M8 and other leading cameras (Nikon/Canon/Fuji/Kodak test photos

[odyocu]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Our photo club decided to test a few leading cameras under the same studio conditions, and I have published the results, w/o an evaluation yet. Cameras tested were M8, D2X, D200, 5D, S5 Pro, and Kodak SLR/n.

 

The setup and exposure values were the same for all cameras. Ownes of the cameras were responsible to do the best under the same circumstances. I entered with the M8 (although I also have the D2X and SLR/n, other photographers were using those)

 

I used a 90/2 ASPH, Nikon's and Kodak used the 85/1.4, Canon was with a 100mm Macro, which the owner was very happy with.

 

Because of different Base ISO's, tested were made at 160 and 320 ISO.

 

It was a professional's studio with very precise flash controls, and we were told to use F11 and F16 fro the 160/320 ISO shots.

 

We were not allowed to manipulate the photos, except we corrected the white balance (Canon was right on, others varied with their Auto WB settings)

 

I used Capture One LE, with no corrections except that NR and sharpening was set to LOW. Kodak used their PD, Nikon's used the Nikon Capture, Canon and Fuji used PS CS3 (Fuji needs its own software to get the most out of DR function. Unfortunately this was not the case)

 

Then we used PS CS2, to define the same black point, white point and gray points. So we "equilized" all files.. That's what we thought actually, then we discovered that Canon 5d uses shadow recovery right in the camera, so all the gray points were much lighter. The overall contrast at start was also higher, which made the photo very nice (seemingly). This was then adjusted to app. correct levels.

 

Now comes the surprise: M8 was much better than my expectations, because contrary the assumptions, it had the least noise at 320 ISO, a wide dynamic range, and very sharp photos. It rendered the most accurate colors (especially the orange colored flower.) Nobody noticed my real shifted greens.... I still don't have the filters, and I thought under flash lighting, it should not be nesessary. False assumption)

 

Kodak gave the highest resolution at the cost of too much "color noise" and some strange artifacts. But overall it surprised many others.

 

Canon had still higher contrast than the Nikons, and this leads to better apparant resolution, but actually D2X performs equally good, but on a completely different philosophy. In you post processing you can make it ook very nice (contrast, color saturation etc. ) It's closer to reality than the Canon. Canon had very washed out highlights too, but that's because probably Canon's ISO's are actually 25% more. (If so, why doesn't Canon change it to the actual values??. I don't understand it, but it was evident from the photos)

 

Fuji should have performed better regarding the highlight details. Owner blamed it to the lack of Fuji's own software. He will resend the results soon.

 

Of course you can see all these for yourselves. Visit my photo page at

http://photos.seyhun.com (You have to copy paste. There is no link here) The first folder is the test photos folder. You will then see the 160 and 320 ISO folders. The Main folder photos are the actual pictures resized unfortunately to 2048X ..., but still gives a lot. The details are all FULL size.

 

Hope you like the work we have done.

 

M8 leads in the best reds, good lenses, and real good noise properties up to 320 ISO which is my limit for Color photos, and all the way for B+W. I really started liking it over all the Nikon stuff, because a small bag is all you need, and you can take photos everywhere, like streets, mosques, clubs, etc etc., where people don't even care about you for candid work, while Nikonians are in trouble.

 

Seyhun

[Advertisement]

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

[Joe Mondello]

I found it very interesting. Thanks for posting it.

 

I have the M8 and a D200 and a friend has a 5D and we went out for a walkabout yesterday at Columbus Circle in NYC.

 

Here are 3 images taken at slightly different times and not aimed at all to be a comparison, but here's the results nevertheless FWIW!

 

Processed individually by 2 different people on 2 different computers, etc., so take with a grain of salt!!!!

 

 

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!

 

 

[Photoskeptic]

Thanks for posting your observations. IMO, these tests achieve little in convincing someone to change from one to the other. They are interesting, however, for the pixel peepers and others insecure in their personal choice of imaging device (and I suppose for those who tout bragging rights). A test which does seem relevant to many is when there is a different choice of lenses for a particular body.

[ChrisC]

...... we were told to use F11 and F16 .....

 

Which should have guaranteed a relatively poor, diffraction-limited performance from the lens. I'm struggling to see the point of the test.

 

.......................Chris

[telewatt]

Which should have guaranteed a relatively poor, diffraction-limited performance from the lens. I'm struggling to see the point of the test.

 

.......................Chris

 

 

.. :D ..the LEICA lenses get worth and the other get better.. ..never use a Leica lens with 16 if it is not necessary..

[tashley]

Which should have guaranteed a relatively poor, diffraction-limited performance from the lens. I'm struggling to see the point of the test.

 

.......................Chris

 

 

Precisely.

 

Interesting nonetheless. I had a Kodak SLR/n for a year, and I still have a 5D and my bag of M8 gear. They are all great cameras. The 5D scores on being less quirky, the M8 has the prize for size and image quality and the Kodak for being left field and having great resolution but in the end its files required too much work. Nonetheless, they are all good enough by far to give great shots to anyone who can see great shots. It's just that the M8 feels so much better in the process!

 

Tim

[ho_co]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Canon had very washed out highlights too, but that's because probably Canon's ISO's are actually 25% more. (If so, why doesn't Canon change it to the actual values??. I don't understand it, but it was evident from the photos)

Odyo--

Interesting observation. Sean Reid's tests indicate that both the 5D and the M8 actually respond at 1/3 EV greater than marked, so both 5D and M8 when set to 160 ISO are performing as if they were set at 200 ISO.

 

Just curious--Sounds like a very interesting test, but why were the studio flashes not set to lower output? None of the lenses you tested would have been anywhere near their best at f/11 or f/16. I'd have thought you would get a better comparison at f/4 or f/5.6.

 

Thanks for posting!

 

--HC

[hollisterimages]

Very interesting observations in the studio.

 

I did a comparison of the M8 with the 5D using L series lenses, but being interested in landscape photograpy my tests were outside of landscape images. I found exactly the same comparison with the Canon. the Canon had higher contrast thereby appearing to have higher resolution. However, the M8 clearly showed greater colour definition in distant objects than the canon and on closer examination was as good at detail resolution as the 5D.

 

For more detail of the study see the My Leica section on http://www.hollisterimges.com.