Leica M8 Noise vs. Canon 5D

This whole thing is very simple. If low noise at high iso is the top priority-more important than rangefinder handling and using your own Leica glass, which is what Dan pretty much just said, then the M8 is not for him. If you like shooting 100 to 400 speed film for its detail, and I assume that low ISO on digital cameras also gives more detail, my impression is that the M8 performs outstandingly and can be used very similarly to a film M. Isn't that the end of the story? I mean, how hard is this?

Mark,

you asked why this is so hard to understand. Well, it?s not that Dan doesn?t get that the m8 might perform well at lower iso?s. It?s that this post is about noise levels in the m8. is that hard for you? Unlike with an m series film body, you could select your film and control grain that way. <With the digital bodies, you?re stuck with a set of caracteristics. So people who are pretty picky about image quality in all arenas, who want a flexible machine that isn?t limited in ISO performance, then the M8 starts to look like an underperfomer when you compare price to performance ratios. I would love to be able to use some of the great leica lenses personally as I love rangefinders, BUT there?s no reason as a professional to pick up a first version of ANY first version of ANY peice of equipment. Companies now are in teh mode of get something out, update it and put out a second version which is ALWAYS improved.

 

Me, I?ll stick with my 5d and if I want superfast manual focused lenses, I?ll use my super takumars that are razorsharp and are fast to boot. But this thread just goes to show that too many of us once again have ben sucked into another pointless argument about cameras when it could have been spent shooting, working on our personal stuff, or ?gasp? just enjoying real non internet life.

"Why would anyone complain about boring test images? This is weird thinking, to be sure.

Test images are not supposed to be interesting."

 

This is something that I haven't ever been able to understand either. Everyone knows that

any camera can make pretty pictures. I would like these people to come out and tell us

what exactly they can glean (and HOW they can glean it) from a couple dozen differently

exposed and composed pictures!

 

Test pictures are about the most useful tool a person has when comparing different gear.

Especially the non-artistic, carefully controlled boring lab pictures.

"A real test is when people start to do good work with this camera. If nobody doing good

work uses it for good work, it's not going to have a good reputation."

 

No, a real camera test happens in a controlled setting, identical to other cameras tested by

the same person. Any camera is capable of doing good work. By your reasoning nobody

would ever buy a Leica for any photographic reason because any camera is capable of good

work.

"Isn't that the end of the story? I mean, how hard is this?"

 

It is for most people. High ISO noise reduction, like I said, is not a huge concern for many photographer, depending on what they shoot. Nothing here is revealing of anything not known before (i.e. that Canon has the cleanest high ISOs - at some cost of detail though, but still pretty damn clean). People buy Leicas for a reason, people buy Canons for a reason, etc. Nobody is uninformed I think. Leica didn't miss any boat - their focus was on something else. I can say Canon missed the boat too with the toy-like ergonomics/metering/AF/shutter/etc. of the 5D. Who cares though? People who need to shoot at high ISOs will take the 5D and deal with it's shortcomings. No camera is perfect. Find the one that works for you and not the one with the best test pictures, because they may not apply to you at all and be misleading anyway.

 

With DSLRs, you can't really say this is the best - there is no best in all areas yet.

 

Bogdan

Your point is well taken Bogdan...I tried to shoot basketball with my 5D and I had a hard time for lack of frame rate, for example. I got some really low noise missed shots. The 5D's ergos are not bad not not great either. I miss the weight, feel, and responsiveness of the 1D's I once had. Man they were sweet. However for events, weddings, and landscapes, and even street the 5D met my needs better. I miss the dust/moisture sealing of the 1D's too. I'd like to get an M8 and two lenses perhaps a 35mm and 85mm or there abouts....I'm still learning what available primes are offered for Leica rangefinders. I want the M8 for personal use, not for commerce. And for the record, I do acknowledge that the M8 provides great picture quality at ISO 800 and slower. But I worry about very low light flashless shooting even with fast primes.

I believe the reason so many are concerned with high noise at high ISOs is that the M series has been the premiere low light camera for over 50 years.

 

I feel we should be able to freely discuss this issue and view various test and real-life low light images.

 

I would like Leica to still feel some heat as to prioritize a better solution. They may not be able to match the low noise of Canon but I would like them to match what Nikon has been able to do.

 

Nikon has done an excellent job in lowering the chroma noise on the D80 and D200 models. This lowers the color noise in the image. The noise at high ISOs appears less blotchy. Images that are then converted to B&W do look more film like.

 

I rarely used films above 400 ISO. With a good low noise DSLR, I felt free to use higher ISOs. It opened up new possibilities.

 

I think a M8 with low chroma noise would be a dream come true.

Lets all write to Canon and ask for them to come out with a CANON P DIGITAL RF, THIS IS THE ANSWER.

> It seems Leica has missed the boat on high ISO noise reduction. Surely you Leica fans

with well heeled wallets would expect better, yea?

> But you be the judge....see link:

 

Just as a counterpoint, I don't have a problem with the M8 at 2500. If you're not sick to

death of this already, see link:

 

http://homepage.mac.com/xrogers/page1/page1.html

 

Clyde Rogers

Worthless comparison.

 

I won't even consider a comparison unless the image is offered in unedited DNG format.

Clyde, per your little comparo pics...the 5D is cleaner, less noise. But to be fair, your tests may not be scientific enough.

<p><i>A canon P digital rangefinder</i>: exactly what I'd like!</p>

Is the market that small that canon or nikon don't seem interested in developing a digital RF? Do we need to make them aware of the fact that a lot of people would like a good, reliable digital RF and that the market is fully open right now for that (Epson: no customer service, Leica: kinda expensive for funky colors)? I mean they've done RFs in the past, they know sensor technology and well, who really care about red dots?

I VERY much doubt that a LOT of people want a digital rangefinder made by Canon (or anyone else). It's very much a niche market and a substantial part of that market wouldn't buy anything that didn't have the "Leica" name on it anyway.

 

Why would Canon spend time and money on a RF project when they could make 10x as much money by releasing a new P&S digicam or DSLR which would probably cost less to develop and give them less grief from users - not to mention the fact that Canon don't make any rangefinder lenses and presumably have no desire to do so either. Most of the profit on interchangable lens camera systems comes from the sale of lenses.

Certainly true but that sucks.

Dan, it is as scentific a test as someone started this thread over. It just doesn't show the

lopsided advantage for the 5D. I didn't expect the M8 to perform in low light as well as it

does.

 

I hope you continue to enjoy your 5D.

"Epson: no customer service"

 

WHAT?

 

Everyone I know who has had problems with their Epson, myself included, received

satisfaction. They sent me a new camera instantly when I called them and mailed mine

away.

 

The cameras weren't always perfect (mine that I own now is though) but I have been

nothing but pleased with the customer service.