Jeff, I wanted to know the limits of resolution for the M8, and look at the noise and moiré situation, as well as the colour rendition at 160 iso, with direct comparison to my current equipment.
I don't agree that it's meaningless to assess the quality of a digital camera's output on screen. A print is of course a different display method, but some effort goes into trying to calibrate the two, and indeed, most adjustments before printing are done on screen. Of course it's not a perfect match, but the correlation is direct and comprehensive.
It looks to me like the lampost in the foreground of your 5D shot is showing some pretty strong CA where it is backlit by the sky. Do you by any chance that same shot with a Canon lens? I'd be curious to see if it has the same issue as your Contax lens.
Jack, I was very interested by this issue that you raised, and I think it teaches us a lot.
The 5D shot was taken about half an hour later than the M8 one. You can see that although it is still overcast, there is some blue in the sky in the background. Also the 5D shot is a much darker exposure. The blue fringe is simply the blue of the sky within the bokeh transition to the lamp post. The sky itself is pretty much burned out so you can't see it's blue. In the blurred edge of the lamp post the light gets progressively less 'skyish' and progressively more 'lamp posty'. At some point in that transition, the light is now dark enough to be captured better by the sensor. Since it has a component of blue sky in it, it renders, quite correctly, as blue.
But why doesn't the M8 shot show the same?
1) because at that time the sky was not blue
2) there is about half the blur on the lamp post due to the shorter focal length
It is almost certain that had the M8 shot been taken with a 50mm at f2, at the same dark exposure as the 5D shot, and with a blue, not grey sky behind the blurred object, that the M8 would correctly show the blueness too.
There are other points of interest in this crop. The 5D shows good colour contrast between the yellow and green leaves whereas the M8 does not. I know green rendition is something I have been banging on about, but there it is, plain to see.
One surprise for me is that the noise in the shadowy side of the post is definitely worse on the 5D. However, this doesn't seem to be hurting resolution, as the 5D shows that the curved chimney stack has a face on the side, whereas the M8 doesn't quite. That's a good example of how resolution can affect the intelligibility of much larger shapes and objects than what's being resolved. The absense of that infomation could be due to the colour compression in the M8 shot, or even to the absense of cloud cover in the sky in the background, but I wouldn't rule out the culprit that took away the spokes from the brolly in the previous crop. If that culprit is noise reduction, and it could be, then this is an illustration of how an old fashioned AA filter and a bit of sharpening is a more reliable way of overcoming moiré than lower rez, higher noise and cunning firmware.
Update: I found a really nice illustration of the colour bokeh phenomenon, which shows both blue 'CA' where the sky is blue, and grey 'CA' where there is cloud:
This is correct behaviour by a lens, but looks weird because the sensor has a finite dynamic range.
Note also how the post seems to bulge where the tree is behind it. Again this is correct behaviour since the tree is more like the post, so light superposition seems to expand the post, and reminds us of the wavelike aspect of everything.
Edited by brainiac on Nov 19, 2006 at 05:40 PM GMT
Andi, thanks for that article link, bloody hilarious. I love computer translation - it's so full of surprises it's like reading poetry.
Like the man said, "To the last, but relative comparison, when like this you think, unexpected to be cheap, good bargain you probably can call M8 the camera for the Leica fan."
If anybody is still reading this you probably need cheering up. I thoroughly recommend the article Andi suggested as the means.
;-)
Guy Mancuso wrote:
I'm staying out of this one. LOL
Why? You have contributed so much to so many people on this forum. I would like to know what you think. I don't always agree with your views but I take them very seriously and listen hard. I know that I would benefit from your presence in this thread, and I expect others would too (if anyone is left!).
Sorry brainiac but that comparison tells me nothing more than:
"A 5D correctly focussed 600% jpeg crop is better than a M8 slightly misfocussed 700% jpeg crop".
Handheld and in different light conditions.
If the 5D was shot with more blue in the sky, there was more contrast, which helps in viewing small sign's letters a hundred meters away.
It was also underexposed (or the M8 is overexposed?), which again helps in reading the well lit sign.
I don't have a 5D, but I have a 1Ds and I have shoot with the M8 for a while.
Despite the 1Ds slightly higher resolution I found the M8 sharper, with more microcontrast and sense of 3D, cleaner colors and better dynamic range.
I don't need to go 600% to see which I like better, indeed even the R-D1 produces many times better images than the 1Ds, though it is only 6.1 Mp.
I was always under the impressions that a full frame camera with more pixels would always have run circles around a cropped less Mp one, but lately I changed my mind... to the point that I just bought a used R9 and I'm going to order a DMR along with the M8 !
Guy Mancuso wrote:
This test is so far off the mark...
...I will run my own tests that i feel are more accurate.
Your contributions to this forum are one of the reasons why I came here to try to learn about the M8 and see what it can do. I look forward to seeing your tests and I agree with you that they will be more accurate than mine.
> Despite the 1Ds slightly higher resolution I found the M8 sharper, with more microcontrast and sense of 3D, cleaner colors and better dynamic range.
It would be great if you could post some examples for comparison, even though the 1Ds is discontinued. In these fast changing times, Leica's latest should aim to compete with current models though.
Edited by brainiac on Nov 19, 2006 at 08:27 PM GMT
The main message that I have seen from this test, from all it's flaws, is that the shadow detail in the M8 is pretty good, beats the 5D which we know has smaller range. And so the result follows the specs.
Time to be 'approximately right, not precisely wrong!'
the full scale or moderately blown up images show the leica glass advantage ("M") pretty convincingly.
The M8 is wonderfully small and focuses fast.
The 3D look of my first images (and I FINALLY took a pix of my ballistic nylon bag, yes magenta, yes fixed easily) and the DR hold their own with anything I have seen.
I submit, without proof, that the claim 'no better than a P&S" etc are not worthy of response (Jeff 'ignore' law being followed)
Bottom line from a DMR and P45 owner. this is a camera I will use,and even at parity with similar (whether canon nikon or other) the advantages of size RF, and spectacular glass make it a winner, for ME.
And by ignoring the pixel peeping, the screen of my monitor is blessedly free of nose grease
I have a couple of questions and would appreciate it if any M8 owners could help.
1. What safe-sync do I need to hook an alien bee up to my M8? If you could supply a part number, that would be great.
2. My hot shoe is really tight. I put an auxiliary finder on and had trouble getting it off. Then I put the SF 240 flash on and thought I would break it getting it off. Has anyone else noticed this problem?
3. I have a Metz 54-4 for my 5D. What part do I need to adapt it to the M8?
4. The little SF 240 is a nice flash to have in my bag, but I need to get it out of the hot shoe for good results. Does anyone know what cord is needed for off-camera work?
Marco wrote:
ut that comparison tells me nothing more than:
"A 5D correctly focussed 600% jpeg crop is better than a M8 slightly misfocussed 700% jpeg crop". Handheld and in different light conditions.
It also tells me that Focusing with M8 may not be as easy with 5D AF. Braine said he could miss critical shots because of that. How frequently do you put M8 on Tripod ? I thought the portability is one of main advantages of RF over SLRs.
I don't have a 5D, but I have a 1Ds and I have shoot with the M8 for a while.
Despite the 1Ds slightly higher resolution I found the M8 sharper, with more microcontrast and sense of 3D, cleaner colors and better dynamic range.
I don't need to go 600% to see which I like better, indeed even the R-D1 produces many times better images than the 1Ds, though it is only 6.1 Mp.
For such strong conviction, example photos are necessary. As you have both 1Ds and M8, can you post a couple of examples that, you think, shows "many times better" quality ?
gogopix wrote:
...
And by ignoring the pixel peeping, the screen of my monitor is blessedly free of nose grease
How ironic this is !
I am so used to seeing here people comparing DMR or SD10 photos with Canon's at 400% to prove the "pixel level" Clarity/Crispness/Micro-contrast of those cameras.
> The main message that I have seen from this test, from all it's flaws, is that the shadow detail in the M8 is pretty good, beats the 5D which we know has smaller range.
Well this is one thing I will definitely do if I have another chance to do this test: set the contrast levels on each camera so that they match using a histogram. I didn't do it, and afterwards it was immediately clear that I should have. The M8 was set to a low contrast setting and the 5D, I found afterwards was set to about medium. That is the main reason for the apparent discrepancy, so I set no store by it, and that is why I adjusted the files to look the same before trying to assess my results. On the whole, I think that the 5D's bad underexposure should have been more destructive to the data than the M8's low contrast, but that may not be the case. Maybe with a higher contrast setting the brolly spokes would have come out on the M8. I don't know.
As regards the range, can anyone confirm that M8 raw files are 8 bit? What is the bit depth difference between the two cameras in their various stages, if there is one?
Cindy Flood wrote:
2. My hot shoe is really tight. I put an auxiliary finder on and had trouble getting it off. Then I put the SF 240 flash on and thought I would break it getting it off. Has anyone else noticed this problem?
I can't answer these questions, but can add that I have seen this problem stated elsewhere. Someone ran a pencil along the sides of the flash mount, since graphite is an excellent, non-destructive lubricant, and that apparently helped.
> The main message that I have seen from this test, from all it's flaws, is that the shadow detail in the M8 is pretty good, beats the 5D which we know has smaller range.
This is unfair, and I doubt that it holds in a fairer test. Brainiac (do we get to know your name one of these days?) admitted to underexposing the 5D shot, which ruins it for noise comparison. This needs to be separately tested.
> pixel peeping at 400%, 600% and 700%... ...500% mad.
;-) perfectly good way of trying to assess limit of sharpness of a camera and lens. Or do we have to make 40x60 inch prints each time?
I explained earlier in this thread, that as a wedding photographer I sometimes have to put 30 or so people in the frame. In those instances resolution matters, and the less stitching I have to do, the better.
It seems like people want to keep moving the goal posts. First anti-aliasing filters are bad, then pixel-peeping is for loonies. I don't get it.
I wanted to see if the M8 really is noticeably sharper than the 5D as people were claiming. It affects my business decisions. I'm both skeptical and open minded: I still say "show me".
