Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'comparison'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Leica Forum

  • International User Forum
    • Leica M System
    • Leica L-Mount
    • Leica Q / Leica Q2
    • Leica X
    • Leica D-Lux / Digilux / V-Lux / C-Lux
    • Leica R System
    • Leica S System
    • Leica FOTOS App
    • Leica Collectors & Historica
    • Photo Forum
    • Leica & General Discussions
    • Leica Forum Discussions
    • LHSA Member Forum
    • Events & Member Meetings
  • Deutsches Leica Forum
    • Leica M-System
    • Leica L-Mount
    • Leica Q / Leica Q2
    • Leica X
    • Leica D-Lux / Digilux / V-Lux / C-Lux
    • Leica R System
    • Leica S System
    • Leica FOTOS App
    • Leica Sammler & Historica
    • Foto-Forum
    • Leica & Allgemeine Diskussionen
    • Leica Forum Diskussionen
  • Challenges / Wettbewerbe

Categories

  • Leica Q
  • Leica M (Typ 240)
  • Leica SL (Typ 601)

Categories

  • Leica Q
  • Leica M (Typ 240)
  • Leica M Monochrom (Typ 246)
  • Leica SL (Typ 601)

Categories

  • Leica M System
    • Leica M Cameras
    • Leica M Lenses
    • Leica M Accessories
    • Leica M Wanted
  • Leica L-Mount
  • Leica S System
  • Leica Q
  • Leica X
  • Leica D-LUX / V-LUX / DIGILUX
  • Historica
    • Leica R System
    • Screwmount Leica
  • Misc

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests


City


Hobbies


Job


Name


Your Leica Products / Deine Leica Produkte


Website


PLZ

Found 8 results

  1. I obtained a customer-release—not pre-release/beta—M10-R and compared it side-by-side with the M10 Monochrom (hereafter referred to as the M10-M) on a test scene at high ISO values. The firmware version for both was the latest firmware currently available to the public: 10.20.27.20 for the M10-R (upgraded from the initial released 10.20.23.49 firmware that was pre-installed in the new camera), and 2.12.8.0 for the M10-M. Methodology: all shots were taken on a tripod with a 2-second delay to minimize vibration. The same Leica 50 APO lens was used for all tests. The aperture was set to f/5.6 for all tests, at which the resolving power of the 50 APO is about as high as possible among commercially available 35-mm format lenses. The ISO value and shutter speeds were as follows: ISO 6400, 1/60 s ISO 12500, 1/125 s ISO 25000, 1/250 s ISO 50000, 1/500 s ISO 100000 (M10-M only), 1/1000 s To the best of my ability, the M10-R and the M10-M were treated equally. The test shots were taken in one sitting, with the same tripod position 2.2 m from the target, and under the same lighting. The images were focused by rangefinder and confirmed by live view for each camera. The subject distance (2.2 m) was farther from the test scene than my earlier M10-R tests (1.3 m) because I anticipated that the M10-M might have no trouble resolving all the details of the scene from 1.3 m, even at absurdly high ISOs. To keep the test as pure as possible, all the test shots were taken as DNG files, then transferred and opened in Adobe Photoshop 2020 with Camera Raw 12.3 (which has native M10-R support) with no corrections or adjustments to the default image settings, other than clicking “B&W” to convert the M10-R images to monochrome. Therefore, this test does not really answer the question of how the performance between the cameras compares if one were to bring the full power of modern post-processing, noise removal, AI-driven scaling and sharpening, etc. to bear on the images. It also does not exploit the important ability of adjusting the levels of different colors when converting color files to monochrome files—arguably the largest advantage of using the M10-R to generate monochrome photos instead of the M10-M. Instead, the purpose of this test is to compare the acuity and noise level of the two cameras at ISO 6400 to ISO 50000. Overall, both cameras take remarkably good monochrome photos, even at ISO levels such as 12500 that would previously be considered out-of-reach. Here are 100% crops from a small portion of the center region of both cameras (M10-R on the left, M10-M on the right). Click on the image below to view it at 100% to avoid scaling artifacts. I would have no hesitation using ISO 12500 monochrome images from either camera for virtually any application. But of course there are substantial performance differences. Finding #1: The M10-M captures higher acuity levels than the M10-R across the ISO range tested (6400 to 50000). As expected, given the lack of a Bayer color filter array (CFA) and no need to de-mosaic the red-, green-, or blue-filtered pixels, the M10-M offers significantly higher acuity than the M10-R. To my eye, the advantage persists even if you give the M10-R an advantage of one or two stops: compare the sharpness of the fine features of the scene as captured by the M10-M at ISO 25000 vs. the M10-R at ISO 6400, or the M10-R at ISO 25000 to the M10-M at ISO 100000—a remarkable testament to the M10-M’s ability to capture a scene down to the smallest details, even zooming in to 100%. Notice also that at the same ISO level, aperture, and shutter speed (chosen by each camera’s auto-shutter speed setting to be the same at all ISO levels!), the M10-M images are only modestly brighter than the M10-R; I was surprised that the Bayer CFA didn’t dim the M10-R images more strongly. Perhaps the M10-R firmware partially compensates for the loss of light due to the Bayer CFA. Finding #2: The M10-M offers about a 1- to 2-stop advantage in high-ISO noise levels over the M10-R. Compare the M10-M at ISO 50000 to the M10-R at ISO 12500, or the M10-M at ISO 25000 to the M10-R at ISO 6400. The M10-M continues to blow me away with its high-ISO performance. Indeed, Bill Claff’s measurements at https://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm rank the M10-M’s high ISO performance as fourth among all cameras tested to date, behind the Phase One IQ4, the Phase One IQ3, and the Fuji GFX-100—three current or recent top-of-the-line medium format cameras. Overall, Leica has created in the M10-M and the M10-R two current-generation sister cameras with outstanding overall performance. If acuity or high-ISO performance is more important than color for your particular application, than the M10-M outperforms the M10-R and is among the very best cameras to my knowledge, even joining some medium-format monsters. And if color is needed, either in the final image or to enable creative conversion to black and white images that allows easy sky darkening, face lightening, etc. during post-processing, the M10-R remains an option worthy of its current flagship status among Leica M cameras.
  2. What is the benefit to shooting JPEG and RAW? I am starting to get overwhelmed by having doubles of all pictures, not to mention the additional space requirement. Does anyone shoot only JPEG? Why? Does anyone shoot only RAW? Why? Thanks!
  3. So should I dump my venerable M9? To try and help decide, I tried a quick, rough and dirty (i.e. non-scientific) shootout in a camera store. Using my own lens on each body, and then taking a quick snap as I would normally shoot and in difficult store shop lighting (against the light, mixed light - interior and exterior). The short answer is I'll be standing by the M9. But if you're interested in why, well the details and comparison images, unscientific and personally biased as they are, you can find on my FB page which you can visit by clicking HERE
  4. I'm a former Canon user, and the 85mm f/1.2L II was practically my standard lens, because I love bokeh :-) Has anyone here owned both this lens and the Noctilux f/0.95? The 85mm has longer focal length, but the Noctilux is faster. Do you think the extra light can be a substitute for the shorter focal length in regards to bokeh? Which one do you prefer (maybe a stupid question in this forum)? I find the 50mm angle more versatile than 85mm, so I think the Noctilux could be the perfect lens for me … if I ever can afford it!
  5. I've done speed tests on the last few MacBook Pro models from 2013, 2015 vs. the new MacBook Pro (Late 2016) models in 13 and 15 inch. For us who are looking for the fastest possible workflow of processing pictures in Lightroom, the new top-of-the-line 15" with 2TB and maximum RAM, processor and graphics card is beaten by the previous model. The latest of the old MacBook Pro 15" is 14% faster than the current MacBook. I've posted the tests here of the different computers, as well as a writeup on USB-C vs. Thunderbolt 3 hard drives, and more. A complete workflow of import, building previews and exporting files is 16:54 minutes on the previous model and 19:36 mins on the new. http://www.overgaard.dk/the-story-behind-that-picture-0169-Advice-for-Photographers-Which-Computer-for-Editing-Photographs.html
  6. Hi everybody, i just got my summilux 35 fle this week. and i'm having difficulties comparing these two lenses. i'm sorry if my writing is not good and my sample picture are very crappy but this is only a test. i just want to share my experience with these lenses Please checkout this link first in flickr to see in high resolution. https://flic.kr/s/aHskP24eFN from my observation in couple days for brief moment, comparing side by side in lightroom, i really impressed with the voigtlander 35mm f1.7 ultron. Sharpness at the center the ultron beat the summilux on sharpness wide open. (f1.7 vs f1.4) but summilux beat the ultron at the same aperture f1.7 but not by much though Bokeh both have beautiful bokeh. sometimes i can't tell which is which. Contrast summilux has more contrast, but only a hair saturation summilux has more saturation but only like 3-5% i think size the Lux with the hood and the ultron without the hood is about the same size. i never use the hood on ultron since i bought it. it resist the flare very good. and it looks nicer. the ultron is slimmer than lux and lighter than the lux rendering both lens render is quite the same also. Now, the difference visible in my eye is curvature of the lens the summilux has center curvature that makes the subject on the center pop. ( i think this is the way leica did to make 3d pop) i can notice the size of a subject side by side with the voigtlander. the subject at the center is bigger on summilux than voigtlander. certainly the plane focus is not flat overall ultron is only 5-10% to catch up the FLE i would say. so in the end, i still finding the reason to keep this lens since the lens is 4x the cost of the ultron.
  7. I shot these test images a few weeks back but only recently had the chance to compile them into a meaningful article. Up for your viewing pleasure is a comprehensive comparison of the MM246 vs. the M9M vs. the M240 converted to B&W, using the 50 APO, on a static still life subject under controlled conditions. I know I'm a little late to the party as others have been putting out some interesting and well-done comparisons. For my version of the test, I aimed to compare optimized images from each camera at each ISO level against one another. I like to take a real world approach and in my world, I don't look at out of camera results. Part of the evaluation of a camera should be how it responds to post processing and the final result, no? B&W ISO Showdown: Leica M Monochrom (Typ 246) vs. M Monochrom (M9) vs. M (Typ 240) Have a look and let me know what you think. Thanks!
  8. Hi L Camera users, I have got help from you many times before and now it is time again. I have following equipment today: M9, 28mm cron, 35mm lux FLE, 90mm Tele-Elmarit I am shooting mostly landscape and portraits and would like to shoot more portraits of my daughter now when I am leaving for three months parental leave. I am thinking of 50mm Lux or 75mm Cron (current ones). In my opinion 90mm is too tight. I have tried them both several times but are pending back and forth. I like them both but can only afford one right now. I like the focusing knob on the 50mm and the closeness of the 75mm. I do not like getting too much into the frames of the 50mm but I also do not like the focusing frame lines for the 75mm etc. etc. etc. But I like very much the 1.4 on the Lux and the distance to your subject for the 75mm etc. etc. :) For those of you that have used those two lenses much more than I have, what is your experience? What are your pros and cons? How would you do? Thanks.
×
×
  • Create New...