Welcome back Guy - but I have to respectfully disagree (after downloading and carefully examining the images) - the focus point is NOT on the front cabinet although the DOF extends further on the M8 image and it looks sharper. look at the shop through the window in the yard behind - they are both near equaly focused - if the M8 was focused on the front cabinet with an aperture of 5.6 there is no way, even on a 21mm, that these would be similar.
I would like to retract my previous opinion on the focusing point after further ( closer) examination of the 2 images - Guy you are right the M8/21mm is focused on the case. Richard - as you said you took different shots at different distances could you look closely to see if you have one with the M8 focused further back.
I'm sorry you won't be participating in this thread anymore Guy and I really hope contributors can all get along without any bad feeling nor feel that we cannot question or ask for evidence for fear of upseting people who are passionate about what they do and believe in.
Edited by shirozina on Dec 11, 2006 at 05:44 PM GMT
Brainiac: Please do not take offense, but your post above is one example of why I no longer post here. You make an assumption that simply isn't true: "I think it is pretty clear that this is not the case for the following reason: very high contrast is visible between adjacent pixels in the M8 crop." Adjacent pixels do not look that good to my eye...
To get to the point, the crop you are showing above is either severely OUT of focus or very poorly processed. Here is what a crop from a properly focused and properly processed M8 file should look like -- and as a reminder I did NOT keep my M8, so have nothing to prove about it other than to offer some correct information about it!
Here is the full shot, processed in ACR "as shot" and no further sharpening or processing in photoshop. this was handheld, 35mm Cron Asph wide open at f2:
Obviously, it will sharpen up more for even a better post, but I left it as-shot so folks could get an idea of how good the M8 file is from a resolution standpoint.
Cheers,
Edited by Jack Flesher on Dec 11, 2006 at 08:57 AM GMT
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain....
As far as resolution: Askey will review this camera and shoot his resolution chart. I doubt there will be a big difference in terms of resolution between the M8 and other double digit sensor resolution cameras.
Ok guys, this is the "pixelpeeping test" with one of the latest M8 (firmware 1.09).
I compared it to my old trusty Eos-1Ds (mkI 11.1 Mp).
M8 with Apo-Summicron 75/2 @ f/6.3 - 160 ISO - 4sec
1Ds with Apo-Macro Elmarit 100/2.8 @ f/8 - 100 ISO - 8sec
Tripod mounted, mirror lock-up on the 1Ds.
Natural late afternoon light from a window on the left.
I converted the raw files in C1, Eos-1Ds with the standard 1Ds daylight profile and M8 with Jamie Robert's Leica_m8_JHR_v1 profile.
There was no IR filter on the Leica.
I prefer the look of the Leica, though the colors are 50/50 with the Canon, some are correct on the 1Ds, other are correct on the Leica... anyway, giving we all know that we need a correct profile for the M8, the result is better than I expected.
Here are the 100% crops, I sharpened the 1Ds more in C1 (40/0 in soft sharpening) to compensate for the lack of AA filter.
I equally slightly sharpened both files in PS to my taste, to give the best sharpness without halos.
Pbase compression steals something of the original crispness of both files.
The 1Ds has maybe a very slight edge, but only because of more pixels, effective resolution is on par, indeed I don't seem to find words or logos on the 1Ds file that I can't recognize on the M8.
The M8 has more "crispness", but again it's not something you couldn't obtain with a bit of postprocessing on the 1Ds.
For all practical purposes, resolution wise both cameras are equal, which says something for the lower Mp M8 but also for the 4 years old 1Ds
Admittedly also for the 75 Apo, which on the M8 needs to work at 1.33x the aerial resolution.
The M8 has other advantages, like slightly higher dynamic range and particularly a great shadows recovery ability. The 1Ds has much more noise in the shadows and I need to get spot on exposures, possibly bracketing and blending in PS to get what the M8 delivers in one shot.
All in all I'm happy to have 1Ds' quality (I'd say even a bit more) in a small package with those tiny outstanding lenses.
And I can go to at least 2 speed stops down with the M8, sort of integrated IS...
But don't think that as pure resolution the M8 could outresolve this old Canon beast, at least when used with similar quality lenses.
As for the 5D and 1DsII, I can't speak of, but I guess you can make your own assumptions
And FTR, I never said the 5D couldn't do a good job, but it probably can't with a Canon 35mm lens at f2 However, here is a cat shot with a 70-200 f4IS for comparison, also handheld, but at f5.6 at about 180mm with IS on. Again, everything processed as shot, no additional sharpening:
I shoot the 5D and have chosen not to get the M8. I would like to know if others think the M8 is "better" than the 5D and why because down the road I could switch and get one (though I am leaning more towards MFDB). However, I don't feel current M8 owners "owe" me any proof. They are taking their own time to post here to help others so I appreciate whatever they post. If they post that they are seeing "better" images than the 5D without producing any elaborate test, I still appreciate their posts.
No one gets paid to post on this forum so as long as the post is positive and helping others, we should appreciate their contribution. That would go for challenges to statements made as long as it done appropriately. Guy and the DMR gang have aleady been down the 5D path and know what those files look like. They have said they believe the m8 files are "better" and don't want to do elaborate comparison tests because they don't need to (been down that road). There is nothing wrong with asking them politely (since they don't get paid to post here) why they believe the files are better or even if they could please share some comparison shots but if they decline, we should accept that (since they don't get paid to post here). Since they don't get paid to post here, we should appreciate what they do post here and leave it at that.
On the other hand, just because someone says the files are "better", we don't have to accept that as "better" for us nor run out and buy one ... and I don't think they want that either.
So, lets let people contribute how they choose to and appreciate their contributions.
Jack Flesher wrote:
Here is the full shot, processed in ACR "as shot" and no further sharpening or processing in photoshop. this was handheld, 35mm Cron Asph wide open at f2:
Obviously, it will sharpen up more for even a better post, but I left it as-shot so folks could get an idea of how good the M8 file is from a resolution standpoint.
Cheers,
Some people call me pedantic. Fine. I don't know how we can talk about the tech stuff without getting into the details.
I have a question. The bottom whiskers ( overlap with dark background )show Jaggies. It can be because it's reduced in size. Do you also see it in 1:1 ?
IMO, The M8 shot shows outstanding Sharpness - not Resolution.
Jack Flesher wrote: Frankly that would require me to start a thread in the Canon forum and as I alluded to above, I am not really interested in doing that. The level of civility in many threads here has dropped to new lows and any time an opinion is shared or conclusion drawn, the resulting pedantic bickering drives me nuts. It's going on in this very thread right now and from people I used to interact with regularly and respect(ed) and I really have no interest in engaging in that kind of exchange.
Sad it has come to this as it deprives us from the insight of a very knowledgable photographer. I agree that the ratio information/noise has dropped lately. Endless arguing brings little to the table.
Edited by photoArne on Dec 11, 2006 at 05:44 PM GMT
Jon, I think it is pretty clear from the posts here and in other places that the M8 is pretty close to the performance of cameras like the 1Ds and the 5D. Which has the upper hand is irrelevant (unless you need every last pixel like Richard and his stitched wedding panoramas), since they are so close.
Ignoring the M8's current flaws, until we have the opportunity to properly evaluate the fixes, this leaves the decision to much more practical considerations, such as weight, size, cost, and the quality of the available lenses. I chose the M8, as did Guy, and Jack and Richard have chosen the 5D. There is no loser here.
As a minor item of faith, not proof, I expect that by the time the perfectionists at Leica (even if they slipped up on the launch) are done fixing the M8, that it will likely have several compelling points going for it, such as Leica colour (ironic, isn't it), sharpness, and so on.
I think you really need to spend some time with the actual camera and its files to make what in the end is a very personal decision.
Pondria wrote:
Some people call me pedantic. Fine. I don't know how we can talk about the tech stuff without getting into the details.
Pondria, I have to wonder about something: you spend lots and lots of time posting in this thread and many others, but in the end, I have seen no real work from you, just a couple of 1Ds2 test shots in your dining and living room. Could you post some shots of your work to show that all of this discussion actually *means* something to you? I am sorry to call you on it like this, but I feel it would help establish where you are coming from.
Pondria wrote:
I have a question. The bottom whiskers ( overlap with dark background )show Jaggies. It can be because it's reduced in size. Do you also see it in 1:1 ?
You mean these whiskers?
First, they are slightly oof. Second, yes, I think the jagginess you see is due to downsizing for web. Also, they look a bit jaggier on this crop than they do in CS at 100%, probably due to the jpeg compression (this is a 10)...
~~~
IMO, The M8 shot shows outstanding Sharpness - not Resolution.
Well, maybe now we get into pedantic semantics . I will simply respond that I think the M8 delivers excellent sharpness which in turn makes it appear to be a far higher resolution file compared to other offerings...
First, they are slightly oof. Second, yes, I think the jagginess you see is due to downsizing for web. Also, they look a bit jaggier on this crop than they do in CS at 100%, probably due to the jpeg compression (this is a 10)...
~~~
Yes. And it is what I suspected. When the original image is sharp, downsizing introduces the jagginess. I see this often when I apply sharpening on the original 1DsII file and downsize to Web size.
Well, maybe now we get into pedantic semantics . I will simply respond that I think the M8 delivers excellent sharpness which in turn makes it appear to be a far higher resolution file compared to other offerings...
Feel free to have a look. Most of them have strange colour due to the tungsten colour balance setting. I have not used the M8's back panel display much so I was not sure how well the colours on it reflected what I would see later. That is why I switched to the tungsten colour balance setting. However, the shot that I used in the test was shot with AWB. It is as sharp as any of the others and has the advantage of a more natural colour balance.
I still say that I don't understand how adjacent pixels can have radically different colour and luminosity values if the lens is not adequately focussed. Surely lack of focus leads to a reduction in the contrast between adjacent pixels?
Marco - your book test is fascinating. Thanks for sharing it.
The first thing I notice is better retention of highlight and shadow information on the 1Ds. Look at the top corner of the strongly lit white pamphlet on the right of the first crop. The M8 burns it out but the 1Ds retains some texture.
The second big difference is even more interesting: the rainbow of colours in the bookshelf on the 1Ds shot, compared to a very limited colour pallet on the M8 shot. This may be due to the IR issue. The first crops reveal it especially. The Canon can do orange, as we see in the orange rectangle on 'Semieotica Pneumologica'. It can also do subtle pinks, purples, and reds as in 'Radiologia Urologica', 'Storia della Medicina', Squassadia's 'Curriculum' and 'Radiologia Pediatrica'. The M8 has made them all variations on a salmon/orange colour. The blues and greens we know about, but it is interesting how there seems to be compression in the red/yellow range too.
It is possible to shift the Canon's pinks toward orange and to desaturate the blues and greens to achieve a look very like the Leica's pallet. Going the other way is much harder, because colour compression, i.e. reduction of the colour pallet, is lossy: there is no way to distinguish what was pink from what was orange because they are both now orange.
Please don't flame me for this. I am just trying to describe what I see.
carstenw wrote:
Pondria, I have to wonder about something: you spend lots and lots of time posting in this thread and many others, but in the end, I have seen no real work from you, just a couple of 1Ds2 test shots in your dining and living room. Could you post some shots of your work to show that all of this discussion actually *means* something to you? I am sorry to call you on it like this, but I feel it would help establish where you are coming from.
Carsten,
I used to post a lot of images in Presentation forums ( Again OLD Timers can tell you ) Forum rule recommends that photos should be posted in the Presentation boards NOT in the Discussion boards, although some people here break the rule all the time.
I am not as active as before in taking photos since I got 1DsII. That is pretty sad indeed. However, I do maintain my gallery as up-to-date as possible. Just press the [WWW] button in the Sig line. Don't get me wrong. I know I am not a good photographer in Artistic sense. I just want to tell you that I do take photos because you asked
Please check the update dates for each album to find the 1DsII photos. I got it in Dec. 2005.
. I will simply respond that I think the M8 delivers excellent sharpness which in turn makes it appear to be a far higher resolution file compared to other offerings...