nugat Posted September 8, 2009 Share #1 Posted September 8, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Head-2-Head Reviews Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 8, 2009 Posted September 8, 2009 Hi nugat, Take a look here M8 vs 5Dm2 comparison. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Dan States Posted September 9, 2009 Share #2 Posted September 9, 2009 Kinda weird to be doing a comparison of a 3 year old camera with a new counterpart. Not too surprising except that some of the Canon shots look really fuzzy. Where were they in 2007? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted September 9, 2009 Share #3 Posted September 9, 2009 Yes, they should do an update comparing the 5D2 to the M9. That would be a more interesting comparison at this point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterP Posted September 9, 2009 Share #4 Posted September 9, 2009 I am bored with these comparisons, sounds a lot like "my dog's better than your dog". Pointless and doubt very much it influences any buying habits. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSU Posted September 9, 2009 Share #5 Posted September 9, 2009 How does the EF 50/1.4 compare with the 50 Summilux Asph? How does the EF 28/1.8 compare with the 28 Summicorn Asph? How does the EF 24/1.4 L compare with the 24 Summilux Asph? How does the EF 20/2.8 (or worse, the 20mm setting of the EF 16-35/2.8 zoom) compare with the 21mm Elmarit Asph or even the 21/3.4 Super Angulon from 40 years ago? Does Canon have anything to compare with a Noctilux? It's not just the camera body that factors in the comparison.... Now, would you care to compare the about to be released M9 (not the 3 year old M8) with the 5D II? I wouldn't either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted September 9, 2009 Share #6 Posted September 9, 2009 How does the EF 50/1.4 compare with the 50 Summilux Asph? How does the EF 28/1.8 compare with the 28 Summicorn Asph? How does the EF 24/1.4 L compare with the 24 Summilux Asph? How does the EF 20/2.8 (or worse, the 20mm setting of the EF 16-35/2.8 zoom) compare with the 21mm Elmarit Asph or even the 21/3.4 Super Angulon from 40 years ago? Does Canon have anything to compare with a Noctilux? It's not just the camera body that factors in the comparison.... Now, would you care to compare the about to be released M9 (not the 3 year old M8) with the 5D II? I wouldn't either. Also not mentioned is the file format used to make the comparisons. JPG? RAW? and the photo of the shutter speed dial is of the M8, not M8.2 while the text describes the M8.2 SS dial. Sloppy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilfredo Posted September 9, 2009 Share #7 Posted September 9, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I found this to be a fairly accurate review and actually presents the M8 in a favorable light. Many of us use both cameras and are happy with both. I'm sure that in time a comparison with the M9 will come down the road. It will be interesting to see how well the M9 does in the noise department. As the report said, the 5D Mark II puts many cameras to shame in that department, even more expensive cameras like the M8.2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterP Posted September 9, 2009 Share #8 Posted September 9, 2009 How does the EF 50/1.4 compare with the 50 Summilux Asph? How does the EF 28/1.8 compare with the 28 Summicorn Asph? How does the EF 24/1.4 L compare with the 24 Summilux Asph? How does the EF 20/2.8 (or worse, the 20mm setting of the EF 16-35/2.8 zoom) compare with the 21mm Elmarit Asph or even the 21/3.4 Super Angulon from 40 years ago? Does Canon have anything to compare with a Noctilux? It's not just the camera body that factors in the comparison.... Now, would you care to compare the about to be released M9 (not the 3 year old M8) with the 5D II? I wouldn't either. You totally missed the point of the post, pal!!!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
batmobile Posted September 9, 2009 Share #9 Posted September 9, 2009 JSU, I agree such X vs. Y threads can be a bit daft, but you can bet they did not have Leica lenses on the Canon or Canon lenses on the M8.2. Think about it for a minute... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cuss Posted September 9, 2009 Share #10 Posted September 9, 2009 Well, I seriously doubt they have ever touched a Leica M8.2 in their lives. They are showing images of M8 (apparently taken from some other site) and calling it a M8.2. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomasis7 Posted September 9, 2009 Share #11 Posted September 9, 2009 another worthless review.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tashley Posted September 9, 2009 Share #12 Posted September 9, 2009 Two days ago, in advance of getting an M9, I did the acid test: I shot the same scene with an M8 (50 Lux), 5dII (50 R Cron) and P45+ (Mamiya 80d) all at F8, all on tripods, all with the same widthways FOV. All RAW files were developed in C1 with default sharpening and all were then exported to 16bit TIFF into PS where they were upresed to be 92 cm wide at 180PPI. I won't bore you with why I chose that but there's a logic to it. I then imported the files into LR and printed a central crop about 20 inches high and 13.3 inches wide from each of them onto very nice semi-gloss paper on a properly profiled Z3100. As you would expect, the Phase One was clearly best, the 5DII was clearly next best and the M8.2 was last. The only reason I did it was that it represents my workflow and upper output size, and I wanted a repeatable sample so I can test the M9 against it if I trade in my 8.2. The 5dII was not twice as good as as the M8.2 - in fact I would say it was more like 50% better. And the P45+ was maybe 30% better again. But you do, roughly, get what you'd expect from tech spec if not from price! Tim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
batmobile Posted September 9, 2009 Share #13 Posted September 9, 2009 What Tashley says why the M9 might well be a big hit if it can combine 5dMk2 like sensor quality (at more modest ISOs one expects, but thats fine for me) and superb lenses in a compact package. If with Leica/Zeiss/Good CV lenses, the M9 can compete with the 5D2 up to say 400/640 then I think it will be a knockout success, because it has no competition at all due to size/handling factors. It may be painful to M8.2 owners that a camera with a 24-105 zoom can out resolve it, it shoul be no surprise. After all a huge crude V8 will out power a tiny four cylinder a fraction of its size even if it is at the cutting edge for its size. Now the M9 promises some 'bigger' to go with its 'edge'(the lenses) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamey Posted September 9, 2009 Share #14 Posted September 9, 2009 It would be very interesting indeed. However a true camparison, the Canon 5D-2 must be coupled to R lenses. Ken. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
odyocu Posted September 9, 2009 Share #15 Posted September 9, 2009 I also have both cameras. Apples and oranges! I use both. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 9, 2009 Share #16 Posted September 9, 2009 The two uncontrollable parameters in the test are of course the uprezzing and the difference in FOV=subject distance. I would have used a Summicron 35 asph on the M8 and printed at native resolution. That would have levelled the playingfield. I think the differences might still be as listed, but the gap between 5D2 and M8 would probably have been a lot narrower. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tashley Posted September 9, 2009 Share #17 Posted September 9, 2009 The two uncontrollable parameters in the test are of course the uprezzing and the difference in FOV=subject distance. I would have used a Summicron 35 asph on the M8 and printed at native resolution. That would have levelled the playingfield. I think the differences might still be as listed, but the gap between 5D2 and M8 would probably have been a lot narrower. I shot the same Fov on each camera with an essentially flat subject and the files from the 5dII were upresed too. For my purposes (getting a 92 cm wide print) the comparison was totally fair, even down to the glass used! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.