The pixels look nicer for the M8, but I doubt that this is enough to overcome the 5D's advantage in resolution, so for final results for your purposes, it sounds like the 5D is better. I prefer the M8's compromises.
Brainiac,
Whom are you trying to convince that Canon 5D is better than Leica M8 or vice versa, yourself or people that already bought an M8, potential M8 buyers or potential 5D buyers? People that already bought the M8 could not be swayed to agree with you, no matter how hard you try. Potential M8 buyers go to other forums if they want to find out more about the M8, and potential 5D buyers would go to the Canon forum.
As you mentioned in several occasions, the 5D seemed to be better than the M8 in various aspects. Even I share that view with you, I bought an M8 not to compare that with 1DsMark II. For sure, I did not do that because I was expecting that the M8 would beat the crap out of my Canon body. It has only 10 MP compared to 16 MP of the Canon 1Ds Mark II.
If I may use an analogy; I would compare the Leica M8 to a BMW, and the Canon 5D/1DsMark II to a Lexus. They are both great cars, they will get you from point A to point B, as a Yugo (what, comparable to a cheapo P&S camera?) would, but they driving characteristics are different. The Lexus is less expensive (in the US, at least), more comfortable, more reliable maybe even more luxurious than the BMW. Plus it retains the resale value better than BMW ever could. But the driving experience and the power of the BMW have to be experienced first hand to be appreciated. Which car is better? A lot of people believe that the Lexus is a better car, for sure it is a better buy. You do the test drive and decide afterwards. Obviously, you already did that and you are under the impression that the Lexus, uh, Canon 5D is the camera for you. I am happy for you and you already found the answer.
The idea of having this thread, hence the name Hands-On, is for M8 owners to share their findings. Like Cindy’s post, for example, it gets buried fast since most M8 owners are loosing interest and are shying away from this thread. It may be a good idea to start another thread, a more dedicated thread focusing on that issue, if you feel the need for that. I am not being negative just trying to help you to get to the bottom of this, which like I mentioned earlier, I thought you already did based on you own test….
I would agree with (almost) everything Joshua (AGeoJo) says (given that I drive a BMW ), but would add that given the learning curve of the M8, I don't think we are going to be able to rely on any 'tests' carried out in a few minutes at (or around) a dealer's shop, conducted in the first few minutes (or even hours) of using one, unless you are an experienced Rangefinder user.
I think we have to rely on the results of longer term tests by people who own one, and where possible also own a 5D and/or 1Ds2. I have the later, but not my M8 yet. I am waiting patiently, given that by the time I get mine, hopefully all the issues will be worked out, and we will know where we stand (i.e. if I need to buy IR filters or not).
If any one thinks they are going to pick up a rangefinder and use it within a few minutes as competently as they have been using a DSLR (or other SLR) for 10-30+ years, they are mistaken.
My advice to those looking on, if your DSLR (of whatever brand and model you have) is working for you, keep it..... and save yourself some money You only need to look at the M8 if you are looking for the things that a Rangefinder brings to the party.... but in doing so, remember what you leave at the door... because there ARE some things that only DSLRs can do.
So, lets get some nice pictures and other hands on experience here please.....
DaveEP wrote:
If any one thinks they are going to pick up a rangefinder and use it within a few minutes as competently as they have been using a DSLR (or other SLR) for 10-30+ years, they are mistaken.
So, lets get some nice pictures and other hands on experience here please.....
What? Are we supposed to take pictures with and not of the range finder camera? I got the concept wrong then .
Seriously though, Dave, you have a valid point there.
brainiac wrote:
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.
When I'll get the replacement for my (defective ) M8 and if I will still have my 1Ds (which I'm selling to fund the DMR buy) I will be glad to make a tight comparison.
I still have my wonderful 90 TSE so I could compare it with the 75 Apo on the M8, compensating for the slightly different fov (75 on the M8 is about 100mm) by feet
Btw, I never needed to set up a comparison to found what I saw after some preliminar images with the M8.
1Ds images are great as far as sharpness and I never felt I lack Mp, particularly when I got some Leica lenses to go with, or the Zeiss 21...
Indeed I didn't "upgrade" to the markII because I also usually don't shoot over 400-800 ISO and IMO a well taken and processed 1Ds 100 ISO shot is still hard to beat.
But with the M8 I was particularly impressed by the crispness of details, the wide dynamic range and the clean shadows which could be easily recovered without any noise and showing great details, something the 1Ds could only dream of.
Pondria wrote:
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 ?
Pondria, I mean "many times better" in the sense that "many times" I feel the R-D1 gives me "better" images. That is not to say that resolution wise the R-D1 could compete with the 1Ds. No way, really.
But colors and contrast, coupled with the great rendition of Leica glass (and Voigtlander too), make me happy probably more a time than the 1Ds.
Again, I made a comparison of the same image only a couple of times, because I didn't and still don't consider the two cameras competitive each other.
Sadly I don't find the 1Ds shot, I'll try to see tomorrow if I saved it in my external backup, btw colors, contrast and bokeh are better in the R-D1+75AA shot, while the 1Ds-70-200IS shot showed more resolution, albeit with lower microcontrast.
While searching for that nature 1Ds shot to compare to the R-D1 one, I found these crops from the only other comparison I made between the two cameras. The classick "books shelf" test
I upsampled the R-D1 image to match the 1Ds size.
100% crops left corner from:
1Ds + 70-200 IS @ 115mm at f/8, tripod mounted, mirror lock on
Nice shots? Thx but I think it was more of a stress test for the M8 in an area that you correctly point out that the M8 suffers, high ISO performance. The M8's noise in the shadows of an underexposed image at high ISO was what I had expected, not good. The well exposed areas hold up well even at 1250. And yes at lower ISO the M8 shadows do clean up remarkably.
I would not be as quick to conclusions as you in assuming that a 5D would have given me "better" shadow detail. It would be interesting to see a competent comparison between the two cameras under a variety of conditions.
brainiac wrote:
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....Show more →
Joshua, you are right! Unlike Jeffs proposal on posting it here, Brianiac should have created his own thread. I would even suggest that comparision between Canon and Leica should be posted in the Canon forum when the Canon wins and in the Alternative Forum when the Leica wins.
Like it was mentioned before it were the Leica fans who proposed to compare it with Canon Cameras. I think Leica users should be glad that Brainiac made these samples in order to help people avoiding to aim too high with their expectations on the M8.
Now I agree also that people should have more space to discuss on the various issues of the M8 and forget about absolut performance. Good luck
AGeoJO wrote:
Brainiac,
Whom are you trying to convince that Canon 5D is better than Leica M8 or vice versa, yourself or people that already bought an M8, potential M8 buyers or potential 5D buyers? People that already bought the M8 could not be swayed to agree with you, no matter how hard you try. Potential M8 buyers go to other forums if they want to find out more about the M8, and potential 5D buyers would go to the Canon forum.
As you mentioned in several occasions, the 5D seemed to be better than the M8 in various aspects. Even I share that view with you, I bought an M8 not to compare that with 1DsMark II. For sure, I did not do that because I was expecting that the M8 would beat the crap out of my Canon body. It has only 10 MP compared to 16 MP of the Canon 1Ds Mark II.
If I may use an analogy; I would compare the Leica M8 to a BMW, and the Canon 5D/1DsMark II to a Lexus. They are both great cars, they will get you from point A to point B, as a Yugo (what, comparable to a cheapo P&S camera?) would, but they driving characteristics are different. The Lexus is less expensive (in the US, at least), more comfortable, more reliable maybe even more luxurious than the BMW. Plus it retains the resale value better than BMW ever could. But the driving experience and the power of the BMW have to be experienced first hand to be appreciated. Which car is better? A lot of people believe that the Lexus is a better car, for sure it is a better buy. You do the test drive and decide afterwards. Obviously, you already did that and you are under the impression that the Lexus, uh, Canon 5D is the camera for you. I am happy for you and you already found the answer.
The idea of having this thread, hence the name Hands-On, is for M8 owners to share their findings. Like Cindy’s post, for example, it gets buried fast since most M8 owners are loosing interest and are shying away from this thread. It may be a good idea to start another thread, a more dedicated thread focusing on that issue, if you feel the need for that. I am not being negative just trying to help you to get to the bottom of this, which like I mentioned earlier, I thought you already did based on you own test…. ...Show more →
brainiac wrote:
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.
Yeah, but if you're having to look at 600% enlargements to find differences, you're using the wrong tool for the job. Normal viewing distance and resolution are what will matter to your clients.
You seem sort of hell bent on convincing us that the M8 isn't nearly as good as the 5D (even before you tested an M8). Based on my own DMR/5D/1ds2 comparisons, I find that hard to believe (M8 high ISO, IR and banding issues aside, I expect the latter two to be fixed). Yes the 5D and 1ds2 have more pixels, but I'll put my 16x20 prints from the DMR up against those from the 1ds2 anytime. Not to say I can't get great prints from the 1ds2, but it comes at the cost of 30-45 extra minutes work in Photoshop.
For me, the DMR does a great job of capturing what I see when I'm creating an image, and that's why I choose to use it. If the 5D works for you, then great, move on. If you were expecting the M8 to do an order of magnitude better than the 5D, that's just unrealistic. If you need more resolution than the 5D has to offer, then you're wasting your time even looking at something with less than 20 megapixels, and ought to be looking at an Aptus 75 or Phase One 39MP back.
By equivalent composition or framing I'm refering to the subject and not the content of the entire image. Otherwise the subject would not cover the same % of the sensors resolution and would be larger in the image using the longer lens as is evident in your comparison shots.
brainiac wrote:
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....Show more →
Pondria wrote:
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.
Well, since I actually own and use rangefinders and SLRs, I'll comment on that. I rarely put my rangefinder on a tripod anymore, this will end when I own a suitable digital alternative. When all my cameras were film-based, and I didn't want to carry 30-45 pounds of 35mm SLR, MF or LF gear up a mountain/glacier/hill, you can bet your sweet a** my little rangefinder got mounted on a tripod at the top of said mountain/glacier/hill. Rangefinder advantages: (1) can mount on a tripod and head 1/2 the weight of that required to properly stabilize a 1ds2 and 70-200, (2) entire system of M camera and lenses weighs less than 1ds2 and 24-105 zoom, and takes up no more space.
I won't buy an M8 until Really Right Stuff makes a plate for it.
), but would add that given the learning curve of the M8, I don't think we are going to be able to rely on any 'tests' carried out in a few minutes at (or around) a dealer's shop, conducted in the first few minutes (or even hours) of using one, unless you are an experienced Rangefinder user.
You only need to look at the M8 if you are looking for the things that a Rangefinder brings to the party.... but in doing so, remember what you leave at the door... because there ARE some things that only DSLRs can do.
) M8 and if I will still have my 1Ds (which I'm selling to fund the DMR buy) I will be glad to make a tight comparison. 