M8 VS D200 (Side By Side)

[atufte]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

These were RAW files converted in Lightroom's default, or in camera jpegs?

 

Yes, raw of course... :-) (and LR default setting only, on both images...)

[Riley]

nice trial, well done

 

while M8 is sharper

its not simply a matter of sharp is it

it is how the highlights are transmitted

the tonal range is just deeper, that adds to the dimensions

 

oddy i have a profile i named wet plastic

that digs out the highlights of an image

the difference you see here is just like pre and post processed with that profile

i must try an M8 file and see what happens

 

cheers

[johnjs]

Wow, thanks for the quick reply! I think most of the difference is in the glass, but obviously the lack of the AA filter in the Leica is significant. Try the Zeiss Planar ZF 50 sometime if you have the chance, I find it to be much sharper than the standard Nikkor. I agree though, I hope Nikon takes the Leica route and decides against the AA filter in the D3.

 

best-John

[charlesphoto99]

I have the D200 and very soon the M8. At first glance I thought the M8 almost too sharp (holdover from being a dyed in the wool film user) but the depth is greater. I do sometimes think the M8 is overly sharp (read digital looking) and will be looking for ways to "dumb it down" a bit. But better that problem than the opposite - I find I'm always having to go in with a sahrpening brush on my D200 files until it's good enough. I do most of my digital work at the moment for publishing anyway, and printing presses tend to be the great equaliser. But looking forward to shooting more personal work with the M8, esp in b&w.

 

What this thread really does is make me long for a Nikon FM2 (actually I had the FE2) w MD-12. I took a lot of my classic rock images with that setup and a Vivitar 285 and 24mm f2. I would get home from an incredibly sweaty club and blow dry the inside of the camera out while running the shutter over and over again. No way you can do that with an M8!

[ho_co]

All the other questions are described on the webpage, except focus point, which

was the sync inlet on the Nikon camera... and yes both shots with manual focus.

Alexander--

Thanks for the response. I couldn't and still can't find the information on the web page. Could you tell me how to retrieve it? I've tried clicking all the buttons on the page you advertise, but can't get any more info than "3.jpg," "4.jpg," "5.jpg" etc.

 

Also, why did you choose to shoot the FM2 from slightly different angles with the D200 and the M8? Was that simply due to the difference in location of the two cameras' tripod sockets?

 

The comparison certainly runs in the direction one would expect, but the D200 shot is far less sharp than I would have anticipated! In Sean Reid's comparison of the Nikkor 50/1.4, I had to laugh at how he repeated reasserted that it was certainly up to professional standards for people who liked a rather fuzzy, atmospheric image, though that might not be his choice in this case.

 

Very nice to see such an obvious difference; thanks again for posting it!

 

--HC

[ddp]

I'm not surprised by this - it's really an apples to oranges comparison. Any Nikon image I work with out of a D2X needs a degree of unsharp masking to make it pop. The 50 1.4 is not as bad a lens as people make it out to be - but there are few Nikkors that come close to what Leica offers.

[sandymc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Good comparison, shows the differences very well - Leica sharper without much post processing, and also showing more contrast. However, also shows the downside of no AA filter - in comparisons 5 and 6, you can see purple fringing on the highlights coming off the lugs for the strap in the M8 image, while the D200 is clean.

 

I'd be very interested in seeing the comparison adjusted a little to make it more apples for apples - (a) more sharpening on the D200 image to compensate for the AA filter, and ( the images adjusted to have the same contrast. Right now there's a lot more contrast in the M8 image - e.g., see the knurling on the motor drive screw in image 6, as well as the whiter highlights on the camera covering.

 

Alexander, any chance you could post the RAW files?

 

Sandy

[Riley]

While you could PP in sharpness etc, the advantage of the test is that the results are in their RAW or native state. I think any amount of PP would remove the objectivity of the test.

[sandymc]

Umm, well, the thing is that these images are not really in their default state - they both have the default Lightroom processing done, which is different for a NEF files versus a DNG file. You'd really have to use the Lightroom "zero'd" profile to see the two images in default form. In which case, in my experience anyway, the M8 image would look a lot better than the D200 image - unprocessed D200 images look like mud(!)

 

Sandy

[andit]

Hi Alex,

Thanks for a really interesting comparison. I must say that the M8 is in a different league in this comparison. The resolving power of the lens and the sensor is extreme.

 

However, did anyone else notice (it may be my monitor) on the closeup of the front element of the lens, the Nikon shows clearly the "Japan" engraving, while this gets lost to the extent that it is illegible on the M8 - could be a DOF issue, not sure.

 

Andreas

[carstenw]

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.

[Riley]

beyond sharpness though Carsten

the depth of tonal range is quite different, to favour M8

[carstenw]

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.

[Riley]

yes I hear what you are saying

but I wouldn't hold much hope of improvement

everywhere I look the files are quite different

but I would concede that perhaps an incremental improvement is possible

 

on the lens and from photozone.de, whom I assume carry some respect

 

Nikkor AF 50mm f/1.4 D - Photozone Review / Quick Test Report

 

Similar to its cousin (AF 50mm f/1.8 D) the Nikkor AF 50mm f/1.4 D is a very good performer. At f/1.4 the contrast is a little on the low side and the borders may be a little soft but from f/2.8 & up the performance is really superb. Distortions are detectable in the lab but not really significant enough to be relevant in the real life. CAs are very low and vignetting is a non-issue except at f/1.4 (on APS-C DSLRs). The build quality of the lens is very decent and the AF performance leaves nothing to be desired.

 

at 3x times the value of the 50/1.8, I think you make the right call on the lens

looks like best MTF is around F:5.6

[haika]

interesting comparison; thanks for posting these pics...

i wonder how my d2x with the cmos sensor would compare. after all, this is the nikon in the same price range with the m8.

i do not have an m8 yet, but when i get one, i'll try to do a side-by-side with the summilux 75 and the nikkor 1,4/85; two lenses which (on film) i've always considered to perform very similarly.

 

cheers,

günter

[atufte]

Alexander--

Thanks for the response. I couldn't and still can't find the information on the web page. Could you tell me how to retrieve it? I've tried clicking all the buttons on the page you advertise, but can't get any more info than "3.jpg," "4.jpg," "5.jpg" etc.--HC

 

See the headline on the site which says:

 

"Nikon D200 VS Leica M8"....under this it says INFO:

[james_h]

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

[bayerische]

I'm impressed by the M8!

 

Being a long time Canon digital user, the first thing I noticed with the R-D1 (apart from more noise:) ) was the superior out of camera sharpness of the images compared to for example the Canon 5D and Canon 1Ds.

[tom0511]

I'm impressed by the M8!

 

Being a long time Canon digital user, the first thing I noticed with the R-D1 (apart from more noise:) ) was the superior out of camera sharpness of the images compared to for example the Canon 5D and Canon 1Ds.

 

I dont agree. The rd1-files do take quit some sharpening, I think its even the same sensor as the Nikon d70, isnt it?

 

The M8 needs less sharpening.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Photoskeptic]

I sold my D200 and lenses to help pay for an M8. I didn't sell the D200 because of image issues. I prefer to shoot rangefinders. I sold the D200 because I got tired of the bulk and the weight. The ergonomics are still the best of any DSLR, but the M8 is a camera whose time has come.