M8 vs Nikanopus sharpness by Chasseur d'Images

[Ozkar]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Using modest lenses for comparisons boils down to compare lenses because they are inferior to the bodies.

 

Rubbish! First of all, Olympus offer little in the way of primes (apart from a couple of awkward to use macro lenses). So if you're interested in the E3, then you're stuck with zooms. Second, the Zuiko 14-54 is hardly a modest lens. And finally, once you stop either the Zuiko 14-54 or Nikon 18-70 down to f8 you're pretty much on par with a prime for sharpness.

[lct]

Thank you for the politeness but i can only repeat that comparing bodies with modest lenses is a waste of time since this boils down to compare the weakest link in the chain, i.e. the lenses themselves and not the bodies.

Even worst if you compare a modest lens (the Nikkor) to another one which is not modest (the Zuiko) according to your own statement.

[carstenw]

I know you don't know. That's the reason for my reply.

But I gave at least one good reason: because when 95% of your readers use jpeg, you might want to test using this format.

 

Yes, fine, but if that is where you stop, then you are effectively saying that the results are useless for more serious readers... As you yourself come across as a fairly dedicated hobbyist, like myself, I am sure you can also see my point. If the people who *really* care use RAW, then a JPG-only test is useless. I have read Chasseur d'Images from time to time, and like it, but I was never under the impression that it was only catering to casual photographers. I don't know why their testing should. I think it would be much better to do both, although it would clearly take more effort. It might make sense, as a compromise, to do this double-testing only for prosumer and above, as that probably neatly coincides with the people who are more likely to use RAW. In other words, the cutoff might be between Nikon D80 and D300, for example.

 

If you are editing a general public magazine about everyday cars, you'll probably write about the handling on open roads. And not talk that much of the absolute performance on track.

 

This is the same here.

 

Superficially yes, but in reality no. I would buy a car for how it handles on the road, but I am still quite serious about my photography. I am sure that this is a strong general trend.

 

Another detail: when editing a photo review, one need to publish tests as soon as possible for obvious economic reasons. What do you do if ACR does not support the new camera at the time of your testing ? Do you switch to the manufacturer software and break your procedure ?

 

You are of course right that there are problems with the RAW testing, but there are reasonable solutions too. For new cameras, you simply test JPG and make a note that RAW test results will come when the software is available. A later in-depth test covers it. Other magazines and tests do this, CdI also can. It is certainly thick enough...

[mhoersch]

I find comparing camera bodies for sharpness a very strange concept. Unless you could use identical lenses and identical processing - which they obviously don't - I don't see what comparing bodies fpr sharpness could possibly mean.

[pascal_meheut]

Yes, fine, but if that is where you stop, then you are effectively saying that the results are useless for more serious readers...

 

More or less. Let's say the results give me some informations. For instance, when they tested the Leica lenses on the M8 and found the best results they had ever, it was interesting (and a confirmation of my own experience).

But it also showed that it was difficult to get the best of the 90/2 AA wide-open with the M8 because of focusing precision...

 

When I need extra informations, I get them elsewhere. Anyway, I'm not saying that their tests are perfect, just that one need to understand their constraints before throwing rocks at them.

[vanhulsenbeek]

More or less. Let's say the results give me some informations. For instance, when they tested the Leica lenses on the M8 and found the best results they had ever, it was interesting (and a confirmation of my own experience).

But it also showed that it was difficult to get the best of the 90/2 AA wide-open with the M8 because of focusing precision...

 

When I need extra informations, I get them elsewhere. Anyway, I'm not saying that their tests are perfect, just that one need to understand their constraints before throwing rocks at them.

 

Well said! Their test results are what they are, and their, self imposed or not, constraints are what they are.No use to start bashing, no use to try them change their methods.

 

And BTW: their lens test show consistent very-top-of-the-line results for Leica lenses.

 

As was said before on this forum: the two French magazines Chasseurs d 'Image and Réponses Photo are light years above the present English language chaff (Lenswork excluded) It seems the German language magazines stopped testing Leica at all. I always found their reviews 'lightweight', to remain friendly.

[vanhulsenbeek]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I find comparing camera bodies for sharpness a very strange concept. Unless you could use identical lenses and identical processing - which they obviously don't - I don't see what comparing bodies fpr sharpness could possibly mean.

 

Comparing (digital) camera bodies for sharpness comes closest to comparing films for sharpness.

 

Aren't sensors sometimes viewed as 'in camera film'?

 

That leads towards the conclusion that actually tested here were sensors, not camera's.View it that way.

Problem is that you can not use the same lenses

[sdai]

As was said before on this forum: the two French magazines Chasseurs d 'Image and Photo Reponses are light years above the present English language chaff (Lenswork excluded). It seems the German language magazines stopped testing Leica at all. I always found their reviews 'lightweight', to remain friendly.

 

I've never seen any test work in "Lenswork" and it's not the same type of publication as CDI or Response Photo.

 

Among the German magazines, Color Foto, Foto Magazin and Profifoto have all tested the DMR and M8 and published numbers no other material publicly available could compare. There are lists of Leica lenses tested awhile ago as well.

[carstenw]

As was said before on this forum: the two French magazines Chasseurs d 'Image and Réponses Photo are light years above the present English language chaff (Lenswork excluded)

 

LensWork is a magazine for results, not methods or tests. You may think what you want of it, but it is not in the same category as these.

 

There are some very decent British magazines. Black&White Photography comes to mind, although it doesn't do a lot of camera testing. In fact, as with so many other genres, and in harmony with what Simon said, I find that there are several very good German magazines. Germans take their Fachliteratur (I can't even think of an equivalent English term: subject literature?) *very* seriously, and apart from LFI (whose testing isn't always the best, but whose coverage of Leica is unmatched, unsurprisingly) and Profi Foto (which caters not so much to testing, but covering subjects of interest to working pros), fotoMagazin is a decent consumer magazine that I often read, Photographie is also decent, and there are a couple of others, like Photo International (more in the art world) and Fine Art Printer, which as the title mentions, focuses more on printing. Color Foto I find to be pretty trashy.

 

I don't have too much experience with American magazines. American Photo is a complete waste of time, being extremely self-promoting, caters to advertisers and is so full of ads and split articles that I can't stand reading it, in spite of the occasional interesting article. LensWork is nice, but a bit limited in scope, so I don't subscribe, which is the only way I would see it here.

 

I also do like Réponses Photo, and prefer it to CdI, although I don't buy either regularly. I have thought of subscribing to RP but didn't get around to it yet.

[vanhulsenbeek]

............................clip...................I also do like Réponses Photo, and prefer it to CdI, although I don't buy either regularly. I have thought of subscribing to RP but didn't get around to it yet.

 

I like both magazines and buy them to ease my travel when shuttling back and forth in the Amsterdam-Brussels Thalys train.

 

Réponses Photo recently had a coverage of the Canon EOS-1 Ds Mark III ( kudos to those who keep these EOSses apart ) which was full of wisdom.

 

The camera got the highest marks, but the test with the 85mm F 1.2 L USM II showed that even that highgrade lens was not up to the 21 Mp sensor. At full opening the chromatic aberation was terrible. It disappeared in the examples when stopping down so it was not due to blooming.

 

One wonders how the Leica lenses will hold, when the sensors get bigger in Mp! Better I hope.

[carstenw]

I have seen CA with an 85L I on a 5D, so I think that this lens, like so many Canon lenses, is not designed to minimise CA, but rather to optimise other characteristics. This is one of many reasons why I don't like the Canon system, in spite of its strengths.

[jaapv]

LensWork is a magazine for results, not methods or tests. You may think what you want of it, but it is not in the same category as these.

 

There are some very decent British magazines. Black&White Photography comes to mind, although it doesn't do a lot of camera testing. In fact, as with so many other genres, and in harmony with what Simon said, I find that there are several very good German magazines. Germans take their Fachliteratur (I can't even think of an equivalent English term: subject literature?) *very* seriously, and apart from LFI (whose testing isn't always the best, but whose coverage of Leica is unmatched, unsurprisingly) and Profi Foto (which caters not so much to testing, but covering subjects of interest to working pros), fotoMagazin is a decent consumer magazine that I often read, Photographie is also decent, and there are a couple of others, like Photo International (more in the art world) and Fine Art Printer, which as the title mentions, focuses more on printing. Color Foto I find to be pretty trashy.

 

I don't have too much experience with American magazines. American Photo is a complete waste of time, being extremely self-promoting, caters to advertisers and is so full of ads and split articles that I can't stand reading it, in spite of the occasional interesting article. LensWork is nice, but a bit limited in scope, so I don't subscribe, which is the only way I would see it here.

 

I also do like Réponses Photo, and prefer it to CdI, although I don't buy either regularly. I have thought of subscribing to RP but didn't get around to it yet.

 

You missed out on my favorite German magazine, Carsten: Naturfoto. Mainly for the photography inside, although the tests are decent.

[woodyspedden]

You missed out on my favorite German magazine, Carsten: Naturfoto. Mainly for the photography inside, although the tests are decent.

 

In my opinion the best American magazines are Camera Arts, View Camera and Outdoor Photographer. None of these do the kind of in depth testing that is done by people like Sean Reid but give product overviews that can lead you to seek the more in depth articles. But all of these and of course Lenswork focus a great deal on the the end product which is of course the image.

 

Woody Spedden

[haroldp]

While the readers of any given publication may primarily shoot jpg ( I have no way of knowing ), most users that I know of Camera's in the M8, D3 / D300, or E3 class shoot either exclusively Raw, or Raw + Jpg. These camera's are optimized for Raw shooting and post processing. I realise that equivalent Raw processing is difficult, but as a User / Buyer of this class of equipment, the most useful reviews to me are those that attempt to optimize the Raw post processing and tell us what parameters were used. I use ACR for Leica and Olympus, and primary Capture NX for Nikon Raw ( I like the workflow ). DXO is wheeled out for difficult shots that need help ( I do not like it's workflow ).

 

All this aside, the current generation of M8, D3 / D300, or E3 class equipment ( I do not use Canon, so cannot comment, but have great respect for the Brand ), is better than most photographers, and I would be delighted if I were consistently using them to their best, and if my technique was so consistently good that the equipment was holding me back.

[redfalo]

M8 vs Nikanopus sharpness by Chasseur d'Images

 

The last iteration of the French mag Chasseur d'Images (#301, 15 Feb. 2008, page 133) compares various digital bodies in terms of sharpness and resolution (so called 'fine detail rendition') taking into account smearing and various digital artefacts.

Not sure how they do this actually (raws? jpgs? with what lenses?) and there are apparently mistakes in the resolution charts but the sharpness results might interest some M8 users possibly. FWIW.

 

 

Very interesting, but quite surprising as well.

 

If they really used the JPEG mode it rather strikes me that the M8 did fare so relatively good. My own comparasions let me to the conclusion that the camera JPGS of the M8 are much worse than JPGS developed in LR oder C1. If the E3 is beaten by M8 camera jpgs at ISO 160 it really has to be quite awful...

 

I find the goot performance of the M8 at higher ISO stettings surprising as well. I personally find 640 ISO on my M8 ok (not more) 1250 is almost unusable. How bad do those Canon and Nikon SLRs perform at higher ISO settings when they are even beaten by an M8???

 

Yours Olaf