M8 & EOS-1DIII Comparison

[dseelig]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It is funny tome that people are saying nikon has the advantage over canon because of the mk 111 auto focus troubles and the files we have seen from the d3 . Well no one has really shot the camera yet. Also those test files were hardly low light being shot at 125 f 5.6 I think I want to see the noise at 1/30 of a second at f 1.4 at 3200 . As far as the dmr and m8 and canon and leica, I need auto focus at times when I shoot pro sports it is a necesity. I also use a 400 2.8 leica does not make one . But when I am shooting a street kid or even a landscape I go with my m8 . right tool for the job.

[Kent10D]

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!

 

I was really, really pleased to see this! The thread has not been in vain after all.

 

I would have really liked to see the results, though. Sure you don't want to have a cup of coffee (or tea) and reconsider?

 

Cheers!

[Advertisement]

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

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Gary you certainly can test them and post them . The questions will come as we have said . The trick is when you post them is to make it clear your not in full lock down test mode. If you know what i mean. When i tested the DMR vs 1dsMKII we went into many area's and repeated many things than changed things up . Like we started with the same lenses on both than moved to different lenses focal lengths, crop factors. the list goes on and on and at the end it is exactly like Jogn described a real good consensus of what is real and what is not real . little testing like this has value to some but look at it as a piece of a large puzzle and present like that and it is easy to understand that it is not a whole that you are showing. hope that helped

[Kent10D]

... little testing like this has value to some but look at it as a piece of a large puzzle and present like that and it is easy to understand that it is not a whole that you are showing.

 

Guy, you hit the nail bang smack square on the head with that one. With your permission I'll add that "piece of a large puzzle" line to my arsenal.

[usefeet]

I beg to differ. Leica R lenses are designed to go on Leica R cameras. Canons have their own lenses. If one wishes to use a hybrid system so be it, but frankly a proper comparison is a system comparison IMO.

 

Cheers,

Conrad,

 

Well it could be another kind of test, a whole system test, but then you would have to use a similar lens on both sides to be valid, ..so I don't agree with you.

Kent's topic implied a camera test, quote:

>>I have a Canon EOS-1D Mark III in my possession for about a week for a work project, so I thought it would be fun to do some direct comparisons between it and the M8. The Canon uses approximately the same-size sensor (APS-H) as the Leica, so I figured the comparison would be somewhat meaningful.<<

He could only lay his hands on a zoom lens.

In another way the test is not fair, ..RF against an SLR, lens designers are able to design

better lenses for RF due to the closer lens to film-plane distance (so I have read many times).

Still, it's kind of Kent to do some work and post for us to see and discuss

 

Cheers, William

[dfarkas]

It is funny tome that people are saying nikon has the advantage over canon because of the mk 111 auto focus troubles and the files we have seen from the d3 . Well no one has really shot the camera yet. Also those test files were hardly low light being shot at 125 f 5.6 I think I want to see the noise at 1/30 of a second at f 1.4 at 3200 . As far as the dmr and m8 and canon and leica, I need auto focus at times when I shoot pro sports it is a necesity. I also use a 400 2.8 leica does not make one . But when I am shooting a street kid or even a landscape I go with my m8 . right tool for the job.

 

Acutally, Leica makes a really nice 400mm 2.8 for the R system. The APO-Telyt-R system comprises some of the best long glass out there. Not autofocus or IS, but really, really incredible quality. On this forum, Rob Stevens (robsteve) and Kurt Kamka (kidigital) have some great shots from these lenses. Do a search.

 

David

[carstenw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

 

In typical Canon QC fashion, it may have been *your* worst lens, but in general it is highly regarded. Where have you heard that it is not supposed to be good? Clearly it can't keep up with a prime, but then, the problems we see here aren't lens-caused, unless perhaps you think that Canon can't even make an L lens which is sharp near the centre...

[Olsen]

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.

 

I don't agree with this assessment. The 24-79 mm 2,8L is a high contrast/high colour saturation lense while the 35 mm 1,4L gives very high resolution/sharp, but 'dull' contrast-wise. Particuarly wide open. What I like best with the 35 mm 1,4L is the streight lines it draws compared to the 24-70 mm 2,8L. Further: A high number of pixels gives you a good margin when enlarging pictures or cropping them. A high number of pixels is, when we compare high quality D-SLRs, a sign of quality. At least that has been the case so far. A high number of pixels is no small matter.

[jaapv]

I don't agree with this assessment. The 24-79 mm 2,8L is a high contrast/high colour saturation lense while the 35 mm 1,4L gives very high resolution/sharp, but 'dull' contrast-wise. Particuarly wide open. What I like best with the 35 mm 1,4L is the streight lines it draws compared to the 24-70 mm 2,8L. Further: A high number of pixels gives you a good margin when enlarging pictures or cropping them. A high number of pixels is, when we compare high quality D-SLRs, a sign of quality. At least that has been the case so far. A high number of pixels is no small matter.

But the effective number of pixels per surface unit is limited by the resolving power of the lens. There are diminishing returns here.