Jeff S Posted March 24, 2010 Share #1 Posted March 24, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Blog Seems to be another reasoned, and hard to read, post by Puts. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 24, 2010 Posted March 24, 2010 Hi Jeff S, Take a look here Puts' take on M9 DxO ranking. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guido Posted March 24, 2010 Share #2 Posted March 24, 2010 "The Leica M9 occupies the 23rd slot in the overall ranking [...] some owners even consider selling the M9 because of this ranking.[...]" How stupid can one get? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted March 24, 2010 Share #3 Posted March 24, 2010 Seems to be another reasoned, and hard to read, post by Puts. I agree, his reasoning is good. He needs to work on separating those paragraphs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted March 24, 2010 Share #4 Posted March 24, 2010 Blog Seems to be another reasoned, and hard to read, post by Puts. Jeff HI Jeff I have little patience for Mr. Puts in the normal run of things - but I rather enjoyed reading his blog - both about the DxO ranking and about obsolescence. As far as DxO is concerned, we all know that the M9 sensor is basically the same as the M8, so it's unsurprising that it comes out with the same sort of results. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptomsu Posted March 24, 2010 Share #5 Posted March 24, 2010 Not surprising that the M9 falls into this ranking. Does not mean it is a bad camera though. If you want to make use of M lenses and have FF digital, then it is the only beast to go with - in this regards it is the best camera you can get. If you want to have the best and state of the art technology - well then the M9 and the whole system is not on top - except the optical quality of most M lenses. End of the day - you can buy much better cameras in terms of functionality and IQ today than an M9 and also for much cheaper prices, but if you want and need a digital FF RF then you have no choice. I do hope Leica will take the weak points of the M9 serious for the M10, maybe this one will be based on S2 technology (which I actually had hoped for already in the M9. But well, it is Leica - right? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted March 24, 2010 Share #6 Posted March 24, 2010 DxO proves definitively that the M9 is the best digital rangefinder camera on the market. Actually there is a glaring error in the DxO review ... they got the price of the camera wrong, showing it as "5500 USD". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
msk2193 Posted March 24, 2010 Share #7 Posted March 24, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) I believe the very large backlog on the fast lenses is indicative that the M9 has again brought attention to the allure which is Leica; its glass! Isn't that the biggest reason why most people choose Leicas? Most Italian sports cars (or British luxury cars) when first 'modernized' in the '90s were very popular too, and they did not even have cup holders or modern stereos! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cam2000 Posted March 24, 2010 Share #8 Posted March 24, 2010 I believe the very large backlog on the fast lenses is indicative that the M9 has again brought attention to the allure which is Leica; its glass! Isn't that the biggest reason why most people choose Leicas? Most Italian sports cars (or British luxury cars) when first 'modernized' in the '90s were very popular too, and they did not even have cup holders or modern stereos! I totally agree with you and instead of going for high ISO I prefer to shoot mostly wide open and use ISO 160 to 640! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
snaggs Posted March 24, 2010 Share #9 Posted March 24, 2010 The 60 megapixel blads would also get a poor ranking due to their high iso performance. The point of this ranking is what? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted March 24, 2010 Share #10 Posted March 24, 2010 I believe the very large backlog on the fast lenses is indicative that the M9 has again brought attention to the allure which is Leica; its glass! Isn't that the biggest reason why most people choose Leicas? Is there any evidence for this? Has anyone ever reluctantly bought a M9 in order to use Leica lenses even though they prefer the handling and automation of a DSLR? I think not. But many many people are buying M9s for their viewfinder and handling and size. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guido Posted March 24, 2010 Share #11 Posted March 24, 2010 Is there any evidence for this? Has anyone ever reluctantly bought a M9 in order to use Leica lenses even though they prefer the handling and automation of a DSLR? Actually, my Leica career started with an M6 because lens distortion, contrast, and corner sharpness was worlds apart from assorted primes and zooms on my Nikon D300, especially at the wide end. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted March 24, 2010 Share #12 Posted March 24, 2010 To borrow from Sean, DxO's review is just another data point. What you do with that datum is up to you. Erwin repeatedly points out--thank goodness--that you can't spell everything out in a single number. I'm sure you've seen the thread which implies there's a fair number of us forum members who take the DxO rankings maybe a bit overly seriously--http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/119948-dxo-review.html. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted March 25, 2010 Author Share #13 Posted March 25, 2010 HI JeffI have little patience for Mr. Puts in the normal run of things - but I rather enjoyed reading his blog - both about the DxO ranking and about obsolescence. . Ditto, Jono. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
larryk34 Posted March 25, 2010 Share #14 Posted March 25, 2010 Ya gotta feel real sorry for those poor blokes that have cameras that rank 18th to 22nd. Or how about the one right after the M9; how bad could that be? The comment by Puts that I disagreed with the most was about processing a photograph: ". . . and the software in the camera should allow the direct transfer of the image quality of the captured file to the printing stage without loss of performance." This implies that someone knows how to write software for a camera that is perfect just for you and for every photograph. I suscribe to the notion that perhaps 40% or so of making a photograph is preparing it yourself for printing the way you want it to look, not how camera software thinks it should look. The Leica M and photoshop/etc. allow you the creative freedom do to just that. So, why does Puts want the camera to do it for him? For one thing, most current camera software over saturates the colors. You should be able to make the final choices about color. I was impressed by a comment by Ansel Adams that he printed one of his favorite negatives 60 or 70 times and never quite got it right. At the opposite end, I've never been impressed with Bresson's preference for not allowing any cropping of his negatives, which means that all cropping is done when the photo is taken. He didnt' want anyone else cropping them either. What this means is that he did not like developing and printing his own photographs. If he had liked it, he undoubtely would have cropped many of his negatives and printed them the way he envisioned the final print. What this habit means for us is that he undoubtedly has hundreds of more gems that he threw away because he didn't want to shape them into final images. To me, that's a great loss for all of us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest imported_torben Posted March 25, 2010 Share #15 Posted March 25, 2010 I believe the very large backlog on the fast lenses is indicative that the M9 has again brought attention to the allure which is Leica; its glass! Non sense! They need fast lenses because the M9's high ISO performance is below mediocre Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalfx Posted March 25, 2010 Share #16 Posted March 25, 2010 Non sense! They need fast lenses because the M9's high ISO performance is below mediocre nonsense! I buy fast lenses because I enjoy shooting wide open. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted March 25, 2010 Author Share #17 Posted March 25, 2010 Ya gotta feel real sorry for those poor blokes that have cameras that rank 18th to 22nd. Or how about the one right after the M9; how bad could that be? The comment by Puts that I disagreed with the most was about processing a photograph: ". . . and the software in the camera should allow the direct transfer of the image quality of the captured file to the printing stage without loss of performance." This implies that someone knows how to write software for a camera that is perfect just for you and for every photograph. I suscribe to the notion that perhaps 40% or so of making a photograph is preparing it yourself for printing the way you want it to look, not how camera software thinks it should look. The Leica M and photoshop/etc. allow you the creative freedom do to just that. So, why does Puts want the camera to do it for him? For one thing, most current camera software over saturates the colors. You should be able to make the final choices about color. I was impressed by a comment by Ansel Adams that he printed one of his favorite negatives 60 or 70 times and never quite got it right. At the opposite end, I've never been impressed with Bresson's preference for not allowing any cropping of his negatives, which means that all cropping is done when the photo is taken. He didnt' want anyone else cropping them either. What this means is that he did not like developing and printing his own photographs. If he had liked it, he undoubtely would have cropped many of his negatives and printed them the way he envisioned the final print. What this habit means for us is that he undoubtedly has hundreds of more gems that he threw away because he didn't want to shape them into final images. To me, that's a great loss for all of us. Puts' comment could be interpreted differently, i.e., that the camera software shouldn't do anything to degrade the image file (all information remains intact); not that the camera should render the image as a final product. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
diogenis Posted March 25, 2010 Share #18 Posted March 25, 2010 It all boils down to this: The ultimate question is simply this: are you happy with the results and does the instrument support you in getting the image quality you are looking for. Puts with this post tries to probe on a big issue that exist nowadays and this is simply the fact on how to chose a product that will fill your needs. Reviewers, magazines, blogs, anyone, are trying to just "add" one more review to an over reviewed product, but most reviews don't look at some core values, but instead they try to create a mist of difficult to read results, publish loads of meaningless numbers, compare, +.02 here -.06 there and all that stuff, that eventually leads to a mess and loses the original goal which is to simply deduct a reasonable clue of whether or not the product under examination is good or bad. Suddenly everyone has to be in great need of 1000000 ISO (cat eye vision) and gatlin mode for shooting at 15fps. Well I don't buy that, thank you Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalfx Posted March 25, 2010 Share #19 Posted March 25, 2010 Suddenly everyone has to be in great need of 1000000 ISO (cat eye vision) and gatlin mode for shooting at 15fps. Well I don't buy that, thank you suddenly? The desire for higher asa film stock, or in this case sensors is nothing new...just as film stock evolved thru the years to resolve better in lower light, so will sensors. This is nothing new, as a matter of fact Kodak continues to this day to release better and faster film stock...why cant we expect the same from our sensors? The trend in digital cinema cameras is exactly the same, higher iso ratings is the most desired upgrade with each new model. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
diogenis Posted March 25, 2010 Share #20 Posted March 25, 2010 suddenly?The desire for higher asa film stock, or in this case sensors is nothing new...just as film stock evolved thru the years to resolve better in lower light, so will sensors. This is nothing new, as a matter of fact Kodak continues to this day to release better and faster film stock...why cant we expect the same from our sensors? The trend in digital cinema cameras is exactly the same, higher iso ratings is the most desired upgrade with each new model. Leaving cinema aside, all sensors have good ISO performance. It's not that this sensor can't shoot in the dark while that one can... It's the constant race of owing the best of the best of the best that I don't get. Do we really need it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.