Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/11/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]George I'm sure you are right about the image quality of the M8. Nonetheless, image quality is not the final arbitrator of lasting images. :-) Lottermoser George wrote: > Hi Walt, > > Certainly, setting two cameras on a tripod right next to each other > with the same lens, etc. would give more critical information. > However, I'm looking at well exposed RAW files of similar subjects, > under similar available lighting and speaking only of the: detail > rendered, noise (and its qualities of size, color and pixelation), > and where that noise has most effect in zone V and below. These > comparisons are very much like comparing film grain, resolution, > ability to render detail, color, etc. I've looked at a lot of RAW > files from a lot of sensors including: Canon 10D, 20D, 5D, Leica DMR, > Leica M8 and few medium format backs of various vintages (have not > seen RAW from the newest 16 and 22 mpixel backs). Through my > subjective eyes the DMR and M8, at 400 or below, detail rendition, > color fidelity (skin tones, neutrals, etc.) and dynamic range equals > the medium format backs of a year or two ago and surpasses my 5D. > Over 400 the 5D seems to surpass the M8. I haven't seen DMR RAW files > above 400. > > Regards, > George Lottermoser > george@imagist.com > > > > On Nov 8, 2006, at 8:54 AM, Walt Johnson wrote: > >> Wouldn't you have to run a test by shooting the same subject with >> different cameras at the same time to make accurate decisions? > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >