vintola Posted March 22, 2010 Share #1 Posted March 22, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Not so nice reading. What do You think? DxOMark review for the Leica M9 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 22, 2010 Posted March 22, 2010 Hi vintola, Take a look here DXO Review. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
digitalfx Posted March 22, 2010 Share #2 Posted March 22, 2010 "The results of the Leica M9 are very close to the measurements for the Canon EOS 5D, launched four years ago." Ouch! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted March 22, 2010 Share #3 Posted March 22, 2010 "DISCLAIMER: This dxomark review evaluates only the selected camera’s RAW sensor performance metrics (i.e., Color Depth, Dynamic Range, and Low-Light ISO), and should not be construed as a review of the camera’s overall performance....." Other than that - confirms the M9 CCD is still noisy (we didn't know that already?) and that there is some noise reduction applied even to RAW images at ISO 320 and above (which Sean Reid reported 6 months ago). An interesting comparison - Nikon D3X and the M9, using the detailed charts for 18% SNR, Color sensitivity, tonal range and so on. Except for DR, the charts more or less overlap exactly. Same with the Sony A900/850 and Canon 1Ds (the only comparable cameras in pixel count and full-frame). Nikon D700 beats them all on noise - which is why I'd like to see an M9H with 12 Mpixels on full-frame. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
novice9 Posted March 22, 2010 Share #4 Posted March 22, 2010 didn't puts conclude that the m9 was behind the nikon d3 in most quantifiable areas? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty Posted March 22, 2010 Share #5 Posted March 22, 2010 Kind of makes me wonder if sensor performance as measured in this way is really representative of the image quality that you see when compared to some of the higher ranking cameras. For instance the illustrious D3 with all its advantages, majestic as it otherwise is, I ditched in favour of the M8 IQ and that was over a year ago. The M9 is only better. It is still an interesting read though. I would still like to know how good all the currently available image processors really are at getting all the measured details out of the RAW file that comes out of the camera, not to mention onto a print. I.e. does any application currently do the "optimal RAW conversion" (quoting the Q&A) ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ario Arioldi Posted March 22, 2010 Share #6 Posted March 22, 2010 I'm going to sell my M9 after this reading.:D Cheers, Ario Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted March 22, 2010 Share #7 Posted March 22, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) If DxO had a chart for "image quality to camera size ratio", the M9 would rank very highly, if not at the top, thanks to its small size. I do wish the M9 delivered numbers like the D3X, but on the positive side, it is in very good company with the 5D, which is a great performer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalfx Posted March 22, 2010 Share #8 Posted March 22, 2010 but on the positive side, it is in very good company with the 5D, which is a great performer. That would be the 5D...NOT the 5DII Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markowich Posted March 22, 2010 Share #9 Posted March 22, 2010 That would be the 5D...NOT the 5DII yes, unfortunately. the M9 has great IQ to camera weight ratio but sensor tech of at least 4 years ago. worse with the S2 though, the M9 is at least a lovely camera, albeit with sensor shortcomings. p Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlesphoto99 Posted March 22, 2010 Share #10 Posted March 22, 2010 Of course it is a very specialized CCD sensor with micro lenses. And have you ever compared the size and weight of a Canon 35 1.4 to the Leica? Story here is if you want/need a Canon, get a Canon. If you want/need a Leica, get a Leica. Nobody's forcing anybody to buy/use something they shouldn't. End of story. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
viramati Posted March 22, 2010 Share #11 Posted March 22, 2010 Back to the D700 then + Billingham 550 and monthly visits to the chiropractor. No with a bit more thought will stick to M9 and Hadley Pro and a better back Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
missme Posted March 22, 2010 Share #12 Posted March 22, 2010 DXO chart only fit some people Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted March 22, 2010 Share #13 Posted March 22, 2010 A comparison of the DxO charts for the Leica M9 and M8 and the Canon EOS 5D and 5D Mark II shows that these four cameras perform similary with regard to noise (as seen in the SNR graph). But for some reason there is a huge difference with regard to dynamic range: again, the M8 and the two EOS models perform similarly, but with the M9 the dynamic range drops mach faster – almost exactly by one EV for each doubling of the ISO setting. A linear drop is typical for larger ISO settings, but only with the M9 (not with the M8!) is it linear from ISO 160 onwards. At least according to these measurements. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pascal_meheut Posted March 22, 2010 Share #14 Posted March 22, 2010 Has anybody around been able to match these results with what we see in our images? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted March 22, 2010 Share #15 Posted March 22, 2010 Has anybody around been able to match these results with what we see in our images? Photographic "quality" is very subjective. How often do you try to shoot exactly the same image under tight control with two different camera systems? Even then, you might need a scene or subject that can exploit the differences between the two cameras. And shooting the images is simply the first step. Carefully adjusting the raw file is often crucial to getting the most out of any image. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pascal_meheut Posted March 22, 2010 Share #16 Posted March 22, 2010 Photographic "quality" is very subjective. How often do you try to shoot exactly the same image under tight control with two different camera systems? Even then, you might need a scene or subject that can exploit the differences between the two cameras. And shooting the images is simply the first step. Carefully adjusting the raw file is often crucial to getting the most out of any image. Yes. It occurs that I know a few things about DxO, having been shortly a beta-tester for them a few years ago. And they used my M9 for their report. For instance, a friend of mine is currently testing plenty of Leica lenses (more than 80 so far) using DxO tools and the results matches what I see in the pictures. So far, so good. But when I read their DxOMark figures, I'm always surprised and I do not understand how they translate on real images. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted March 22, 2010 Share #17 Posted March 22, 2010 But when I read their DxOMark figures, I'm always surprised and I do not understand how they translate on real images. I have a lot of excellent "real images" that I've taken in jpeg using a tiny p&s camera. As long as the camera is used within its limitations, it works great for me. (And I adjust the jpeg images in post.) The point is that if one is not capable of getting good pictures with an M9 or any DSLR, then one should pack it in and find another hobby/profession. But there also was a reason why I dragged around a view camera for more than 30 years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
novice9 Posted March 22, 2010 Share #18 Posted March 22, 2010 I am not technically savy, but what I love about the IQ of the M9 more than anything is the quality of the colors it produces relative to other high end caremas I have used. I find that they are more natural and very difficult to match in pp from raw files of other cameras. Does the DXO info capture this aspect of the IQ in any way? I am not particularly concerned with noise/iso results, but dynamic range is a big deal and I can't say i'm paricularly impressed with the dr of this camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalfx Posted March 22, 2010 Share #19 Posted March 22, 2010 Of course it is a very specialized CCD sensor with micro lenses. And have you ever compared the size and weight of a Canon 35 1.4 to the Leica? Story here is if you want/need a Canon, get a Canon. If you want/need a Leica, get a Leica. Nobody's forcing anybody to buy/use something they shouldn't. End of story. Wow Charles, a bit defensive here. First, I would never trade my Leica for a Canon- actually I own a Canon 5DII (and both Canon and Leica 1.4 primes 24-35 and 50mm's), but I still prefer the M9 and these tests wont change that. It still doesnt mean we cant read the test and discuss them here. The story has not ended, if you dont want to hear it then go read another thread. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted March 22, 2010 Share #20 Posted March 22, 2010 FWIW, I've been very happy with my D700, provided I use my Leica glass... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.