brainiac wrote:
I am sorry about the composition I put the post there so that I could see foreground bokeh. The M8 lens was focussed all the way to infinity for this picture, and at f5.6 with a 35 that should be pretty fair focus. The reason the post appears more focussed is that a 35mm lens at f5.6 has greater depth of field than a 50mm at f5.6. I did check both files to make sure that I had found an area where both cameras appeared to be optimally focussed.
I hate to argue without the example photos. I wouldn't jump into M8 thread with 1DsII shots. But f5.6 with 35mm lens doesn't provided the DOF as deep as you seem to indicate. However, I take your word that you checked the files.
This is from one of the 5D shots. Clearly the blur of the buildings/lights is bringing the sky down into the sensor's range so we are seeing the colour of the sky. It's to be expected. The reason you see it less on the M8 shot is that there is much more depth of field there, so there is less bokeh, and therefore less fringe.
I think it's really healthy to have this discussion and I welcome criticism of my test.
brainiac wrote:
I think it's actually the weird Zeiss bokeh. It does this strange trick of wrapping light round corners. Well, I don't know a better way to describe it. If the sky were red, you would see red fringing instead, so it's not really CA in the usual sense.
I did some more investigation. I took the shots of black-white sharp transition at the center and at the edges with Planar 85/1.4, Distagon 28/2.8 and Canon EF 50/1.4. And I measured the profiles for R,G,B. What I found was that the Planar shows the perfect performance on Green and Red while Blue is not as sharp. This creates the mystic halo effect. I'm not sure if this is intentional by design
I looked into the Braine's M8 and 5D shots. I think we definitely have Focus issue here. The 5D shot has the focus around the Hazelwood House and Umbrellars. M8 focus missed the Umbrellas. As a matter of fact, I cannot find any place in focus for the M8 shot. Probably the focus was @ inifinity.
I also find the Aliasing on the M8 photos on the diagonal edges. This is consistent with what I saw in other M8 files. I personally think they went too far by not putting the AA filter.
As a matter of fact, I cannot find any place in focus for the M8 shot. Probably the focus was @ inifinity.
But if you look at the building at the end of the street which must be a mile away, it isn't really any better. I have to admit that I was expecting better from the Leica, but not having used the camera before, I have to accept the result I got. That file was the best I could find.
I have to question the out-of-focus suggestion too, because when you look at the word 'James' on the sign, the 'a' shows strong differential between levels in consecutive pixels. Surely that wouldn't happen if the lens wasn't resolving down to that level.
My conclusion then, was that we are seeing optimal focus, but contrary to expectations, the M8's pixels are not very good, perhaps due to noise, built in noise reduction, and moiré.
Edited by brainiac on Nov 19, 2006 at 03:45 AM GMT
>> I don't know if you are referring to me with your comment about prejudiced appraisal
Carsten, what my post said was "I think some people are not applying that kind of objective approach" and I stand by that. We all know that quite a few reviewers have not been entirely upfront about this camera. You have been more open-minded and balanced even than me! Discussing this camera with you has been a pleasure, for me, at least. I was not thinking of you, or anyone else in particular. Sorry, because you know what Oscar Wilde said: 'the only thing worse than being talked about, is not being talked about'. :)
Edited by brainiac on Nov 19, 2006 at 01:49 PM GMT
Again, I would not take any conclusions from this test. For one, the composition I believe is not the same so the equivalent focal length was not consistent. The 5D shot composition was closer to the sign that is being compared. I'd imagine that if you took a couple steps back with the 5D you'd get equivalent framing. Just one of the uncontrolled conditions in the test not to mention other potential factors. Hard to take anything away from your test.
brainiac wrote:
My conclusion then, was that we are seeing optimal focus, but contrary to expectations, the M8's pixels are not very good, perhaps due to noise, built in noise reduction, and moiré.
A few high ISO snapshots from my company's holiday party and my first outing with the M8 and Zeiss 21 ZM. Put an O in place of the L in the link to view at full resolution. The lighting was very difficult and AWB impossible due to the party lighting throughout the event (blue light). All are at ISO 1250 and wide open. It will be a while before I get RF manual focusing down but I absolutely loved working with the M8 and the ZM! A real pleasure to use that has brought back the excitement in photography for me. Could I have gotten the same images with my 1DS or a 5D? Absolutely not b/c I would not have brought them along, too bulky. OT, if anyone has a spare B+W IR filter cut filter for sale, pm me please.
brainiac wrote:
Carsten, what my post said was "I think some people are not applying that kind of objective approach" and I stand by that. We all know that quite a few reviewers have not been entirely upfront about this camera. You have been more open-minded and balanced even than me! Discussing this camera with you has been a pleasure, for me, at least. I was not thinking of you, or anyone else in particular. Sorry, but you know what Oscar Wilde said: 'the only thing worse than being talked about, is not being talked about'.
Okay, cool. I wasn't sure, and in any case, I wasn't angry. I just wanted to make sure that if you meant me, that I responded.
brainiac, your image probably shows that the 5D has more resolution. It does leave a lot of open questions though. I also question if the focus is correct, not because of the 'a', but because when I have seen shots from the M8 which were taken with a good lens, and focus nailed, they have been unbelivably sharp. I have had slightly out of focus shots when focusing on infinity for an object which was only several hundred meters away. It does make a difference. My camera also could not focus on infinity properly, so I sent it away to get adjusted. I wonder if your copy had the same.
An example below, without comparison shot from the 5D for now. That is the full picture, two 100% crops, and a fully zoomed in 300% or 400% crop (does anyone know what the max zoom is in Lightroom, with Apple-=?). I don't get that kind of sharpness from my 5D, simply because of the low pass filter, and keep in mind that there is a mirror of questionable optical properties in the path in this picture. I don't see this sharpness anywhere in your M8 shot. (Note that there are some jpg block artifacts in the exports, due to filesize restrictions. Don't look for blocky stuff, just lines).
Please ignore the elevator-mirror guy with his 8M, and his squeezed-shut eye and newbie focusing technique. I will show him how to do it more elegantly the next time I see him.
The thing that looks like a white hair is an optical illusion *cough*.
700% of one subject in one image with different lenses, not knowing if we have a correctly focused image, thats what we judge?
That's all I could manage with the time constraints. I am sorry. I would like to be able to test more, and I asked to do so, but there were other people waiting to use it.
The reason I have enlarged the crops by different factors is that the sensors have different numbers of pixels. If you show them both at 500%, you are penalizing the higher megapixel sensor because you are displaying its image at a bigger absolute size. As discussed earlier in the thread, it is EXTREMELY MISLEADING TO JUDGE RESOLUTION BY VIEWING A 10 MEGAPIXEL FILE AND A 13 MEGAPIXEL FILE AT 100% BECAUSE FOR ANY PARTICULAR PRINT THE 10 MEGAPIXEL FILE NEEDS 11% MORE ENLARGEMENT.
The M8's slightly wider angle of view definitely penalises it in this test, as I explained in the original post, but it doesn't account for what to my eyes is quite a dramatic difference in actual resolution.
It is my guess that the cameras' sharpening/contrast settings need to be better aligned for this test to be fairer. However, my test is a first step in helping me to assess whether I am going to see much improvement in image quality by switching to M8 from my current gear.
Now that some of you are joining the party and posting high rez files and crops, it looks like it is going to get much easier, so thanks guys, it is appreciated. Keep em coming.
Edited by brainiac on Nov 19, 2006 at 02:44 PM GMT
Nice shots KJ. Thanks for posting, it is appreciated. Those are exactly the kind of shots that help me make the assessment I need to make.
I really am not trying to upset anyone, but I think I have a duty to say what I see here, if only because nobody else seems to be seeing it (even reviewers!). KJ's shots are really suffering in the blacks. People assessing this camera for this kind of application should look under the aircraft's wing and bear in mind that this image is reduced to 800 pixels wide.
I am not sure I believe that this noise performance definitely has no bearing on performance at 640, 320, or even 160.
the composition I believe is not the same so the equivalent focal length was not consistent. The 5D shot composition was closer to the sign that is being compared. I'd imagine that if you took a couple steps back with the 5D you'd get equivalent framing.
Like I explained, the Leica 35 and Zeiss 50 were the closest in viewing angle that was available. The 35 should be 47, so I think it is fair to say that the Zeiss 50 might be a bit longer than 50. I didn't walk backwards with the Canon/Zeiss because (1) I was not aware that the angle was as different as it was (I won't say the reason), (2) I would not have wanted to change the ratio of post to background, and (3) I would have had to walk quite far backwards to significantly change the distant frame bounds and there simply wasn't space. I deliberately took the photo from exactly the same spot to try to minimise any point-of-view discrepancies.
Next week if there is another opportunity, I may try the test again with the Zeiss 45 although it doesn't perform as well as the 50.
brainiac wrote:
That's all I could manage with the time constraints. I am sorry. I would like to be able to test more, and I asked to do so, but there were other people waiting to use it.
The reason I have enlarged the crops by different factors is that the sensors have different numbers of pixels. If you show them both at 500%, you are penalizing the higher megapixel sensor because you are displaying its image at a bigger absolute size. As discussed earlier in the thread, it is EXTREMELY MISLEADING TO JUDGE RESOLUTION BY VIEWING A 10 MEGAPIXEL FILE AND A 13 MEGAPIXEL FILE AT 100% BECAUSE FOR ANY PARTICULAR PRINT THE 10 MEGAPIXEL FILE NEEDS 29% MORE ENLARGEMENT.
This generalization about enlargement is way too simplistic. Ability to enlarge any given image to a particular size is related to image resolution, contrast, viewing distance, printing medium, subject matter, rendering, and viewing conditions, to name but SOME of the variables. I have 35 mm images that could be easily enlarged to 24 x 36 inches, and others I wouldn't enlarge beyond 4 x 6 inches, all taken with the same camera, film, and lens. This persistent pixelpeeping is meaningless if you aren't looking at production prints.
I put the post there so that I could see foreground bokeh. The M8 lens was focussed all the way to infinity for this picture, and at f5.6 with a 35 that should be pretty fair focus. The reason the post appears more focussed is that a 35mm lens at f5.6 has greater depth of field than a 50mm at f5.6. I did check both files to make sure that I had found an area where both cameras appeared to be optimally focussed.