decent camera system which begins it;s career with a small sensor, and therefore a handicap. However, there are also other important features on a camera instead of IQ: weight, volume, lenses, video, ease of use etc... But don't try to convince us that a PEN2 can get better IQ than M8/9 it simply isn't.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Ivo_Afrikanac]

Thanks all, it was really interesting hearing all thoughts and facts.

I'm sticking around...

[250swb]

Steve:

 

I have been unable to find the report you cite, so I apologize in advance if I am incorrectly inferring the test conditions.

 

That being said, It is not valid to test sensors of different sizes with the same lens, the sensor with the smallest pixel pitch will always win this. In effect they are 'cropping' the larger sensor to the size of the smallest. Your cellphone would beat them all if they could mount the lens.

 

When using sensors of differing sizes in a real photographic situation, the focal length of the lens used will be adjusted by the photographer to get the same field if view, hence the 'crop factor', and that is how they should be tested,.

 

One valid test would be with a 75mm lens on the D3 (or D700, or M9), a 50mm lens on the D300, and a 37.5mm lens on the 4/3 sensor, then they will cover the same frame area from the same distance.

 

I actually use A D3x, A D700, a D300, and an Olympus E-3 ( and an M9 and M8 )(for different situations ) all with the best lenses available from each manufacturer. In fact I believe the Olympus lenses I use to be very slightly sharper than the Nikons. Most likely, correcting for a smaller image circle lets the lens designers do this.

 

When photographing the same covered frame from the same distance, The D3x has the most resolution, followed by the D700, followed by the D300, followed by the E-3. It is not hard to tell on a 24 X 36 ( or 24 X 32 ) print.

 

They are all very good, and acceptable for most situations. Indistinguishable on an 11 X 17 size print.

 

I hope this is helpful:

 

Regards ... Harold

 

Harold, I just read the article (11 April 2009), I didn't do the test. But after their previous debacle when testing 4/3 sensors compared to APSC and FF (when they didn't realize the 4/3 was designed for telecentric lenses) they did go out of their way this time to make the test even. So when I said 'they used the same lens' I should have been more clear and said it was a zoom lens, and different focal lengths were used to achieve parity. They then retested with the OEM lenses for each camera set to give equal coverage. So the images were not 'cropped' as you say, yet the result was still in favour of the G1.

 

The Olympus E3 sensor (and I do use an E3 as my main DSLR) is most definitely not the same sensor as the that in the Panasonic G1 which they tested. The G1's sensor is far superior in DR. So comparisons between the E3, D3, and M8 are valid, but its not the same thing as comparing them to the current crop of m4/3 cameras. It is now four generations of development ago that the E3's 4/3 sensor was introduced and we are now discussing m4/3 sensors with much higher DR and much weaker AA filters. So while you are justifiably saying you've seen proof that the Olympus E3 isn't nearly as good as the Leica M8 in IQ, its not a mantra that stands up in the world of today. I use 4/3 and m4/3 cameras and Leica M9 pretty well daily, and m4/3 is not far off the M9 in fair but unscientific tests that involve looking at prints rather than pixel peeping.....

 

Steve