M8 seems to best current cameras in B+W = wrong?

[andrewsn00]

Hey,

For a few days recently I found myself with a Leica M8+Zeiss 35/2 Biogon (+ £15 cheapo UV/IR cut) and a Fuji X-T1+23mm, and, interested in comparing the two for B+W, took some random shots.

I found two things to stand out. Firstly with processing to keep them both looking even, at 100% both cameras look pretty similar and both have nice tonal quality and look to them. The Leica and Zeiss combo seems to produce very smooth bokeh so was marginally the prettier of the two but fundamentally the images at 100% looked indistinguishable.

What was interesting was that, as I zoomed it, from about 66% or so onwards the Leica had a sharpness to the images that the Fuji didn't. Put simply, the Fuji had begun to get smudgy whereas the Leica remained sharp - text that was not really readable on the Fuji was clearer on the Leica etc.

I was wondering if this is a common thought? The M8 is pretty old now, going on for 10 years, and I was expecting it to be quite far behind the Fuji, yet it was sharper to my eyes.

Now I will admit, this was at ISO 640, f/2 on both lenses and converted to B+W. I'd expect the Fuji to smash the Leica above that and in colour, but still.

 

[Daedalus2000]

Just to clarify, did you compare raw files or jpegs? Also what do you mean at 100%? Zoomed at 100% or looking at them with no zoom?

Hey,

For a few days recently I found myself with a Leica M8+Zeiss 35/2 Biogon (+ £15 cheapo UV/IR cut) and a Fuji X-T1+23mm, and, interested in comparing the two for B+W, took some random shots.

I found two things to stand out. Firstly with processing to keep them both looking even, at 100% both cameras look pretty similar and both have nice tonal quality and look to them. The Leica and Zeiss combo seems to produce very smooth bokeh so was marginally the prettier of the two but fundamentally the images at 100% looked indistinguishable.

What was interesting was that, as I zoomed it, from about 66% or so onwards the Leica had a sharpness to the images that the Fuji didn't. Put simply, the Fuji had begun to get smudgy whereas the Leica remained sharp - text that was not really readable on the Fuji was clearer on the Leica etc.

I was wondering if this is a common thought? The M8 is pretty old now, going on for 10 years, and I was expecting it to be quite far behind the Fuji, yet it was sharper to my eyes.

Now I will admit, this was at ISO 640, f/2 on both lenses and converted to B+W. I'd expect the Fuji to smash the Leica above that and in colour, but still.

 

[LD_50]

I would not expect images shot with the Leica M8+Zeiss 35/2 Biogon to out resolve a Fuji X-T1+23mm given equal test conditions.

Black and white or color processing would have nothing to do with it unless the Fuji files are showing smearing due to the Raw converter producing a poor conversion.

 

[Daedalus2000]

Black and white or color processing would have nothing to do with it unless the Fuji files are showing smearing due to the Raw converter producing a poor conversion.

Exactly, that is why I asked for the raw vs jpegs. My experience is that the Fuji give very sharp results when used with a good lens and a good raw processor.

 

[David Kieltyka]

I doubt the M8 outresolves the Fuji in most cases, though in my experience it does punch above its 10mp weight. I do find, though, it makes a very nice b&w camera, especially with IR-blocking filters (assuming you're using them) removed. It makes a fine IR camera too with an IR-pass filter added.

[ATTACH alt="Leica M8.2, Leitz 50/2 "rigid" Summicron, f/5.6, 1/60th sec., ISO 1250, 720nm IR-pass filter."]900986[/ATTACH]
Leica M8.2, Leitz 50/2 "rigid" Summicron, f/5.6, 1/60th sec., ISO 1250, 720nm IR-pass filter.

-Dave-

 

[uhoh07]

I would not expect images shot with the Leica M8+Zeiss 35/2 Biogon to out resolve a Fuji X-T1+23mm given equal test conditions.

Black and white or color processing would have nothing to do with it unless the Fuji files are showing smearing due to the Raw converter producing a poor conversion.

Are you serious?

the M8 and 8.2 have the thinnest sensor cover ever placed on a digital sensor, and show fine details better in all but very large prints better than anything except the MM.

Editing the images to look similar will only degrade both.

The fuji is a nice camera but the M8 is in another league entirely, and without doubt the most under-rated digital camera today.

Plus the crop is only 1.3x a huge improvement.

And the Fuji 23 is fine but nowhere near the league of the ZM35/2, one two or three best technical 35s every made by anyone.

My ZM 35/2 on the M9 a few days ago with a quick and simple PP from Raw.

 

[LD_50]

Yes I'm serious.

Crop factor has nothing to do with resolution.

Sensor glass thickness is going to have nothing to do with resolution in comparing these two different cameras. Unless you're going to compare equal sensor and lens combinations with varying cover glass thickness you're not going to be able to isolate that component in comparing resolution.

The Fuji has a higher resolution sensor. I would not expect the 23 lens to be a limiting factor with a 16 mp sensor. I don't expect the M8 to out resolve the Fuji given a controlled test setup unless the conversion from Raw is to blame. Lens quality surely matters but in this case I would not expect to see it as described by the OP.

 

[andrewsn00]

This was comparing Raw files. When zoomed out at 'screen' size I couldn't really tell, but once I zoomed in past 2/3rds I can see a sharpness to the M8 images that the Fuji's don't have.

Obviously they're both way beyond 'good enough', they're both excellent. Just interesting how the M8 is sharper.

 

[andrewsn00]

That was one thought, whether the Fuji is smeared by Lightroom. I don't have Iridient.

 

[LeitzKameraAktion]

Yes I'm serious.

Crop factor has nothing to do with resolution.

Sensor glass thickness is going to have nothing to do with resolution in comparing these two different cameras. Unless you're going to compare equal sensor and lens combinations with varying cover glass thickness you're not going to be able to isolate that component in comparing resolution.

Sorry, you're wrong...

The Fuji has a higher resolution sensor. I would not expect the 23 lens to be a limiting factor with a 16 mp sensor. I don't expect the M8 to out resolve the Fuji given a controlled test setup unless the conversion from Raw is to blame. Lens quality surely matters but in this case I would not expect to see it as described by the OP.

In terms of 'per pixel' sharpness, the M8 is still one of the crispest cameras out there - much better on fine detail and micro-contrast than the Fuji. I know; I have both.

The M8 even beats the M9 for crispness - and it's all down to that ultra-thin IR cover glass!

 

[starwolfy]

M8 is certainly a very sharp camera considering it's very old now.

Frankly, who needs sharper than this for personal use ? :

(note it was from RAW...converted in Jpeg, and then compressed by Dpreview gallery...so it's even far from the real crispness while viewing the original version). Shot on a 24mm f3.8 ASPH.




original file






extreme corner crop at 100%






Extreme center crop 1






Extreme center crop 2

 

[starwolfy]

Loading…

s3.amazonaws.com

 

[LD_50]

Read what I wrote. Unless comparing two cameras with the same lens and sensor combination you can't isolate sensor glass thickness as the variable that will indicate the resolution of the output (you've changed this to per pixel sharpness, which is different but still applicable).

Comparing the M8 and M9 will be much closer to allowing for the isolation of the sensor glass cover thickness because you can have similar raw conversions, the exact same lens, and more similar sensor.

The Fuji and Leica are not comparable in this way. Too many variables are present to make the claim being made.

Lloyd Chambers's comparison of Sonys with and without sensor cover modification should allow for testing of these types of claims, though he was focusing more on adapted RF lenses and ray angle when I last looked. Take a Sony 55/1.8 and compare results with and without the modification with careful test setup and you'll have an answer. It still may not be applicable to two very different setups (Leica and Fuji) described here.

 

[uhoh07]

Yes I'm serious.

Crop factor has nothing to do with resolution.

Sensor glass thickness is going to have nothing to do with resolution in comparing these two different cameras. Unless you're going to compare equal sensor and lens combinations with varying cover glass thickness you're not going to be able to isolate that component in comparing resolution.

Sorry, you're wrong...

The Fuji has a higher resolution sensor. I would not expect the 23 lens to be a limiting factor with a 16 mp sensor. I don't expect the M8 to out resolve the Fuji given a controlled test setup unless the conversion from Raw is to blame. Lens quality surely matters but in this case I would not expect to see it as described by the OP.

In terms of 'per pixel' sharpness, the M8 is still one of the crispest cameras out there - much better on fine detail and micro-contrast than the Fuji. I know; I have both.

The M8 even beats the M9 for crispness - and it's all down to that ultra-thin IR cover glass!

Agree on all counts.

LD_50 do you own an M8?

If not, you are speculating from meaningless numbers. Which is an all too common pastime.

The OP is not blind.

 

[Daedalus2000]

I see, I think (as others said) that the M8 with the thin IR filter together with the potential inefficiency of the X-trans raw conversion and/or the lens maybe the issue.

Another camera that will give you amazing B/W (apart of course from the Leica MM) is the Sigma DP merrill. Here is an example:

 

[LD_50]

I own an M-P and not an M8. I don't own the Zeiss lens. I also do not own any Fuji gear at this time. I don't believe this is at all relevant to what I've stated since I've not claimed to have performed any tests.

I am not speculating anything based upon any numbers.

I am stating that a comparison between completely different camera/sensor/lens combinations' renderings of unknown subjects is not something that can be done without viewing the photos, knowing the test conditions, and removing variables that may be causing differences the OP is seeing.

Stating that I do not expect the M8 to out resolve the XT-1 in any meaningful way is based upon what I read from the OP. I would expect raw conversion or some other factor is more to blame than any advantage due to sensor cover thickness.

Tests can be done to determine the truth. There are published results for resolution and plenty of photos available from both cameras. Both produce excellent results in my opinion.

 

[user_name]

I would not expect images shot with the Leica M8+Zeiss 35/2 Biogon to out resolve a Fuji X-T1+23mm given equal test conditions.

Black and white or color processing would have nothing to do with it unless the Fuji files are showing smearing due to the Raw converter producing a poor conversion.

If you are relying on the advantage of 16mp versus 10mp to make the difference, it isn't as much as it seems.

The Fuji is 4896 by 3264 pixels.

The M8 is 3936 by 2630 pixels.

That means for every single pixel on the M8 the Fuji has 1.24 pixels in the vertical and the horizontal directions.

Or, for every 4 pixels vertically or horizontally for the M8, the Fuji has almost one more pixel in resolution.

If you want a resolution boost you need to go to 36 mp. There the image size is 7360 by 4912.

However, that still is somewhat less than 2 times the resolution in the vertical and horizontal directions.

People get hung up on total megapixel counts and do not realize how it shakes out in actual image area.

Worse is that the number of pixels cited by manufactures are actually 1/3 (or less in some camera systems) the total number as it counts the total number of red, green, and blue pixels. You need at least three (or more) of those pixels to make up one photocell. Many times two greens are paired with a blue and a red to form a single photocell, so the actual number of photocells is 1/4 the published megapixel count, but numbers sell.

As others pointed out, there are quite a number of other factors that determine overall image quality, so it is not as easy as it seems when making true comparisons.

My real world results are that the M8 is not 1/3 the image quality of my D800. The D800 can do a better job, but not as much as you would like to expect given the megapixel hype.

Lastly, most of the hemming and hawing over which camera or sensor does the best job is at the level of pixel peeping. The true difference is much more subtle than we would like to believe after spending all that money to upgrade.

Most people would not be able to tell if my posted picture on the web came from my M8 or my D800. Those that can probably do so by looking at the EXIF data.

Actual printing is where the rubber meets the street, but how many of you honestly regularly print larger than A size (if at all)?

 

[Irakly Shanidze]

there is no magic here... the reason why M8 is so sharp is the same why it needs UV/IR-cut filters: its own AA/IR-cut filter is very thin. I sometimes wish that M9 was like that

 

[andrewsn00]

Loading…

flic.kr

I went for a walk today to buy some coffee beans and took the M8 with me. If anyone is interested here's some of the shots from the walk, just messing.

 

[Daedalus2000]

https://flic.kr/s/aHsk4oqHqj

I went for a walk today to buy some coffee beans and took the M8 with me. If anyone is interested here's some of the shots from the walk, just messing.

Nice use of shadows and patterns.

I could not see the extra sharpness due to the VSCO grain though!