Reid Reviews M, M9 and Monochrom Files Compared

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As much as i may like Sean Reid's reviews and the positive role he's played in the M-240 project, nobody will prevent me from doing perfectly legal things like sumarizing my readings when and where i intend to do so. This kind of paranoid censorship if one of the reasons why i did not subscribe to his site and i regret it sincerely as i've kept a very good memory of his presence on the LUF.

I must add, to be fair, that one of my relatives is a suscriber to Sean's site and that contrary to some colleagues above, i like much his last review. I'm not a fan of Sean's photography but it's not a problem for me. His objective approach of camera reviews and the choice of trivial subject matters is exactly what i expect personally. Not to say that i disliked Chris', Jono's and Ulrich's sample pics, on the contrary, they helped me to make my mind up very efficiently.

[dwbell]

I'll edit my previous accordingly;

 

"1.3 Stops? Oh."

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[theboch]

I do not understand how some people can say that ISO 6400 on the M is worse than ISO 2500 on the M9. Besides the banding - which hopefully will get fixed - the noise on the new M is way better!

 

You should read Reids review more carefully.

 

And please do not compare the M with the M Monochrom with no color filter array... it shoots only B&W!! It is no miracle and news of the century that the MM has better noise overall...

[Rick]

I'll edit my previous accordingly;

 

"1.3 Stops? Oh."

 

I get it now. That went right past me. It is silly isn't it? I would have thought more like 1.34 stops. I guess Sean just rounded up?

[Guest malland]

I'm always amazed that almost any thread on Sean Reid's articles or tests in any photo forum always turns into a (boring) referendum on the value of his pay site. Hey, it's only $30+ per year, and either you decide to subscribe or not. I happen to think that if you're interested in buying a $7,000 camera, his thorough and objective tests are worth the subscription fee — even if you eventually make your decision on quite different grounds.

 

On the current discussions on Sean's, Jono's and MT's articles, I've been following them all, perhaps the same way one reads gossip columns — what I mean is that I'm looking mainly at people's reactions. But basically, for me, this is all premature, as I don't want to look seriously at conclusions on the M240 until the final release is ready, because the color rendition and other more subtle aspects of image quality may change — and what's the use of speculating? But I must hasten to say that I appreciate Sean's, Jono's and MT's efforts on this.

 

As for me, I've made my choice: I bought the M-Monochrom last September and yesterday picked up a new (black) M9-P, which I was able to get at the promotion price that in Europe ended on December 31. It is a new camera, unopened, that was had been delivered to a dealer at the promotion price but was still unsold. The price, with VAT rebate, is only a few hundred dollars more than an M-E: the only reason I prefer the M9-P over the M-E is the sapphire LCD glass.

 

In terms of the basic decision of buying the M9-P now vs waiting for the M240, apart from the attractive price that I got, I was influenced by statements from Charles Peterson and douglasf13 that the M9 color rendition can be equated to color slide film while the M240 is likely to be more like color negative film. I simply made the bet that the foregoing would be true — and also figured that there would be some problems with the new M240 after it's out that will take time for Leica to work out, but it was my bet on the M9 vs the M240 color rendition that was the determining factor.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Paris au rythme de Basquiat and Other Poems [download link for book project]

[Rick]

Mitch -

 

I agree with a lot of what you say. But, these reviews are now getting a little frustrating. How can a pay site review the M if the reviewer doesn't even have the final production camera ? It seems a bit like an exercise in getting all worked up only to discover the camera is yet another beta (you know, banding, etc...). This doesn't add to the current body of knowledge. All of this will have to be re-done once the final firmware is released. The reviewer seems to suffer from premature evaluation.

[theboch]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Curious (because I don't know)...why is medium format CCD only?

 

Well there are several things (as far as I know):

 

• Currently it is way too expensive to source medium format CMOS sensors (there are no big manufacturing lines for that so far)
  
• CCD sensors have less noise at their base ISO than CMOS sensors
  

 

CCD sensors are usually bad at high ISO - but that is no problem to the major user because medium format camers or digital backs are mostly used in light controlled studio environment. Also most medium format sensors have a base ISO of 50, some even 25!

[Steve Ash]

Who really cares whether the noise improvement is improved by 1.3 or 1.5 stops?

In my little photographic world image quality is guided by composition, colors or b&w, moments in time etc.

 

I handled the new M for some minutes at Photokina only but felt that it is a big step forward. Facing the many improvement it seems ridiculous to me to say the M is a side step only. I am not ready to buy one now but hope I am in case Leica might come up with an "M-P".

 

Regards,

Steve

[andyedward]

I'm wondering if the above bitching about Reid's M240 review comes from the fact that rather than being unjustifiably positive, Reid is objective and honest. Those who bitch are dissapointed and angry that he doesnt speak better of the M240. I also had high hopes for the M240, but was waiting for sufficient numbers of reputable and objective reviews before making a decision, so I'd like to say a big Thank You to Reid.

 

Reid's side-by-side studio testing offers the only way to accurately compare the image quality of all three cameras, and he did so in a valid, reliable manner. I usually dislike such a method, but Reid's results are compelling and invaluable for anyone considering an M240, MM, or M9. The MM has an advantage over the M240 in all respects, including DR and high ISO performance. From looking at Reid's M240 vs. M9 shots, the M240 is only marginally better at low ISO's. Both high ISO and DR are improved over the M9, but then the M9 sensor is three years old....

 

Reid's review highlights just how good the M9 and MM are, and that the M240 offers a marginal improvement in image quality over the M9. I thought the hype surrounding the MM was just that, and the M240 would be the one to have. I was wrong.

Edited February 23, 2013 by andyedward

[tgm]

Not quite sure of your math there.

 

Note he shows full size and downsampled to comparable. Still said, only 1.3 stops advantage.

 

Personally, I don't think folks are looking to whatever ISO advantage that might accrue from the higher pixel number.

 

Regarding his site: yes, the flash format is atrocious, and hardly protects his content. a foolish and user unfriendly design, with nothing good to say about it.

 

So he downsampled or the images from the M to 18 Mpixel? This may be critial, there are different ways to do it. I am far from saying that the didn't it properly, but the way DXOlabe is making thier assemenst of sensor noise seems to me more straight forward.

 

Then, if the M 240 is 1.3 stops ahead of the M9, it means that it is almost 0,5 stops ( 0.45 stops to be precise) behind the Nikon D 600 (based on the numbers for M9 and D600 from DXOlabs). This is not really supported by the comparison between the D600 and M 240 files Ulrich Rohde posted, unfortunately the comparison is problematic since the D600 file was overexposed. There I saw surprisingly a small advantage for the M 240 over the D600.

 

By the way, if Sean Reid would offer a pdf which I could download, no qustion I would do that, but I am not interest in subscribing his site

[dwbell]

Who really cares whether the noise improvement is improved by 1.3 or 1.5 stops?

In my little photographic world image quality is guided by composition, colors or b&w, moments in time etc.

 

I handled the new M for some minutes at Photokina only but felt that it is a big step forward. Facing the many improvement it seems ridiculous to me to say the M is a side step only. I am not ready to buy one now but hope I am in case Leica might come up with an "M-P".

 

Regards,

Steve

 

I do.

 

I would love to live in your little world, in mine I reach for the 5DIII when the M9 falls pathetically by the wayside. Does this mean, out of interest, that "composition, colors or b&w, moments in time etc." mean nothing to me? What a wonderfully binary world that suggests. Can quality tools AND quality photography not be a goal I'm allowed?

 

Equally does a, to me, disappointing ISO performance increase mean (in this binary, polarised world) that I think the rest of the camera is not a significant improvement? Not to me. I'm first on the list at my dealer and would have been if it was ONLY faster, bigger LCD, weather proofed etc.

 

Disliking X does not mean disliking everything about XYZ. We don't have to either love ALL of the camera (political party, motor vehicle, sports personality etc) or hate ALL of it. There's a middle ground, it's actually where we all live.

Edited February 23, 2013 by dwbell

[Peter H]

................

I would love to live in your little world,..................

 

 

 

And yet, and yet....

 

Steve's is a perfectly valid point of view. It may from time to time be very important to know whether the difference between the iso performance of two cameras is the equivalent 1.3 or 1.5 stops.

 

But It does feel a little like a tight and dark old fundament up which we're disappearing!

[MarkP]

But It does feel a little like a tight and dark old fundament up which we're disappearing!

 

 

What a great old word.

Haven't seen it used for years.

Edited February 23, 2013 by MarkP

[IWC Doppel]

Given I am not about to spend £5k on the M and I subscribed and have read most of earlier lens reviews I think the price for renewal should be less. One review is not worth $30 and in any case why is this review so definitive

 

I am much more interested form a factual performance perspective in what Erwin will hopefully have to say. I'll spend the $30 on a bottle of wine thanks.

[dwbell]

 

 

And yet, and yet....

 

Steve's is a perfectly valid point of view. It may from time to time be very important to know whether the difference between the iso performance of two cameras is the equivalent 1.3 or 1.5 stops.

 

But It does feel a little like a tight and dark old fundament up which we're disappearing!

 

Agreed. It may seem like that, however - given that exposure is determined by three factors, we're only right to muse over large aperture lenses (noctilust), faster shutter speeds (M9 reduction to 1/4000, M6 max shutter etc) and high ISO performance. Aren't we? We all can agree that exposure is pretty relevant surely?

[jonoslack]

I think Sean's tests are meticulous and interesting. I find it even more fascinating how the interpretations of his results vary from thinking the new M does very well, to thinking it does really badly. Even looking at the amount of noise (surely one could be objective about that) provoke radically different interpretations.

 

As for 1.3 stops. That's 2/3 way to the D600. Sounds good to me (but bad to others)

 

But here is my real problem with any kind of careful testing.

It ignores variations in both subject, distance and lighting

 

I don't take pictures of vegetables in controlled and even lighting! (Actually I do, but it's not the only thing I take pictures of)

 

For instance, some have said that ISO 6400 is worse than 2500 on the M9 (others the opposite). I don't need to get into that argument.

 

More to the point, what's ISO 6400 like in a concert environment? Or round a dinner table? (The answer is that in some lighting it's really excellent, and in others it isn't. (Just like every other camera).

 

My impression is that in most real low light situations that. M gives you around 1.5 to 2 stops advantage and much better colour. Of course, I can't prove it!

 

What I am sure of is that any kind of comparative photographic testing, however meticulously performed only goes to prove how impossible it is to get a consensus, and how little relevant it is to real world shooting.

 

........... Which is why I keep my tests to myself!

 

All the best

[andyedward]

Sean's review mentions that field testing will follow, which may well include the low light indoors Contra dance images he often posts in reviews on his site.

 

Regardless of the limitations of lighting, subject, distance, ad infinitum, Sean's review remains pertinent, valid and objective.

[AlanJW]

. The MM has an advantage over the M240 in all respects, including DR and high ISO performance. From looking at Reid's M240 vs. M9 shots, the M240 is only marginally better at low ISO's. Both high ISO and DR are improved over the M9, but then the M9 sensor is three years old....

 

Reid's review highlights just how good the M9 and MM are, and that the M240 offers a marginal improvement in image quality over the M9. I thought the hype surrounding the MM was just that, and the M240 would be the one to have. I was wrong.

 

There is one advantage of the M that is not mentioned. It can shoot in COLOR. For those if us who shoot both color and BW and who are not wealthy enough for both, the M is the way to go. The MM is a terrific tool but it is limited. For some this is an advantage, but for others it is not.

[andyedward]

There is one advantage of the M that is not mentioned. It can shoot in COLOR. For those if us who shoot both color and BW and who are not wealthy enough for both, the M is the way to go. The MM is a terrific tool but it is limited. For some this is an advantage, but for others it is not.

 

I do understand the M has the advantage of shooting color and is therefore a cheaper option than the MM plus 2nd camera for color.

Edited February 23, 2013 by andyedward

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[tgm]

I'

The MM has an advantage over the M240 in all respects, including DR and high ISO performance. From looking at Reid's M240 vs. M9 shots, the M240 is only marginally better at low ISO's. Both high ISO and DR are improved over the M9, but then the M9 sensor is three years old....

 

Reid's review highlights just how good the M9 and MM are, and that the M240 offers a marginal improvement in image quality over the M9. I thought the hype surrounding the MM was just that, and the M240 would be the one to have. I was wrong.

 

 

 

Actually, I am a great fan of careful test but I am not getting confused:

 

Look here,

 

All sizes | MM vs M9P ISO comparison copy | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

a comparison by Ming Thein betwen Leica MM and Leica M9. I see and advantage of clearly less than two stops for the MM, I would not call ISO 10000 terrific and I would say that his Leica M 240 shots at 6400 shown in his recent review are not so different in terms of noise as the MM images at 5000.

Edited February 23, 2013 by tgm