comparison M8-DMR-5D-D200

[ptomsu]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

From what can be seen of these pictures, the clear winners for me are D200 followed closely by DMR.

 

I am positive, that this also reflects the general quality and results of all tested configurations, I know that many in the Leica Forum do NOT want to hear this. But in my own tests with D2X and DMR alway the D2X is a bit better performing and I am using high quality lenses from Nikon and Leica.

 

Having said this, I think that comparing the image quality alone is not the true story. Many who ill buy a M8 will do that because of RF, the size of camera and optics and because they own already a M system.

 

What this story tells us in the end of the day: all of the 10MP cameras above a certain level are pretty close in their results under normal conditions, but there are pretty high price differenes. So spending the extra money for some of these combinations is only justified by other parameters, but not basic image quality.

 

Peter

[lct]

...Anybody can experiment with sharpening and apply as much as he/she wants to each file.

One would need the original raw of tiff (or psd) files for this IMO.

[tom0511]

From what can be seen of these pictures, the clear winners for me are D200 followed closely by DMR.

 

I am positive, that this also reflects the general quality and results of all tested configurations, I know that many in the Leica Forum do NOT want to hear this. But in my own tests with D2X and DMR alway the D2X is a bit better performing and I am using high quality lenses from Nikon and Leica.

 

Having said this, I think that comparing the image quality alone is not the true story. Many who ill buy a M8 will do that because of RF, the size of camera and optics and because they own already a M system.

 

What this story tells us in the end of the day: all of the 10MP cameras above a certain level are pretty close in their results under normal conditions, but there are pretty high price differenes. So spending the extra money for some of these combinations is only justified by other parameters, but not basic image quality.

 

Peter

 

Peter,

I agree that size, weight and RF, as well as the optics are the reason for me to use the M8.

I wouldnt give the 1st place to the D200 (besides focusing accurancy in this image maybe).

 

I also agree that todays digital cameras from various brands do a pretty good job.

I also think some of todays zooms are quit remakably good. IMO SPecially the 17-55 Nikon performs great.

 

One other thing which is hard to test but important to me: bokeh and look of the unsharp area, and I think this is one area where the lenses of the M-System can score.

 

Price -Value is hard to judge anyways. Today some people pay more money for a Nikon Noct than you pay for a 50/1.4asph.

The Nikon 85/1.4 and 28/1.4 are not really cheap lenses as well.

 

I am just happy that I finally have a digital rangefinder with 10MP and quit good pixels.

[Artichoke]

Peter,

I agree that size, weight and RF, as well as the optics are the reason for me to use the M8.

snip

The Nikon 85/1.4 and 28/1.4 are not really cheap lenses as well.

snip

I am just happy that I finally have a digital rangefinder with 10MP and quit good pixels.

agree about your reasons for getting the M8 ...this are the reasons I am tempted to take the M8 plunge (providing I can find one!)

regarding your lens comments: these top shelf Nikkors are still a great deal less expensive (well maybe not the 28/1.4 now, but when I got mine it was) than Leica lenses

the M8's great advantage of course comes from it being an RF with all the considerable advantages of low light focus & compact size this gives

I am delighted to see how well the M8 performed in your comparison ...the pixels it produces appear quite fine indeed

some observations: the 5D is widely held to be an outstanding performer in low light, but I found the noise in the shadows of the background (left upper & the photographer in the center) greatest with the 5D and less with the M8 ...of course the ISO was not the same ...I was surprised to see how well the D200 did with shadows

the M8 handled the reds of the pepper quite well & seemed more saturated but the green of the cucumber seemed less saturated than the Canon or Nikon

overall an encouraging performance & quite a useful comparison for me ...now I just have to find me an M8

already got some lenses

[tom0511]

agree about your reasons for getting the M8 ...this are the reasons I am tempted to take the M8 plunge (providing I can find one!)

regarding your lens comments: these top shelf Nikkors are still a great deal less expensive (well maybe not the 28/1.4 now, but when I got mine it was) than Leica lenses

the M8's great advantage of course comes from it being an RF with all the considerable advantages of low light focus & compact size this gives

I am delighted to see how well the M8 performed in your comparison ...the pixels it produces appear quite fine indeed

some observations: the 5D is widely held to be an outstanding performer in low light, but I found the noise in the shadows of the background (left upper & the photographer in the center) greatest with the 5D and less with the M8 ...of course the ISO was not the same ...I was surprised to see how well the D200 did with shadows

the M8 handled the reds of the pepper quite well & seemed more saturated but the green of the cucumber seemed less saturated than the Canon or Nikon

overall an encouraging performance & quite a useful comparison for me ...now I just have to find me an M8

already got some lenses

 

There is allways the posibility to go Zeiss or CV and still get excellent lenses (from what one can read and see in the internet).

On the other side there is also a great used market for Leica lenses and if one takes some time one can find great deals sometimes.

[Guest magyarman]

You are correct, but if I do as much salt in each soup as I like it will be highly subjective and people will complain.

If the soup is without salt, you can out as much ´salt in it as YOU want.

 

Ok I thing that you dont understand what I mean. Becaus, I tell plain way: Look RAW files tell nothing except you gonna print exactly RAW file with no processus, oba who doing that? What is point to comparing digital cameras if comparing way does not meaning nothing to final resultat that is print? Each one camera got his own way processus RAW file that make best print. This how must to comparing 2 digital cameras: make it specific work flow what is need for best print from each one camera, than you comparing 2 prints.

[tom0511]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Ok I thing that you dont understand what I mean. Becaus, I tell plain way: Look RAW files tell nothing except you gonna print exactly RAW file with no processus, oba who doing that? What is point to comparing digital cameras if comparing way does not meaning nothing to final resultat that is print? Each one camera got his own way processus RAW file that make best print. This how must to comparing 2 digital cameras: make it specific work flow what is need for best print from each one camera, than you comparing 2 prints.

 

1) I agree in a way, but

2) what is needed for best print is very much up to personal taste

3) I dont vary that much when doing raw processing. I might have added a little more saturation except the Nikon shot, and a little sharpening. I would have added more sharpening to the 5d and d200 files and less to the M8 and DMR files.

[bayerische]

Your choise of lenses prohibits this test from being accurate.

 

On the 5D your using a Zoom, although a good one, it's not near primes quality.

[tom0511]

Your choise of lenses prohibits this test from being accurate.

 

On the 5D your using a Zoom, although a good one, it's not near primes quality.

 

The funny thing is that my Nikon 17-55 and also the Leica 28-90 are pretty close to the quality of primes. (Actually the 17-55 at 28 is better than my 28/1.4 at 28).

 

I am sure if you would use a good prime on the Canon that distorsion would be a little better, but the 24-105 is a sharp lens.

[rvaubel]

There is allways the posibility to go Zeiss or CV and still get excellent lenses (from what one can read and see in the internet).

On the other side there is also a great used market for Leica lenses and if one takes some time one can find great deals sometimes.

 

Your test is the best I have seen on the internet. The files are large enough to be meaningful. The fact that they are JPEGs is of little consequence for this type of test. Sharpening and noise reduction algorythms work on large JPEGs just as well as on RAWs.

 

Thank God someone uploaded some files that are not "optimized". You are right that the amount of sharpening required is very subjective. In comparing the files, I always optimize the sharpening to my taste, before making comparisons between cameras or lenses. When someone has "pre-sharpened" the files to their taste it is almost impossible to make any meaningful comparisons.

 

Again, thank you, thank you, thank you. I I'm still waiting for my M8 but these files give me some real data to play with. Pixel peeping at its finest

 

Rex

[brunom]

John

 

Thanks for clarifying what CS3 referred to.

 

Bruno

[marknorton]

Pixel peeping at its finest

 

Rex, I'll look forward to your conclusions, the M8 shots look soft to me...

[graham_mitchell]

I had a good look before seeing which camera was used for which. My first pick was the DMR. Not too surprising -I love the results from that device!

[rvaubel]

Rex, I'll look forward to your conclusions, the M8 shots look soft to me...

 

That's what I thought at first. But the focus on the milk carton is a little off on the "no filter' sample. The focus is actually a little forword. the top of the red pepper is pretty good but shows a little JPEG artifacting but still sharp. The top of the onion is pretty good. A lttle sharpening helps too. I like .9 radius and about 150 strength in CS2.

 

I am pretty impressed by the M8 but I haven't really had time to look at the others.

 

Rex

[rvaubel]

That's what I thought at first. But the focus on the milk carton is a little off on the "no filter' sample. The focus is actually a little forword. the top of the red pepper is pretty good but shows a little JPEG artifacting but still sharp. The top of the onion is pretty good. A lttle sharpening helps too. I like .9 radius and about 150 strength in CS2.

 

I am pretty impressed by the M8 but I haven't really had time to look at the others.

 

Rex

 

This is my sharpened version of the M8 shot without the filter. This is plenty sharp to me. I couldn't do any better for with the 5D. This is at 100%

 

Rex

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!