Here is where we get into some hot water, a comparison of two sacred cows. The both moo, but differently.
So this is not intended to be scientific, but more hands on practical. Two weekends ago I had a 5D on loan so I decided to do a quick side by side, in a typical (for me) situation, alone on a deserted street…:)
Really what I am comparing are the lenses, in this case the Elmarit 21mm f2.8 (Can)(effective 28mm) against the Canon 17-40L f4.0. So right there is the bulk of the difference, a fast prime against a slower zoom. But this has been my point all along, looking at the development of Canon lenses they have put a lot of emphasis on zooms, and image stabilization, and no so much into primes. That, coupled with their low noise sensor means what they want you to do is shoot at a higher aperture and iso. So I thought I would try it both ways, the first is a comparison of both lenses at their base iso of 160/100 at the same aperture, f4, same shutter speed, handheld. As I said this is a typical situation, walking around handheld, being flexible and spontaneous. Leica on top, Canon on bottom. Processing in Lightroom with it’s default sharpening, and exposure adjusted to make them similar.
Not a great result for the Canon L series glass, all of the fine detail is missing. Or maybe this is the anti-moire filter of the Canon’s coming into play, but I doubt it, I have an older 24mm 2.8 that is much better than this. So I should be using that. What Canon wants you to do in this case is the following: f8, 1/60th, iso 400
Now we have the detail at f8, pretty much the only usable aperture on this L series lens in my opinion. There is a caveat to that however, and that is that the lens does not perform the same at all zoom focal lengths. So there is another issue there, knowing how this lens performs at various apertures, focal lengths etc. It is very uneven. And to greater and lesser degrees, this can be said of all zoom designs, it is impossible to optimize for all focal lengths. Even at f8, the optimum aperture, or should be for this lens, the performance drifts from excellent to marginal. It is generally good on center across the board at f8, but the corners are a different story.
So the story here is one of the direction camera manufacturers take in designing a system. Canon has gone for the most flexible, best all around approach, the one with the most checklist features, the approach that is likely to appeal to most photographers. And in truth, there are many situations where you absolutely need a zoom at iso 1600 to perform nearly like a prime at iso 100. But a lot of people have criticized the Leica as being something that few would need, at a price few can afford, with few real world applications. FEW!
But I think we have an example of differing philosophies, also of differing markets. Obviously there is room for both, and good reasons for both.
Maybe a more fair test would be with the 16-35 I or II which would be better at 4.0 than the 17-40. Or of course the 24 2.8 or 1.4. Let me know, I have a few of those. But really, does it matter?
In reality, we buy what we like and use what we have. If the equipment we have works for us and we make compelling images, than what we use is irrelevant. All equipment has limitations. If the M system is what you want to do your work, and what you need to fulfill your vision, than the M8 is worth EVERY penny and more. The important thing is to decide what is right for who you are and run with it.
Me, I like a groud glass, with a square frame around it. Just works for who I am.
Well you are right, but did you not get the memo-the square is a depricated format. You will be assimilated to the rectangle…:)
Seriously, that is my point here. Hasselblad will never make a fullish frame square sensor for your 203FC, and those wonderful fast primes. A cost decision has been made and it cannot be justified. Of course you are welcome to shoot film and scan, but the future path is set.
To a similar extent Leica has made the same mistake/tradeoff, in not going with a full frame sensor. The classic lens relationships are changed. And what I am saying here is that Canon has made a marketing decision too, and spent a lot of money developing zooms and IS technologies and noise reduction, to get around the inherent costs and limitations of digital capture. So it is interersting to me to note those assumptions and shifts. We should all use the tools we are most comfortable with, but there are pressures there too.
Agreed all around. The future path is set, but I am under no obligation to follow it. My preferred methods of working will hopefully be viable for some time. Choosing to work in a depricated format probably says much about who I am, especially when I have some ass kicking digital stuff at my disposal.
By the way, the shows up for another week if you wanna come out, I can pick you up at the bus / train / or path station.
This is a great article.
The only thing that I would suggest is that I would take the 28mm Canon and 28mm, 2.8, Asph., – M recent LEICA Lens for comparison.
Great job.
Cheerz, Tomislav.