Agent M10 Posted March 7, 2013 Share #1 Posted March 7, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) For what's it worth, DxOMark has evaluated the M9's (and M-E's) sensor: First Leica camera test results published at DxOMark | Leica News & Rumors 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 7, 2013 Posted March 7, 2013 Hi Agent M10, Take a look here Leica and DxOMark {MERGED}. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
IWC Doppel Posted March 7, 2013 Share #2 Posted March 7, 2013 Thanks for sharing, I am not sure how the tests were done, but interesting ll the same. So why don't I love the images that come off the Nikon D800 ! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post 01af Posted March 7, 2013 Popular Post Share #3 Posted March 7, 2013 For what's it worth ... DxOMark, that's Ken Rockwell in a laboratory. 28 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 7, 2013 Share #4 Posted March 7, 2013 DxOMark, that's Ken Rockwell in a laboratory. :D:DHow true... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted March 7, 2013 Share #5 Posted March 7, 2013 DXO is ridiculous but unfortunately caters well to the world of modern marketing, irrelevant numbers and machines that go 'bing'. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
theboch Posted March 7, 2013 Share #6 Posted March 7, 2013 I "love" how they come to different ISO results for the Leica M-E, M9 and M9-P... How can this happen? Good sign for their great "testing process"... Leica M-E: 787 ISO Leica M9-(P): 854 ISO 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest borge Posted March 7, 2013 Share #7 Posted March 7, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) dxomark should be renamed "NikonPRMark". Bought and paid for. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgm Posted March 7, 2013 Share #8 Posted March 7, 2013 (edited) I "love" how they come to different ISO results for the Leica M-E, M9 and M9-P... How can this happen? Good sign for their great "testing process"... Leica M-E: 787 ISO Leica M9-(P): 854 ISO 10% difference, it more or less confirms the results for the M9. Basically, the design of the M9 senosr ( and also M-E) not state of the art, and I think we all know that the high ISO performance of the M9 is poor compared to recent DSRLs Thomas Edited March 7, 2013 by tgm 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted March 7, 2013 Share #9 Posted March 7, 2013 10% difference, it more or less confirms the results for the M9. Just 8.5% actually. Some variation such as this was to be expected; nothing fishy about it. DxOMark results should be taken with a grain of salt and have to be read in context; their aggregate scores are generally worthless. Still their testing methodology appears valid and their measurements trustworthy. 10 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
krooj Posted March 7, 2013 Share #10 Posted March 7, 2013 Eh - Using DxO as your guide to buying a camera is like preparing to build a house and obsessing over the specifics of a hammer you'd use to do so. The fellow that runs the lens rentals blog has the insight to put these numbers aside and suggest people focus on the system itself and how everything works together, and that's totally neglecting the tactile aspect, which I am sure weighs heavily in the choice for a Leica M. Conversely, look at DxO's list sometime, and you see that there are bodies, seemly inferior, which are constantly used in professional contexts, yielding results that only tell you that the weakest link in any system is the photographer. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
masjah Posted March 7, 2013 Share #11 Posted March 7, 2013 Hmm, yet another review website that I'd never seen before. What struck me is how very unpleasant were many of the people who posted comments. I'm glad I'm so stinking rich along with all our other Forum members; it must be that which makes us so muich more well-mannered and civilised, relatively speaking that is - can't think of any other reason I'm sure! 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muizen Posted March 7, 2013 Share #12 Posted March 7, 2013 I fully agree that testing a sensor and forgetting about the most important influence on image quality: the (Leica) lenses, does not represent much value. On the other hand I just took my first pictures with a "combination of sensor and lens" in my new Sony RX1, and I am absolutely surprised and astonished to see the fantastic image quality of unprocessed out-of-the-camera Jpeg's! This in line with the conclusions of Sean Reid of "Reid Reviews" in his test of the RX1 which he published some days ago. I believe that it is the engineering combination of a high technology sensor with a top quality CZ lens that results in this amazing IQ? Yes, I am aware that my Leica M9 is more than 3 years old, but the IQ of the RX1 is clearly so much better than that of my M9, that I wonder whether the new Leica M can exceed this quality level eventually? I do hope so because I am a candidate for the new Leica M. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted March 7, 2013 Share #13 Posted March 7, 2013 Back in the days of the Digilux 2, the remarkable image quality for the size of sensor was said to be down to the design integration of lens and sensor. It's entirely different when you have an interchangeable lens camera and a legacy of old lenses to support. Designing a new camera/lens combination such as Sonly and Zeiss have done gives then a clean sheet. Andy posted some interesting information about the Digilux 2 lens design. IIRC, the Digilux 3 did not continue the trend of great image quality even though it introduced interchangeable lenses. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
douglasf13 Posted March 7, 2013 Share #14 Posted March 7, 2013 This shouldn't come as a surprise. The M9's sensor was relatively outdated tech when the camera was released, which I knew when I bought the camera last year. Either way, the camera still has great output and is a pleasure to use, for the most part. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 7, 2013 Share #15 Posted March 7, 2013 Actually, as CCD there still is no more advanced sensor. Comparing CCD and CMos without taking the firmware processing out of the equation may tell us something about the direct camera output, but not about the sensor, nor about the end result after competent postprocessing. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
douglasf13 Posted March 7, 2013 Share #16 Posted March 7, 2013 Actually, as CCD there still is no more advanced sensor. Comparing CCD and CMos without taking the firmware processing out of the equation may tell us something about the direct camera output, but not about the sensor, nor about the end result after competent postprocessing. There may be no more advanced CCD out there, but there has been significantly more R&D from electronics giants put into CMOS in the last several years, which is why it has pulled ahead in most statistical categories. Doesn't bother me one bit, though, as I'm happy enough with the M9, and I don't really care to upgrade my "film." 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barjohn Posted March 7, 2013 Share #17 Posted March 7, 2013 It's sort of like the battle between Betamax and VHS, Betamax was the superior technology initially but the market went VHS and soon all of the research and money went into VHS and Betamax died out. The same is happening with CCD. Look at the latest super low light imager from Canon. Is it CCD or CMOS? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
photomeme Posted March 7, 2013 Share #18 Posted March 7, 2013 (edited) Their methodology will naturally score CMOS higher than CCD. It will be interesting to see how the M scores against Nikon and Canon CMOS. At least that's arguably apples to apples. As this is the first professional camera CMOS by this manufacturer, and given the underwhelming +1.3 stop ISO bump reported by Reid, it might not be pretty. Edited March 7, 2013 by photomeme Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted March 7, 2013 Share #19 Posted March 7, 2013 I automatically distrust anything which seeks to quantify a complex entity with a simplistic overall number. Methodology aside, how can anyone believe that such a scoring system can give any real appreciation of a camera and its usability? 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
douglasf13 Posted March 7, 2013 Share #20 Posted March 7, 2013 I automatically distrust anything which seeks to quantify a complex entity with a simplistic overall number. Methodology aside, how can anyone believe that such a scoring system can give any real appreciation of a camera and its usability? I'm not arguing your point, but it should be mentioned that, while ignoring the silly overall scores that DxO mark publishes, you can delve a little deeper into their testing graphs, which give a little more insight. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.