Puts' take on M9 DxO ranking

[Gentleman Villain]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The mainstream simply cannot recognize independent brilliance. They will always turn against that which they don't understand. The Leica M is very difficult for most mainstream photographic minds to categorize since it isn't directly competing against anything that they aren't already familiar with....So don't be surprised when they turn against it. They just don't understand it.

 

The last thing an artist should want to be is mainstream and accepted...That's a terrible place to be for an artist and also a good indication of mediocrity. In other words, in order for something to be accepted by the mainstream it must also be very mediocre. It's the same way with cameras. Leica would have to be mediocre in order to be understood by the mainstream.

[Richard.no]

nonsense!

I buy fast lenses because I enjoy shooting wide open.

 

On the contrary that you can't use them wide open unless you get your rangefinder adjusted. This was my problem when using the M8 and a 50 lux asph.

 

Further, I'd say Leica lenses are nothing over the newest lenses from Nikon, for example. Leica dropped the AA filter and gives them a head start, but when I use lenses like a 24 PC-E from Nikkor, I think you'd be pressed to give me a sharper photo from a Leica. Leica do however have a huge advantage in size, but that's it!

[diogenis]

The mainstream simply cannot recognize independent brilliance. They will always turn against that which they don't understand. The Leica M is very difficult for most mainstream photographic minds to categorize since it isn't directly competing against anything that they aren't already familiar with....So don't be surprised when they turn against it. They just don't understand it.

The Leica M is all BUT difficult to use, I agree there might be some brainwash involved here that maybe is responsible for low sales, but the camera is amazingly simply to use. On the contrary, using a dSLR can be (and is) frustrating. The Ms do make you feel that you might lose a fast instance however, unless you don't follow some procedures against that. Something that you don't have with a p&s dSLR. On the other side, with an dSLR you need to learn -and remember- all your infinite menu choices, menu digging, buttons, modes, etc etc : that i find difficult, also distracting from the core aspects of photography.

[markowich]

The 60 megapixel blads would also get a poor ranking due to their high iso performance.

 

The point of this ranking is what?

 

the P65+ has the highest DXO score, even slightly higher than D3x.

peter

[twom4]

No wonder DxO got those bad results. They got the cheaper version M9 at US$5,500.

[jaapv]

On the contrary that you can't use them wide open unless you get your rangefinder adjusted. This was my problem when using the M8 and a 50 lux asph.

 

Further, I'd say Leica lenses are nothing over the newest lenses from Nikon, for example. Leica dropped the AA filter and gives them a head start, but when I use lenses like a 24 PC-E from Nikkor, I think you'd be pressed to give me a sharper photo from a Leica. Leica do however have a huge advantage in size, but that's it!

Well, if you rank lenses by "sharpness"I cannot say your post is surprising..

[250swb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Non sense! They need fast lenses because the M9's high ISO performance is below mediocre

 

If the M9's ISO 'quality' is better at (say) ISO 400 than ISO 400 film (which it is), and if ISO 400 film has produced a large proportion of the worlds best photojournalism over the last sixty years, why is the M9's digital ISO 400 'mediocre'? The photographs are still possible. A good photograph back then doesn't suddenly become a bad photograph now just because Canon want to sell you a new camera does it?

 

It may surprise you but famines, war, people going about their business in cities etc, all still happen in light from the sun that hasn't changed much in those sixty or so years. High ISO capability does not re-write photographic history nor usurp todays photographic practice.

 

You only have to look at the lists of camera improvements people say they need for their photography, and each time they buy the new camera, and each time they still make the same old photographs with their new camera. So if high ISO is such a necessary improvement for non-specialists don't you think we would have seen some evidence by now, some 'better' photographs perhaps?

 

Steve

[jaapv]

To me it is quite simple: I do not care whether Leica (or any other camera maker for that matter) uses a CCD sensor or a Chinese Fortune Cookie to capture the light, as long as I get the images out of the camera that I want to get. And with the M9 I do.

[Gentleman Villain]

Well, if you rank lenses by "sharpness"I cannot say your post is surprising..

 

Yes

 

The problem with DXO and these other type of lists is that they relate to cameras in the most basic ways by comparing the equivalent of laundry lists of features. For example, any novice can read an article or two about digital cameras and understand megapixel and resolution. Any novice can spend a few moments looking over an MTF chart. These things are easily measured and understood. However, it could take decades of experience for a photographer to build the eye necessary to truly percieve the differences between a Leica lens and a Canon/Nikon lens in terms of the way that they draw in application. These things are experienced and not easily measured. That's one of the reasons that Leica doesn't often score highly to the people shopping for cameras based on laundry lists of easily measured features.

[menos I M6]

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.

 

Exactly my path there ;-)

 

And with every following Leica purchase, I got rid of another few Nikon lenses/ bodies.

Just the D3 and some fast long glass remains, to satisfy my inner self, who reads the DxO charts ;-)

 

Seriously - when I started and bought my very first digital camera - the only comparable things, I had to look after, which were easily perceivable, where MP count, max ISO and alike.

 

Somebody could have tried, to explain me, how the distortion, CA correction and simpler exposure controls of a manual Leica are actually better for me, than a fully automated Japanese camera.

 

Stats are for everyone - simple as that - just lean back and smile. A M9 sooner or later surely finds it's way to me. DxO charts are just not valid for me by then ;-) (and should not be for anyone else looking for a DRF)

 

For low light, there are excellent DSLRs or film cameras with BW film pushing to ISO6400 if needed. It is trivial, to talk about dynamic range with digital cameras anyway, as long, as they don't breach the 14 stop boarder

[batmobile]

... it could take decades of experience for a photographer to build the eye necessary to truly percieve the differences between a Leica lens and a Canon/Nikon lens in terms of the way that they draw in application. These things are experienced and not easily measured. .

 

... and those nuances detected also require darned good images to matter at all; images very often beyond those who rave about them and who often take picture because of them.

 

IMO, what counts is whether there is an importance attached to those lens attributes that impact how the work would be perceived when considered in isolation from the gear related facts.i.e. can you or another person look at the image and say, "ooooh, the way the bokeh/glow/flare/rendering/ is incredible and makes the image. Had that not been there it just would not have worked" or "that image would have worked if only there had been better bokeh/glow/flare/rendering."

 

Good contrast, sharp, nice rendering, flare control, light, compact, reliable etc are all things people buy Leica lenses for, but it does not take 20 years to spot these things.

 

In most cases people who 'know' think the images are better because they were shot with Leica lenses, but this is usually in the photographer's head. I am convinced that in most cases the images are not objectively significantly better at all and that 99% of the value an objective person would attach to them would relate to other things i.e. a well taken image that is interesting, processed nicely and well presented. Certainly Leica lenses can help score on some basic issues: sharp at any aperture, good contrast, low flare etc, but so can many other top end lenses.

 

I shoot lots of brands inlcuding Leica. I shoot Leica Ms primarily for the size, simplicity, handling, quietness etc. I also like that I get great optical performance. I do not however buy into the notion that like some wine connoisseur, I, or others, will learn to pick out those nuances in time and that their value will ascend in importance. Quite frankly, assuming an image is composed right, shot at the right aperture and shutter speed and sharp (or not as intended) optical nuances are way down the list of attributes that matter, below exposure and development, film and developer choice, printing technique etc.

 

Out of my best images, many brands are represented and I very much doubt you would have much if any success in telling me what I used for what. I also think a person would need their head examining if they were to for opinions based on what was used (or signatures that indicated XYZ), rather than the overall impact of the image, as presented.

 

What might not be so obvious is that many of the images would not have been possible with a large imposing SLR, of flare from zooms pointed into the sun etc. That's my reason for enjoying Leica, Zeiss, CV etc in my usage. Sure, the nuances are there, but they are the icing that has to go on a rather large and delicious cake to matter a damn. For most who obsess over nuances, they do not have the ability to bake even the most basic cake. 20 years is better spend learning to take good photos than pick out nuances in optical signature.

 

The M9 does things other things cannot do, as the worlds only FF digital RF. There is not a lot more to add on the DxO tests; they give you a measured assessment of sensor performance, which if it is good enough for you, is good enough for you - period.

 

IMO, if a person is using a M9 for the lenses alone (rather than because the RF platform allows them to get the images they seek) I think they are barking entirely up the wrong tree and will probably spend years swimming in dreary images until they figure out their mistake. Wide open performance is great with Leica lenses, for sure, but there are those who use it compulsively, like a cheap trick, and have yet to broaden their horizons.

 

Rant over. Sorry.

[diogenis]

A D3s could easily win in night shots, but what happens when someone needs to print really large sizes? 12mp are enough then? Leica/Kodak had to satisfy a large portion of their pro audience. I believe that Leica's ratio must be one of the best: 18mp, FF.

[Gentleman Villain]

 

Rant over. Sorry.

 

 

That's cool lol - at least you didn't say anything lame like "I love photography, because it helps me remember a fleeting moment that will never exist again" That stuff makes me want to puke lol

 

The more people deny it...the more I know they haven't built the eye yet...or may never build the eye. Not every person has the same ability...we all have varying ability. Sometimes it has nothing to do with experience and everything to do with plain old physical vision.. Not everybody has 20/20 eyesight. Discerning differences is a visual experience and requires physical ability along with rational discernment. Some people are color blind too but that doesn't mean that can't still be good photographers. It just means they might not be good color photographers.

[msk2193]

My D3s and D700 perform very well at high ISO, but I hardly EVER use it for that. A sturdy tripod and ISO200 is still my preferred setting. Except for some hand-held birding photos where speed is critical, my ISO stays at the native 200 in those systems.

[pgk]

On the contrary that you can't use them wide open unless you get your rangefinder adjusted.Leica do however have a huge advantage in size, but that's it!

I'd have to disagree on two points.

 

My 50/1.4 is spot on with my rangefinder and I use it wide open, often. And.

 

But that's not it! It is true that Leica do have a huge advantage in size which is quite an accolade in itself, and is one of the reasons that the M8 and M9 have not been easy to design nor build quickly, more especially because they support many lenses which were never designed for digital use in the first place. If you really believe that a small, compact rangefinder system has merely a size advantage then I'd suggest that you are missing the point of a small compact rangefinder system:rolleyes:. Be happy that you have a superb Nikon 24 lens.

[thrice]

when I use lenses like a 24 PC-E from Nikkor, I think you'd be pressed to give me a sharper photo from a Leica.

 

Challenge accepted, but can I use my 25mm Biogon? I know it's not Leica but it cannot be used on a D3x. How shall we compare? Feel free to send me a PM or we can start a new thread, I'm sure it'll be an interesting comparison.

 

A D3s could easily win in night shots, but what happens when someone needs to print really large sizes? 12mp are enough then? Leica/Kodak had to satisfy a large portion of their pro audience. I believe that Leica's ratio must be one of the best: 18mp, FF.

 

Just bear in mind lower resolution != better low light performance. Comparison at equivalent magnification (ie. print size, or scaling the higher MP image down to the lower MP) is the only fair method. This is one of the reasons for the High ISO improvement in the M9 in comparison the M8.

[digitalfx]

On the contrary that you can't use them wide open unless you get your rangefinder adjusted. This was my problem when using the M8 and a 50 lux asph.

 

 

I dont have any problems with either my M8 or M9 shooting wide open all day long. I have 24, 35 and 50 Lux and they all look exceptional at 1.4.

[diogenis]

Just bear in mind lower resolution != better low light performance. Comparison at equivalent magnification (ie. print size, or scaling the higher MP image down to the lower MP) is the only fair method. This is one of the reasons for the High ISO improvement in the M9 in comparison the M8.

 

Yes when you compare two cameras with the same photocells, but the D3s has a lot bigger photocells and that permits much much lower noise, but at the expense of resolution as well.

[jaapv]

I dont have any problems with either my M8 or M9 shooting wide open all day long. I have 24, 35 and 50 Lux and they all look exceptional at 1.4.

Don't forget there is some skill and a learning curve involved.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[batmobile]

That's cool lol - at least you didn't say anything lame like "I love photography, because it helps me remember a fleeting moment that will never exist again" That stuff makes me want to puke lol

 

The more people deny it...the more I know they haven't built the eye yet...or may never build the eye. Not every person has the same ability...we all have varying ability. Sometimes it has nothing to do with experience and everything to do with plain old physical vision.. Not everybody has 20/20 eyesight. Discerning differences is a visual experience and requires physical ability along with rational discernment. Some people are color blind too but that doesn't mean that can't still be good photographers. It just means they might not be good color photographers.

 

Sure, some have a better eye than others, but its a question of what it important as well as what can be deduced without the information as to what lens was used etc to hand.

 

So many of the shots used to prove the superiority of Leica lenses (not because of the major benefits - size, contrast, flare resistance etc - but an endless list of subtle nuances) are complete cr@p. Shots of cats or the geranium in the kitchen. Any optical issues apparent are swallowed up by the poorness of the image and so become immaterial. When the image is really great, those nuances generally swamped by the brilliance of the image. Subtle nuances therefore have relatively little of a role to play IMO, aside from in the bland mediocrity where the photographer is broadly competent but unable to escape the technical or formulaic mire. This is where boring shots become 'not bad' and pleasant shots become 'nicely balanced.' I can see very well and only shoot in B&W so do not need to worry about colour. Even if I did, by the time PS has played its role...

 

I still strongly suspect you could not tell most of my Leica, Zeiss and CV images apart when viewing prints alone. Why? Because when shot under average conditions most of them look very similar and differences tend to vanish in the darkroom. When shot at the extremes of their envelope or particular situations, then characteristics are more obvious, but that is a minority of occasions.

 

A M9 is the only FF DRF in town. Were I not to need a small RF I would shoot Canon SLRs. Why? Because their L lenses are bloody good in the main and not far enough behind Leica to justify the 3-4 x price. If I take good shots, it just does not matter. If I cannot take decent shots, I don't want the consolation prize of 'best bokeh award' in the 'cr@ppy picture category' LOL.