Leica M8.2 vs Canon 5D Mk II H2H Review

[Rich Christie]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Interesting read on H2H - they give the Leica due credit in most areas, though the perspective is skewed slightly towards the dslr:

 

Head-2-Head Reviews

[usayit]

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/97666-m8-vs-5dm2-comparison.html

[Nick De Marco]

I notice the image quality comparison (the most important one for me - a cmeara is for recordin images) is won hands down by the 5DII. I haven't had an M8.2, but had the M8 before selling it for the 5DII. I have to agree with the comparisson, even though I profer the size, feel and lenses with the M8, the image quality is just not up to scratch. I decided to use my film Ms instead, and if I want high quality use 5DII.

 

The forthcoming M9 is unlikely to change my mind - only because I shall not be able to afford it. But I hope for those of you that can there will be a significant improvement in image quality.

 

Nick

[Rich Christie]

They posted high iso shots of the M9 on their blog today:

 

Head-2-Head Blog

 

Unfortunately, they draw similar results.

[Nick De Marco]

yuck, looks like something out of my Panosonic Lux at high ISO

That's why I can't understand spending a few thousand on an M9 (or 8). The high iso is just ugly in my opinion. The 5D Mk 2, at 1600, is almost perfect for me, 3200 is pushing it but was far less noisy than 640 on the M8. I would have thought this should be adressed by now but maybe it is not.

 

The one think digital has over film, apart from convenience etc, is ability to change isos and shoot at high isos. I am using film more and more now, but for some situations I can't do without my 5D II (night time shooting etc). A digital camera that cannot perform well at high isos is not worth buying in my opinion - unless you just want a point and shoot for bright light. Certainly not worth a few thousand

[Jamie Roberts]

yuck, looks like something out of my Panosonic Lux at high ISO

{snipped}

 

Well, no in actual fact, but yes according to the craptastic samples you see on this web site.

 

I can't tell enough about how on earth they're processing the m8 files (in fact, though they mention Phase, they're using that DxO thing--or something similar--to measurebate deltas from a color checker (!!)--which actually tells you next to absolutely nothing about good or pleasing photographic color, but I digress).

 

There's no point comparing two systems unless you have people who know how to get the best out them.

 

I've seen stunning work with the M8 and stunning work with a 5d2. The strengths of one is not the other.

 

If you want to fool yourself into thinking one has better ultimate IQ than the other, that's cool with me But there are so many variables--and none of them have to do with the M8 being quaint--here that a "head to head" is simply and quite totally meaningless.

 

If you like your Canon, good on you You should like what you shoot with.

[2Bébèrt]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The camerafoto's in this test are from a M8 and not an M8.2.....

[AlanJW]

I agrre with Jamie 100%. I'm not a pro but I've been at photography for 50 years now and I think I know something about images and equipment too. And I have both an M8 and a 5dmkii. They are both excellent tools but they are different and there is no one camera that is truly a universal solution. I think M8 images have a quality perhaps due to M glass and perhaps the sensors/internal prrocessing that are more natural and more pleasing. That is to be sure a subjective assessment. The M8 is also compact and easy to totel around. So why do I have a 5d? Is for the times the M8 is not the right tool. Going to the zoo with long lenses; very low light situations; fast moving little kids where autofocus is needed; and situations calling for flash. Of course my opinion may not be shared by all -- but I think these kind of comparisons, while interesting, are of little relevance.

[blakley]

I'm with Jamie on this one too; low-light files with the M8 - especially in mixed light - require good processing, which hasn't been done in this case. Any value the comparison might have is negated by the poor treatment of the files.