Mike: I think you have pretty well nailed it, but as a close friend, I am going to respectfully disagree with you on one point...
The M8 native file is of superior quality to that of the 5's. To be sure, I am measurbating and pixel-peeping to the max when I make that claim, but it is a fact. The M8 pixels will up-rez more easily to generate a better, larger print than the 5D's can -- at least when I pour my best processing skills into each file for that kind of real world, large print comparison.
However, I will say for the most part the difference is going to irrelevant until you get larger than a 17x22 print, which most 5D shooters probably rarely do anyway. And even then, you'd need the M8 and 5D images next to each other to see the M8 advantages.
The other significant point is I remain unsure whether the advantage to the M8 is the sensor or the glass or the lack of AA filter or all of the above. I suspect all factors play to its native IQ, but regardless they are there and visible if one knows what to look for...
Notwithstanding, the IR bleed issue and Leica's "throw an IR filter over the lens" 'fix' for it is simply not acceptable to me which is why I am sticking with the 5D for street/travel shooting. Maybe Leica will get its collective head unstuck from its butt and provide a real IR bleed fix -- if and when they do, I will re-visit owning one for myself.
I would rule out the glass being the deciding factor. I looked at the files from the M8 and my old 28mm elmarit-m, and they look much better than the DMR with a 28mm Elmarit-R. The Elmarit-R is supposed to be a better lens than the old second version 28mm Elmarit-M.
The colour isn't quite there with the M8 yet. I am not sure if it is the IR or the RAW converters, but I seem to be able to do more with my DMR files without the colour falling apart.
robsteve wrote:
The colour isn't quite there with the M8 yet. I am not sure if it is the IR or the RAW converters, but I seem to be able to do more with my DMR files without the colour falling apart.
Is it maybe due to the DNG 8bit compression vs DMR 16bit ?
Although DR seems pretty wide on the M8, even if I don't have the DMR yet to compare to.
Marco wrote:
Is it maybe due to the DNG 8bit compression vs DMR 16bit ?
Although DR seems pretty wide on the M8, even if I don't have the DMR yet to compare to.
I am hoping it is just a profile thing. For lack of other words, the DMR colour just seems richer.
Guy Mancuso wrote:
But let's not go there to me it is makes no difference by testing it, i can see it.
The point of the testing is so everyone can see it. Why spend $5K on it plus thousands more on lenses unless they can be assured of the value by seeing it? That's seems to me to be the point of it all.
These are all great observations. I too think that there is a little bit difference in color between the two. The DMR has a bold Kodachrome look that just grabs you. The M8 seems to be less bold right now (that could change with profile adjustments.) The only thing I am basing this on is viewing thousands of DMR and hundreds of M8 files at a normal viewing level (not pixel by pixel). The M8 files, however, seem to be more precise in their detail and resolution....more like what you'd expect to see from M lenses (maybe that is a function of the difference between R and M lenses?) That's how I'm seeing things, for whatever it is worth.
Lotusm50 wrote:
The point of the testing is so everyone can see it. Why spend $5K on it plus thousands more on lenses unless they can be assured of the value by seeing it? That's seems to me to be the point of it all.
If they want to judge it accurately for themselves, they should do the test for themselves. Using their own shooting style, processing parameters and testing methods is the only way any individual is really going to know if the camera/system works for them. Some folks need high end jpeg, others never shoot jpeg... Others may be able to process in such a way to glean more from one file or the other... Some may be only concerned with web output while others want prints; and among those that print, some may want larger prints than others... As such, the entire workflow needs to be addressed, not just the system! And I submit the best -- actually the only -- person able to evaluate that accurately for themselves, will be the individual shooting and processing from begining to end for him or her self...
This gets to the point of why there exists frustration in these posts... An individual posts on this forum that they have tested for themselves and find the sytem better for their workflow and shooting style. Period. Then they get asked more details on their opinion/choice and answer them as politely as possible, yet before you know it they get challened to "prove it" to people that have never even held the camera or lens in question! Bottom line is, why should Guy or I or anybody else have to prove or defend a choice we make for ourselves? It's akin to me asking you to prove that your choice of car/girlfriend/house/wine/clothes was a better choice than mine.
I think that is what Guy is trying to say...
Cheers,
Edited by Jack Flesher on Dec 13, 2006 at 10:57 AM GMT
For any digital camera plus Lens combo, I personally do not give much importance to the color discussion.
OK, Before killing me, please let me elaborate a little more ...
The Colors are produced by the RAW converter. Yes, each lens renders the colors differently. But the RAW converter has much more leverage than the Lens on colors. Just clicking on any slider or button in the RAW converter changes the color much more than any lens would. 50 degree Color temp adjustment changes the warm-cool-ness more than any lens that I have.
I have calibrated my monitor. I have calibrate my ACR for my camera. I'm not just just speculating on the couch. For the colors, your main target should be the RAW converter calibration and setting, not the lenses or bodies.
Jack Flesher wrote:
Mike: I think you have pretty well nailed it, but as a close friend, I am going to respectfully disagree with you on one point...
WHAT!!! HOW DARE YOU!!!
The M8 native file is of superior quality to that of the 5's. To be sure, I am measurbating and pixel-peeping to the max when I make that claim, but it is a fact. The M8 pixels will up-rez more easily to generate a better, larger print than the 5D's can -- at least when I pour my best processing skills into each file for that kind of real world, large print comparison.
Jack - I actually agree with you on this. When you get down to it, and really pixel peep at 100%, yes there is a difference, especially when you up-rez (the lack of AA filter seems to allow the cleaner M8 file to uprez better). If I HAD to pick one as having a better file, I would pick the M8.
But this type of comparison seems to me to be something like arguing over which lens is sharper - the 35/1.4L or the 500/4IS. You could argue until you're blue in the face, but the reality is that they are used for completely different situations, so it's irrelevant which is sharper. They are both extremely good lenses, and are excellent for their own particular uses.
Likewise, the M8 produces excellent IQ, and the 5D produces excellent IQ. Both are sufficiently excellent, from an image-quality perspective, that this particular criteria can be removed from comparison.
What dominates the comparison, in my opinion, is more the intended use, and how the camera handles in those particular uses.
Now if one of the cameras had a significantly better IQ than the other, then it would become immediately a top relevant criteria.
Mike
Edited by Mike Hatam on Dec 13, 2006 at 11:14 AM GMT
Edited by Mike Hatam on Dec 13, 2006 at 11:14 AM GMT
Guy,
Love the line about the family that sucks all your time. I think I do more homework for my kids than I did for myself when I was in school When you get around to it we'd all appreciate a lens by lens comparison of the DMR vs M8 at all aperatures in a variety of settings, indoors, outdoors, strobe, etc.. If you could get it done by Friday that would be great. Thanks in advance
Jack Flesher wrote:
If they want to judge it accurately for themselves, they should do the test for themselves. Using their own shooting style, processing parameters and testing methods is the only way any individual is really going to know if the camera/system works for them.
I agree with this ideally. Yet, practically speaking, the time and effort involved may be such that quite a few people can't commit to test themselves. Just getting their hands on the new camera to test for a period of time might be tough.
Certainly there are limitation to using others people's tests. It may not be exactly relevant to the way you work, but something can usually be gleaned from it. I think we should be thankful that there are poeple willing to share their tests and experience with us. Generally that is how a lot of information about products travels. Some of it may be bad, some of it good, but over time, the right impression usually comes to the top. That is the benefit of these fora. However, to be more useful and constructive, when posting these test sand experiences, the poster really should fully detail and explain what he did, including conditions and settings, so it is clear to readers how this might apply to their work and their questions. Sure, when this is not conscientiously done, it can be frustrating to many. I've seen lots of test that just make me scream. But I would not go so far as to say that we should not post out tests, becuase I think the community as a whole would be less well-off without them -- as indicated above, the right impression usually comes to the fore over time. I think we just need to be patient getting there and constructively add to the discussion if compelled to do so.
Mike Hatam wrote:
Jack - I actually agree with you on this. When you get down to it, and really pixel peep at 100%, yes there is a difference, especially when you up-rez (the lack of AA filter seems to allow the cleaner M8 file to uprez better). If I HAD to pick one as having a better file, I would pick the M8.
Lotusm50 wrote:
Very nice, Jack. Now, how did you get that line of birds to fly in on cue in the first picture? ;-)
I whistled them in...
Kidding! I just got lucky -- seriously, had just taken my shot and was looking for another when the first bird entered my finder. The flock was long enough I was able to get three captures -- this one was the best mimick of the mountain countour behind.
Pondria wrote:
The Colors are produced by the RAW converter. Yes, each lens renders the colors differently. But the RAW converter has much more leverage than the Lens on colors. Just clicking on any slider or button in the RAW converter changes the color much more than any lens would. 50 degree Color temp adjustment changes the warm-cool-ness more than any lens that I have.
Pondria, if you want to spend more time with your raw converter than with your lenses, you are absolutely right. Personally, I love taking pictures, and I merely tolerate processing, for the most part. Therefore, spending more money on getting the right picture in the camera makes total sense for me.
!!! HOW DARE YOU!!! 