Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/12/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi George,
Yes, I got the 5D MkII this last week and have been playing with it.
In one picture I've managed to get the 'black spot' but that's really
more of a pixel peeper thing than a substantive fault. The actual
file quality is very directly comparable between the 5D and the MkII,
except of course for the pixel count and the improvements that that
makes. If you shoot at the sRAW 1 setting, and output 10Mp files or
downsize the big RAW files, you get noise levels that are about the
same as those from the Nikon D700. So all that is a good thing.
The main issue is that most of my lenses aren't good enough. The
70-200 f/4 IS is good, and the 24-05 is quite decent as are the
35/1.4 stopped down and the 85/1.8 and 100/2.8. But the 24/3.5 TS
really isn't, and anything shorter available isn't either. The 16-35
vII, (which I've tried but returned) is a joke on this camera. I
still have a 15/3.5 Nikkor which has flare issues but is sharp enough
but I need a good 20 or 21. I might look for a Nikon 20/3.5 in the
interim.
With a good lens the camera can do well, and even though the AA
filter is too strong for my liking the files can be sharpened
reasonably. The end result though is that the actual detail is not a
whole lot better than what you get with the M8; certainly nothing
like the pixel disparity would suggest. And you get the detail with
all current Leica lenses, and mostly with older and CV lenses as well.
To get the kind of detail that the M8 provides pretty much
automatically, you have to shoot the 5DII with a good lens, at
appropriate apertures, and then sharpen them appropriately. This with
files that are 25 to 40Mb in size and a camera that is huge in
comparison. I'll do certain types of paid work with this camera, but
otherwise will leave it at home. It has many advantages other than
the pixel count over the older 5D which make it a very worthwhile
upgrade, and I got it for about $2400 so I went for it.
Last night I was at a party and shot with the 5DII and 35/1.4 at 3200
and 6400 ISO. This worked reasonably well, but... the camera has
focussing problems at those light levels, and you really have to
expose correctly. I didn't get that many keepers. Mind you, the M8
would have really been challenged, as my '35 equivalent', the 28
Summicron is only f/2. So I would have been shooting at a lot slower
shutter speed, but I would have correctly focussed pictures, and as I
mentioned before, the Leica files are better at having the exposure
boosted after the fact. So I would have been shooting at 640 or 1250
ISO, gotten a bit more noise and shot at 1/30 instead of 1/125. But
having done this before lets me know that I probably would have had
more keepers with the Leica. Plus I would have used the Noctilux a
lot!
At 12:55 PM -0600 12/21/08, Lottermoser George wrote:
><x-flowed>Henning,
>
>It would appear that you've acquired a 5D Mark II.
>I had hoped for a more enthusiastic report.
>Can you tell me more re: comparing the image files between 5D and Mk II?
>You seem to infer that they're still a bit mushy and/or plasticy
>(pardon my non tech terms).
>I'm down to just the 24 to 70 L and 70 to 200 L IS - do you have
>experience with these two lenses on the Mk II?
>
>Fond regards,
>George
>
>george@imagist.com
>http://www.imagist.com
>http://www.imagist.com/blog
>http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist
>
>
>
>On Dec 21, 2008, at 3:29 AM, Henning Wulff wrote:
>
>> Jayanand, I don't think the demand for the M8 is price inelastic
>> (I'm not Frank, nor do I speak for him, but I will jump in). It
>> just provides appropriate value, especially if you've acquired an
>> appreciation for the results of Leica optics. This is a hard sell,
>> but I don't think Leica would sell enough more M8's at 75% (say) of
>> the current selling price to make enough difference for them.
>> Rangefinders are just enough of an oddity right now that I don't
>> think a somewhat lower price would have done much for them.
>> Suggesting a price at 50% or lower of the actual selling price
>> would seem a bit naiive. You can't make up a loss on each item by
>> selling in greater quantities.
>>
>> There is no ideal digital camera. There is no ideal film camera.
>> There is only a camera which is a bit better for taking the
>> pictures that you want/can/aspire to take.
>>
>> The M8 is such a camera for a lot of the things I want to shoot for
>> myself. It does not do much for my professional photography, but I
>> enjoy both the shooting and the results from the M8 more than those
>> I get from the 5D and now the 5D MkII. The choices Leica has made
>> with the camera body and the quality of the Leica lenses make the
>> files sing. The Canon has problems.
>>
>> I still shoot 4x5 and panoramic formats on film and get them
>> scanned; I still shoot B&W 35mm on M6, M7, MDa, etc but the
>> majority of my discretionary shooting is with the M8. I have the
>> best that Canon has to offer in lenses, and I'll get the 21 Zeiss
>> when it becomes available, but the Canons have a tough row to hoe
>> to compete with the M8.
>>
>> The 5D MkII FF raw files are up to 40Mb in size, yet they can't
>> beat the content of the Leica 1.3x crop 10.1Mb files. It's like
>> scanning 800 ISO 35mm film at 5400dpi and getting a 250Mb 16 bit
>> file and finding out it doesn't have as much info as a 6 megapixel
>> DSLR raw file.
>>
>> Size only matters if it actually contains something significant. If
>> the Canon had WA lenses that were good, and if it didn't soften the
>> images at the sensor or software too much, then it would outdo the
>> Leica. As it is, the 5D MkII has excellent low light performance
>> (pretty much equivalent to the D700 or D3 if the file is reduced to
>> 12Mpixels), lots of features, a great movie mode etc, but few
>> lenses to truly exploit the 21Mp sensor. Under most conditions, it
>> can't outperform the M8 because the M8 has no smearing in the
>> sensor/basic processing and it has outstanding lenses. Yes, the 5D
>> has great 6400 ISO performance, but it does not have great ISO 400
>> performance compared with the M8. More of my pictures require ISO
>> 400 than 6400, and it's likely to remain that way. So the M8 works,
>> and the 5DMkII lags. It appears likely to remain that way for a
>> while, so the M8 comes out on top and the price one has to pay, all
>> things considered, seems reasonable. I'd like it to be lower, but I
>> realize that I have to subsidize the R&D as well as the production
>> costs. I don't think it's an unfair 'ripoff' price. It's also
>> enough better than the only remote alternative, the RD-1, to
>> justify the price.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Frank,
>>> Are you saying the demand for the M8 is price inelastic? My view
>>> is that it
>>> may well be today, in the present economic climate, but at
>>> introduction,
>>> when the Leica cachet would have sold easily, a lower price would
>>> have
>>> translated into a larger installed base by now. I really hope that
>>> the S2
>>> system does well, considering the recession in the midst of which
>>> it will be
>>> born...
>>> Cheers
>>> Jayanand
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 12:47 PM, Frank Dernie
>>> <Frank.Dernie@btinternet.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> My opinion is that the market is so small for a digi-rangefinder
>>>> that none
>>>> will ever fly off the shelves. If the sales had been good enough
>>>> to pay for
>>>> the development of the camera and a bit of profit the service
>>>> would have
>>>> been good and there would have been RD2 and RD3 by now. Cosina/
>>>> Voigtlander
>>>> would have continued if Epson did not.
>>>> IMO the opinion that the M8 is overpriced profiteering is
>>>> mistaken. At the
>>>> market size for such a product the volume they produce will
>>>> always be tiny
>>>> and the tooling and R&D costs have to be amortised over a few
>>>> units. It
>>>> could well be a loss leader to sell more lenses :-)
>>>> Frank
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 20 Dec, 2008, at 23:32, Richard Man wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The alignment problem is exaggerated. It was very easy to fix
>>>> by oneself.
>>>>> If
>>>>> they price is at $1500 to $2000, it may have flown off the
>>>>> shelves.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Harrison McClary
>>>>> <lists@mcclary.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> If it had not had all the problems I read about then I'd have
>>>>> gotten one.
>>>>>> But the stories about poor rangefinder alignment, and things
>>>>>> like that
>>>>>> kept
>>>>>> me away...also it was not exactly in the category I was taking
>>>>>> about, if
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> remember it was around 3 grand new. They are still 1500 used
>>>>>> or so...I'd
>>>>>> rather save a few more pennies and get a used M8 with all I
>>>>>> have hear
>>>>>> about
>>>>>> the RD1. Now had the RD1 been a decent camera with good customer
>>>>>> support...that'd have made a difference to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> // richard m: richard @imagecraft.com
>>>>> // b: http://richardfman.wordpress.com
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Leica Users Group.
>>>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more
>>>>> information
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Leica Users Group.
>>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more
>>>> information
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Leica Users Group.
>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>
>> --
>>
>> * Henning J. Wulff
>> /|\ Wulff Photography & Design
>> /###\ mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com
>> |[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Leica Users Group.
>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
></x-flowed>
--
* Henning J. Wulff
/|\ Wulff Photography & Design
/###\ mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com
|[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com