Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: New DXO scores for Leica M (240) !  (Read 3386 times)
hasselbladfan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 406


« Reply #20 on: April 01, 2013, 03:49:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Eric,

True, since the 80s, they have always been lagging behind the Nikon-Canons.

But I would dare to argue that the Leica glass compensates for a lot.

So, looking forward to try my Summicrons on this new sensor.

Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 6899


WWW
« Reply #21 on: April 01, 2013, 05:05:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

May be, may be not. May depend on what you are doing.

The Nikon D800 has a big resolution advantage, not even the best lenses would compensate for that.

On the other hand, Leica makes a big effort to make their lenses performing well at large apertures. Stopping down eliminates the resolution/contrast advantage of the Leica lenses, most lenses are pretty close at f/8 or so. You know, diffraction, laws of physics.

Third, there has been much development in optics recently. I have seen a couple of publication claiming that the three Sigma macro lenses match any lens made by Leica, for instance.

By the way, once you are past good enough being best may matter little. Can you see any advantage in a correctly made double blind test? If not, does it matter?

DxO-mark is not related to lens, by the way.

My take is that the Leica got much more useful. I'm not sure about the significance of DR, but it seems that the new CMOS sensor is a major step up in image quality and high ISO capability.

Best regards
Erik

Eric,

True, since the 80s, they have always been lagging behind the Nikon-Canons.

But I would dare to argue that the Leica glass compensates for a lot.

So, looking forward to try my Summicrons on this new sensor.


« Last Edit: April 01, 2013, 05:17:02 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1834


« Reply #22 on: April 01, 2013, 08:41:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Its good for Leica.  The files look great and don't break up.  Higher ISOs are clean.  Nice noise when you get it at 5000 iso.

I had one for three days and decided to pass.  The files look like modern CMOS files, which is great, but not what I'm looking for in a Leica.  On the whole I prefer the M9, and regret having sold it.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 6899


WWW
« Reply #23 on: April 01, 2013, 09:33:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Can you explain the difference between a CMOS file and a CCD file, perhaps even post an example. A couple of raw files would be really nice?

Best regards
Erik


Its good for Leica.  The files look great and don't break up.  Higher ISOs are clean.  Nice noise when you get it at 5000 iso.

I had one for three days and decided to pass.  The files look like modern CMOS files, which is great, but not what I'm looking for in a Leica.  On the whole I prefer the M9, and regret having sold it.
Logged

TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1834


« Reply #24 on: April 01, 2013, 01:36:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Can you explain the difference between a CMOS file and a CCD file, perhaps even post an example. A couple of raw files would be really nice?

Best regards
Erik



I don't know if the difference is down to CMOS or CCD.  I do know that the M8/M9 files are less smooth than the M, sharper, but not crunchy.  I'll post some files. 
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 6899


WWW
« Reply #25 on: April 01, 2013, 02:19:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks,

Examples are always nice!

Best regards
Erik

I don't know if the difference is down to CMOS or CCD.  I do know that the M8/M9 files are less smooth than the M, sharper, but not crunchy.  I'll post some files. 
Logged

Telecaster
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 646



« Reply #26 on: April 01, 2013, 02:41:45 PM »
ReplyReply

...all that matters is the ability of the camera to create a valid representation of what you see in the viewfinder when you click the shutter. (And how you define "valid" is a personal thing.) I go back and forth when it comes to technical specs...sometimes I dig into 'em with relish, but just as often I fear I'm wasting time that could be better spent just observing and shutter clicking.

A couple days ago I found an old box of Kodachrome 200 from 1999, mostly containing photos of my dad (now gone) in the prime of his senior years, looking confident and serene. What a lovely color rendition, with its 5 stops of DR, that film had! I miss them both (the film and my dad).

-Dave-
Logged
Petrus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 458


« Reply #27 on: April 01, 2013, 02:57:42 PM »
ReplyReply

...all that matters is the ability of the camera to create a valid representation of what you see in the viewfinder when you click the shutter. (And how you define "valid" is a personal thing.)


A couple days ago I found an old box of Kodachrome 200 from 1999, mostly containing photos of my dad (now gone) in the prime of his senior years, looking confident and serene. What a lovely color rendition, with its 5 stops of DR, that film had! I miss them both (the film and my dad).

-Dave-

It is a curious thing that getting the best technically possible photograph (whatever it means in each case) is usually not the main aim of the photographers even now with better cameras than ever. Colors get squashed, DR is limited, grain is added, vignetting increased, color converted to B&W. Even landscape photographers striving for the maximum resolution and color accuracy increase saturation and manipulate local contrast, among other things. To make pictures "BETTER". Not technically better, but to evoke emotion. Why is a photo made to look like a fifties KodaChrome better than a straight print from a modern high resolution digital camera? I am not making fun, often they look better to me also (my father started to shoot 6x6 slides in late fifties). So there is something going on here/there that pixel peeping alone can not explain, but which is not scientifically studied as much as MTF curves or sensor DR.

Should it be?
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 6899


WWW
« Reply #28 on: April 01, 2013, 03:23:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Some stuff has been studied. The color spaces we used are enhanced to compensate for the limited DR of output devices for instance. It is also know that grain enhances perception of sharpness by giving the eye/brain something to focus on.

Much research went into Velvia.

Best regards
Erik

It is a curious thing that getting the best technically possible photograph (whatever it means in each case) is usually not the main aim of the photographers even now with better cameras than ever. Colors get squashed, DR is limited, grain is added, vignetting increased, color converted to B&W. Even landscape photographers striving for the maximum resolution and color accuracy increase saturation and manipulate local contrast, among other things. To make pictures "BETTER". Not technically better, but to evoke emotion. Why is a photo made to look like a fifties KodaChrome better than a straight print from a modern high resolution digital camera? I am not making fun, often they look better to me also (my father started to shoot 6x6 slides in late fifties). So there is something going on here/there that pixel peeping alone can not explain, but which is not scientifically studied as much as MTF curves or sensor DR.

Should it be?
Logged

hasselbladfan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 406


« Reply #29 on: April 01, 2013, 03:36:59 PM »
ReplyReply


Can you see any advantage in a correctly made double blind test? If not, does it matter?


Agree, that's the only thing that matters.

P.S. Same about some nice audio equipment where only my dog can hear the difference in the high tones. Smiley
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad