M8 & EOS-1DIII Comparison

[gdi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

The bottom line is that a proper comparison should be between systems, i.e cameras AND lenses. I agree that one shoud compare the best of each sytem to get a "truer" outcome.

 

Cheers,

 

In your opinion, of course.

 

If all you are trying to do is compare brands, you may be right but, if one wants to obtain the best images possible it may indeed require your "hybrid" system. This is true of many technologies - thus the use of "best of breed" components to assemble a superior hybrid system.

[mgcd]

In your opinion, of course.

 

If all you are trying to do is compare brands, you may be right but, if one wants to obtain the best images possible it may indeed require your "hybrid" system. This is true of many technologies - thus the use of "best of breed" components to assemble a superior hybrid system.

 

Strange then that by sticking to Leica you already have superior performance...

[gdi]

Strange then that by sticking to Leica you already have superior performance...

 

One reading only here would think... but the hypothesis is unproven, of course.

 

I just visited your website and can say that the flaws and warts of the Leica system does not seem to prevent you from producing very strong images It definately seems to be working for you.

[mgcd]

One reading only here would think... but the hypothesis is unproven, of course.

 

Now that's funny! Actually it has been proven. Just look up the DMR vs. 1DsMKII thread on FM as well as many other sources. Do you actually use Leicas? Not that it should matter, but I am curious...

[gdi]

Now that's funny! Actually it has been proven. Just look up the DMR vs. 1DsMKII thread on FM as well as many other sources. Do you actually use Leicas? Not that it should matter, but I am curious...

 

Ah, FM... The definitive resource for objective testing! Actually I couldn't find that thread.

 

And yes, I use a Leica on occasion (but only one).

[mgcd]

Ah, FM... The definitive resource for objective testing! Actually I couldn't find that thread.

 

And yes, I use a Leica on occasion (but only one).

 

Guy Mancuso started a thread there, may be gone by now, with extensive comparisons between the 1DsMKII and the DMR. There were many contributors and the thread explored all aspects of the DMR's performance. I was one of those who indeed participated. The DMR is indeed a superior machine when it comes to file quality, ergonomics etc., standing its ground and even being ahead of the competition in many ways. This being said it fits my shooting methodology as I don't care much for bells and whistles.

 

I bet your Leica is an film M.

 

Cheers,

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi Guy,

 

The 1D3 still has AF problems, and Canon has yet to explain the issue(s). That said, Leica never did either. This makes it very difficult to know whether/when to buy the camera. The Nikon D3 looks like a better replacement for the 1D2. I downloaded and printed their ISO 3200 file, and I have never seen anything close to this from my 1D2 or 1Ds2.

 

As for size, I think the 1D3 is a bit lighter than the previous models, but I can fit an M8 and three lenses in the space required for one Canon and a 50 f1.2 lens. The M8 is almost always with me. The Canons go only when they are traveling along to be used.

 

Bill

 

They still do , very interesting. i will say Nikon has really turned a corner in DSLR stuff with there new offerings , maybe a little short on the MPX for the marketing end but still. What i do like about Nikon is the ability to use the older nikon glass and also the new Zeiss lenses being made. To me this gives them a leg up on canon in the optics area and still maintion the auto coupling for the lenses. What comes next from Leica , Nikon and canon will certainly be interesting.

 

Yes the 1dMKIII is lighter than previous but it still is a truck. You know most folks don't realize the DMR/R9 combo is actually smaller and what is interesting is it is two seperate pieces built at different times and still is smaller than the 1d series. To me after using the DMR that leica is still and will be a major image maker that others need to watch out of the corner of there eye. For use end users this compitetion is really a good thing

[bsmith]

the test is a complete waste of time, the canon 24-70L is one of canon's worst lenses. Try the test with the 35 1.4L vs the Leica 35mm The difference is negligible. At this point in the digital evolution it's the image that counts, not the endless pixel peeping, eye straining, looking for quality differences ! Canon , Nikon, Leica are all outstanding picture capturing tools. There is not an image you can make with either brand that's worth more because of any quality issues. The "image " is what always counts, never the mindless pixel quality comparisons.

[Olsen]

Try the test with the 35 1.4L vs the Leica 35mm The difference is negligible. At this point in the digital evolution it's the image that counts, not the endless pixel peeping, eye straining, looking for quality differences ! Canon , Nikon, Leica are all outstanding picture capturing tools. There is not an image you can make with either brand that's worth more because of any quality issues. The "image " is what always counts, never the mindless pixel quality comparisons.

 

"the test is a complete waste of time, the canon 24-70L is one of canon's worst lenses..."

 

- It is a bit more complicated than that, The 24-70 mm 2,8L is a high contrast zoom while the 35 mm 1,4L is a high resolution/low contrast lense on large apartures.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Guy Mancuso started a thread there, may be gone by now, with extensive comparisons between the 1DsMKII and the DMR. There were many contributors and the thread explored all aspects of the DMR's performance. I was one of those who indeed participated. The DMR is indeed a superior machine when it comes to file quality, ergonomics etc., standing its ground and even being ahead of the competition in many ways. This being said it fits my shooting methodology as I don't care much for bells and whistles.

 

I bet your Leica is an film M.

 

Cheers,

 

Ah the memories Conrad. it was the best thread on the internet to be honest. We truly explored this through many eyes and some really freaking great testing by many people , folks that know how to test with lot's of experience.

[gdi]

Ah the memories Conrad. it was the best thread on the internet to be honest. We truly explored this through many eyes and some really freaking great testing by many people , folks that know how to test with lot's of experience.

 

I remember that thread now. It was the best thread on the internet? Wow!

[artur5]

....

What i do like about Nikon is the ability to use the older nikon glass and also the new Zeiss lenses being made. To me this gives them a leg up on canon in the optics area and still maintion the auto coupling for the lenses.

......

 

 

Guy, I don't agree with you here. If I never will consider a Nikon DSLR over Canon it's precisely for the inability of the old Nikon F mount to use other lenses mounts -i.e. Leica, Zeiss Contax, Olympus, Pentax. ..

For me this is the definitive plus of Canon vs Nikon. With a 1DsIII ( or a cheap film EOS from the eighties ) you can use almost any Nikon-F, Leica-R. Olympus-OM, Contax Zeiss, Pentax-K or M42 lenses ( and Canon EOS too.. . )

Of course you need an adapter and it will be manual focus only for non-EOS glass, but so it's Nikon with Zeiss-F and non AF Nikons. Some Nikon DSLRs cannot even use the camera's meter with older Nikon optics -and the D40 can't do AF with non-motorized AF lenses.

So much for the myth of Nikon's compatibility !

[carstenw]

Arturo, that is not fair. Canon FD lenses are just useless glass, metal and plastic now. At least you can use the old Nikons, even if you need to manual focus (you get focus confirmation, another missing feature in Canons), and occasionally meter separately (not the case with most lenses). Like Leica, they have done what they could, whereas Canon has left it out completely.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Guy, I don't agree with you here. If I never will consider a Nikon DSLR over Canon it's precisely for the inability of the old Nikon F mount to use other lenses mounts -i.e. Leica, Zeiss Contax, Olympus, Pentax. ..

For me this is the definitive plus of Canon vs Nikon. With a 1DsIII ( or a cheap film EOS from the eighties ) you can use almost any Nikon-F, Leica-R. Olympus-OM, Contax Zeiss, Pentax-K or M42 lenses ( and Canon EOS too.. . )

Of course you need an adapter and it will be manual focus only for non-EOS glass, but so it's Nikon with Zeiss-F and non AF Nikons. Some Nikon DSLRs cannot even use the camera's meter with older Nikon optics -and the D40 can't do AF with non-motorized AF lenses.

So much for the myth of Nikon's compatibility !

 

True with the Canons but it is a work around with other glass that you must use stop down techiniques, I know this all too well did it with every 3rd party lens on Canon. What makes the Nikon better in this sense is the lenses are fully coupled and auto diaphram movement without user input. i know some will not work too but overall you can use these new modern Zeiss lenses that do give favor to the Nikon camp. What is funny in all this really and really kind of sad is we are looking at 3rd party lenses to do the job that there glass should be doing. Now that is the sad part. maybe Canons new and nikons new lenses will be better tuned to full frame i don't know how they perform yet . But the good part is there all good and we have choices and for end users that is what counts.

 

Honestly i would have a much harder time today between Nikon and Canon than i did a few years ago if i had to make a purchase

[Kent10D]

Monday morning and back to the grind (well, it's Monday morning where I am, anyway).

 

Just waded through the many responses in this thread, and have enjoyed the read but am a little surprised that in so many cases the original post wasn't taken in the spirit in which it was presented. It was simply an informal comparison I did with the gear at hand. I found the results interesting so I posted them here. I won't go as far as to say it was a "mistake" because there has been some interesting discussion (to me, at least), but I do think that I will keep any further insights gleaned from equipment that comes my way to myself (with apologies to those who did find my little experiment interesting).

 

I'll add that although there have been numerous suggestions as to how this sort of thing should be done "properly," I don't see anyone doing it (of course I'm not referring to excellent reviewers like Sean Reid who do it in a professional capacity). So if you have the gear and can spare the time to do some simple comparisons in the way that you think they should be done, I can assure you that I will be interested (this is a gear forum, after all). Walk the walk ... show us your stuff ... just be prepared for the firestorm that will probaly ensue.

 

So that's that. I only have a few more days with The Brick, so I'll be out trying to use up it's 300,000 rated shutter cycles for the duration , and then it's back to my beloved M8 full time.

 

Cheers for now!

[carstenw]

Well, I also found it interesting, and in the spirit of discovery. I say ignore those who think otherwise, and do as you please.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

I agree with Carsten it has value and brings a nice prespective. This kind of testing takes just a lot of time and energy and even if you have all the stars aligned correctly there will still be something to debate and it should to a certain degree . There designed completely different

[Kent10D]

Thanks guys, much appreciated.

[jrc]

the test is a complete waste of time, the canon 24-70L is one of canon's worst lenses. Try the test with the 35 1.4L vs the Leica 35mm The difference is negligible. At this point in the digital evolution it's the image that counts

 

Given the problems of lens/camera testing, generally, under your implied criteria, all tests would be a waste of time. I've yet to really see a straight 1:1 test. Either there are differences in pixel count or frame size or ISO or glass; or people complain about the possibility of movement in one shot and not in the other, about differing test conditions, about over and under exposure, about the amounts of sharpening needed...blah blah blah...I don't think I've seen a test of this kind that wasn't condemned as mostly useless.

 

And yet, with enough tests like this, a concensus begins to emerge that one camera/lens may be better (in some ways) than another, and that's pretty useful information -- that's exactly what we saw iin the famous R vs. Canon thread on FM. Nobody argues any more that Canon has better high ISO performance than Nikon, for example; or that Nikon is lighter and cheaper for the same "reach," which is important to some wildlife shooters. Most of that information was generated by tests like this one.

 

Most of the problems that were discovered in the M8 were turned up in informal tests just like this one, and they were real problems.

 

I do agree that we're at the point where the quality is converging, and I suspect that with the next generation (1DsIV, Nikon D4, R11) we'll essentially be back to the film state, where people argue more about printing and glass than about sensors.

 

JC

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[gdi]

Given the problems of lens/camera testing, generally, under your implied criteria, all tests would be a waste of time. I've yet to really see a straight 1:1 test. Either there are differences in pixel count or frame size or ISO or glass; or people complain about the possibility of movement in one shot and not in the other, about differing test conditions, about over and under exposure, about the amounts of sharpening needed...blah blah blah...I don't think I've seen a test of this kind that wasn't condemned as mostly useless.

 

And yet, with enough tests like this, a concensus begins to emerge that one camera/lens may be better (in some ways) than another, and that's pretty useful information -- that's exactly what we saw iin the famous R vs. Canon thread on FM. Nobody argues any more that Canon has better high ISO performance than Nikon, for example; or that Nikon is lighter and cheaper for the same "reach," which is important to some wildlife shooters. Most of that information was generated by tests like this one.

 

Most of the problems that were discovered in the M8 were turned up in informal tests just like this one, and they were real problems.

 

I do agree that we're at the point where the quality is converging, and I suspect that with the next generation (1DsIV, Nikon D4, R11) we'll essentially be back to the film state, where people argue more about printing and glass than about sensors.

 

JC

 

Interesting points JC,

 

I actually did my own Canon vs M8 test today after seeing the thread. I posted it but then realized that, as you say, there are always things to pick apart and deleted it. Due to the results, I felt that I would be slaughtered and in the end it would upset some people and that wasn't my goal.

 

But I strongly recommend doing you own tests if possible ( and the gear is available). If I had only listened to the prevailing wisdom at the time I would have sold my Mamiya 7 kit because the 5D was better - of course testing proved otherwise - sometimes you just have to see for yourself!