tgm Posted February 20, 2013 Share #61 Posted February 20, 2013 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) Yes, that sounds about right. It would be easier to make a determination if the files were equally exposed. IMO, the difference is negligible and obviously not a reason to favour a D600 or similarly performing DSLR over the M240. If you're considering the M240, it's certainly for a host of other reasons/features. But it's nice to know the M appears to be pretty competitive with current DSLR offerings. Ron, meanwhile I can open the Nikon Raw files of the D 600 and made a comparison with the Leica M 240 Raw files. I opened the files with ACR without any sharpening, noise removal etc. and then used the noise removal tool Noise Ninja for profiling the images. The Nikon images was overexposed by 1- 1.5 stops so I pulled it down 1.2 stop (without doing this the noise was slightly higher). Here are the results (large numbers mean more noise): Nikon D 600 at ISO 6400 total 73, luminance 29, chroma 44 Leica M 240 at ISO 5000 total 85, luminance 30, chroma 55 Leica M 240 at ISO 3200 total 65, luminance 22, chroma 43 Leica M 240 at ISO 1600 total 45, luminance 15, chroma 30 So the luminance noise of the M 240 and Nikon at ISO 5000 respective 6400 is almost the same, while the chroma noise ot the M 240 is higher. One the other hand, if you keep in mind that the D 600 image is considerably overexposed (it effectively corresponds to ISO 2000 ( it was shot with f/4.5 while the Leica at ISO 5000 was shot with f/8, same exposure time) the noise of the Leica M 240 is significantly lower, even the chroma noise. I am surprised, I was not expecing this. Thomas Edited February 20, 2013 by tgm Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 20, 2013 Posted February 20, 2013 Hi tgm, Take a look here M 240 High ISO Comparison. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted February 20, 2013 Share #62 Posted February 20, 2013 It would be nice to compare two properly exposed shots. My sources say the two cameras are approximately equal in noise. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted February 21, 2013 Share #63 Posted February 21, 2013 So let me understand all this: We are comparing 2 cameras that are FF and 24MP. They are somewhat comparable in image results. One costs US$1996 and the other costs US$6950. Ok, got it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted February 21, 2013 Share #64 Posted February 21, 2013 Ok, got it. Yes, quite. Small and little known camera manufacturer sells a camera with a sensor which - in terms of noise - is on a par with those in the cameras of the high volume market leaders. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted February 21, 2013 Share #65 Posted February 21, 2013 Apples and oranges as usual. Nobody's forced to use DRFs and M lenses. My next Nikon will probably be the D7100 which won't even have an AA filter but it will never replace a rangefinder. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
batmobile Posted February 21, 2013 Share #66 Posted February 21, 2013 Yes, however, no matter how cheaper the D600 is, it will still be: Larger Heavier An SLR Autofocus with few of the right lenses and none of the screens to achieve intuitive MF. A completely different camera... That Leica can achieve comparable noise performance in a far smaller package is not an achievement? Crazy prices for digital Leica Ms, yes, but there still isn't any competition on in the criteria that matter most to me. I don't take pleasure in paying a small fortune for a Monochrom, but just did. Despite the financial 'gulp', I know it was the right choice for me as a photographer interested only in the imaged I can make. So let me understand all this: We are comparing 2 cameras that are FF and 24MP. They are somewhat comparable in image results. One costs US$1996 and the other costs US$6950. Ok, got it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgm Posted February 21, 2013 Share #67 Posted February 21, 2013 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) It would be nice to compare two properly exposed shots. Yes, I fully agree. It is nice that we are allowed to see raw files from the Leica M and the Nikon D 600 from the same object. But it is a mystery, why they are exposed so differently. Edited February 21, 2013 by tgm Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtomalty Posted February 21, 2013 Share #68 Posted February 21, 2013 Yes, however, no matter how cheaper the D600 is, it will still be:Larger,Heavier,An SLR Autofocus with few of the right lenses and none of the screens to achieve intuitive MF. .. No matter how expensive the M240 is, it is not available. Mark Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted February 21, 2013 Share #69 Posted February 21, 2013 So let me understand all this: We are comparing 2 cameras that are FF and 24MP. They are somewhat comparable in image results. One costs US$1996 and the other costs US$6950. Ok, got it. In terms of noise perhaps, but hopefully not rendering, I have never been drawn to Nikon CMOS Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted February 21, 2013 Share #70 Posted February 21, 2013 For a guy who has more than 60 Leica lenses, I am now down to 2 bodies that will use just over half of these. That is why I will get 2 more bodies to use with the other lenses. Can't wait for the M-240. Having just acquired an AF CMOS 5D3 camera, I must say it is a welcome addition for certain circumstances. I do not need it for landscape trips. But even on those trips I take a backup camera (or two) which provides excellent images-my M9 and MM. My main wide open landscape camera is my old trusty 1980 Hasselblad SWC/M and 503CW with a P45+. But when the going gets too tight and narrow even the Hassy's stay at home. For street my Hassy's gather dust as they should. Nothing beats the M for this. For action the new AF shines and the Hassy's and M's gather dust. That might change ever so slightly after the 240 appears and I can use some nice long glass-500, 400,350,280,180, tele zooms of various types and even somewhat wide angle to short tele zooms. Back to landscape, I cannot wait to get nearly trapped in a SW US narrow as hell canyon with my 15/2.8 on a M-240 as I approach some old Indian art. If that's too wide then I will haul out the other 240 with a 19/2.8 on it. I love exploring with old and new friends which I have yet to meet. Did you hear that Solms! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted February 21, 2013 Share #71 Posted February 21, 2013 Crikey, I get confused with 8 lenses and one body I even considered if shooting circa 500-1000 shots a month this is enough experience to truly bond with 8 lenses. I'm going through a period of sticking to one lens for a week or two to better understand them. I'm not sure if I'm envious or not ! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
douglasf13 Posted February 21, 2013 Share #72 Posted February 21, 2013 For a guy who has more than 60 Leica lenses, I am now down to 2 bodies that will use just over half of these. That is why I will get 2 more bodies to use with the other lenses. Can't wait for the M-240. Having just acquired an AF CMOS 5D3 camera, I must say it is a welcome addition for certain circumstances. I do not need it for landscape trips. But even on those trips I take a backup camera (or two) which provides excellent images-my M9 and MM. My main wide open landscape camera is my old trusty 1980 Hasselblad SWC/M and 503CW with a P45+. But when the going gets too tight and narrow even the Hassy's stay at home. For street my Hassy's gather dust as they should. Nothing beats the M for this. For action the new AF shines and the Hassy's and M's gather dust. That might change ever so slightly after the 240 appears and I can use some nice long glass-500, 400,350,280,180, tele zooms of various types and even somewhat wide angle to short tele zooms. Back to landscape, I cannot wait to get nearly trapped in a SW US narrow as hell canyon with my 15/2.8 on a M-240 as I approach some old Indian art. If that's too wide then I will haul out the other 240 with a 19/2.8 on it. I love exploring with old and new friends which I have yet to meet. Did you hear that Solms! Ooohhh, I'm envious of your P45+. My film Hasselblads have been sitting around without much use these days, but I'd love to "digitize" them, at some point. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted February 22, 2013 Share #73 Posted February 22, 2013 Ooohhh, I'm envious of your P45+. My film Hasselblads have been sitting around without much use these days, but I'd love to "digitize" them, at some point. It is truly the ultimate for me, but at my age hauling lots of weight around is taking a toll. I will divest myself of it one day soon. Tis the ultimate landscape setup. Some pros have looked at my prints and even said that was a Phase One back, no? When asked how did they know, they said the dynamic range tells it all. When stitching images you had better have huge RAM ready to handle it since I must use psb files that often approach 2GB in size and sometimes over 2GB. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted February 22, 2013 Share #74 Posted February 22, 2013 In terms of noise perhaps, but hopefully not rendering, I have never been drawn to Nikon CMOS Nikon CMOS has nothing to do with it. It's what Nikon does with it that is not to my liking. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
4X5B&W Posted February 22, 2013 Share #75 Posted February 22, 2013 (edited) It is truly the ultimate for me, but at my age hauling lots of weight around is taking a toll. I will divest myself of it one day soon. Tis the ultimate landscape setup. Some pros have looked at my prints and even said that was a Phase One back, no? When asked how did they know, they said the dynamic range tells it all. When stitching images you had better have huge RAM ready to handle it since I must use psb files that often approach 2GB in size and sometimes over 2GB. Hi Algrove, Just wondering about the P45 when used on the SWC. I thought the SWC was not compatible with the 38mm lens (too close to the sensor) giving softness at the corners......is that your experience ?? BTW I have a P45 that I use with a 503 kit, a great compact digital outfit IMO.....just love the results. Thanks Edited February 22, 2013 by 4X5B&W Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.