Jump to content

Leica M 240 versus Nikon D 600


tgm

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

We an read here a lot of complains the the dng files posted by U. Rhode are not meanigful.

 

Anyhow, I think they give some indication that the image quality of the Leica M is in the same league as the Nikon D600.

 

1. Moire in the raw files is very strong indicating that the cross talk betwenn pixels is small. So we an expect that the level of detail meets what we can expect for a 24 Mpix chip without AA filter

 

2. Although only files exposed to 320 ASA were posted we can get an idea of how the camera performes at high ISO by looking at the darkest parts of the images and increase exposure in Photoshop by 4.3 stops, this might simulate 6400 ASA.

 

The two images show 100 % crops from the Leica files feft ( bar, crodo) posted by U. Rhode and on the right side 100 % crops from Nikon D600 ( 400 ASA), exposure increaded in Photoshop by 4 stop simulating 6400 ASA.

(from left to right, Leica/Nikon, then again Leica/Nikon)

 

I think the Leica M looks quite good,what do you think?

 

Thomas

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there some basis for assuming that a 4 stop push in Photoshop is the same on each camera as increasing the ISO by 4 stops on each?

 

Even if this can be established, how can we compare two entirely different photos without even knowing if the selected regions reflect the same amount of exposure and a similar tone curve on each image?

 

However I guess one can decide from the images if a 4.3 stop push on the M looks pretty good on its own.

Edited by AlanG
Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember - the camera specific profiles for the M is non-existant in ACR / LR / PS as of today. Final firmware + final official support from Adobe might change things drastically.

 

My point is: It is way too early to start doing comparison tests. Wait for the official camera, with an official non-beta firmware and official raw support.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there some basis for assuming that a 4 stop push in Photoshop is the same on each camera as increasing the ISO by 4 stops on each?

 

Even if this can be established, how can we compare two entirely different photos without even knowing if the selected regions reflect the same amount of exposure and a similar tone curve on each image?

 

However I guess one can decide from the images if a 4.3 stop push on the M looks pretty good on its own.

 

 

I am not sure, whether the procedure described above exactly simulates 6400 ASA, but inspecting underexposed parts of an image is a quite critical test:

 

Part II - Controlled tests

 

I also agree, that far more meaningful comparisons will be possible once raw files of the Leica M and of images of the same object with another full frame camera will be available. But this will take time, I don't expect that Leica will post comparisons with other cameras, but this is speculation.

 

Anyhow, even if the images are very different they give already a hint on the performance at low light levels. Just look at the areas with maximum noise in the images and compare.

 

Thomas

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

it is my honest opinion that everyone is making too big a deal out of nothing. all this talk means nothing. especially the test above by pushing under exposed areas in photoshop is about as daft as daft gets.

 

i guess this forum needs something to talk about.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

it is my honest opinion that everyone is making too big a deal out of nothing. all this talk means nothing. especially the test above by pushing under exposed areas in photoshop is about as daft as daft gets.

 

.

 

What are you doing if you expose a chip with 200 ASA native sensitivy with 6400 ASA? You underexpose!

 

I think the test has some meaning. Here is a comparison between Leica M9 and Nikon 600, dark parts in the images pushed by four stops from 400 ASA to 6400 ASA ( M9 left).

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

To add another snippet, personally I have very rarely been bothered by moiré effects shooting with my M9.

 

The D600 is not completely immune either though. I can demonstrate it from recent studio fashion shots

 

Out of personal interest, it's inevitable that I will shoot some comparisons with equivalent lenses when my M arrives.

(100% crop at base ISO with D600)

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited by hoppyman
Link to post
Share on other sites

I will be very happy if the new M sensor behaves like the D600 sensor. I'm afraid though that you cannot draw this conclusion from your test because there are too many variables. Unless you look at many photographs taken in very different situations, the only way to judge two different cameras is in a controlled side by side test like the one between the M9 and the D600.

 

At this point, I don't even know whether the M is better than the M9. I hope it will be, but I'm not selling my M9 yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless you look at many photographs taken in very different situations, the only way to judge two different cameras is in a controlled side by side test like the one between the M9 and the D600.

 

At this point, I don't even know whether the M is better than the M9. I hope it will be, but I'm not selling my M9 yet.

 

Sure, I detailed side by side comparison as in the case of M9 and Nikon D600 is certainly more meaningful than the simple comparison between underexposed parts in Leica M and D600 files.

Just to repeat and to make the point clear, my very positive impression on the Leica is based on two results.

 

1. The images/ 100 % crops posted here

 

First Full Resolution Leica M (Type 240) JPEG and RAW Sample Images — Is the Alleged CCD Advantage Nothing But an Urban Myth? | THEME

 

show that the M shows slightly more detail than the M9, and also very importantly the M files show very prounced Moire. Althogh nobody likes Moire, it is a clear signature of little cross talk between pixels, which is essential for detailed images with high resolution.

 

2. In order to judge noise, the actual image is not so important. We just need to look for the most noisy parts in the images, thats it. Very imporant, you need to check all levels from very dark to almost wight. The noise in the Leica M files at 320 ASA in the correctly exposed parts is so low, that it doesn't matter you will not see in a print.

 

That's why we hear all the request for images taken at 6400 ASA, but the heayily underexposed part of the images just reflect such high ISO exposure. You can just look for the most noisy parts in the shadows, and compare with images taken with another camera ( the same ISO settings, the same procedure), ideally you look for different colours,gray tones and so on ( I did that but here I can only post very small few kByte portions of the full size file). Just take a look, the Leica M crops are rather clean in comparison the that of the D600. By pushing the dark parts in Photoshop by more than 4 stops you make the noise visible,

 

My personal conclusion, when I read U. Rhodes saying, "In terms of noise, the M-240 is equal or slightly better than the D600" I was rather speptial, but based on the comparison above I am convinced.

 

Certainly, there are may be many other aspects, but in terms of image sharpnes and noise now I have now doubt the Leica M clearly outperfoms the M9 and presumably alos the Nikon D600.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have come to a quite different conclusion from these samples as far as noise goes. I posted this in another thread, but I imported the flower shot into LR and increased exposure by 1.15, which effectively raises the ISO to a little over 640, then I opened the blacks just to where there is no clipping. I found that the dark part of the image showed quite a bit of noise and even slight banding following this procedure. I don't think it is bad by any means but I don't see a crushing advantage over the M9 as of yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have come to a quite different conclusion from these samples as far as noise goes. I posted this in another thread, but I imported the flower shot into LR and increased exposure by 1.15, which effectively raises the ISO to a little over 640, then I opened the blacks just to where there is no clipping. I found that the dark part of the image showed quite a bit of noise and even slight banding following this procedure. I don't think it is bad by any means but I don't see a crushing advantage over the M9 as of yet.

 

That's interesting, I found that thread. But did you compare the results with images from the M9 using the same procedure? As I understand, in addition to raising the ISO you set darkest (?) tones to zero and then increased the contrast. Actually, what you get depends sensitvely on the increase of contrast. I doubt that you can draw any clear conclusion, setting the tones to zero seems to my also very delicate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Raising in camera ISO is a combination of photosite amplification and digital boost.

 

The manufacturers do not share with us (at least not with me) what the proportion of each is for any given sensor.

 

Increasing EV in raw processing is therefore not exactly comparable. Given two CMOS 24 mpx sensors of the same generation,and competent engineers, I would expect sensor performance to be similar. Leica's different treatment of micro lenses may have some impact but I have no clue as to what that might be.

 

In any case, If I had an M-240 and D600 side by side and had to pick one for a shoot, the decision would be made on many other factors, high ISO performance being very far down the list.

 

Regards ... H

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name=haroldp;2301008

 

In any case' date=' If I had an M-240 and D600 side by side and had to pick one for a shoot, the decision would be made on many other factors, high ISO performance being very far down the list.

 

Regards ... H[/quote]

 

What would be on top of your list?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What would be on top of your list?

 

- Subject Motion ( do I want autofocus)

- Distance / Size (do I need a long tele)

- Lighting Conditions ( In good light I use low ISO's)

- Size / Weight (am I hiking up a mountain)

- Stealthiness (do I want to be noticed or to blend in)

- Lens Availability

- I like using Leica's

 

For example:

 

If I am shooting sports or wildlife where I am at distance, and the subject moves quickly, an autofocus SLR gets to the top.

 

If I am street shooting in a city, I will use Leica because:

- I want to be unnoticed

- the 'outside the frame' view of an RF camera is helpful to me

- Lenses that are sharp at f1.4 or f2.

 

If I am hiking to get to landscape shots I will use Leica:

- Lighter Weight for Camera Lens combo

- Landscapes don't move very fast

- Very Sharp lenses

- Usually good light, low ISO's

 

I am doing a Theatre shoot this weekend of a well known star.

The critical factors will be:

- control of lighting and white balance by managing multiple off camera flashes in umbrellas (Nikon has strong support for this, Leica has none)

- Fixed shooting location (zoom lens is a good idea).

- Light will be good so ISO's will be low

 

I am sure there are some additional factors that I forgot or are subconscious.

 

Better high ISO support for the m-240 certainly improves the options, but the difference between it and a D600 in this regard is almost certainly minimal.

 

The difference in High ISO IQ between an M9 and a D700 or D800 was sometimes a factor but that difference is huge, and it was rarely the decider (for me).

 

By the time other compelling factors are considered, the decision is usually very clear.

 

Regards .... H

Link to post
Share on other sites

What are you doing if you expose a chip with 200 ASA native sensitivy with 6400 ASA? You underexpose!

 

I think the test has some meaning. Here is a comparison between Leica M9 and Nikon 600, dark parts in the images pushed by four stops from 400 ASA to 6400 ASA ( M9 left).

 

because when you under expose (or over expose) a photo on the computer it's not done by a sensor or the computer in the camera. they don't do things the same way. if you record someone singing softly and then turn the volume up, it's not the same as getting the person to sing loudly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

because when you under expose (or over expose) a photo on the computer it's not done by a sensor or the computer in the camera. they don't do things the same way. if you record someone singing softly and then turn the volume up, it's not the same as getting the person to sing loudly.

 

sorry, exposure takes place on chip. What counts is the number of photon per/mm^2. You can not under or over expose on the computer, you can only amplify or attanute the signal. The camera electronic does the same when you select the ISO setting, but you can do that also with software ( e.g. Photoshop). I am not claiming that it is a test with scientific precision, it depends also on the characteristics of the raw converter. But it gives an idea of high ISO performance and if you apply exactly the same procedure to files from two different cameras the results are meaningful ( see the comparision M9 / D 600). If you are not convinced, no problem, wait until somebody makes a preceise side by side comparison.

Link to post
Share on other sites

- Subject Motion ( do I want autofocus)

- Distance / Size (do I need a long tele)

- Lighting Conditions ( In good light I use low ISO's)

- Size / Weight (am I hiking up a mountain)

- Stealthiness (do I want to be noticed or to blend in)

- Lens Availability

- I like using Leica's

 

For example:

 

If I am shooting sports or wildlife where I am at distance, and the subject moves quickly, an autofocus SLR gets to the top.

 

If I am street shooting in a city, I will use Leica because:

- I want to be unnoticed

- the 'outside the frame' view of an RF camera is helpful to me

- Lenses that are sharp at f1.4 or f2.

 

If I am hiking to get to landscape shots I will use Leica:

- Lighter Weight for Camera Lens combo

- Landscapes don't move very fast

- Very Sharp lenses

- Usually good light, low ISO's

 

I am doing a Theatre shoot this weekend of a well known star.

The critical factors will be:

- control of lighting and white balance by managing multiple off camera flashes in umbrellas (Nikon has strong support for this, Leica has none)

- Fixed shooting location (zoom lens is a good idea).

- Light will be good so ISO's will be low

 

I am sure there are some additional factors that I forgot or are subconscious.

 

Better high ISO support for the m-240 certainly improves the options, but the difference between it and a D600 in this regard is almost certainly minimal.

 

The difference in High ISO IQ between an M9 and a D700 or D800 was sometimes a factor but that difference is huge, and it was rarely the decider (for me).

 

By the time other compelling factors are considered, the decision is usually very clear.

 

Regards .... H

 

This is a long list, we can agee on many things. I woud expect that you don't need the Leica M, the M9 does the same job.

 

I made the comparision between Leica M and Nikon D600 for all who wants to get an idea were the M stands against the best present full frame cameras.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a long list, we can agee on many things. I woud expect that you don't need the Leica M, the M9 does the same job.

 

I made the comparision between Leica M and Nikon D600 for all who wants to get an idea were the M stands against the best present full frame cameras.

 

I can only speak to what works for me based on my own needs and priorities.

Others needs and priorities differ and lead to different answers.

 

I came to the same conclusion that you did and am (for now) not ordering an m-240 and continuing with the M9.

 

If I did not also have Nikons, M-240 ISO performance would be more interesting for me.

 

Had Leica added sensor based stabilization to better high ISO performance, combined with no VF blackout and Leica lenses at wide apertures, I would have found that to be a compelling set of capabilities for low light photography.

 

Based on the factors in my previous post, If the ISO performance of Leica and Nikon were reversed, I would still have picked the same camera 90% of the time.

 

I am always in favor of adding information to the forum, and applaud your efforts to do so.

 

Regards ... H

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...