M8 v MP v D1

Sorabji · 10-19-2006

Dear Ladies and Gents,

I am currently an M shooter. I've always preferred things mechanical for reasons of longevity and reliability. So have been reluctant to go digital because of the whole approach to the picture making process.

However, since the prices of film are on an upward trend, I'm finding analogue more restrictive with prospective clients. Also, the introduction of the M8 has made an attractive proposition, now that a decent rangefinder is available in solid state technology. I'm hoping it means a reliable rangefinder and not one that has to be tweaked between jobs! Even if it won't last a lifetime, I'd like to think it was better built than the Canon DSLR's.

It may be slightly premature, or for those with the knowledge out there, perhaps not? Is the Canon D1 likely to give superior / different results from the M8. My critical arena for quality would be for exhibition work not bigger than 14x11 inches, including B & W. In the real world, though, I wouldn't be able to work with the dinasour bulk of the Canon/Nikon offerings.

So what's best, my MP or the new era baby, M8?

Thanks for your responses. It's a great club.
Best, Sorabji

photocrazy · 10-19-2006

You have already an M shooter. So keep you M and go for the M8. Here you will have both film and digital system. I doubt M8's image quality is up to that of Canon's topline EOS 1DS Mark II or semi-pro 5D. But for an enlargement of 14X11 inches, M8 is definitely far enough.

reub2000 · 10-19-2006

An DSLR is more of an automated everything camera. If that's your style then go for the 1D Mark IIN.

Rayt · 10-20-2006

While I am a rangefinder'er I also have an EOS 5D. I got it for its full frame sensor. You see I have sold off all my SLR film bodies but kept the lenses. Now these lenses all work on the 5D with the right adapters. You can build up quite a collection of lenses from a wide range of manufacturers and most of them very cheaply and have fun with them on the 5D. I am looking into a Minolta MD to EOS adapter. Those MD lenses kick butt. I don't own a single EOS lens by the way.

MadMan2k · 10-20-2006

8mp is good for 16x20, as long as you get the exposure (and focus!) right and shoot at a lower ISO.

The 1Dmk2N is meant for sports and photojournalism, it's weather sealed with most L lenses and has 8.5fps in drive mode. If the main purpose is to make prints, maybe a 5D or 1DS (mk1 or 2) would be better? The 5D is around $2500 now, the 1DS mk1 should be about the same, the mk2 is about $6000.

You should definitely be able to make great 11x14 prints from any of the full-frame cameras, even at ISO 800 or higher if you don't mind a little grain, or use noise reduction (ISO 1600 on any of the current digital SLR's is probably cleaner than Tri-X 400)

jaapv · 10-20-2006

By most users the Leica DMR is said to give even better results than the Canon D1mk***. The M8 is supposed to be able to top the DMR. So go figure...

ghost · 10-20-2006

leica m8 or canon 5d.

rvaubel · 10-20-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by ghost

leica m8 or canon 5d.

There is an argument for each. But when it comes to weight and bulk of a full kit, there is no contest. Personally, both is a nice option

Rex

georgl · 10-21-2006

Image quality is one thing, build quality another. The image quality of properly converted DNG-Files (with the M8 you have one of the best converters avaible: C1) in combination with MF-technology (sensor, 16Bit, no AA) and Leica-lenses (the M-Asph are second to none) will give you a file-quality you won't find on cheaper cameras.

The M8 and it's lenses are first-class build-quality, I've never seen such precision, such materials and surfaces on a mass-production-camera.
The 5D is a prosumer-camera and plays in a different league.

The main "problem" is the rangefinder-principle itself. Everyone who never handled a M but only AF-DSLRs and wants to buy one because of it's quality might become confused about certain aspects.
But as a photographer who actually loves the "M-style" the M8 is the digital way to go!

JohnL · 10-21-2006

Size: the Canon 1-series cameras are all very large and heavy because they have permanently attached "battery grips" which allow double the usual battery capacity and provide an extra shutter release etc for vertical framing. They are weather sealed and very tough. The Canon 5D is bigger than an M8 and its lenses are mostly much bigger too, but the battery grip is optional, so if you don't need it you don't have to carry it (or even buy one). Not weathersealed but quite ruggedly built.
IQ: For 14"x11" or even quite a bit larger, the current Canon 1DS2 and the 5D will probably match or exceed the M8. The M8 will probably surpass the Canon 1D2N at higher enlargements. All of these will surpass any 35mm film camera, assuming proper technique in all cases.
For top quality B&W work with digital capture, you will need to use post-processing and printing methods that are not run-of-the-mill. It can be done, but it's not my area of expertise, so I can't give details. However, I would suggest that you shoot in colour even for B&W because then you can still fine-tune "filtration" later. You don't get decent B&W images by just desaturating colour, but you probably know that already.

jaapv · 10-21-2006

The way to convert to B&W fast and good is in PSE:

Make a "levels" layer
Make a "gradient black-to-white" layer
This is already a lot better than desaturating
Click back to the levels dialog
Use levels as red, green and blue filter
Flatten image
Remove colour information to shrink the file.

Ben Z · 10-21-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by rvaubel

There is an argument for each. But when it comes to weight and bulk of a full kit, there is no contest. Personally, both is a nice option

Rex

I have a 20D, which is actually about a 1/4" smaller in all dimensions and 4oz lighter than a 5D. Even with just the 18-55 "kit" lens that came with it it's a bother compared with my M6 and 2-3 lenses when I'm travelling. The M set I can fit in my coat pockets when I'm seated at a restaurant but the 20D has to stay on the table or in my lap.

Nachkebia · 10-21-2006

After owning Canon 1d mark II N, Nikon D200, D70s, Nikon F6, Nikon FM3a and Zeiss Ikon! I can say one thing! buy MP!

ghost · 10-21-2006

what, no 5d?

x-ray · 10-22-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by georgl

Image quality is one thing, build quality another. The image quality of properly converted DNG-Files (with the M8 you have one of the best converters avaible: C1) in combination with MF-technology (sensor, 16Bit, no AA) and Leica-lenses (the M-Asph are second to none) will give you a file-quality you won't find on cheaper cameras.

The canon 1DsMKII is a little cheaper than the DMR but I would'nt say the DMR beats the canon. I've seen plenty of DMR images and grant they are sharp but so are the canons.High ISO really suffers in the DMR but is excellent in the canon. Many factors come into play in determining best. Best is relative depending on need and expectations. I've been shooting digital in my commercial studio for seven years now and one thing I have learned is there is no substitute for pixels when you need them, You can get away with upsampling sometimes but not all.

I've used Leica M's now for nearly four dexades and also nikon, canon and many other makes. While Leica has good lenses they don't own the market in quality and certainly not performance.

I've argued the issue with build quality. I don't believe there is any point in building a digital camera that will last more than five or six years. Technology changes so fast that a digital camera five years old is an antique.

Here is a sample of the 1DsII from a shoot this week. I pulled my clients in frot of the camera and shot a frame with the 1DsII ISO 100 and 85 1.2. Raw files were converted in photoshop CS2 with default sharpening and minimal processing. The crops are 100% so take a look at the eye lashes and texture around the eyes on the man.

I'm certainly not putting the Leica digital down but I think many are over estimating the Leica vs canon, nikon and others.

mandarin · 10-22-2006

Oh, to have this problem...<sigh>

georgl · 10-22-2006

Nice demonstration of digital-technology properly handled - but (I'm sorry, there always is... ;-) :
The MarkII is 7400€, the M8 4200€.
IQ depends on many aspects, one is resolution - the MarkII has 60% more theoretical resolution - in some situations you can use this advantage in reality (lenses...) but as you already mentioned, there are other quality aspects. Especially wanting that resolution on the outer zones becomes difficult... Try it with open aperture and WA against the M8 and the new Tri, the 2,8/24 or the 1,4/35Asph (forget about that - just take any Leica-M-lens less than 20 years old ;-) ...

The DMR has less noise up to 200ASA (only important in extreme situations) and is about equal at 400ASA (you always have to compare RAW-converted files without filtering, of course). Dynamic range and processing quality is extremly high.
The M8 is basically "DMR-style" but uses a 2 years further developed sensor (you can see differences in technical data from Kodak) and nearly all M-lenses were improved to a unique level (in quality AND price ;-) the last ten years. I've converted 640ASA-M8-files with C1, I think the noise is a little bit less than 5D - but I had no direct comparison.

Try the DMR (or M8) with last-generation-Leica-lenses yourself, I've never met a canon-photographer who wasn't surprised :-)
It's not a speed-camera, but when you want quality, you get it there.

jaapv · 10-22-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by x-ray

The canon 1DsMKII is a little cheaper than the DMR but I would'nt say the DMR beats the canon. I've seen plenty of DMR images and grant they are sharp but so are the canons.High ISO really suffers in the DMR but is excellent in the canon. Many factors come into play in determining best. Best is relative depending on need and expectations. I've been shooting digital in my commercial studio for seven years now and one thing I have learned is there is no substitute for pixels when you need them, You can get away with upsampling sometimes but not all.

I've used Leica M's now for nearly four dexades and also nikon, canon and many other makes. While Leica has good lenses they don't own the market in quality and certainly not performance.

I've argued the issue with build quality. I don't believe there is any point in building a digital camera that will last more than five or six years. Technology changes so fast that a digital camera five years old is an antique.

Here is a sample of the 1DsII from a shoot this week. I pulled my clients in frot of the camera and shot a frame with the 1DsII ISO 100 and 85 1.2. Raw files were converted in photoshop CS2 with default sharpening and minimal processing. The crops are 100% so take a look at the eye lashes and texture around the eyes on the man.

I'm certainly not putting the Leica digital down but I think many are over estimating the Leica vs canon, nikon and others.

Send that man to my office. Some esthetic dentistry is in order here...

x-ray · 10-22-2006

No question the DMR produces fine images and the M8 certainly will too. But ;<) (there that word goes again) owning and shooting both Canon L glass and Leica M current and previous generation glass Leica has no big advantage. Certainly canon lacks ultra wide performance but the 35 1.4L is a stong lens that can hold it's own. There's no competition in the 24 f1.4 range other than the canon which is a very good lens. On the long end even my 90 AA is inferior to the canon 85 1.2 L at close range and little if any better at distances. My Canon 135 f2 L and 200 f1.8 L are the finest in the market at any price. The 400 2.8 L and 600 f4 L are second to none. I know Leica M doesn't have anything longer than 135 but my point is Leica and for that matter Canon does not own the market on lens quality or performance.