Very interesting test...

[deepdiver]

please take a look at this test
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor/Camera-rankings

it's really interesting
Leica M8's sensor is seem really out of date...
any comments?

Andree

 

[Bob]

I have both, and I have to day that despite those tests, the M8 gives more pleasing results as far as I am concerned.
Maybe it is the lenses, maybe it is the lack of an AA filter on the M8, but the Nikon files look weak compared with the M8.
-bob

 

[Vivek]

Leica M8's sensor is seem really out of date...

It already was as far as visible light captures with accurate color reproduction were concerned.

The Panasonic G1 would score much higher when it comes to lack of UV or IR response.

When Panasonic develops its latest waveguide technology (photonic crystals) for sensors it is going leap yet another notch. Exciting times.

 

[fotografz]

I have both, and I have to day that despite those tests, the M8 gives more pleasing results as far as I am concerned.
Maybe it is the lenses, maybe it is the lack of an AA filter on the M8, but the Nikon files look weak compared with the M8.
-bob

Maybe at lower ISOs in perfect light ... but at ISO 3000+ the Nikon files look a lot better ... oh, wait ... you can't shoot that high with the Leica.

BTW, what lenses are you using on your Nikon? That makes a big difference in my experience.

 

[Bob]

Yeah, but I don't often need high iso, besides I have more 1.4 Leica glass.
I have the 24-70 2.8 N coated zoom, have had the 50 1.4 which I sold, the 80-400 VR, the 24mm 2.8 D.
I find AF focusing at large aperture difficult, something I have not really mastered besides, I can hand hold the M8 (with the new shutter) a couple of stops slower than the D3 Combine that with a couple stops more (in my average glass) and you are comparing the Leica's 1250 to iso 20000 on the D3 to get equivalent well exposed sharp frames (that is, with C1 of course, take a stop off for noise if you are using ACR or Lightroom.
As for the best lens I have, which I think is the 24-70 N, it is reasonably sharp, but the micro contrast and fine detail are just not there. Its distortion at the wide end is annoying. The 24mm 2.8 is just oatmeal in the corners. Side by side, the M8 (with all of my personal variables) produces better 17 x 25s than the D3.
I will say that the D3 is certainly a machine-gun of a camera and fast, but big and heavy, so I am selling it off. I might pick up a D700 for macro and telephoto work, but now I mostly shoot the P45+ for big and the M8 for travel.
-bob
-bob

 

[fotografz]

Different strokes for different folks Bob.

Comparing SLR zooms with rangefinder primes is a bit questionable IMO. Zooms provide a different, more versatile advantage for certain shooting conditions (like my wedding work).

For other work, I'm using Zeiss ZF Primes on a D700 and F6 with f/1.4 and f/2 apertures ... so don't give up that aspect ... or the micro contrast either ... but do lose the need for IR filters and the reflections those cause in low light with specular points of light in frame. And I gain the use of macro 50mm, 100mm ... and when needed Nikon 100/2.8VR or 200/2VR. A Bright Screen split micro-prism in the D700, and Nikon's version in the F6, coupled with in viewfinder focus confirmation, make manual focusing a breeze.

I found I can hand hold the F6 almost as steady as my M due to its its super dampened mirror. I'm not sure I agree with your ISO math ... or the focusing issues. I zeroed in all my Nikon lenses, and didn't need to for any of the Zeiss optics ... something I can't say for all my M glass ... they were all off, and spent months being calibrated in Germany ... the 50 Lux ASPH went back 3 times.

I still use the M8 for a lot of stuff ... it's nice and compact for travel and shooting reference shots for upcoming location shoots with a MFD camera. But the Zeiss optics on the Nikons are more diversified for me and give up very little in image quality ... while cruising at ISO 8000-12,500 with a f/1.4 lens.

 

[Lars]

... while cruising at ISO 8000-12,500 with a f/1.4 lens.

Now that's a sweet setup!

 

[glenerrolrd]

please take a look at this test
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor/Camera-rankings

it's really interesting
Leica M8's sensor is seem really out of date...
any comments?

Andree[/QUOT


I found the test results to be exactly as my personal experience. Since I use the M8 , the D3 and the R9/DMR....it is easy to see how these three systems compare ....against my type of shooting.

It is quite easy to see the M8 sensor performance falls off as you increase the ISO. Even by going to 320 you start to lose dynamic range and color depth. But at 160 the M8 compares quite favorably to the D3 and with the advantage of Leica M lenses ..I think is way better.

Its pretty easy to see what you are loosing as you increase ISO and no question the Nikon sensor greatly extends your range of available light shooting.

The charts show that the M8 drops off significantly at 640....this doesn t mean you can t get great results ....but technically they will be inferior to shooting at 160. Occasionally I will start out in the morning shooting at 640 and forget to reset both cameras to 160 as the light improves. Later when I review the images based on capture time ...I can see the same scene at 160 and at 640 .. I keep looking for why the image isn t as sharp and then I find the ISO difference. Try it ..shoot a test chart at 160 and at 640 .

As an aside the R9/DMR blows away both the M8 and the D3 at ISO 100 but runs out at ISO 400...hardly enough for a DSLR system and long lenses.

The missing element is the contribution of the lenses. But overall the sensor evaluations mirror my observations and can provide some insights into best practices for use of each system.

Actually I was pleased to see how the M8 did against the Nikon sensor and I see an important place for both systems.

 

[Bob]

Different strokes for different folks Bob.

Comparing SLR zooms with rangefinder primes is a bit questionable IMO. Zooms provide a different, more versatile advantage for certain shooting conditions (like my wedding work).

For other work, I'm using Zeiss ZF Primes on a D700 and F6 with f/1.4 and f/2 apertures ... so don't give up that aspect ... or the micro contrast either ... but do lose the need for IR filters and the reflections those cause in low light with specular points of light in frame. And I gain the use of macro 50mm, 100mm ... and when needed Nikon 100/2.8VR or 200/2VR. A Bright Screen split micro-prism in the D700, and Nikon's version in the F6, coupled with in viewfinder focus confirmation, make manual focusing a breeze.

I found I can hand hold the F6 almost as steady as my M due to its its super dampened mirror. I'm not sure I agree with your ISO math ... or the focusing issues. I zeroed in all my Nikon lenses, and didn't need to for any of the Zeiss optics ... something I can't say for all my M glass ... they were all off, and spent months being calibrated in Germany ... the 50 Lux ASPH went back 3 times.

I still use the M8 for a lot of stuff ... it's nice and compact for travel and shooting reference shots for upcoming location shoots with a MFD camera. But the Zeiss optics on the Nikons are more diversified for me and give up very little in image quality ... while cruising at ISO 8000-12,500 with a f/1.4 lens.

I have to agree with you in theory, but not in my experience as to the Zeiss primes on the Nikon since I haven't owned one, but I have tried one for a short while. I was disappointed by the fairly poor selection of quality Nikon primes. I have almost no use for zooms, other than at the long end. The shorter zooms make me shudder whenever I shoot anything with straight lines; ok, I can shoot most models any they will look fine, but the sets might look strange to me. BTW the 24-70 is I think the best zoom that I have ever owned.
I bought the D3 for a wedding, and also used it for a model shoot, an airshow, and some wild birds, and it did fine indeed, but the point is, that there is a whole lot more to a camera system than a sensor. I just don't tend to pick up the D3 unles the mission screams for it. I can see that it stands the real possibility of becoming the wedding shooter's standard camera with its redundant CF slots.
I am not really abandoning Nikon, since the D700 looks to me to be a more favorable form factor for me than the D3, I am just wondering what their "Big" announcement might be before I send any more on Nikon gear. It might also be my opportunity to try Canon with the 5DII. So I am holding off for a bit before I sell my remaining FX lenses (the DX all left during an earlier purge).
Yes, the F6 is a lot better to hand hold than the D3, but my iso math is:
two stops for hand holding, two stops for my 2.8 glass four stops = 16X
1250 X 16 = 20000. Lately I have been getting some very decent (not perfect by any means) from the M8 at 1250, but to tell you the truth, I almost always shoot at 160. I also almost always shoot from a tripod, except when I don't. So far I have been happiest with what I am getting out of the P45+.
-bob

 

[fotografz]

I have to agree with you in theory, but not in my experience as to the Zeiss primes on the Nikon since I haven't owned one, but I have tried one for a short while. I was disappointed by the fairly poor selection of quality Nikon primes. I have almost no use for zooms, other than at the long end. The shorter zooms make me shudder whenever I shoot anything with straight lines; ok, I can shoot most models any they will look fine, but the sets might look strange to me. BTW the 24-70 is I think the best zoom that I have ever owned.
I bought the D3 for a wedding, and also used it for a model shoot, an airshow, and some wild birds, and it did fine indeed, but the point is, that there is a whole lot more to a camera system than a sensor. I just don't tend to pick up the D3 unles the mission screams for it. I can see that it stands the real possibility of becoming the wedding shooter's standard camera with its redundant CF slots.
I am not really abandoning Nikon, since the D700 looks to me to be a more favorable form factor for me than the D3, I am just wondering what their "Big" announcement might be before I send any more on Nikon gear. It might also be my opportunity to try Canon with the 5DII. So I am holding off for a bit before I sell my remaining FX lenses (the DX all left during an earlier purge).
Yes, the F6 is a lot better to hand hold than the D3, but my iso math is:
two stops for hand holding, two stops for my 2.8 glass four stops = 16X
1250 X 16 = 20000. Lately I have been getting some very decent (not perfect by any means) from the M8 at 1250, but to tell you the truth, I almost always shoot at 160. I also almost always shoot from a tripod, except when I don't. So far I have been happiest with what I am getting out of the P45+.
-bob

Yep, I'm happiest with my H3D-II/39 also Bob ... it's the bread earner in my household.

 

[Zeiss]

...[snip]...But the Zeiss optics on the Nikons are more diversified for me and give up very little in image quality ... while cruising at ISO 8000-12,500 with a f/1.4 lens.

This my experience as well.
ZF lenses on the D700 (and FM2) are just a joy to use. The area where Leicas excelled (for me), low light with excellent lenses, has been taken over by the D700/ZF 35/2 combo.

I still use my film Leicas, but don't use digital rangefinders anymore. Film is mostly B&W for me now and with the D700 I had very little use for a digital rangefinder.

 

[fotografz]

This my experience as well.
ZF lenses on the D700 (and FM2) are just a joy to use. The area where Leicas excelled (for me), low light with excellent lenses, has been taken over by the D700/ZF 35/2 combo.

I still use my film Leicas, but don't use digital rangefinders anymore. Film is mostly B&W for me now and with the D700 I had very little use for a digital rangefinder.

I still love the film Ms and miss the feel of them in hand ... especially cocking the shutter However, it's hard to justify re-buying one these days when I have a Zeiss 28/2, 50/1.4, 85/1.4, and 100/2 that I can use wide open in bright light on the F6 because of the top 1/8000th shutter speed.

 

[Zeiss]

I still love the film Ms and miss the feel of them in hand ... especially cocking the shutter However, it's hard to justify re-buying one these days when I have a Zeiss 28/2, 50/1.4, 85/1.4, and 100/2 that I can use wide open in bright light on the F6 because of the top 1/8000th shutter speed.

Agreed.
Zeiss lenses for Nikon were the reason that I invested in Nikon again (D700) after not having bought anything Nikon related in more than 10 years.

Marc, in case you own the CV58/1.4 and the ZF50/1.4 - how do they compare? They both seem to have a bit of "nervous" bokeh wide open. Neither appears as convincing to me as the ZF 35/2 (wow!) or the ZF 85/1.4.
Love the images from the Planar 50/2, but I think I would miss the stop.

 

[fotografz]

Agreed.
Zeiss lenses for Nikon were the reason that I invested in Nikon again (D700) after not having bought anything Nikon related in more than 10 years.

Marc, in case you own the CV58/1.4 and the ZF50/1.4 - how do they compare? They both seem to have a bit of "nervous" bokeh wide open. Neither appears as convincing to me as the ZF 35/2 (wow!) or the ZF 85/1.4.
Love the images from the Planar 50/2, but I think I would miss the stop.

The ZF50/2 is the one to get if you're only getting one. It is stunningly good.

I agree, the CV 50/1.4 is a bit weird ... but has its "speciality charms" ... the Zeiss 50/1.4 does have a nervious Bokeh under certain conditions, but I think would be okay in really dark situations. I've got that one coming and will report on it after shooting.

 

[Stuart Richardson]

I have to agree that it is really important to look at things from the point of view of systems -- I use the D3 and the M8, and I think the M8 produces nicer files in decent light -- if you have to go above 320, you might as well pick up the D3 -- the files aren't useless at 640, but they are getting worse -- the real problem is what Marc hints at -- you cannot use IR filters in the dark areas where there are exposed lights (streetlights, headlights, light bulbs...ANYTHING). Every time you do, you wind up with ghost blobs in your image from the reflections. Or at least I do...

Anyway, while I love the D3 as a camera body, I must agree with Bob that I have not been impressed with the lenses I have used other than the 24-70 -- the 24-70 is great for most things, but as Bob said, there is tons of distortion at the wide end, and while very sharp in the center, the corners are just not that great -- not like any wide angle on the M cameras anyway...The 50/1.4 is a dog from 1.4 to 2, after which it gradually improves...none of the other lenses have blown me away...
I have not used the Zeiss primes other than the 100/2, which was great, barring the color fringing at f/2. I just could not get past the focusing -- I have no desire to use manual focus lenses on the Nikon because they focus the wrong way and I just can't get past it. I know it is silly, but it is so ingrained in me from using every single other camera I have ever had, that I just cannot get used to the damn thing. But anyway, I really don't think it makes any sense to rank a bunch of cameras and just say "Number 1 is D3, Number 2 is D700 etc etc". How many of us here would choose the Samsung GX-20 over the M8, D300, 1D Mk II N, 1Ds, or the 50D? It is ahead of all of them...for that matter, the D2H is only ranked 1.2 tics higher than the Panasonic LX-3...I am pretty sure which would take better pictures, and it is not the one that would fit in your pocket...

 

[ptomsu]

I have to agree that it is really important to look at things from the point of view of systems -- I use the D3 and the M8, and I think the M8 produces nicer files in decent light -- if you have to go above 320, you might as well pick up the D3 -- the files aren't useless at 640, but they are getting worse -- the real problem is what Marc hints at -- you cannot use IR filters in the dark areas where there are exposed lights (streetlights, headlights, light bulbs...ANYTHING). Every time you do, you wind up with ghost blobs in your image from the reflections. Or at least I do...

Anyway, while I love the D3 as a camera body, I must agree with Bob that I have not been impressed with the lenses I have used other than the 24-70 -- the 24-70 is great for most things, but as Bob said, there is tons of distortion at the wide end, and while very sharp in the center, the corners are just not that great -- not like any wide angle on the M cameras anyway...The 50/1.4 is a dog from 1.4 to 2, after which it gradually improves...none of the other lenses have blown me away...
I have not used the Zeiss primes other than the 100/2, which was great, barring the color fringing at f/2. I just could not get past the focusing -- I have no desire to use manual focus lenses on the Nikon because they focus the wrong way and I just can't get past it. I know it is silly, but it is so ingrained in me from using every single other camera I have ever had, that I just cannot get used to the damn thing. But anyway, I really don't think it makes any sense to rank a bunch of cameras and just say "Number 1 is D3, Number 2 is D700 etc etc". How many of us here would choose the Samsung GX-20 over the M8, D300, 1D Mk II N, 1Ds, or the 50D? It is ahead of all of them...for that matter, the D2H is only ranked 1.2 tics higher than the Panasonic LX-3...I am pretty sure which would take better pictures, and it is not the one that would fit in your pocket...

Stuart,

I think the problems you describe here with M8 are mainly yours. I do have problems with that camera, but definitely not these :angel:

And BTW - #1 is Canon 1DSMIII

 

[Stuart Richardson]

Hi Peter -- you may have the problem, but you are not aware of it or not been in a situation that provokes it. It happens every time I shoot in the dark in the city...it is caused by the filters -- they are not multicoated and they cause extensive reflections.
Here is an example:

Notice the blue lights on the left in the fenced in area? Those are reflections from the headlights and streetlights at the right -- the light bounces off the sensor glass, and then back off the IR filter and form an image again on the sensor.
Here is a more extreme example:

Those blue blobs are from the IR filter. If you want to photograph in the city at night, you have three choices -- 1. remove the IR filters and have IR contamination but no blobs.
2. Leave the IR filters on and laboriously clone out every blob (or leave them in) for every picture you want to keep.
3. Use a D3.

And by the way, the 1DsMkIII may be #1 on your list, but in the linked test it is listed as #3 after the D3 and D700, which is why I wrote it in that order.

 

[Zeiss]

Stuart,

I think the problems you describe here with M8 are mainly yours. I do have problems with that camera, but definitely not these :angel:

And for waxy digital looking images - #1 is Canon 1DSMIII

Had the same issues with the M8 as Stuart.

 

[Bob]

At night, off with the filters. I have found that even then, with M8, D2, and P45+ that sometimes I will get shadow images of light sources that seems to be reflections off the sensor and the rear element. They are fainter, but they are still there.
These reflections seem to be nowhere as bad a problem with film, since the surface is not nearly as reflective. I have also seen similar reflections while using a B+W MRC UV filter on the D3/24-70-2.8 zoom. So night means bare-lensed if reflections bug you.
-bob