 |
brainiac
Offline
[X]
|
 p.2 #5 · canon DSLR vs Leica M8 for extended traveling | |
telyt wrote:
Richard, is this opinion based on actual experience, or are you calculating this from a spec sheet? Those who have used both the M8 and a variety of Canons including 1DsII and 5D prefer the M8's RAW files to their Canons' files.
My opinion is based on using both cameras and carefully examining my results, although I have to admit that I have used the M8 on only two occasions. It was enough for me to decide that the camera offered worse image quality than much cheaper alternatives. I base my comment about the 450D on comparison of its output with my 5Ds and 1Ds3. The M8 files never came close to the 5D for detail, in my opinion, probably because of the camera's in-built noise reduction. The 450D, on the other hand, does approach 5D image quality very closely, and is highly usable at iso 1600, which the M8 is not. Don't forget that the 450D has 12 million pixels and they are capable of holding good detail. The M8 seems to iron out a particular frequency of data around the 9-10 megapixel wavelength, which is presumably what its built-in noise reduction is intended to do. For that reason, I am reasonably confident in saying that I expect a direct comparison of detail between the two cameras to favour the 450D. 'Clean' files don't interest me. IMO cleanliness is usually a sign that detail is being discarded.
As regards the M8's happy owners, there have in fact been many unfavourable reports by those who have the guts. Jack Flesher, who used to frequent this forum, made great claims about M8 'printability', 'clean' files, and how well the M8's files 'hold up'. Finally, more than a year after the camera had been in use, he posted a direct comparison between M8, 5D, 1Ds2, and 1Ds3, and quite clearly the files did not hold up. In particular the M8 files suffered from severe loss of high frequency texture, red fringing, and very lumpy and uninformative shadows, compared to the 5D file. The M8 file simply had nothing extra to compensate for these shortcomings. Since then I am afraid to say that I have taken the claims of happy M8 users with a pinch of salt. I simply don't believe they are doing fair comparisons in the way that Jack eventually did.
People love Leica, and the M system, and that's great, but when spending such large sums of money is at stake, then I personally would rather be in a 'show me' forum like this one.
In that spirit, here is a crop which shows that the M8 is editing out a particular frequency of data. The umbrella spokes should have been resolved, but got smoothed. This is why I think the M8 isn't a 10 megapixel camera in the same sense that a 450D is a 12 megapixel camera:
http://cyberphotographer.com/m8v5d/images/brollycrop.jpg
Notice also that the M8's lack of AA filter introduces false colour around the text. IMO that moire is also probably the cause of the red fringing seen often along edges in M8 files, and specifically in the files that Jack Fletcher posted. The lower crop is from a 5D. I should add the proviso that this comparison was taken with slightly different magnification as I couldn't quite get equivalent focal lengths. I did a subsequent test using a Zeiss 21 on the M8 and a Zeiss 28 on the 5D which showed more or less the same result.
So, in short, my opinion on this is based on careful consideration of output from the mooted cameras. But there's no need to believe me - do your own comparison. Fairly.
Edited on Jul 18, 2008 at 08:22 AM
|
| Jul 18, 2008 at 08:15 AM |
| |
|
 |
