Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
tashley

Friday. Time for an outrageous comparison.

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Is there something you're not telling us?

 

This is also what I want to know.

Claude

 

No, there's nothing I'm not telling you - it's as-is, straight out of the box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be interesting to see the results if the 4x5 had been exposed properly and if the Canon image had been shot at ISO 100 and if both the Canon and Leica images were shot at f8. This might maximize the quality from all three.

 

Still, I think it is an interesting example and reinforces why I rarely shoot on 4x5 any more despite the fact that 4x5 (and 6x9cm) were my principal income producing formats for 25 years or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tim, interesting comparison. Maybe I just overlooked it but I assume the M8 pictures were shot in DNG mode, right?

 

(If you did it in JPG mode, the inferior quality of the M8 shot would not astonish me...)

 

If you shot in DNG it would be interesting to see a JPG file developed in C1 instead of LR. I like LR much more for its convenience and recently bought a licence. But C1 (ver. 3.7.) seems to cope better at least with some DNG files from the M8. I recently had heavy moiree effects on shots developed in LR. Developing the same files with C1 did not give me any moiree at all... (samples shown here: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/48155-what-do-against-moiree.html)

 

I´d also love to see the same shot tanken with your Canon and a Canon lens

 

Yours

Olaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tim, interesting comparison. Maybe I just overlooked it but I assume the M8 pictures were shot in DNG mode, right?

 

(If you did it in JPG mode, the inferior quality of the M8 shot would not astonish me...)

 

If you shot in DNG it would be interesting to see a JPG file developed in C1 instead of LR. I like LR much more for its convenience and recently bought a licence. But C1 (ver. 3.7.) seems to cope better at least with some DNG files from the M8. I recently had heavy moiree effects on shots developed in LR. Developing the same files with C1 did not give me any moiree at all... (samples shown here: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/48155-what-do-against-moiree.html)

 

I´d also love to see the same shot tanken with your Canon and a Canon lens

 

Yours

Olaf

 

Hi Olaf,

 

I've already taken a peek at the DNG a rendered by C1 and there's no real difference - I agree C1 is better sometimes but mostly it's about the same though its colour rendition is better.

 

I only ever shoot DNG, so that's what this one was!

 

One of the great secrets of Canon Wolrd is the 50mm F1.8. It's not an L lens, feels like a kiddie toy and costs almost less than shipping but in low light wide open it compares very well to the 50 R cron. Less good at the edges but the bokeh is surprisingly good and it autofocuses!

 

I will post more comparisons, with my best glass, soon!

 

Tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick test with my camera's, showing that the M8 is a very close second to my 1Ds mkII. The 1D mkII N is clearly the loser in this totally non-scientific field (or rather, window) test. I can't explain why your 1ds III is so much better than your M8 shot since it's only marginally better than the mkII.

All images processed in ACR, with sharpening and NR turned off. No postprocessing, just uprezzed the M8 and 1D to match the size of the 1Ds file. Lens used on the M8 is the 28 Elmarit M and on the Canons the 16-35 2.8 version 1 (mkII is on it's way).

First shot is the total image (from the 1Ds in this case) The crops are first M8, second 1Ds, last 1D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I had similar results comparing my 1Ds 2 with M8...

 

Me too, and so now the 1ds2 is a 5d

BTW--I never get Tim's "painterly" results upressing the M8 files... so I don't know what part of the workflow causes that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Late to this thread as I've been off the forum for a while, but possibly the M8 doesn't deal as well with bicubic smoother upres as well? I upres in PS by going straight bicubic in 10% or so increments. Seems to work well, as good if not better than Alien Blow Up or Genuine Fractals. I don't sharpen till the end.

 

But yeah, I would hope the $8K, 21mp Canon beat the M8. How that translates into real life (ie the printed page vs 100% screen crops) is another matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't a 16-35 zoom on a full frame camera considerably more versatile than a 28mm cropped at 1.3x? Doesn't that say a lot for why people are using DSLRs and zooms?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just a quick test with my camera's, showing that the M8 is a very close second to my 1Ds mkII. The 1D mkII N is clearly the loser in this totally non-scientific field (or rather, window) test. I can't explain why your 1ds III is so much better than your M8 shot since it's only marginally better than the mkII.

All images processed in ACR, with sharpening and NR turned off. No postprocessing, just uprezzed the M8 and 1D to match the size of the 1Ds file. Lens used on the M8 is the 28 Elmarit M and on the Canons the 16-35 2.8 version 1 (mkII is on it's way).

First shot is the total image (from the 1Ds in this case) The crops are first M8, second 1Ds, last 1D.

 

That's much more the kind of result I would expect. What you're getting out of your M8 is thoroughly recognisable to me as the kind of thing I'm getting out of mine. The original shot I found unrecognisable as an M8 file – very weird indeed, though obviously the post-processing could account for much or all of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even the buckets have barely moved in a month. Crop from a WATE.

 

Wilson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ridder Cornelius

I look forward to the weekend ..... finally having some time for myself, very busy past 2 weeks, worked hard and need some relaxation.... what shall I do though?

 

I know .... I will take some comparison shots of brick walls and other stuuf to see if my H'blad is sharper than my D3 and all this compared to my G9 and F8 and then test the eyesite of my son and see if he can see the bug creaping on the third stone of the second to the right colom..... yes realy looking forward to that, after all what else is there to take pictures of.... Nature? .... nature! ... ahh but I havfe to get out of the house for that, NO WAY Nature.... I'm hapy with my stones and bricks, after all I didn't buy such expensive camera sets to take out into the streets! ...

 

Yes looking forward to a very relaxing and enjoyfull weekend..... sigh, sigh again.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ridder Cornelius

... if I feel brave I might go out and shoot the occasional treetrunk..... I have four in my back garden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe, David Adamanson the printer, uses alien skin b low up for his uprezzing of m8 files. Right tool for the job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Isn't a 16-35 zoom on a full frame camera considerably more versatile than a 28mm cropped at 1.3x? Doesn't that say a lot for why people are using DSLRs and zooms?

 

That all depends on the zoom lens and what you're shooting, of course, but yes, it does say a lot for the appeal of the newer slr systems.

 

For example, if I was buying a new AF SLR system right now, I'd probably go with D3 and Nikon's wide zooms... they are well corrected, sharp at all their apertures and not too terribly big.

 

Now, I have heard from people I trust that the new 16-35 V2 Canon 2.8L is also excellent, even wide open, but the sample I had was certainly not. In that case, my 21, 24 Elmarits and 28 Cron was much more versatile, since they were all 1) far better corrected 2) far sharper corner to corner and 3) in the case of the Cron, faster to boot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even the buckets have barely moved in a month. Crop from a WATE.

 

Wilson

 

Wilson, I was there (yet) again yesterday, and now have a very large print from a version of this one - but unfortunately it was taken on a 1DsIII which I have discovered at 30" wide print size is very very nearly as good as a 4x5 negative - at least in a way that humans can afford to scan. Bliss!

 

:-)

 

Tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's much more the kind of result I would expect. What you're getting out of your M8 is thoroughly recognisable to me as the kind of thing I'm getting out of mine. The original shot I found unrecognisable as an M8 file – very weird indeed, though obviously the post-processing could account for much or all of that.

 

Well, consider this: I have a reasonable history of getting good results out of an M8. I think that's a fair statement. And what with having used a tripod and so on, the quality difference is not down to camera shake. Now what else might it have been?

 

I said at the outset to this thread that it was a bit of fun and that I'd draw my own conclusions. It was. I did!

 

t

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That all depends on the zoom lens and what you're shooting, of course, but yes, it does say a lot for the appeal of the newer slr systems.

 

For example, if I was buying a new AF SLR system right now, I'd probably go with D3 and Nikon's wide zooms... they are well corrected, sharp at all their apertures and not too terribly big.

 

Now, I have heard from people I trust that the new 16-35 V2 Canon 2.8L is also excellent, even wide open, but the sample I had was certainly not. In that case, my 21, 24 Elmarits and 28 Cron was much more versatile, since they were all 1) far better corrected 2) far sharper corner to corner and 3) in the case of the Cron, faster to boot.

 

Jamie, slightly OT but on your suggestion I got a Canon 35 1.4L for low light stuff and it's pretty darned good. Its bokeh isn't as fine as a 28 cron - it tends to posterise the OOF areas a little - but it's close and I shot a (gasp) wedding last weekend with it, to good effect.

 

As you know I'm not a wedding guy, but it was a friend's nuptials and there was a pro so I thought I'd go commando. And guess what? The bride said to me later, 'everyone's been asking who the guy is with the big camera who doesn't use flash? They like that!'

 

Overall I'd have been ergonomically much happier using the M8 with fast glass but it really was very dark and the combo of better performance at ISO 1600 and AF were a boon, even if the end results, disregarding issues of noise and focus, were not quite on the money.

 

Best

 

T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, I have heard from people I trust that the new 16-35 V2 Canon 2.8L is also excellent, even wide open, but the sample I had was certainly not. In that case, my 21, 24 Elmarits and 28 Cron was much more versatile, since they were all 1) far better corrected 2) far sharper corner to corner and 3) in the case of the Cron, faster to boot.

 

I tested a 16-35 series II and in some ways it was better than my series I and in some ways it was worse. So I didn't buy it. Keep in mind that a 21, 24, and 28 are still not close to as versatile as a 16-35 (especially on the M8) and require you to change lenses. As for correction, with DXO and I assume with DPP 3.2, the zooms get well corrected. (I just shot a copy project with my 24-105 and it had pincusion distortion. But DXO made it fine.)

 

If it weren't for the software correction, I might agree with you and I'd use more primes. As it is, using zooms and DXO, I get less distortion, c/a, and vignetting than I got using the best wide lenses and center filters on 6x9 and 4x5. I may give up a little edge sharpness with the 16-35 but my interiors that are shot very wide are mostly shot at f8, so I'm happy. A zoom lets me frame a photo more precisely from a given spot and this not only adds to convenience but minimizes the need to crop - which would reduce quality a bit.

 

All I'm saying is that at one time, 4x5 and good lenses was my only option. I had three view cameras and 12 lenses so I was kind of fanatical about gettting the "best" quality. And for some working in 35mm, a Leica with primes was the best way for them. But as digital cameras, zoom lenses, and software all improved, more options became viable for a greater range of projects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue., Read more about our Privacy Policy