zlatkob Posted November 18, 2008 Share #21 Posted November 18, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) The Leica R19/2.8 is no doubt a great lens and, at $4800, it should be. Canon's 24/1.4 is not Canon's best lens, especially in the corners. Perhaps the new II version will be better. But the Canon 24/1.4 offers two extra stops for low-light shooters, and at small fraction of the price of the R19. As for the M8 vs. 5D comparison, your comparison of images "corner to corner" doesn't translate into a fair comparison of lenses "corner to corner" because the M8 doesn't show the corners. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 18, 2008 Posted November 18, 2008 Hi zlatkob, Take a look here Well, it might interest some.... I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Tina Manley Posted November 18, 2008 Share #22 Posted November 18, 2008 As for the M8 vs. 5D comparison, your comparison of images "corner to corner" doesn't translate into a fair comparison of lenses "corner to corner" because the M8 doesn't show the corners. As I said, I'm comparing results. You might expect that having to enlarge the 1:3 M8 files to a greater extent for the same coverage, that you would get better results from the full-frame 5D. That is not the result, though. If you compare exactly the same coverage, the M8 is significantly better. Have you tried this? Can you not see the fringing and CA and softness on the 5D with Canon lenses, even with the corners cropped out to match the M8's coverage? I can. Tina Tina Manley- powered by SmugMug Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted November 18, 2008 Share #23 Posted November 18, 2008 As I've written, the full-frame 5D reveals the worst aspects of a lens, so it can be unforgiving with some lenses. I don't own an M8 but borrowed one to evaluate image quality and other factors. For my purposes and to my eyes, image quality in the central image area was about the same as that of the 5D with Canon's best lenses. In other words, both were excellent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted November 18, 2008 Share #24 Posted November 18, 2008 ... Can you not see the fringing and CA and softness on the 5D with Canon lenses, even with the corners cropped out to match the M8's coverage?I can. Tina Manley- powered by SmugMug DXO Optics software in particular, and other software also, can vastly improve those lenses during the raw conversion process. The result is no vignetting, no distortion (even on wide zooms,) no c/a. And there can be more even sharpness across the field due to the application of localized sharpening (DXO) and the fact that when the c/a is corrected, the images appear sharper overall. But what does this discussion of lenses have to do with the DXOMark results? I see that the M8 is only rated #33 which is below the rating of several cameras in the $500-$1000 range. They are rating sensor and processing performance. They don't say anything about rating lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barjohn Posted November 18, 2008 Share #25 Posted November 18, 2008 Another interesting aspect of their database is to look at the print performance measures. The M8 fares even worse than many less expensive cameras. It is very cool to be able to see visually the effect by positioning the cursor on the right side along the vertical color bar and move the horizontal line up and down to see the effect of different levels. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andym911 Posted November 18, 2008 Share #26 Posted November 18, 2008 The bottom line is that IMO you can get fantastic images from all cameras.Those who have not used a 400d or 450d would be surprised at just how good they are, for most of us more than enough. The 5d remains a superb camera with the right lenses.The M8 also has it's place for the rangefinder crew...as usual it will rarely be the camera that makes a bad photograph, something I personally am more and more aware of as time goes by. For $500 you can shoot stunning images, and spend the rest on a 3 week trip to anywhere in the world and shoot more stunning images. All the results posted above are great. good light andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tashley Posted November 18, 2008 Share #27 Posted November 18, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) DXO Optics software in particular, and other software also, can vastly improve those lenses during the raw conversion process. The result is no vignetting, no distortion (even on wide zooms,) no c/a. And there can be more even sharpness across the field due to the application of localized sharpening (DXO) and the fact that when the c/a is corrected, the images appear sharper overall.. But Alan, here's no free lunch here: any software that 'removes' vigging is actually increasing exposure and therefore noise in the periphery of the frame. Ditto with edge and corner sharpening routines. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear unless you're willing to half-close your eyes when you look at said purse. Tim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tashley Posted November 18, 2008 Share #28 Posted November 18, 2008 Another interesting aspect of their database is to look at the print performance measures. The M8 fares even worse than many less expensive cameras. It is very cool to be able to see visually the effect by positioning the cursor on the right side along the vertical color bar and move the horizontal line up and down to see the effect of different levels. I simply don't believe it: I have or have recently had M8, 1DSIII, Pentax K20D, 5D, Phase One P45 and a bewildering variety of bridge and pocket cams and I also have a 24" wide HP z3100 and I have made large prints from all those cameras. Up to that print size, the P45 is clearly superior but the M8 files print, as many people have observed, like a MF camera precisely because the glass is so good. If you mount R glass on a 1DS then it is clearly better than the M8 but with nearly all my Canon glass and again at that print size, I slightly prefer the files from the M8 as a starting point for the print - with the proviso that ISO is no higher than 640. Part of that is the glass but contributing are the lack of AA filter, the fact that the smaller sensor only users the sweeter spot of lenses, the fact that DOF is better with smaller sensors and this often improves perceived acuity, the difference between CMOS and CCD sensors and finally, possibly, the fact that the M8 has larger pixels than a 1DSIII. As Messrs. Reichmann and Reid have pointed out, the DXO analyses are going to prove very useful indeed - but they are not the only relevant criteria for making assessments, I'm no Leica fan boy - frankly the company ticks me off quite often. But the only camera model that I have kept using for two years is the M8 and now M8.2! Tim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted November 18, 2008 Author Share #29 Posted November 18, 2008 Well that was a hare worth starting! Tim - thanks for the last comments. Comparing one sensor against another is a useful thing to do if you want to test the claims that manufacturers make, but as a photographer, I'm more interested in comparing one package against another - and in the end looking at the photographs you can make with the cameras. My experience has been that large prints (e.g. 30x20) from the M8 work well and please clients. Same for large prints from the 5D with lenses like the 85 1.2. I recently entered two images for the National Portrait Gallery photographic competition http://www.npg.org.uk/photoprize/site/index.php). Both were shortlisted (I'll try harder next year ). Both were technically sufficient - just not as good as some of the other images submitted. ... And in this comparison the judges had no charts or EXIF data to look at - simply a print with a number on the back of it... These are the kinds of comparison that I'm most interested in making - and - like everyone else - I have to live with the fact that beyond a certain technical minimum I'm the one who makes the photograph, not the camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandymc Posted November 18, 2008 Share #30 Posted November 18, 2008 What I find counter intuitive about the DxO data is the amount of difference they suggest exists between cameras at low ISO. E.g., if you look at D700 vs. M8 vs G10 on the SNR charts. My perception, and admittedly I've only owned my G10 for a week now, is that all those camera are actually not that far apart at base ISO, but diverge a LOT at high ISO. Maybe its just the way their scales work, but it seems strange to me. Sandy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_w Posted November 18, 2008 Share #31 Posted November 18, 2008 Chris, I looked up the National Portrait Gallery hoping to see your short-listed entries, but could not find them. Is it possible to see them? Regards Robert Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhoersch Posted November 18, 2008 Share #32 Posted November 18, 2008 Does the DXO RAW Converter support the Leica M8 and DMR DNG format? I can't find this information on their website. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander † Posted November 18, 2008 Share #33 Posted November 18, 2008 If we accept that these test/results do have some relevance for real world photography then it seems that the M8 does not stand out, its in the middle of the pack. It is a very nice camera to use however, but as an owner of a 5D and now 1Ds3 I am aware of its shortcomings and benefits compared to those cameras. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJP Posted November 18, 2008 Share #34 Posted November 18, 2008 If you compare a Leica M8 to #1 in the list, the Nikon D3, you find: SNR18%: M8 about 1 stop lower in performance Dynamic range: M8 about 2 stops lower in performance Tonal range: M8 about 1 stop lower in performance Color sensitivity: M8 about 2 stops lower in performance All versus the measured sensitivity (M8 ISO is spot on, D3 at 3200 claimed ISO is about 2500 actual ISO). Then if you consider that M glass can be used wide open the old crock isn't doing to badly. For a 2 year old camera this is pretty good going. Just my $0.02 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isabelle Lenatio Posted November 18, 2008 Share #35 Posted November 18, 2008 If you compare a Leica M8 to #1 in the list, the Nikon D3, you find: SNR18%: M8 about 1 stop lower in performance Dynamic range: M8 about 2 stops lower in performance Tonal range: M8 about 1 stop lower in performance Color sensitivity: M8 about 2 stops lower in performance All versus the measured sensitivity (M8 ISO is spot on, D3 at 3200 claimed ISO is about 2500 actual ISO). Then if you consider that M glass can be used wide open the old crock isn't doing to badly. For a 2 year old camera this is pretty good going. Just my $0.02 Yes absolutely fantastic, I am too totally chuffed with these results. And I'm also sure the M8 with a 35 lux will definitely outperform the D700 with a kit lens .... all pun aside though, in the back of my mind I guess I always knew the M8 wasn't as good as I though, more a wishfull thinking-, and love of kind of process. Becoming confronted with actual results I must say it feels somewhat disappointing. And then an argument might be the Leica glass, but try the D700 with Zeiss Glass..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted November 18, 2008 Share #36 Posted November 18, 2008 It still isn't a good enough reason to buy a 2 year old car at the same price as a new one. I mean camera Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJP Posted November 18, 2008 Share #37 Posted November 18, 2008 It still isn't a good enough reason to buy a 2 year old car at the same price as a new one. I mean camera If I was buying a camera now I would still go for the M8 esp. as the main investment will be for the lenses which keep their value and their performance. Primarily based on size & handling and the classic ergonomics - no AF, manual shutter & diafraghm control. Also I feel happier supporting a small European company that is hanging in there against all odds. Also, the M8 classic is good enough for me which would cut the cost by 1000 $ or so. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomasis7 Posted November 18, 2008 Share #38 Posted November 18, 2008 If I was buying a camera now I would still go for the M8 esp. as the main investment will be for the lenses which keep their value and their performance. Primarily based on size & handling and the classic ergonomics - no AF, manual shutter & diafraghm control. Also I feel happier supporting a small European company that is hanging in there against all odds. Also, the M8 classic is good enough for me which would cut the cost by 1000 $ or so. yeah I feel the same. at the same time I find DXo as Ridiculous! To judge with human eyes is the best test you ever can have. Dxo will not tell you about signature of Noctilux. Anyway I have compared 6mpx camera with Leitz lenses with Nikon 6mpx camera with Nikkor lenses. Guess which camera was blown away out of the socks when wide aperture is used. (both cameras had 1.5x crop sensor). At low light I simply get much better pictures with RF no matter digital or analog. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lanetomlane Posted November 18, 2008 Share #39 Posted November 18, 2008 Chris, this was an interesting post and I did try to plough through the various figures and stats quoted. I was also interested to read of the forum members' comparison between M8 and Canon, which was the way the post was always going to go. (I'm surprised Nikon didn't come into discussion at some stage.) Whilst facts and figures may interest some people, which is no criticism on my part; at the end of the day it's the final image that counts and therefore does it really matter whether that superb photograph is captured on a Leica, Canon or Nikon? (Sure, it's extremely important to the manufacturer.) I enjoy the arguments I read on the forum about which camera is the best and how figures are used to substantiate the claims, but really all the top-end cameras these days are capable of producing wonderful work, providing the photographer sees and composes the subject. The camera is the tool for making the image a reality and no bad workman blames his tools. I must admit that I have no time for the people who criticise and decry the M8 just for the sake of negativity, when if they feel that way, no-one is stopping them changing to another brand. (In fact there're missing something if they don't change.) I have a couple of M8's and numerous Leica lenses, plus a comprehensive Nikon outfit (D2x and D200) and a Hasselblad, which I hardly ever use now. (I may, if I could afford a digital back!) Although I use them most and get the greatest satisfaction from the M8's, it doesn't in my opion, make the Leica a better camera than the others. Okay, you can start throwing the rotten fruit and bad eggs now. _______________________________ Cheers, Tom ...... says he ducking. Photography by Tom Lane Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomasis7 Posted November 18, 2008 Share #40 Posted November 18, 2008 It still isn't a good enough reason to buy a 2 year old car at the same price as a new one. I mean camera it is amazing that in the middle of crisis, Ferrari said there is no problem of shortage of clients. Ferrari sells like hot cakes with chocolate and nuts. Mums. How many M8 I can get for exchange for Enzo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.