 |
brainiac
Offline
[X]
|
OK - because you lot are my favourite people to discuss stuff with and learn from, I am going to put up a little preview of my hands-on test.
Disclaimer
This is by no means an exhaustive, scientific, or even fair test. Both cameras are very different beasts and one man's meat is another man's poison. I did not do this comparison because I love, or hate, one particular manufacturer or other, or any group of camera users. I was having trouble finding out what I wanted to know online, namely whether I should consider buying an M8 or two for my business needs.
I haven't yet had time to organise doing raw conversions. I am sure the very expert members here will know the most effective ways of doing that. If any experts want access to the .dng files just ask and I will put them on my webserver, but for now the images linked below are from JPEGs out of each camera. I know what many of you are about to say: JPEGs are no way to test a camera, raw, firmware, profiles blah blah. Let's not have that discussion: I did this test for myself. I have to use JPEG because my pictures aren't art, and I already struggle to get through my work load. That's why a JPEG test is appropriate for me. Regardless of whether your way of working includes JPEG or not, I think a $5k camera ought to be able to save a decent JPEG. Obvisouly I used the best quality JPEG setting on each camera.
I don't know how representative my results are, but the Leica rep helped me, and we used the latest 35 f2. Strangely the lens did not have the pattern thingy to enable the camera electronics to know what lens it was using. I don't know how much difference that makes, but as I understand it, with the 35 it shouldn't be huge.
I wanted to test other focal lengths but the rep only had 50 and 90, which don't match very closely any of my lenses' fields of view on 24x36. As it stands the 35 crops to 47mm equivalence so it doesn't exactly match my 50 but it's close enough. !!Correction: I have just double checked that, and the M8 file is noticeably wider in angle, i.e. it is surprising how much difference those 3 millimetres of focal length make. It may be that the Contax 50 f1.7 is a bit longer than 50mm. As a result I also show the full frames below. Please note that the Zeiss 50 had no lens shade but still seems to have performed well against the Leica. You may think it's unfair to compare a 35 and a 50, but that's a penalty that cropped sensors incur.
I underexposed the 5D shot quite badly. It was hard to set equivalent exposure on two different displays on the back of the cameras. I realise now that I should have used the histograms, but I am not an experienced tester. I have used a curve to brighten the 5D file.
I also failed to set exactly equivalent contrast settings. I have adjusted the M8 file with a slight S curve.
I left the 5D's white balance on Auto, whereas I set the M8 to cloudy. Although this should have been an advantage to the M8, its shots were way warm. This problem has been reported by many people, so I was not too surprised. I have adjusted the 5D file with a curve to bring its colours into line with the Leica.
Although the contrast adjustment may not help the M8, the other adjustments were done to the 5D file, as I perceive such adjustments as lossy. In other words, I am deliberately trying to give the M8 every chance to show what it can do.
The M8's firmware was 1.06 and iso on both cameras was 160.
M8 top, 5D under:
http://cyberphotographer.com/m8v5d/brollycrop.jpg
Here are the full frames:
M8
http://cyberphotographer.com/m8v5d/160f5.6_125_M8lowrez.jpg
5D
http://cyberphotographer.com/m8v5d/160f5.6_160_-1.3_5Dlowrez.jpg
The curve on the 5D shot to brighten it up exaggerates green/red colour noise in places. That noise is less visible before the file is adjusted, which goes to show why it is vital to get your exposure right if you shoot JPEG. Having said that, we are looking at 600% magnification.
I would like to say a couple of things about the camera itself. I used to use a couple of Mamiya 6's and all 3 of its lenses, so I do have plenty of experience with quality rangefinders.
Obviously the M8 seems well built and so on, and you can read about that everywhere. Menus were fine et cetera.
One thing that surprised me was that the camera is quite heavy. I did not notice the 5D _feeling_heavy_ in my hand, because it is much easier to hold. I suppose you could buy a grip for the M8, but that adds weight and size.
I did discover quite a few usability issues too. I shoot portrait orientation a lot, with the camera hanging down from my right hand. Shooting this way, the focussing 'protrusion' on the 35mm lens is all but unreachable with your left hand at the infinity position. There is no texture or knurling on the very small focus ring, so focussing was tricky enough that I am sure I would miss shots. A lot. It was also impossible to focus on the lamp post in vertical orientation so I had to focus and then rotate, a continuing nuisance which costs you the perfect moment. Fortunately the lamp post was very patient.
Two sets of frame lines is a constant niggle because every time you lift the camera to your eye you need to remember which you are using. If you change lenses often or use 2 bodies for speed, you are going to use the wrong frame lines, and possibly screw up an important picture. A wedding photographer doesn't like that kind of pitfall.
But by far the greatest penalty about using a rangefinder is that you just can't see the picture: no bokeh, no focal plane, no accurate framing near and far, no off center focussing, no depth of field preview, no "whoops! I have condensation on my lens" (happened to me on a job last night) and so on. And for what do you sacrifice all of the helpful SLR usability? M fans will say - low vibrations in the camera body. I say irrelevant because the camera is still much less sharp than much cheaper alternatives as the comparison above suggests. They say symmetrical lenses. I say sensors prefer more collimated light. They say size and weight. I say there is negligible size and weight advantage, and the handling issue neutralises it. They say you can see outside the frame borders; I say learn to keep both eyes open while you shoot.
So you have M lenses which nothing can touch. Look above. That lens cost me 100 UK pounds. New. It's a third of a stop brighter than the M 35 f2 and as far as I can see from pictures I shot yesterday it matches it in all areas apart from resolution where it is currently winning. If you prefer to use Leica lenses, Leica makes some nice R's, and they work better with sensors because they sit further from the film plane.
My advice would be, trade in your M's and use Leica R's or Zeiss or Canon L or Nikkor or Zuiko on a 5D and give $3000 to your favourite charity or a carbon fund. Don't crucify me for saying that. Everyone's free to do what she wants to do, and if you love the M8, and can afford it, you are free to buy it and enjoy it no matter what I say.
Here's a little reminder that there is an affordable alternative which will probably net you better photographic results:
http://cyberphotographer.com/m8v5d/nutella5D.jpg
Edited by brainiac on Nov 19, 2006 at 03:06 AM GMT
|
| Nov 18, 2006 at 03:09 PM |
| |
|
 |
, it is just the discussion could be more focused. :-)