Reading mode: Light Dark

Nikon D90 vs. M8 vs M6 vs. X1

Go to last post
Hi h00ligan, I'm not trying to start an argument but I also had a 7D for about 2 months and would say that even with say a canon 35 f2 lens mounted the overal image quality from an M8 beats it hands down.

maybe it was my copy of the 7D but the quality was really bad, I replaced it with a 550D when it came out and found the quality from that much better, I shoot with a 5DMKII most of the time and I'm not so big on the crop sensor from either Nikon or Canon but the 550D (with a half decent prime) impressed me and continues to do so.

do you feel that you get better quality images from your 7D or X1 ?
h00ligan said:
First, sorry I'd forgotten about his mention of the m8 being a joke, I follow.

Second, I'm not sure about the assertion the m8 has better iq than modern dslr as a blanket statement. Different iq, but not better...one has to quantify whether sharpness, iso performance, contrast, color, etc are the defining characteristics, and take into account some of the m8 shortcomings.

I think obviously a rangefinder is a different camera, but I'd be hard pushed to say it has better iq than a 7d (sticking to crop comparisons as it doesn't compete with ff) with l glass...it wouldn't win on iso, color and contrast could be similar on lens, as would sharpness..but at the end the images would look different.

People buying leica aren't doing so to compare charts, that's clear..there are two ways of determining superiority.. Charts and opinion of results.

I think all the cameras listed are probably great, I onlyown one of them, but own a few other cameras outside of the listed choices (gf1, 7d, dl3, had and sold dl4)
Click to expand...
--
http://racketshots.co.uk/racket/

http://bbphotochallenge.com
 
It's my English... :-)

I meant: in this very forum the answer you are going to get is "do not compare different cameras" or "Leica IQ is superior". Being pixel-peepers forcedly less present, the first answer will be more frequent (I guess).

Apart from a snobbish attitude, I'd say that I welcome the Leica philosophy, as I welcome other differently thinking makers (one is Sigma, with foveon sensors).
Ok numbers, but why willing to standardize everyting by accepted numbers.

Most cameras use cmos or similar cause of economic choice and also of the desire to make images in the dark... I can say my E1 (5MPx) IQ was superior to that of the E3... And so on.

If you go around saying "why a camera should make video" you are going to be beaten...

"Different" is by no mean "better", but must have it's own space. It's part of progress too.

Was gas the best technology? So, why we discovered later that diesel can outperform gas engines? And so on... :-)

--
http://www.onreb.net
 
I think your 7d may have been faulty or maybe the complicated af was to blame. For all intents an purposes the 550 is a slower smaller version of the 7d, same sensor even...so that is confusing.

Interesting question on the x1 vs 7d in my case. I only have two lenses for the 7d, 15-85 and sigma 30/1.4....Oh and a plastic fantastic I rarely use anymore.

If I am shooting something where I will use the x1 at f5.6 or higher I think the 7d + 15-85 is a close match for the x1, id have to work hard with it at 36mm to tell...but to me there are 2 differences..

There 'appears' to be more noise at lower iso on the 7d (6 mp more is a fair bit more pixel peeping) and the larger difference is headroom in the raw files. It seems to me that the x1 sharpens up better, and can recover more shadow detail..it seems to have more pop, if that makes sense...but it's inches not miles in either direction.

I think l glass would probably neutralize the difference.

I can't comment much on the sigma as I haven't used it all that much yet..but I do think the contrast of the sigma is great, and the bokeh is nice IMO. Plus it's an inexpensive lens @$400

Maybe today I will try to do a little comparison, strip exit data, and post a comparison :)

All of this is anecdotal, I don't shoot charts..and I'm sure somewhere in there I lack objectivity even though I enjoy both cameras.

Maybe a point on iq differences..I use the x1 a lot more than the 7d, so I certainly don't think it could be worse iq, or I'd opt for the other for most occasions. If the x1 was a faster machine, I would be perfectly fine with seeing the world through the x1 and maybe have a pocket or super zoom for rare needed reach, rather than a large dslr.

Sorry for a rather rambling series of thoughts...hadn't really compared the two much in practice yet, now I'm curious though!
 
This question of better or different: When I asked about IQ I am aware that it means many things, and I am glad to see that even after the use of the term better was debunked, several posters nuanced the meaning.

Let me reframe this question, but in another context. I have an m43 camera, with some Zeiss glass, 28 2.8 Distagon, 50 1.7 Planar and plan on getting more. I am thinking of an M8 -- can't afford an M9. Will the M8 improve the quality of my pictures with the same glass? Here is the context: I like to shoot BW and do a lot of PP in order to get the best tonal range I can out of them. Rangefinder versus EVIL doesn't matter here; my Zeiss is MF and a rangefinder might actually be easier to focus.

Michael
 
Yes it does seem strange that the 550D and 7D share a similar sensor but I remember at the time other were complaining about soft IQ on the 7D but others were just putting it down to the high amount of MPs on a crop sensor.

I was really dissapointed though because I thought that the 7D handled so well, much better than the 5DMKII.
h00ligan said:
I think your 7d may have been faulty or maybe the complicated af was to blame. For all intents an purposes the 550 is a slower smaller version of the 7d, same sensor even...so that is confusing.

Interesting question on the x1 vs 7d in my case. I only have two lenses for the 7d, 15-85 and sigma 30/1.4....Oh and a plastic fantastic I rarely use anymore.

If I am shooting something where I will use the x1 at f5.6 or higher I think the 7d + 15-85 is a close match for the x1, id have to work hard with it at 36mm to tell...but to me there are 2 differences..

There 'appears' to be more noise at lower iso on the 7d (6 mp more is a fair bit more pixel peeping) and the larger difference is headroom in the raw files. It seems to me that the x1 sharpens up better, and can recover more shadow detail..it seems to have more pop, if that makes sense...but it's inches not miles in either direction.

I think l glass would probably neutralize the difference.

I can't comment much on the sigma as I haven't used it all that much yet..but I do think the contrast of the sigma is great, and the bokeh is nice IMO. Plus it's an inexpensive lens @$400

Maybe today I will try to do a little comparison, strip exit data, and post a comparison :)

All of this is anecdotal, I don't shoot charts..and I'm sure somewhere in there I lack objectivity even though I enjoy both cameras.

Maybe a point on iq differences..I use the x1 a lot more than the 7d, so I certainly don't think it could be worse iq, or I'd opt for the other for most occasions. If the x1 was a faster machine, I would be perfectly fine with seeing the world through the x1 and maybe have a pocket or super zoom for rare needed reach, rather than a large dslr.

Sorry for a rather rambling series of thoughts...hadn't really compared the two much in practice yet, now I'm curious though!
Click to expand...
--
http://racketshots.co.uk/racket/

http://bbphotochallenge.com
 
well funny thing is that I'm selling my M8.2 and just ordered a X1 (sold my first one for the same price I paid for it, the new one is £120 less and thats with the grip).

I just don't use the M8.2 much at all since I started shooting film again (M6, G2, Hexar AF and LC-A+)

The X1 is kinda slow though but it does have the IQ, image POP and Hi iso performance, plus it's so compact.
h00ligan said:
Interesting findings, here's a thread that goes the other way...as you stated at lower iso it's probably a wash with similar lenses..x1 delivers tangibly better higher iso results based on what I've seen, but have not owned an m8 to compare myself.

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-x1-forum/129999-x1-vs-m8-2-a.html
Click to expand...
--
http://racketshots.co.uk/racket/

http://bbphotochallenge.com
 
I can't answer that based on anything other than paper specs and images I've seen but I'd think it will yield 'better' results as they will likely be sharper due to a larger and different type of sensor, lack of aa etc... Less crop is better for subject isolation it seems,

M8 definitely produces stunning results.
 
Definitely post up your impressions after the change. I , along with many others I think, will enjoy reading them.
 
CutterUK said:
well funny thing is that I'm selling my M8.2 and just ordered a X1 (sold my first one for the same price I paid for it, the new one is £120 less and thats with the grip). I just don't use the M8.2 much at all since I started shooting film again (M6, G2, Hexar AF and LC-A+) The X1 is kinda slow though but it does have the IQ, image POP and Hi iso performance, plus it's so compact.
Click to expand...
Interesting.

I still have to get my hands on a X1 (though the Fujifilm X100 announcement has somewhat cooled my interest in the X1).

The ergos on the dM's (their slight extra body thickness) vs the film version M's (ah, so sweet) puts me off. Ergo's are so much a part of the M experience & the dM body doesn't do it for me.

Unfortunatly too, film holds no interest for me anymore, for a number of reasons.

Hopefully Leica can somehow solve their dM's extra body "thickness" problem in a future version ...

"Can't be done"? - that's what they used to say about a FF dM . . .

Cheers.
--
Vaya con Dios
imo
(c) 2010 fastglass
 
Michael Everett said:
This question of better or different: When I asked about IQ I am aware that it means many things, and I am glad to see that even after the use of the term better was debunked, several posters nuanced the meaning.

Let me reframe this question, but in another context. I have an m43 camera, with some Zeiss glass, 28 2.8 Distagon, 50 1.7 Planar and plan on getting more. I am thinking of an M8 -- can't afford an M9. Will the M8 improve the quality of my pictures with the same glass? Here is the context: I like to shoot BW and do a lot of PP in order to get the best tonal range I can out of them. Rangefinder versus EVIL doesn't matter here; my Zeiss is MF and a rangefinder might actually be easier to focus.

Michael
Click to expand...
My M8 delivers far better IQ, including tonal range, than my Olympus E-P2 with the same glass.

But, the M8 files require PP to get the best results while the E-P2 jpegs look good straight out of the camera.

For highly photoshopped B & W's, the M8 is an excellent choice.

Best,

Bill
 
I have an M8. I have an X1. I also have a Zeiss Ikon (film rangefinder-M).

I love my M8 for it's rangefinder style of shooting and it's ability to use stunning M-glass. I love the quality of the files. It's failing is that it doesn't do high ISO very well (not something I use often). It's a little "louder" than an M should be, but that's relative of course. I wish it was weather-sealed (but none of the cameras you want will be).

I love my X1 for it's magnificent performance in a compact package. High ISO shots, no problem! File quality competes with high-end dSLRs. It's failing is that it's not a speedy camera... slow to auto focus and no auto-exposure lock (lack of AEL is my biggest gripe). Of course, speed is relative especially if you're comparing to manual-focus only rangefinder M cameras.

I love my Zeiss Ikon because it's light and the viewfinder is absolutely amazing. It's easier to load film than in an M and it cost me less ;) -- and it's opened up a whole new world for me developing my own film in my bathroom. There are NO failings of my Ikon... as long as you're willing to develop film yourself or wait for labs to do it for you.

Personally? I'd recommend you get an M8 or M8.2, and a film rangefinder - M6, Zeiss Ikon, Bessa R4A, pick one in your budget - you'd be surprised how affordable some of the Bessa cameras are if you want to save money and still be able to play with film. Then save your pennies and get the X1 later. You will always be able to sell and not lose much at all.

Amy
--



Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/DangRabbit
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/DangRabbitPhotography
PAD Project: http://www.DangRabbit.com/photography/pad
Gallery: http://www.DangRabbit.com/photography
 
Sorry I didn't use a tripod, this was just meant as a quick compare.

I actually shot a lot of comparisons today, but not necessarily between these two.

Here are some conclusions.

the 15-85 is sharper than the sigma 30, sigma has better contrast, which sort of offsets the sharpness until you crank contrast on the 15-85.

As I previously thought, the 7d shows more noise at a pixel level, but it's marginal and considering it carries 6 more mp, expected.

Lightroom does REALLY strange things with raws.. some of them it bumps contrast, some it doesn't. These were very different going in, but a quick slide equalized.

There's not much in it - even before resizing to 1024 - which actually says a lot for the x1, at what, 1/4-1/5 the weight?

Anyway, the surprise of the day was that the gf1 seemed the sharpest on the golf course. I feel I must have something wrong, so i'll repeat that test.

again, i'm sorry the angles aren't perfect, and that the shot is boring, it's a very very basic comparison. Both LAB sharpened 125 / 1.5 / 1 unsharp mask.

7D



x1

 
Film is a totally different ball game. If you've never done film, it'll be a very long learning process. Heck, I had to re-learn film when scanning became mainstream.

The whole photography scene is now very complex and confused:

1. Film + traditional dark room
2. Film + scanning
3. Digital Jpg only
4. Digital + RAW + post processing

Each of these is then further complicated by the characteristics of different brands of medium (different films or different sensors), the firmware in the case of digital or scanning. And then there's the lenses. And whether you're looking at it on screen or in print, then the display card + monitor difference, printer + ink + paper difference enter the picture.

So, you see, I really doubt if anyone, anywhere, can give you an answer.

I can only say that if you've never done film, then don't go there when you're financially stretched, because film requires its own set of tools which again requires more money. A scanner + software is the immediate example.
 
I can't recommend what you should do but what I did after going through the great debate was kept my D90 with the 18-105 lens (great combo and great images) and added an M4 with a 5cm DR Summicron and 5cm Summitar. I've shot film most of my life and mostly with rangefinders and OM-1 SLRs and digital is only the last 6-7 years. I liked both and I always wanted a film Leica so that's what I did. When I take the Leica I also take either my Lumix ZS3 or LX3. When I take the D90 that's all I take. I'm too smitten with the Leica right now to use my OMs, Retina IIIc, Minolta 7sII, or Yashica J (my first rangefinder).
 
I bought the D90 a year ago and was very happy with it, especially when using lenses like the AFS 17-55 F2.8 and the Zeiss 2/100 MP. I had wanted a Leica M8 for a long while and bought one a couple of months ago (Still had 3 months of Passport warranty on it). It wasnt until last weekend that I could afford a lens for it, I bought a second hand 24mm Elmar-M F3.8 ASPH from Aperture in London. I couldnt be happier with with easier, the image quality and dynamic range, subjectively at least, appear much better than that of the D90. The Nikon sensor was also very noisy, especially in the shadows and OOF areas.

I do not think that you would be disappointed with the M8 and I would advocate that route rather than getting an M6 and X1, especially if you want to shoot a digital Leica. Of course the M6 doesn't alter the field of view of the lenses which could be an advantage but the X1 you to planned to augment it with won't really give you that rangefinder experience.

Hope this and all the other comments here help you come to a decision you'll be happy with. Good luck and happy shooting!
 
Thanks h00ligan, your 7D does look to produce better results than I had from mine so maybe it was a bad copy but I read (on DPR) that others found the same so a bad batch maybe.

The 7D shot looks more punchy but the X1 seems to have better clarity (might just be my monitor)

Once my X1 arrives and I've charged the battery I run a test with it and my 550D + 15-85 and I'll also do one with the 550D + the Canon 24 f2.8 which should be a very good match for the X1 (same focal length and f stop)

BTW "No food or glass in the spa area" and that includes your optics :)
h00ligan said:
Sorry I didn't use a tripod, this was just meant as a quick compare.

I actually shot a lot of comparisons today, but not necessarily between these two.

Here are some conclusions.

the 15-85 is sharper than the sigma 30, sigma has better contrast, which sort of offsets the sharpness until you crank contrast on the 15-85.

As I previously thought, the 7d shows more noise at a pixel level, but it's marginal and considering it carries 6 more mp, expected.

Lightroom does REALLY strange things with raws.. some of them it bumps contrast, some it doesn't. These were very different going in, but a quick slide equalized.

There's not much in it - even before resizing to 1024 - which actually says a lot for the x1, at what, 1/4-1/5 the weight?

Anyway, the surprise of the day was that the gf1 seemed the sharpest on the golf course. I feel I must have something wrong, so i'll repeat that test.

again, i'm sorry the angles aren't perfect, and that the shot is boring, it's a very very basic comparison. Both LAB sharpened 125 / 1.5 / 1 unsharp mask.

7D



x1

Click to expand...
--
http://racketshots.co.uk/racket/

http://bbphotochallenge.com
 
Nice choice of lens, the 24mm Elmar-M F3.8 ASPH is great, the 24f2.8 is better but its a lot larger and costs twice as much too, I've bought used Leica from Aperture myself a few times and their very good and fast to delivery
MattShaw said:
I bought the D90 a year ago and was very happy with it, especially when using lenses like the AFS 17-55 F2.8 and the Zeiss 2/100 MP. I had wanted a Leica M8 for a long while and bought one a couple of months ago (Still had 3 months of Passport warranty on it). It wasnt until last weekend that I could afford a lens for it, I bought a second hand 24mm Elmar-M F3.8 ASPH from Aperture in London. I couldnt be happier with with easier, the image quality and dynamic range, subjectively at least, appear much better than that of the D90. The Nikon sensor was also very noisy, especially in the shadows and OOF areas.

I do not think that you would be disappointed with the M8 and I would advocate that route rather than getting an M6 and X1, especially if you want to shoot a digital Leica. Of course the M6 doesn't alter the field of view of the lenses which could be an advantage but the X1 you to planned to augment it with won't really give you that rangefinder experience.

Hope this and all the other comments here help you come to a decision you'll be happy with. Good luck and happy shooting!
Click to expand...
--
http://racketshots.co.uk/racket/

http://bbphotochallenge.com
 
Thanks Cutter, it's a great lens, especially if speed/wide aperture aren't priorities for you, there was actually a faster Elmarit for sale at the time but was out of budget for me. I can recommend Aperture without hesitation, although I collected my M8 and and lens in person from them, although it's good to know that their delivery is also good, I live in Portsmouth so their shop isn't exactly close.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top