image quality differences DMR vs M8

[cpclee]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For those of you who have used both cameras, would you comment on how they render differently? I'm about to take the plunge to get an M8.

[Jamie Roberts]

In my opinion, they have a very strong family resemblance in terms of overall colour, detail and DR if handled properly.

 

The DMR has the smoothest transitions and best colour I've seen to date, and at low ISOs probably the most extensive dynamnic range; the M8 is "not quite" as good here, but in actual practice I've found the lens does more to make the M8 draw one way or another than the differences in the cameras. As I said, they're very close.

 

IMO the M8's ISO 640 is not just equivalent to the DMR's 800 (it is in terms of sensitivity), but it also has another stop in the shadows and is consequently less noisy and more forgiving of underexposure. So the M8 is a bit faster overall, which is what you might expect.

 

Both create sharp, detailed, wonderfully rich shots that take advantage of great glass. They both use Kodak pro CCD sensors (same as some medium format cameras) and neither have an anti-alias filter over the sensor.

 

The M8 requires UV/IR filters on the lenses; the DMR doesn't (the UV/IR filter on the DMR is thick enough on the sensor to provide good filtration).

 

Both are primarily RAW shooting cameras. JPEGs from either are ok for proofing.

[dfarkas]

Everything Jamie said....and....

 

I've also noticed that the DMR colors are a bit more muted than the M8 colors. The DMR files need a bit more saturation and contrast than the M8 files. Once adjusted, they are extremely close.

 

WB is way more accurate on the M8, especially Auto WB.

 

I never used my DMR at anything over 200 ISO. I routinely use 640 ISO on the M8 with perfect results, and without noise reduction s/w or algorithms.

 

Both cameras produce very pleasing, detailed files, with good nuance and texture.

 

David

[edlaurpic]

I am devoted to both cameras for different purposes and reasons.

 

However, if I am working from home or nearby and don't have to lug gear very far, the R9/DMR is what I choose, simply because I prefer fast lenses and the bokeh they produce and I can see in the viewfinder of the R9 the focused and out of focus areas that I will get in the shot. Whereas with the M8, one needs to use one's imagination to figure out what the bokeh will be like.

 

When I first got the M8 and then M8.2, I didn't think this would matter, but in practice, I find that the experience of shooting the R9 with any fast glass is much more satisfying. Also, and maybe I am only imagining this, but I think the 16 bit files of the DMR produce a much richer, dynamic file and most of the time I have no desire to do any post processing of the DMR files.

 

That said, the M8 blows away the DMR if you need to travel light and tread lightly in the human landscape. Especially with the discreet mode of the M8 and any of its fast lenses. This is the low light, inside people camera I reach for.

 

Funny that you should post this, as I recently ended up buying an extra M8.2 this year as well as an extra R9/DMR. I love 'em both.

[jaapv]

One thing I noticed is that DMR files are more robust in postprocessing. Clearly the original 16 bits file will withstand stronger treatment than M8 files that tend to break up sooner (which is not very soon anyway...)

[grduprey]

WB is better on the M8, but outside of that they are pretty close, and compliment each other. R lenses are just as good as M lenses in my opinion, so image quality with either is at the top of the stack when comparing to Nikon or Canon and the rest. Both cameras are simple and have easy to navigate menus, which is one of my favorite reasons for using them. The M8 works best for WA shooting and the R/DMR is best for tele to very long tele shooting. As far as post processing, they are pretty much the same, and I find I do very little post processing with either.

 

Gene