Leica User Forum


Go Back   Leica User Forum > International User Forum > Leica Products > Leica M (Type 240)

Leica M (Type 240) The Leica M240 Forum is dedicated to everything around the new Leica M (Type 240).

Reply « Previous Thread | Next Thread »
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 25/02/13, 01:06   #21 (permalink)
Erfahrener Benutzer
 
Join Date: 24/11/06
Posts: 189
Default Re: Sean Reid's M240 review raises a question

Ad
Quote:
Originally Posted by 250swb View Post
If 1.5 stops of 'better' ISO range from the M240 is so critical to everything you do ...
Sean Reid's review says 1.3 stop improvement, not 1.5 stop.
photomeme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25/02/13, 01:06   #22 (permalink)
lct
Erfahrener Benutzer
 
lct's Avatar
 
Join Date: 04/01/04
Posts: 11,048
Default Re: Sean Reid's M240 review raises a question

I just wanted a clean 1250 iso to use the same glass at faster speeds. Seems like the M240 offers this easily and even decent 1600/2500 iso for the same price so nothing to complain about if the banding issue is fixed by Leica. BTW never sell a Leica lens my grandmother said. Bodies fly away, lenses remain.
lct is offline   Reply With Quote
Thank You say...
algrove (26/02/13), chris_tribble (25/02/13), jonoslack (25/02/13)
Old 25/02/13, 01:17   #23 (permalink)
Erfahrener Benutzer
 
jonoslack's Avatar
 
Join Date: 24/09/06
Posts: 3,259
Default Re: Sean Reid's M240 review raises a question

Quote:
Originally Posted by photomeme View Post
Sean Reid's review says 1.3 stop improvement, not 1.5 stop.
Hi there. I think it depends very much on the scene. Sean is being super cautious (quite right too)
My feeling after a lot of low light shooting is that 3200 on the M is definitely better than 1250 on the M9, and perfectly reliable, even in colour in nasty lighting. Added to hitch this is an area where we can definitely expect improvement in the final firmware.
I'd be very surprised if everyone won't accept at least a 1.5 stop improvement in the shipping firmware.
__________________
kind regards
jono slack
jonoslack is offline   Reply With Quote
Thank You say...
chris_tribble (25/02/13), Ecar (25/02/13), hoppyman (01/03/13)
Old 25/02/13, 01:37   #24 (permalink)
Erfahrener Benutzer
 
Join Date: 24/11/06
Posts: 189
Default Re: Sean Reid's M240 review raises a question

Quote:
Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
Hi there. I think it depends very much on the scene. Sean is being super cautious (quite right too)
My feeling after a lot of low light shooting is that 3200 on the M is definitely better than 1250 on the M9, and perfectly reliable, even in colour in nasty lighting. Added to hitch this is an area where we can definitely expect improvement in the final firmware.
I'd be very surprised if everyone won't accept at least a 1.5 stop improvement in the shipping firmware.
Nikon and Canon CMOS cameras have not generally improved their ISO performance between pre-production and final, because the redundant sampling noise reduction is hardwired on the sensor, unaffected by firmware.

According to Reid, there are worrisome signs of Leica adding an additional layer of noise reduction -- not of the on-CMOS-sensor variety, but a destructive median filtering sort -- from ISO 2500 and up. His images are pretty convincing, and it's a huge red flag.

And the ISO 1.3 advantage to which Sean Reid refers is after giving this mandatory destructive noise reduction a pass.

I'm not sure I see how this gets better between now and production. Leica might enable the user to turn off this median filtering (if Reid is correct). But that would reduce ISO performance further.

Last edited by photomeme; 25/02/13 at 01:41.
photomeme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25/02/13, 08:31   #25 (permalink)
Benutzer
 
Robert Seeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: 20/06/11
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 66
Default Sean Reid's M240 review raises a question

Hi

Jono - I meant that I need 1/90 to 1/125 in order to prevent blur because of the motion of the subject. Typically I get 1/30 to 1/60 at f2 in a dimly lit reception or church at 1250 iso. Hence why I was looking for 2 stops from the M to help with my style of shooting. I am not knocking the new M and my post was careful not to do that - the other features are great but iso, for me, was the key one.

In terms of the other posts-

As regards using a tripod, it doesn't stop subject motion blur unfortunately

I appreciate that some people may not use high iso so much but the original poster and my comments are still valid. We were both looking at how the new system might benefit us - I don't understand the problem with discussing that.
__________________
http://www.robertseeney.com
Robert Seeney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25/02/13, 08:59   #26 (permalink)
Gesperrt
 
Join Date: 22/02/13
Posts: 3
Default AW: Re: Sean Reid's M240 review raises a question

Quote:
Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
Hi there Robert
I hope you're well!


Was that a typo, or are you misunderstanding Sean's 1.3 stops
1/90 goes to 1/250th.
more to the point 1/15th goes to 1/45th
Added to which were all being rather cautious!

But I agree, the high ISO alone probably isn't enough (great if you ever shoot parties or concerts though)
The weather sealing and ergonomic improvements aren't either
The ability to use macro and telephoto lenses aren't good enough alone either
Nor is the possibility of using extension tubes with your M lenses for macro
Even the fact that finally the shutter is as quiet as an M6 doesn't excuse the expense

Just don't add it all together


All the best
thanks for your help
Elidia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25/02/13, 09:19   #27 (permalink)
Erfahrener Benutzer
 
chris_tribble's Avatar
 
Join Date: 04/05/06
Location: London / Kendal
Posts: 3,646
Default Re: AW: Re: Sean Reid's M240 review raises a question

Like Jono, I found that working with 3200 was fully satisfactory and I'd have no hesitation in using it for client work (not forgetting that my commissions are reportage / documentary) and (with care in exposing) would also happily use 6400 for some work.

I also do have to say I find it odd that there's little mention or no mention in the initial reviews of the joy of being able to use the M with a PC lens, with macro kit, and with longer glass in specific conditions (I'll write more about this later as soon as I get mine). For me, the combination of subtle but appreciable improvements in ergonomics and build quality, PLUS small but important improvements in high ISO IQ, PLUS Live View and the EVF when you need them, PLUS video for the occasions when you need it (and this is a real professional need for my work - mostly talking heads, but still something I've had to lug the 5D2 + lens around for up until now), all add up to the M-240 being a compelling package.
chris_tribble is offline   Reply With Quote
Thank You say...
algrove (26/02/13), jonoslack (25/02/13), MarkP (25/02/13), Numbers (25/02/13)
Old 25/02/13, 09:47   #28 (permalink)
Erfahrener Benutzer
 
UliWer's Avatar
 
Join Date: 24/10/07
Posts: 7,444
Default AW: Re: Sean Reid's M240 review raises a question

Quote:
Originally Posted by photomeme View Post
...According to Reid, there are worrisome signs of Leica adding an additional layer of noise reduction -- not of the on-CMOS-sensor variety, but a destructive median filtering sort -- from ISO 2500 and up. His images are pretty convincing, and it's a huge red flag.

And the ISO 1.3 advantage to which Sean Reid refers is after giving this mandatory destructive noise reduction a pass.

I'm not sure I see how this gets better between now and production. Leica might enable the user to turn off this median filtering (if Reid is correct). But that would reduce ISO performance further.
Once more you give a very free interpretation of what Sean Reid wrote. I do not find any foundation for your way of describing it in Reid's text. If one want's to compare, one might refer to my quotes from Reid's website:

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-...ml#post2325417
UliWer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25/02/13, 10:07   #29 (permalink)
Erfahrener Benutzer
 
Join Date: 03/09/10
Location: Sydney
Posts: 4,017
Default Re: AW: Re: Sean Reid's M240 review raises a question

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris_tribble View Post
Like Jono, I found that working with 3200 was fully satisfactory and I'd have no hesitation in using it for client work (not forgetting that my commissions are reportage / documentary) and (with care in exposing) would also happily use 6400 for some work.

I also do have to say I find it odd that there's little mention or no mention in the initial reviews of the joy of being able to use the M with a PC lens, with macro kit, and with longer glass in specific conditions (I'll write more about this later as soon as I get mine). For me, the combination of subtle but appreciable improvements in ergonomics and build quality, PLUS small but important improvements in high ISO IQ, PLUS Live View and the EVF when you need them, PLUS video for the occasions when you need it (and this is a real professional need for my work - mostly talking heads, but still something I've had to lug the 5D2 + lens around for up until now), all add up to the M-240 being a compelling package.
+1

As an amateur photographer I'm particularly looking forward to using it with the 4.0/90 Macro-Elmar and a 2.8/28 PC-Super-Angulon-R which I've specifically bought for the M). I also think that video will be very convenient at times, especially for family & kids!
MarkP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25/02/13, 13:41   #30 (permalink)
Erfahrener Benutzer
 
Join Date: 05/09/09
Posts: 262
Default Re: Sean Reid's M240 review raises a question

Quote:
Originally Posted by luigi bertolotti View Post
In general my idea ist that should I have a M9, I were not so sure to change with the M240, based on present samples and reviews.
Really? That's not the summary I get from the early reviews - general opinion seems to be that it's improved in every/most area.

I don't expect the changes are night-and-day better, but you wouldn't expect that over one revision.

- Steve
theno23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25/02/13, 17:14   #31 (permalink)
Benutzer
 
Join Date: 21/05/12
Posts: 79
Default Re: Sean Reid's M240 review raises a question

Ad
On the reviews, I think one has to keep in mind that all early reviewers have been fortunate enough to get a pre-release camera from Leica. If they were too harsh in reviewing the camera, they might not be among the lucky few who get the next pre-release camera / lens.

That isn't to say that people don't provide honest opinions anyway (for example, all early reviewers have noted banding at ISO 3200 and higher, but none have devoted the amount attention one might expect to such a concern), but you have to take the reviews in the context of reviewers who wants to continue to receive early releases. These reviewers are in a precarious position in many ways, and must please lots of masters.

Contrary to the hopeful speculation on the forums, I think the banding is here to stay. I don't think that Leica has waited - for dramatic effect - until the last month of the the five-year camera development cycle to deliver a solution to the most notable IQ issue the camera seems to have.
jffielde is offline   Reply With Quote
Thank You says
Hey You (25/02/13)
Old 25/02/13, 17:24   #32 (permalink)
Moderator
 
jaapv's Avatar
 
Join Date: 14/09/04
Location: Behind a Red Dot
Posts: 36,004
Default Re: Sean Reid's M240 review raises a question

Hmm.. I don't believe in this conspiracy theory. I know a few of these guys, and they would not compromise themselves.
__________________
Jaap

WWW.JAAPVPHOTOGRAPHY.EU

Posts in blue bold font are made as a moderator
jaapv is offline   Reply With Quote
Thank You say...
IkarusJohn (25/02/13), jonoslack (25/02/13), Numbers (25/02/13)
Old 25/02/13, 17:57   #33 (permalink)
Benutzer
 
Join Date: 21/05/12
Posts: 79
Default Re: Sean Reid's M240 review raises a question

We all compromise. We tailor our speech to the circumstances (and to the recipient). We emphasize some things when we could have emphasized others. We simply omit.

These are all good guys, but they are human. Bias only requires humanity -- nothing more nefarious.
jffielde is offline   Reply With Quote
Thank You says
nggalai (26/02/13)
Old 25/02/13, 18:02   #34 (permalink)
Erfahrener Benutzer
 
Join Date: 16/01/10
Location: Norcal
Posts: 261
Default Re: Sean Reid's M240 review raises a question

Quote:
Originally Posted by thompsonkirk View Post

So here's the hard choice for me:
--Keep M9 and use the fastest lenses (as is a habit); or
--Move into 'modern times' with the M240 sensor, and then be able to stick with the pre-aspherical Summicrons that I like best? (Most of my shooting is with 35 Cron v4 or 40 Summicron-C. I've never really bonded with my 35FLE, because it's heavier and IMO 'clinical' in rendering.)
Hi Kirk, how do you find the 35mm summicron v4 at f/2 ? mine was very soft - requiring a large grained film like TMZ 3200 to give it an edge. The 35 summilux ASPH full open really amazed me.

However I must admit with the 50/1.4 and even sometimes the 28/2, if there is much action going on - the only solution is using a much higher ISO to boost both the depth of field and shutter speed.
FrozenInTime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25/02/13, 18:04   #35 (permalink)
Erfahrener Benutzer
 
UliWer's Avatar
 
Join Date: 24/10/07
Posts: 7,444
Default AW: Re: Sean Reid's M240 review raises a question

Quote:
Originally Posted by jffielde View Post
We all compromise. We tailor our speech to the circumstances (and to the recipient). We emphasize some things when we could have emphasized others. We simply omit.

These are all good guys, but they are human. Bias only requires humanity -- nothing more nefarious.
Could you please enlighten us about your circumstances and recipients?
UliWer is offline   Reply With Quote
Thank You says
Numbers (25/02/13)
Old 25/02/13, 18:43   #36 (permalink)
Benutzer
 
Join Date: 21/05/12
Posts: 79
Default Re: AW: Re: Sean Reid's M240 review raises a question

Quote:
Originally Posted by UliWer View Post
Could you please enlighten us about your circumstances and recipients?
I'm afraid you've lost me . My comment is unassailably non-controversial.

In context, it obviously means that a professional reviewer is in part beholden to his equipment provider and to his readers. But since that's patently obvious, I'm afraid I'm undoubtedly missing your point!

Last edited by jffielde; 25/02/13 at 18:47.
jffielde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25/02/13, 19:06   #37 (permalink)
Sponsoring Member
 
IkarusJohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11/10/10
Location: Auckland
Posts: 3,002
Default Sean Reid's M240 review raises a question

Sorry, I can't agree. Your comment looks mean spirited and uncharitable.

Sure, we all compromise, and we choose how we deliver our messages; but I don't see Jono, Chris, Ming, Sean or Erwin as unapologetic fan boys - these guys have the expertise to use the camera in ways which are either real life or empirical testing of limits. I don't think any of them held back to be assured of a supply of future cameras to test. They will test them anyway, even if they have to wait for formal release.

If they pull their punches, and a camera they endorsed turns out to be a dud, they damage their reputations. I don't see any of them doing that. We don't know what they told Leica in their feedback - they will have given feedback directly to Leica.

You may have a point on the banding issue - I know nothing about electronic camera development. I would guess, however, that Leica started with form and specification, then moved on to some form of bench testing, and once they were sure that the hardware worked reliably, they worked on the firmware; and in the last stage of development, they sort out the fine tuning of the firmware and deal with issues raised in beta testing.

I don't know if the banding issue is big (like overheating, or coffee stains, or cracking sensors) or small (a software adjustment, like freezing), but I seriously doubt that Leica has been sitting on it for 5 months. They haven't told us what issues have come up or what they're doing about them, but that should come as no surprise.

Cheers
John
__________________
Modern Art = I could do that + yeah, but you didn't
IkarusJohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25/02/13, 19:18   #38 (permalink)
Erfahrener Benutzer
 
UliWer's Avatar
 
Join Date: 24/10/07
Posts: 7,444
Default AW: Re: AW: Re: Sean Reid's M240 review raises a question

Quote:
Originally Posted by jffielde View Post
I'm afraid you've lost me . My comment is unassailably non-controversial.

In context, it obviously means that a professional reviewer is in part beholden to his equipment provider and to his readers. But since that's patently obvious, I'm afraid I'm undoubtedly missing your point!
May be I lost you, when you wrote "We all compromise. We taylor our speech...".

My understanding is that someone saying "We" and "We all.." does not exclude himself.
UliWer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25/02/13, 19:28   #39 (permalink)
Erfahrener Benutzer
 
macjonny1's Avatar
 
Join Date: 21/09/11
Location: Spokane
Posts: 539
Default Re: Sean Reid's M240 review raises a question

Quote:
Originally Posted by IkarusJohn View Post
Sorry, I can't agree. Your comment looks mean spirited and uncharitable.

Sure, we all compromise, and we choose how we deliver our messages; but I don't see Jono, Chris, Ming, Sean or Erwin as unapologetic fan boys - these guys have the expertise to use the camera in ways which are either real life or empirical testing of limits. I don't think any of them held back to be assured of a supply of future cameras to test. They will test them anyway, even if they have to wait for formal release.

If they pull their punches, and a camera they endorsed turns out to be a dud, they damage their reputations. I don't see any of them doing that. We don't know what they told Leica in their feedback - they will have given feedback directly to Leica.

You may have a point on the banding issue - I know nothing about electronic camera development. I would guess, however, that Leica started with form and specification, then moved on to some form of bench testing, and once they were sure that the hardware worked reliably, they worked on the firmware; and in the last stage of development, they sort out the fine tuning of the firmware and deal with issues raised in beta testing.

I don't know if the banding issue is big (like overheating, or coffee stains, or cracking sensors) or small (a software adjustment, like freezing), but I seriously doubt that Leica has been sitting on it for 5 months. They haven't told us what issues have come up or what they're doing about them, but that should come as no surprise.

Cheers
John
Sorry I don't see anything mean spirited there. The only point he was making is that if you have a reviewer that gets pre-release equipment, they very much do have to be careful about not being negative, or else they could jeopardize access to future product the next round. I'm not sure why that's hard to believe. No one is saying that any of the reviewers held anything back or didn't say something and are leaving us out in the cold about some drawback.

It's just a simple comment that when any of us read a review of someone that does this on a professional level, we must take into account potential bias or conflict that is introduced inherently in the transaction. Nothing negative there it's just a fact. Whether anything actually changes in the final outcome is not the point it's the fact that the relationship is there in the first place has the *potential* to alter it.

My personal feeling, however, is that the two forum members here who have released information would be honest about any potential issues with the product and we are being told everything they know!
macjonny1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Thank You say...
jonoslack (25/02/13), nggalai (26/02/13)
Old 25/02/13, 20:02   #40 (permalink)
Erfahrener Benutzer
 
luigi bertolotti's Avatar
 
Join Date: 24/01/07
Location: Brescia
Posts: 9,559
Default Re: Sean Reid's M240 review raises a question

Quote:
Originally Posted by theno23 View Post
Really? That's not the summary I get from the early reviews - general opinion seems to be that it's improved in every/most area.

I don't expect the changes are night-and-day better, but you wouldn't expect that over one revision.

- Steve
I pointed that I spoke for myself... to say, as a honest amateur which happens to love and use Leica : I went digital with M8 and didn't buy M9.... 6 full years with M8 make me to think seriously at M(240) : should I have a 2-3 years old M9, I doubt I consider the M(240) NOW : no more than this.
luigi bertolotti is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Current eBay Ads
Current bid:
1950 GBP
(23 bids)

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 12:41.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0
© juergensen.net - Andreas Jürgensen