M8.2 or Canon 5D markII?

I have a M6 w. 28mm/2.8, 35mm/1.4 and 90mm 2.0 but haven’t joined the digital M8 club. Last year I got a Canon

40D w. 17-55 2.8 IS (great combo).

 

Normally I shoot City life, concerts, landscape, travel and so - no sports and other action-stuff. I´m not a pro.

 

Now to my thinking.

 

I haven´t used my M6 that much since I got the 40D and I´m thinking of getting the M8.2 - but on the other hand it

looks like not all M users are in love with the sensor in the M8 digital...

 

And now Canon has come up with the 5D Mark2...

 

I would therefore like some input on this:

 

1. Get the new 5DmarkII (=sell my 40D w. 17-55) and keep my M-series until the M9 (or a M8.5 W. better sensor)

 

2. Get the M8.2 and keep my 40D

 

I have read that the sensor in the M8 is a bit rough over 800 ISO and I like taking pics. with low light. But what is the

point of a high ISO (Canon) setting if the pics. from the M8 are more sharp? Or are the lenses from Canon as god a

15 year old Summichron?

 

Thanks

 

Peter

would you buy a five year old computer? so why the leica, which is in fact so old technology. the sensor is way behind. get the

canon and be happy

I think you should make your decision more on whether you like shooting with a rangefinder versus a single lens reflex. Canon's have had their own set of problems, mostly backfocus and autofocus issues, something you won't have to worry about with the Leica.

I have just bought an M8, and I use 5D's, the good points about the M8, much improved WB, and the noise is much better

than I had feared, however I haven't been terribly impressed with the sharpness, even when I make an adjustments for the

back focus which I have in two lenses, I don't get that beautiful detail you see on film M's. Biggest disappointment is the

low light, slow shutter, wide aperture situation, using them side by side my 5D files where much sharper and detailed than

the M8, I have a suspicion that the shutter is a bit rough and not so usable at low speeds. I know Leica lenses are better

than Canon but I don't see it on the M8

Only you can answer that question. It is beyond obvious that the new 5D will be the better camera in almost all areas, but is that what you really want? Which camera would you rather use to take pictures - it doesn't matter that the 5DMKII is the better camera if you mainly grab your M6 when going out for a shoot.

 

I use MAINLY DSLRs and film based RFs only every now and then - so for me the decision would be easy, but that's just me

If you are happy with the 40D, I would get the 5D-II. The Leica lenses are better, but as others have said, this is the end

of the product cycle for the M8 (or at least the tail end). The sensor in the 5DII is 2-3 generations ahead, and the M8.2

will cost double or more. The M8 takes very good photos at ISO 160 and 320, but 640 is just ok...anything above 640 is

iffy. The other issue is the crop factor (1.33x on all your lenses, so no true wide angles unless you own the 21mm or the

new 16-18-21mm), and the requirement to use IR filters. The 5DII will make better images overall, and do so with more

niceties like the ability to shoot video, live view, autofocus and so on. The only qualification is that you want to make

sure you are using lenses that can take advantage of the 5D-II's sensor -- That means the L primes like the 35/1.4L,

50/1.2L, 85/1.2L, 135/2L and the best professional zooms. Otherwise you will be paying for 21 megapixels, but getting

detail that cuts out at 10mp, particularly in the corners.

You may consider to look for a demo M8. It will sell in the range of 3500 dollars (perhaps 3000 or less in a few months when there are more secondhand M8 in circulation) and has one year warrantee from Leica. With free firmware update it will have SDHC and AUTO-ISO of M8.2. At some future you could have done the entire scope of factory upgrades plus adding one year to the warrantee for 1700, which will bring your total cost still 1500 less than an M8.2. All that you will miss is the chance to delay the shutter motor until lifting your finger, plus a different leather.

 

Infact if you will plan to continue with use of your M6 then much better to buy an M8 not M8.2, and do not have upgraded the M8 frame lines. They are different schema and will cause you to need remembering always which camera is before your eye.

If my experience can be of any help, here it is: I had an M8 (well, 3 of them - in succession) from launch until a few

months ago. I now use an M3 for film and Canon 40D for digital.

 

The merits and demerits of the M8 have been laid bare many times over. The M8.2 only addresses some of the

demerits. My conclusion was that it was an excellent, but flawed, camera and I decided to get out while I could still get a

good price for it.

 

I have my name down for a 5D MkII, and will only revisit the digital M issue if and when a radically improved model

comes out.

 

Lens quality: I find the better (ie mainly L) Canon lenses to be outstanding, and provided you stick to these I don't think

definition will be the deciding factor.

Peter, this appears to be more of an apples and oranges question (SLR vs RF shooting). If you like RF shooting, the M8 or M8.2 is the

only option. You say you don't use your M6 much. Is that because you don't want to use film? Then, the M8 may be right for you, as you

already have 2 or 3 Leica low light lenses that will otherwise gather dust (unless you sell them, which may be what you want to do). The

older 5D was at best on a par with the M8 (according to Erwin P.), but even if the new 5D is much better, and therfore better than the M8,

you might prefer the RF type of shooting.

 

Most photographers prefer autofocus DSLRs or SLRs more than RF cameras. There is a lot to be said for through the lens viewing if you

use macro and long lenses. That is the apples and oranges question. As far as low light shooting is concerned, you

may not use the M8 above 640 ISO, but you have two high speed lenses which can put it on a more equal basis with

higher performing higher ISO DSLRs and less speedy single focal length lenses or zooms. Of course, you could always buy some Canon

wide angle high speed lenses.

Even if I could afford the M8.2, hands down, the 5D II. <p>"But what is the point of a high ISO (Canon) setting if the pics. from the M8 are more sharp?" - An overblown worry IMHO. But if you still are, get the new ZE mount Zeiss 50/1.4 then.

If you shoot using fixed focal lengths between 28mm and 90mm at distances greater than 3 or 4 feet, then a rangefinder may work for you. If you need a closer, wider or longer lenses or the flexibility of zoom lenses, then an SLR (digital or otherwise) is the better choice.

The M8 has the R series shutter I have been told that is not quiet like a film M. Its got no gears, its a thing that looks like a M but its electronic. Old electronics, needs corrective lenses like an old person too. The Canon or the Nikon d700 are both FF and better IQ at half price, built to go outdoors and I would look into getting the best Zeiss, Nikon and Canon lenses that are used by pros every day. I would not spend double for gear that doesn't hold up like old mechanical M did. Don't buy on Leica former reputation you will not be getting a superior product.

 

A Canon D50 or Nikon d300 will beat the Leica at 1/3 or 1/4 the price.

Given the fact that you only have 3 M lenses and that too not all the fancy glass, forget the M8.

If you have Noctilux and such esoteric lenses then you could consider the expensive M8.

 

My recommendation- buy a Panasonic G1 kit.

"...better IQ"

 

"5DII will make better images overall"

 

Can you quantify "better"? Can you explain what "overall" means? Unless you've used an M8 - how can you make

that statement? Is this a fact or just your opinion?

 

"I haven't been terribly impressed with the sharpness."

 

There is no AA filter on the sensor so the image should be sharper in a final print than a camera with an AA filter.

The DNG format file has NO sharpening applied to it unlike the RAW files from other cameras that have an AA filter

in front of the sensor and need to correct for the image diffusion created by the AA filter. The sharpening setting on

the M8 only applies to a JPEG.

 

Therefore, you need to apply sharpening when processing the image. It is important that you use Phase One

Capture 4 for processing the DNG if you want the best results. Capture 4 has settings that are specific to the M8

like the UV/IR filter setting, automatic moire filtering, etc.

 

If you're interested, send me an email and I will give you a workflow that will allow highly detailed prints up to 20x30

inches.

You need to make your own choice and it would be wise to base it on your preferences and style of shooting. I like

rangefinders, so I've chosen to stick with Leica.

 

People who say the M8 can't produce good files aren't using it right, or else there are problems with their equipment.

Plain and simple. I shoot with Canon digital cameras at work, and have a 5d and 1dMKII with I use with fast L primes,

and the M8 can produce results at least on par with, if not better than, the Canons.

 

The megapixel race is pointless and once you get to a certain point, there are much more important things to think about

than pixels. When I shoot film I might reproduce my pictures in print or make gallery prints no larger than 12x18in. I also

shoot exclusively tri-x, so I don't need super-high iso capability. The prints I'm making with my M8 at 12x18in. are

technically far superior to those I made in the darkroom from Tri-x. They have a different look to be sure, they're more

like medium format since there's no grain. But to the point at hand, I've compared my M8 prints to 5D prints and have

noticed a few things. First, the M8 files require much less post processing to look the way I want them. Often a quick

raw conversion and levels in PS is all they need. Second, the prints are much sharper and seem to be much more

detailed than the ones I've made from the Canons. Third, the prints have a different look. You might say better or worse,

but definitely different. You should try for yourself to see.

 

If you routinely make 40x50in prints for exhibition, then the M8 might not be the right camera for you and you should be

looking at medium or large format. But if you do work for offset repro, medium size gallery prints or web use, the M8 is

more than enough.

 

I work for a newspaper that's having serious finiancial problems and will be going freelance soon. I've been putting a lot

of thought into which system to use as I need to get my own digital gear for the first time. I bought the M8 as a test, and

I like it so much I plan to get two more and use Leica M as my only camera system. I've shot thousands of frames with

it so far and I love working with it. Is it right for everyone? Certainly not. But for the work I do rangefinders work best and

I do my best work with them. As part of my research I talked to some editors. I didn't want to get caught up in the MP

race, but in a competitive market I didn't want my choice of equipment to hurt my chances at getting assignments. I was

told the same thing over and over again. No one cares what camera you use. It's the photographs that matter. So use

the gear that you're most comfortable with and that lets you do your best work. If you just shoot for fun, choose the

camera that you enjoy the most.

 

I certainly wouldn't get an M82. though. I'd get a demo or used M8, since in my opinion the changes in the new model

aren't worth that much more cash.<div></div>

The M8's only advantage is size, otherwise I would probably get the 5D MkII because its a better camera.

Peter: Check out these threads first, then decide.http://www.photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00QzFD

http://www.photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00QzFD

I agree with Vivek, go with the 5DMk2. It is a more versatile body that can open up more avenues of exploration.

If I were in your position, I would will take the Canon route.

This is coming from someone who owns an M8 and lots of Nikon equipment with no Canon equipment.

Rent the M8 and the regular 5D. If you find that you like the 5D better, then you will certainly like the 5D II. If not, then ask yourself whether more resolution would really change your mind.

 

By all means, try them out and judge for yourself. You might simply like rangefinders better, and, if you do, then you should stay with them. I have some fancy cameras, but I am shooting less and less. Whatever gets you out the door with a camera in hand is the one to have. DSLRs are not for everyone.

 

--Lannie

I would go with Canon, way more camera for the money and I doubt lens sharpness is going to be that much better to choose one over the other. Some mention back focus problems with Canon, which is true with some lenses with just about any DSLR Camera maker. But remember the 5DII now has the AF micro adjustment so you can fix any back focus issues.

I would keep shooting film and hold off on going digital for at least one more round of technology improvements.

I sold my 5D and 30D in 2006 to by the M8 and some lenses. Haven't looked back since. I find myself taking far more pictures and carrying the camera everywhere, which is something I rarely did with the Canon equipment. Size does matter. I can fit my M8 and three lenses into a medium messenger bag and have room left for a book, lunch and water. can't do that with the 5D or 40D, but they you know that.

It's not realistic to say that the M8 is inherently sharper. It's sharpness looks unnatural and seems to be a result of

absurdly aggressive sharpening. I took a picture of a suspension bridge, and the algorithm took hold of the cables, making

them look amazingly solid - from the top until about halfway down. Below that point there wasn't enough left for the

algorithm and the cables simply disappeared into thin air.

It's not realistic to say that the M8 is inherently sharper. It's sharpness looks unnatural and seems to be a result of

absurdly aggressive sharpening. I took a picture of a suspension bridge, and the algorithm took hold of the cables, making

them look amazingly solid - from the bottom until about halfway up. Above that point there wasn't enough left for the

algorithm and the cables just vanished.<div></div>

<i>It's sharpness looks unnatural and seems to be a result of absurdly aggressive sharpening. I took a picture of a suspension bridge, and the algorithm took hold of the cables, making them look amazingly solid - from the top until about halfway down. Below that point there wasn't enough left for the algorithm and the cables simply disappeared into thin air.</i>

<p>

The example you show to support your hypothesis suffers from over exposure. You can achieve such results even with a view camera.