Just like Carsten I would like to see more comparisons between different cameras (and lenses), in this case one of them being the M8. But instead of applying the same settings and corrections on both wouldn't it be more interesting to apply what is actually needed in each individual case, to bring out the best of each? We know that different gear have different inherent strengths and weaknesses and have to be treated differently (sharpening is the first thing that comes to mind in the case of the M8). And how do we compare a full-frame vs a crop camera - should the same focal length lenses be used or should they differ according to the crop factor, introducing other (optical) factors that may or may not be of importance to the actual use of the M8? Well, maybe it doesn't matter, what matters is the end result and the ease with which you get there, not how the competition did in a "fair and square" evaluation. Make me drool.
niklasl wrote:
... But instead of applying the same settings and corrections on both wouldn't it be more interesting to apply what is actually needed in each individual case, to bring out the best of each? We know that different gear have different inherent strengths and weaknesses and have to be treated differently (sharpening is the first thing that comes to mind in the case of the M8). And how do we compare a full-frame vs a crop camera - should the same focal length lenses be used or should they differ according to the crop factor, introducing other (optical) factors that may or may not be of importance to the actual use of the M8? Well, maybe it doesn't matter, what matters is the end result and the ease with which you get there, not how the competition did in a "fair and square" evaluation. Make me drool. ...Show more →
I think this is a great point ! As far as I know most people here take RAWs ( not JPEG from the camera ) and apply some post-processing to their satisfaction. It would be very sensible to compare the final images. Now, if every camera images look the same after reasonable efforts in processing, well then, what would be the point of buying expensive equipments ? Hmmm...
Carsten,
Those shots with the 5D and 80 lux are awesome. I for one prefer working without the adapters and stop down metering but there's no denying the image qualitiy of those captures.
Pondria wrote:
I think this is a great point ! As far as I know most people here take RAWs ( not JPEG from the camera ) and apply some post-processing to their satisfaction. It would be very sensible to compare the final images. Now, if every camera images look the same after reasonable efforts in processing, well then, what would be the point of buying expensive equipments ? Hmmm...
You have a very good point about the RAW processor. I have been playing around with Lightroom and with the built in controls I can take a DMR file right to an acceptable point for printing or viewing on the web without having to resort to Photoshop and a lot of extra steps.
An early conclusion in the DMR Bible was with the right glass and some post processing the Canon 1Ds MkII file could look very similar to a DMR file. I don't know if Lightroom works as well on the Canon files, but with the Leica files, even the few M8 dng's I played with, it produced decent results right out of the converter without any trip to Photoshop required.
Here is an example where I took the DNG, made a few adjustment in Lightroom and had it output a web sized jpeg. It even handles the color space conversion in the process.
zaknat wrote:
Carsten,
Those shots with the 5D and 80 lux are awesome. I for one prefer working without the adapters and stop down metering but there's no denying the image qualitiy of those captures.
David
Thanks David, that means something coming from you. And thanks to others as well. I will post more Egypt shots, but in the alternative thread. One shot showing what sharpness can be had with the 5D/80 Lux should do until I can again do direct comparisons.
carstenw wrote:
I have other shots where the DR falls a bit short. Egypt is a great place to test DR I also have to fiddle with the colour a little more than I prefer. But all told, both the 5D and the DMR are in the top 5 cameras in the world today, in my opinion, so neither is a loser. I did get some shots with the 5D which the DMR would have butchered, due to its high ISO. I wish I had received the M8 in time to take it to Egypt.
Rumor says Canon will be releasing sensors with improved DR in their next fleet of bodies. So you might want to sell the 5D and then buy the 3D.
Jack Chen wrote:
Rumor says Canon will be releasing sensors with improved DR in their next fleet of bodies. So you might want to sell the 5D and then buy the 3D.
It will still weigh too much and not properly support Leica lenses I have already bought and received an M8.
I ended up posting the images in their own thread here. There were too many to overburden the Alternative Image thread with, I thought.
niklasl wrote:
Just like Carsten I would like to see more comparisons between different cameras (and lenses), in this case one of them being the M8. But instead of applying the same settings and corrections on both wouldn't it be more interesting to apply what is actually needed in each individual case, to bring out the best of each? We know that different gear have different inherent strengths and weaknesses and have to be treated differently (sharpening is the first thing that comes to mind in the case of the M8). And how do we compare a full-frame vs a crop camera - should the same focal length lenses be used or should they differ according to the crop factor, introducing other (optical) factors that may or may not be of importance to the actual use of the M8? Well, maybe it doesn't matter, what matters is the end result and the ease with which you get there, not how the competition did in a "fair and square" evaluation. Make me drool. ...Show more →
Been there, done that. About 16 months ago we compared the 1Ds2 against the DMR in exactly the fashion you outline. There's no question the DMR produces higher quality images in just about every way, except a very marginal difference in resolution. (The 1Ds2 resolves about 10% better at high contrast, about 20% worse at low-contrast.) Over the years Guy, I, and others learned how to get the most out of our Canon cameras using C1, Etc profiles, and careful adjustments. Even then, out of the box using stock settings, the DMR beat the 1Ds2. With just a small amount of PP work or a custom profile there was no catching up.
I don't have an M8 yet, but from what I've seen this camera runs neck to neck with the DMR, which isn't terribly surprising. So for folks like me, the comparison youlook for simply isn't necessary. I don't have a Canon or Nikon to compare against anymore, and no real interest in buying one; I'll be comparing the M8 to the DMR since that's my personal gold standard nowadays. But I don't expect anything big, in fact the closer it is the better. (Some of the default tonal curves and such look a little high contrast, so I'll probably make my own profile set for it just like with all the other cameras I've used in the past.)
I must say, the more I see of the 5Dwith Leica glass the betterit looks,
say again where the DMR was better?
I am sure DR is one area, but DR looks pretty good in the above image
Victor
Victor, Carsten's shot plays into the 5D's strong suit. The 5D crushes the shadows compared to the 1Ds2. Carsten's image has very few deep shadows, so the image looks very good. If you compared a image with lots of shadows - say a forest or city scape - I'm sure the DMR would outclass the 5D sensor (and/or Canon's baseline tone curve in 5D's DSP engine).
John Black wrote:
.... If you compared a image with lots of shadows - say a forest or city scape - I'm sure the DMR would outclass the 5D sensor (and/or Canon's baseline tone curve in 5D's DSP engine).
Can you elaborate more on this ?
During the ACR calibration what I learnt is that the only way to match all 6 patches of greys in the Macbeth chart is to use the "linear curve". That indicates that Canon's RAW file doesn't have any curve applied.
John, do you see any images in my "5D and 50 Cron/80 Lux" thread which match your description? I think "crush" is harsh. The DMR appears to have better DR, the 1Ds2 also slightly better, but I think it would be a very unusual shot where this would be significant, especially compared to the 1Ds2. For studio shots it may be more relevant.
Nice images Carsten - if you had said you had taken these with an M8/DMR people would be falling over themselves to post how they clearly demonstrate superior imagery compared to Canon. While I respect your brave decision to go with the M8 I'm a little curious as to why you took a big lens like the 17-40L if you are concerned about traveling light. A 5D with 2-3 good primes is a very light and capable outfit.
The DMR has inferior DR to a lot of MF digital backs and probably to traditional B&W negative film stock - should we therefore say that it's DR is poor? The 5D and 1Ds2 etc have clearly more DR than traditional reversal material and in my experience more usable DR than colour neg - people never said Kodachrome was inadequate for it's many uses and seemd to skip over this obvious technical flaw. Will traditional M shooters who like to use Tri-X etc be upset that the M8 is not digging nto the shadows or revealing highlight graduation like they are used to- I think they need to know how inferior the M8 may well be in this area;-)
shirozina, first of all, thanks for the compliment. I posted these pictures exactly because I am not trying to show that the M8 is better, but rather I hope that it is about equally good on most points, or better. The best way to know that is to post the best 5D shots I can muster, and then follow up with the best M8 shots I can do. Ultimately, I am not switching primarily because of image quality, but due to weight and size.
Wrt. the 17-40L, it is not heavy. The 80 Lux is much heavier. I tend to use the 17-40L at 17mm, and to replace that with something better, I would probably end up with a Zeiss 18mm or Zeiss or Leica 15mm, at much greater expense. If I had stayed with the 5D, I would probably have ended up with the Leica 15mm f/2.8, but that is a very expensive lens and I would have needed a lot of time to save up. On the M8 I will get the CV 15mm, and if I find that I need more, the CV 12mm, both much cheaper and smaller. The CV 15mm is 105g!
I need to test more, but I don't think that the DMR or M8 will compare poorly to Tri-X in shadows. Highlights is an open question. Tri-X has enough noise to mask its DR :)
rebel300 wrote:
Here's a topic at LUF by Jack Flesher that indicates he sold his M8 in favor of the 5D.
Just goes to show even Jack can make a mistake Seriously though, his reasons for preferring the 5D, while perfectly valid for him, aren't universally applicable. Just a better tool for what he wants to accomplish.
And once again discussion hinges on the awesomely superior files that M8's produce, but which nobody has yet been able to demonstrate online.
The last stand appears to be DR (dynamic range?). Can anybody show some examples of superior dynamic range over a 5D? Or, let's say, a 1Ds? I am not accusing anyone of lying, I just want to see it with my own eyes. I never felt that the case for this advantage was convincingly made for the DMR either. It may be that I just don't know for what to look. I certainly agree that 'latitude' as it used to be called, matters a lot. Anybody got an a-b test of the M8 or DMR's latitude advantage over let's say Nikon, or Canon?
The shots that Guy posted showed more highlight detail with the DMR than with the M8 but that could be the result of any number of things. I'm not sure anybody is saying that files from the M8 are awesomely superior - but there are lots of people hoping they are.
brainiac wrote:
And once again discussion hinges on the awesomely superior files that M8's produce, but which nobody has yet been able to demonstrate online.
The last stand appears to be DR (dynamic range?). Can anybody show some examples of superior dynamic range over a 5D? Or, let's say, a 1Ds? I am not accusing anyone of lying, I just want to see it with my own eyes. I never felt that the case for this advantage was convincingly made for the DMR either. It may be that I just don't know for what to look. I certainly agree that 'latitude' as it used to be called, matters a lot. Anybody got an a-b test of the M8 or DMR's latitude advantage over let's say Nikon, or Canon?...Show more →
This is an utterly senseless discussion. The point is that the M8 is a rangefinder; those that wish to shoot digital with a rangefinder only had the RD1, which, although it is a pretty good camera, does not live in 5D or D2x territory. Now there is the M8, that,- without descending into a fight about bugs or quirks-, is a camera that produces files of a similar level as other top-end 135 class camera's. That is a thing of joy for those of us, like me, that prefer rangefinders over SLR's. All the rest, like, is it a bit better,worse or the same as a 5D or a whatever is nit-picking and beside the point. Now let's start discussing the M8 again and use other camera's as a reference only, not as a "mine is bigger than yours".
The DR is one of myth of digital photography, too. For digital, it is very simple, it is about where the noise floor is. Say you have 12 bit data. And the lowest 4 bits are noises, then you have 8 stops of DR.
I actually came up with a simple method that everyone can measure w/o any chart or tools. And I solicited voluntary participation a while ago at Canon forum. Below is the result. See even Guy, Marco and John Black posted their data Thanks again folks !
I also compare the data with DPReview data and Imatest data measured with different methods. The values are pretty close within reasonable errors. They are consitent.
Thanks again folks !