The topic title is somewhat misleading, as I do not wish to compare the 5D to the M8.

I was just wondering why Michael has mostly chosen to benchmark the image quality of the M8 to that of the 5D?

Is the 5D's sensor the current cream of the crop for its size?

Yes and no.

Except in terms of absolute resolution many would agree that the sensor in the Canon 5D is the current state of the art.

That makes it a worthy point of comparison with the M8.

Michael

Another question if I may Michael, and a rather pointless one at that

If the 5D's sensor were in a Leica camera, would it be deemed a 'worthy' chip?

It's not a meaningful question because the Leica requires quite a different solution because of its extreemly short backfocus. Also, Canon makes their own CMOS sensors and doesn't supply them to anyone else, so it's sort of academic.

Michael

The 5D with its large sensor (photo site density is equal to APS-C sized 6-megapixel sensor) and its internal image processing exhibits the lowest level of apparent noise at very high (greater than ISO 1000) settings.

To compare a Leica M series, known for outstanding durability and high quality optics with a Canon prosumer camera makes little sense.

I don't believe it was, only image quality has been compared.

If I had pots of money I suppose I would have both the 5D and the M8. However, the Leica is nearly £3,000 while the 5D is around £1500 (and without any of the problems experienced with the first batch of M8s). LL article suggests that the Leica is superb for B&W shooting but colour problems may not go away. £3000 for a B&W manual focus digital slr? And can anyone honestly tell me that a 5D with L lenses will not match the quality of digital images from an M8? I've used both the 30D and 1D Mark II which are both capable of producing stunning B&W shots with a little help from CS2, and in concert scenarios which are the most challenging for any camera (www.shakenstir.co.uk). In construction/engineering terms my gear goes through hell and back with no problems (and of course the 1D is fully weather-proof - within reason). Hell! for around £3000 you could pick up a mint used Canon 1DS MK II...

Banannaboat (you really have this name??)

The M8 is NOT a SLR.

Its a rangefinder but this difference most probably is
difficult for bananas I guess.

Nobody needs your opinion, anyone is free to choose
his camera.

So be not envious for those "pots of money".

Photography is an art and you can´t define it the way
you do.

Concorde-SST (you really have this name??)

Sounds like you are off your meds. I didn't find his post the least bit offensive.

No wonder i've stopped reading this sites fourm as much, it's degenerating quickly.

And I don't think the comparison was a poor one either, it was a comparison of the image quality of a pair of cameras with similar specs. The M's have the reputation as street cameras, therefore, a comparison to a leading high ISO camera would be valid.

What is with "prosumer" anyway? I know career pros who use 20d's and part timers who use Mark II N's.

There's a nice feature on these forums:

1) Click on an offensive poster's nickname.
2) Click on "Ignore user".
3) Confirm.

While this doesn't fix the "problem" of offensive first-time posters (as opposed to inoffensive ones), it can help a bit.


Not only is it valid in that sense, but it's also interesting because the 5D's image quality level is very well known; it's sort of an industry benchmark, just like the 20D/30D in lower price segments.


That label basically applies to the intended market for the camera.

That pros buy pocket digicams or even cameraphones(!) doesn't mean that those products were intended for pros.

"Prosumer" has been intended as a marketing group consisting of what I'd call "serious consumers with money, yet not quite professionals".

The 20D/30D is clearly a "prosumer" camera. The 5D maybe also.

jani, thanks for the ignor thing, somehow ive never noticed that.

Depends on the L lenses, if it's wide lenses the M8 from what I've seen beats the Canon FF cameras by a huge margin (my 50mm f1.4 ain't great either). Not having AF is not a minus point, it wasn't left out by accident, I think they even left face recognition out as well. Comparing paper performance of the M8 against a SLR is pointless, you buy a SLR for what it does best, you buy a RF for what that does best. Making a list of what one has and the other doesn't have is missing the point.
A big plus for Leica is their quality control with the other big names you hear a lens can be good if you happen upon a good copy, Leica you expect bang on quality with any lens they make.
I don't use a RF, I use Canon FF in the shape of a 1DsmkII the best camera I have ever owned, but it does fall seriously short in a few areas. I can see the appeal of the "M" to photographers that need what the M8 does. The M8 should be regarded as a top class model, price wise it was never going to be cheap nor should it be. As for the quality of the files it produces they look top quality to me once you fit the filter, reminds me of my Makina 67, without a 1b filter the colours it produced were cold and drab, with it fitted it was rather good.
I also have as a backup camera a Kodak SLR/n, yesterday was the first job I've used it on for ages, I shot mostly on the Canon but did a few on the Kodak. The Kodak did the better job much to my dissapointment, on paper the Kodak is not in the same league as the Canon.
I have just turned from thinking I should sell it and get another Canon to thinking it does somethings better than the Canon.
I might even get a M8 for it's wide lenses after the dust has settled a bit more. Or a DZ.

Cheers,
Kevin.