johnjs Posted March 9, 2007 Share #41 Posted March 9, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Depends a bit where you look. The M8 is more to the side and reflects more of the light sources in some places. I would like to see two pictures from the exact same spot to remove this variable. Perhaps the D200 could use a better lens for this shot, although to be honest, I do think it is fair to compare Nikon's best 50 to Leica's cheapest, regardless of price. If that is what Nikon wants to sell you, with no better alternative, then they have to accept the criticism. I agree, this is the 50mm lens Nikon sells at the moment, and for what it's worth, probably little, internet rumor has it that Nikon has developed a new 50 for the also rumored D3 full-frame or nearly full frame (1.1 crop) camera with around 18 megapixels. What were also comparing here is an APS-C DX format sensor to an APS-H sensor which has roughly 30% larger pixels. That may be responsible for some of the M8's better dynamic range/contrast along with the 14bit processing (or 16bit or 8bit, depending on how you look at it). Clarkvision.com has some fascinating articles on the relative dynamic range of camera sensors - the results are suprising and one might gain a new appreciation of your old D70 or 20D. The D200 has reportedly a quite strong IR filter/aa filter package (Rorslett review of the camera) while the M8 has a thin IR filter and no aa in front of the sensor (I assume this was an IR-cut shot with the M8, or was none used?). I'm not sure it's terribly meaningful to compare the essentially unadjusted RAW output of two cameras, other than here it appears the M8's RAW output doesn't seem to need much adjustment other than the default, that at least LR applies. Perhaps Capture NX or C1 would provide a different take? As Alexander stated in the originating post, "nothing scientific...two great cameras" so it's an interesting comparison which illustrates some of these issues between two distinctly different cameras which basically share only one thing in common, the number of megapixels in their CCD's. I think it's safe to say that Leica has gotten a couple things exceedingly "right" about the way they spec'd the sensor, concepts they may have incorporated from the DMR experience. This thread is of particular notice to me as I'm thinking about getting the ARRI/Zeiss 100mm Makro-Planar ZF when it becomes available this summer. I'm hoping the D200 is up to the lens. best-John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 9, 2007 Posted March 9, 2007 Hi johnjs, Take a look here M8 VS D200 (Side By Side). I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Riley Posted March 9, 2007 Share #42 Posted March 9, 2007 not to be condescending but what would an acceptable RAW format comparison look like ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnjs Posted March 9, 2007 Share #43 Posted March 9, 2007 not to be condescending butwhat would an acceptable RAW format comparison look like ? No, that's okay Rob, actually I find this RAW comparison acceptable and illustrative. I guess my point was that I'd be interested in seeing the two RAW images put through the various RAW converters (including Nikon's NX) to see if the D200's output could be improved relative the M8's very good default result. best-John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
atufte Posted March 9, 2007 Author Share #44 Posted March 9, 2007 Alexander, the macromedia presentation does not resize in IE6. Hence the top part of the macro p. dissappears under the the buttons & address bar and the image buttons hide behind the status bar. Thanks for the comparison. regards Jim Ok, so that's why some people can't see the info....? Ok for those that can't see the the info, here it is: Leica ISO 160/Nikon ISO 100 Summicron 50/2@f/11@1.sec/Nikkor 50/1.4@f/11@1.sec Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisC Posted March 9, 2007 Share #45 Posted March 9, 2007 Alexander - I see what others are seeing, but I was surprised you opted for the diffraction limiting zone of f11. There is another interpretation to be had than the popular one repeated here however. The D200 is a disposable camera which is 28% the price of the M8, has functionality with a vast array of lenses, the superb built in facility to accurately trigger remote flash units, and other assets too obvious to need mentioning. By my reckoning, the D200 is an absolute bargain. ..................Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted March 9, 2007 Share #46 Posted March 9, 2007 Alexander-- Hang tough! You posted an interesting comparison with equipment you had at hand, and now a lot of us (including me) are saying "well, why that aperture?" or "well, why that angle?" or "well, why that focus point?" or "well, why that lens?" or "well, why that camera?" Well, I say hats off to you for the post. You said at the top of the thread that this wasn't a scientific comparison. You've shown me a lot, and I've learned also from the responses. Thanks for the comparison! --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnjs Posted March 9, 2007 Share #47 Posted March 9, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Alexander - I see what others are seeing, but I was surprised you opted for the diffraction limiting zone of f11. There is another interpretation to be had than the popular one repeated here however. The D200 is a disposable camera which is 28% the price of the M8, has functionality with a vast array of lenses, the superb built in facility to accurately trigger remote flash units, and other assets too obvious to need mentioning. By my reckoning, the D200 is an absolute bargain. ..................Chris Plus it does well in Antarctica! I second HC's comments also. best-John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
atufte Posted March 9, 2007 Author Share #48 Posted March 9, 2007 Alexander--Hang tough! You posted an interesting comparison with equipment you had at hand, and now a lot of us (including me) are saying "well, why that aperture?" or "well, why that angle?" or "well, why that focus point?" or "well, why that lens?" or "well, why that camera?" Well, I say hats off to you for the post. You said at the top of the thread that this wasn't a scientific comparison. You've shown me a lot, and I've learned also from the responses. Thanks for the comparison! --HC That's the spirit :-) As i stated before, i love, and use both camera's so im happy either way.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
deltoid1 Posted March 10, 2007 Share #49 Posted March 10, 2007 While I don't expect the M8 to be beaten in such a test, I do think that the test was not quite fair. It is known that to get the best results, you need some sharpening with Canon and Nikon cameras. It is also known that they can tolerate more sharpening than the Leica. The angle of view is slightly different, which makes it impossible to compare the detail in the shadows, because the two shots reflect the light differently. The "missing" Japan in the M8 shot is an example of this. I am not making excuses for the Nikon, but just wanted to make these points. With a little sharpening, the shots should be very close. With the same angle of view, we could then compare detail in the shadows. Yes,I noticed those differences right off. It is difficult to compare two raw files. Being raw from two different sensors, one without an AA filter, each file would need to be processed differently to bring out the best of each. No doubt the Nikon image would benefit from a bit of USM or SmartSharpening. The Nikon image should receive a curves adjustment to bring it up to contrastier leica image. It would be nice to have the same angle of view in the images too. I do notice a bit of CA on the Leica image. I don't know how anyone could jump to the "cleaned its clock" without see the changes in processing I mentioned. One simply cannot compare raw to raw using default settings in a converter. Every converter has a different effect on a particular camera's raw file. The comparison wouild probably be different using a differnt converter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted March 10, 2007 Share #50 Posted March 10, 2007 so i guess there are 2 ways of looking at it a utility RAW conversion in the same circumstances, pretty much out of the box. I think thats what happened here or an optimised conversion for both i still think the results are valid and obvious unless someone is happy to say LR does the best job of RAW conversion for M8, but that sounds like a stretch Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rona!d Posted March 10, 2007 Share #51 Posted March 10, 2007 Sorry, to me the M8 pictures really look a bit oversharpen, in some shots small artefacts. I could prefer the Nikon shots although they are not perfect. But I would better go for another RAW-converting routine with the M-shots to improove results. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted March 10, 2007 Share #52 Posted March 10, 2007 As 1 second exposure times were used, vibration could be a minor factor. Were both cameras well supported on a sturdy tripod? Did you pre-release the mirror on the D200? Additionally, I concur with some others who stated that the Nikon shot looks like it could use more unsharp masking. Why not try to adjust both files to show the maximum quality out of each camera? Are the raw files available for download? I applaud you for making this comparison test if it truly is well controlled. However, a definitive comparison between cameras would require shooting a variety of different types of images to give us a total view of how each camera can perform. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Johnston Posted March 10, 2007 Share #53 Posted March 10, 2007 You're right! Nothing scientific. A comparison between a $6400.00 rig and a $2000.00 one. index Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
atufte Posted March 10, 2007 Author Share #54 Posted March 10, 2007 As 1 second exposure times were used, vibration could be a minor factor. Were both cameras well supported on a sturdy tripod? Did you pre-release the mirror on the D200? Additionally, I concur with some others who stated that the Nikon shot looks like it could use more unsharp masking. Why not try to adjust both files to show the maximum quality out of each camera? Are the raw files available for download? I applaud you for making this comparison test if it truly is well controlled. However, a definitive comparison between cameras would require shooting a variety of different types of images to give us a total view of how each camera can perform. No vibration with this shot's, since i used a 150kg Cambo Studio tripod... I will not do more testing on this subject, but for anyone else.... feel free to do so :-) I'm out traveling so the raw files will not be available, since i'm on a cellphone internet connection... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spersky Posted March 10, 2007 Share #55 Posted March 10, 2007 I do not like D200 images that have not been processed. The images are pretty soft and lack contrast without any processing at all. IMHO Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.