DXO Review

[diogenis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Alan, we know that you are happy with a cheap P&S and there is really nothing wrong with it, even though I don't get it, but this is just me.

However I was not and that's why I bought the M8 which I really like ever since.

I prefer reading real photographers reviews if and when I do that, which is very rare and I don't value that much tests like those from DXO, which I find sterile and shallow. But again, this is me.

[AlanG]

Alan, we know that you are happy with a cheap P&S and there is really nothing wrong with it, even though I don't get it, but this is just me.

However I was not and that's why I bought the M8 which I really like ever since.

I prefer reading real photographers reviews if and when I do that, which is very rare and I don't value that much tests like those from DXO, which I find sterile and shallow. But again, this is me.

 

I said that about the p&s because all cameras can make good pictures. And most people probably don't constantly push the limits of what their cameras can do. Nor do they shoot comparison shots with a variety of different cameras over a variety of different situations. So it is hard for any of us to have clear unbiased technical reference points regarding cameras. E.g. the photographers on this site have not even found a consistent way to test for the existence of a red shift on the M9.

 

If you have specific needs for maximum dynamic range or some other technical requirements, then the DXO info. might help you as a starting point in place of having to do very difficult and scientific testing on your own. (If you can even get access to all of the cameras that you are considering.) Whereas "real photographer" reviews are generally rather subjective in comparison, although the info. from those reviews can be useful too.

 

If you are happy with your pictures, as I am from my pro gear and my p&s, why would you care about a test or a review at all? If you are in the market for a new camera, DXO tests could be a factor to consider if you understand your needs and what the tests reveal. (If I were a sports shooter, I might be swayed to get the D3s.)

[diogenis]

I said that about the p&s because all cameras can make good pictures. And most people probably don't constantly push the limits of what their cameras can do. Nor do they shoot comparison shots with a variety of different cameras over a variety of different situations. So it is hard for any of us to have clear unbiased technical reference points regarding cameras. E.g. the photographers on this site have not even found a consistent way to test for the existence of a red shift on the M9.

No Alan. It is anything BUT hard.

There are some very fundamental differences that separate the p&s from the good pro camera: IQ, response times, DR, ISO, precision.... A small p&s can't have all that, but you can still get good pics with one, just that if you can get good pics with a p&s you will get a lot better pics with a pro cam. (Then Leica made the X1 which somewhat covers the distance, but ok it is not that responsive).

If you are an artist in composing then why on earth do you have to "test" to find the best ratio of price/compactness/quality? Just buy the best according to your needs and shoot. Why do we have to enter an infinite testing mode to tryout every little gizmo that comes out of the pot?

The photographers on this site main goal is not to "have a clear unbiased technical point" or a "consistent way to test" anything. Their goal should be to take good and then better pictures. I leave technicalities with the guys that have the expertise.

 

If you have specific needs for maximum dynamic range or some other technical requirements, then the DXO info. might help you as a starting point in place of having to do very difficult and scientific testing on your own. (If you can even get access to all of the cameras that you are considering.) Whereas "real photographer" reviews are generally rather subjective in comparison, although the info. from those reviews can be useful too.

Again, you are confusing your main role as a photographer and consumer. You can't "compare scientifically" without owing every and all of the products you want to compare. And if you do manage to finally own them all, then you won't need the DxO results, because you can simply buy their s/w and do them alone

If you are happy with your pictures, as I am from my pro gear and my p&s, why would you care about a test or a review at all? If you are in the market for a new camera, DXO tests could be a factor to consider if you understand your needs and what the tests reveal. (If I were a sports shooter, I might be swayed to get the D3s.)

Yes, maybe that is true. But this is no holy grail of knowledge. dpreview and others, 9and even Nikon specs) already performed exhaustive tests that proves what a D3s is capable off. In fact Nikon's specs will also reveal sizes and weight

[barcoder]

"The results of the Leica M9 are very close to the measurements for the Canon EOS 5D..."

From

DxOMark review for the Leica M9

 

Wait... So I can get a digital rangefinder that has the same RAW quality as a Canon EOS 5D! Sweet! That's a great camera with a great sensor!

 

Plus the M9 is a third of the size (in volume) and approximately 65% the weight of the 5D.

 

I guess it is all a matter of perspective.

 

Data used:

Canon EOS 5D Digital SLR

Dimensions 152 x 113 x 75mm

Weight: 810 g Body only. Battery 82 g. TOTAL 892 g

 

M9 Technical Data PDF

Dimensions: 139 x 37 x 80 mm

Weight: 585 g (with battery)

[AlanG]

"The results of the Leica M9 are very close to the measurements for the Canon EOS 5D..."

From

DxOMark review for the Leica M9

 

Wait... So I can get a digital rangefinder that has the same RAW quality as a Canon EOS 5D! Sweet! That's a great camera with a great sensor!

 

Plus the M9 is a third of the size (in volume) and approximately 65% the weight of the 5D.

 

I guess it is all a matter of perspective.

 

Data used:

Canon EOS 5D Digital SLR

Dimensions 152 x 113 x 75mm

Weight: 810 g Body only. Battery 82 g. TOTAL 892 g

 

M9 Technical Data PDF

Dimensions: 139 x 37 x 80 mm

Weight: 585 g (with battery)

 

Alternatively a Canon 50mm 1.8 weighs 130g vs. a 50mm Summicron is 240g or 335 g and costs 1/20th as much. And does the Leica require you to carry more batteries? Or you could use a Canon 24-105IS zoom and take up a lot less space and weight than having Leica 24, 28, 35, 50, 75, 90 lenses. This would be a much less expensive, faster, smaller, lighter, and more convenient way to go. And with DXO or other "corrective" software, on a 5DII the results are quite good.

 

True, it is all in your perspective....

 

I really believe that many people use Leicas mostly because they like using Leicas. Making rational or irrational comparisons with other systems has always seemed pointless to me because of this fact.

 

That being said, I think Leica really is missing one of its main reasons for existence by not being the best choice for high ISO/low light hand held shooting. If they had a top of the line stabilized high ISO sensor combined with Leica's fast lenses, they'd corner that niche.

[Jamie Roberts]

Alternatively a Canon 50mm 1.8 weighs 130g vs. a 50mm Summicron is 240g or 335 g and costs 1/20th as much. And does the Leica require you to carry more batteries? Or you could use a Canon 24-105IS zoom and take up a lot less space and weight than having Leica 24, 28, 35, 50, 75, 90 lenses. This would be a much less expensive, faster, smaller, lighter, and more convenient way to go. And with DXO or other "corrective" software, on a 5DII the results are quite good.

 

True, it is all in your perspective....

 

{snipped}.

 

Well, I certainly like using rangefinders. I find that more and more I dread using an SLR. I just don't like it anymore, which is weird.

 

Having said that, I still think your strawman above, while providing good photographic value, is still kind of silly on a couple key points.

 

If I want to travel with an M and 24-105 coverage with an M8, I simply take the M8, a couple of batteries (still under the weight of the 5d2), a miniscule CV15, a 28, a 50 and a 90. The rest I can do with my feet. I don't need every Leica lens made to cover a 24-104 f4 Canon, thanks.

 

With the exception of the CV lens, nothing will need correction in PS (or DxO, which I'm not going to have to buy), which means I sit less in front of a computer (a compelling argument for me today) and having a full stop (or 3 over the zoom!) more than compensates for the 5d2's ISO speed.

 

I won't talk about the build or optical quality of that 50 1.8 Canon. While it's probably better than the 50 1.4 Canon (which ain't saying much) and it's possible to have 5 or 6 of them before you approach the price of a 50 1.2L (the only thing Canon makes that approaches a 50 cron, let alone a lux), it's still kinda junky in many ways. Better than a cell-phone cam; though why you'd want to potentially cripple your 5d2 when travelling is beyond me (especially when Sigma makes a much better 50).

 

And there's a heckuva lot more to Leica's lens quality than the things DxO can fix. Flare resistance and contrast, for instance. When I travel, I only take a 28 cron and a 75 Lux and I"m good. That's a lot smaller kit than with any dSLR I know about.

[thrice]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I won't talk about the build or optical quality of that 50 1.8 Canon. While it's probably better than the 50 1.4 Canon (which ain't saying much) and it's possible to have 5 or 6 of them before you approach the price of a 50 1.2L (the only thing Canon makes that approaches a 50 cron, let alone a lux), it's still kinda junky in many ways. Better than a cell-phone cam; though why you'd want to potentially cripple your 5d2 when travelling is beyond me (especially when Sigma makes a much better 50).

 

And there's a heckuva lot more to Leica's lens quality than the things DxO can fix. Flare resistance and contrast, for instance. When I travel, I only take a 28 cron and a 75 Lux and I"m good. That's a lot smaller kit than with any dSLR I know about.

 

I agree on every point of your post. The 50/1.2L is alright but voigtlander make a faster, cheaper, better, smaller and lighter lens for M mount so it can't be seen as a benefit of the system over rangefinders. The Sigma 50/1.4 was a non-starter with me on my 5D-II, AF backfocused as soon as you had to focus beyond 3', this was a very common fault.

 

For low light, I find I can use slower shutterspeeds -even with moving subjects- on my M9 than I could on my 5D-II, the reason for this is no viewfinder blackout and the way one shoots with a rangefinder, seeing and following the scene, seeing whether the shot was focused as you feel the shutter, it's a much more connected experience. For me that is the advantage, the way of seeing.

 

Also with regard to the post made before about Leica making an amazing high-iso sensor with stabilisation, I kind of hope they don't. For the reasons of colour and body size. The Canon's have always had rather weak colour, especially reds and blues, because of their weak colour filter array, I found I clipped colours far too easily in post processing bringing them up to acceptable saturation levels. IBIS (in body IS) is the only road the M can take for stabilisation, and I just don't see that happening while maintaining the current body size. I honestly have never found un-corrected luminance noise offensive in print, I will occasionally correct the chroma noise if it's excessive. If one is posting to web you can always run through neat image, at web sizes you won't see the very slight softening, that program is fantastic for NR.

 

I've been spoilt by rangefinders to the point that I find SLR ultra-wide distortion slightly offensive, even on my own pictures taken with the 19mm Elmarit v2, a wonderful lens with a little barrel distortion I see very quickly now that I have a few rangefinder wides.

[AlanG]

Jamie, I'm just pointing out that there are arguments both ways. And I could make them both ways. Each person chooses for himself. If Leica made a 24-90 zoom lens, I bet a lot of users would choose it. As I said, a lot of people use Leicas because they like using Leicas... for whatever reasons they have this has little to do with anything that comes up in the DXO sensor testing.

 

As for DXO Optics, it is a raw converter that automatically adjusts for lens "flaws." So it actually speeds up your work. And it has good workflow and special tools such as unique fill lighting (DXO Lighting) good noise suppression and several other features that make it my prefered way to convert raw files. So the fact that DXO does not support the M9 takes away from the attraction of the M9 for me. (I even use DXO to adjust the jpeg files from my p&s.)

[haroldp]

I think we spend way too much time on these comparative (to other brands) IQ dicussions.

 

IMHO, the IQ on the M9, and all of the tested camera's is good enough to make other (non-IQ) issues predominate in the question of 'which one should I use'.

 

When walking around in cities (or most other places), or photographing people, the compactness, low recognition, and handling qualities of Leica's make them my choice.

 

For sports or wildlife I use DSLR's (Nikon), primarily because of autofocus and telephoto support.

 

For my landscape work, where I place great value on the juxtaposition of foreground and background objects, SLR 's are also indicated for absence of parallax.

 

Using current generation camera's, ( > 10 mp, and full frame sensors ) I believe lens choice is a bigger issue for IQ than camera sensor in any case.

 

I frequently advise friends with prior generation DSLR's and kit lenses to keep the body and get better lenses.

 

It is for IQ type issues such as coding for or fixing color shifts that this forum is exceedingly valuable.

 

Regards ... Harold

[diogenis]

Harold nailed it.

Today's cameras output is so much comparable that differences look like the needle in the hay stack.

Other factors do matter more, like portability, ease of use, machine gun shooting, size, weight. The things you can easily see. However, no matter where everyone stands, Leica with both Ms will please those who seek the highest levels of IQ

[jaapv]

I think we spend way too much time on these comparative (to other brands) IQ dicussions.

 

IMHO, the IQ on the M9, and all of the tested camera's is good enough to make other (non-IQ) issues predominate in the question of 'which one should I use'.

 

When walking around in cities (or most other places), or photographing people, the compactness, low recognition, and handling qualities of Leica's make them my choice.

 

For sports or wildlife I use DSLR's (Nikon), primarily because of autofocus and telephoto support.

 

For my landscape work, where I place great value on the juxtaposition of foreground and background objects, SLR 's are also indicated for absence of parallax.

 

Using current generation camera's, ( > 10 mp, and full frame sensors ) I believe lens choice is a bigger issue for IQ than camera sensor in any case.

 

I frequently advise friends with prior generation DSLR's and kit lenses to keep the body and get better lenses.

 

It is for IQ type issues such as coding for or fixing color shifts that this forum is exceedingly valuable.

 

Regards ... Harold

That, Harold, should be engraved over this forum!

[Jerry_R]

I believe lens choice is a bigger issue for IQ than camera sensor in any case.

I frequently advise friends with prior generation DSLR's and kit lenses to keep the body and get better lenses.

Thanks Harold. This is what I said almost 50 posts ago.

 

I was not replying, as was on a business trip to Germany. Now, after reading rest of thread, I see that too many people take DXO results of SENSOR too personally. And reason is very few knew what they exactly tested. I think it was already explained by few colleagues.