Reid Reviews M, M9 and Monochrom Files Compared

[BerndReini]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I sense that a lot of people are disappointed by the improvement over the M9. 1.5 stops over the last camera is a big improvement, so is the faster processor, live-view and all the other upgrades.

 

We had the same thing happen when the M9 came out. I really find that the M8 was a revolutionary camera. Unfortunately, we have come to a point where improvements are now evolutionary, and everyone has to figure out for themselves whether the upgrade is worth buying the new M if you already own an M9. I have been struggling with this myself since the M9 is a really great camera. Then again, a Leica is definitely a luxury, and if you can afford it, why not get the new one, right?

 

When there is a camera (and I am sure there will be) that shoots 24fps at ISO25,000 and 20mp, the fun of photography is over. Think about it.

[wlaidlaw]

Got the e-mail as well.

Given the valuable and detailed reviews, I would happily pay to be come a subscriber again BUT THE TINY FLASH WINDOW IS TOO PAINFUL.

Please, please give us a secured PDF option.

 

I told Sean that although I really liked his articles, I just could not live with the flash site, flaky scrolling and slow loading, so after three years, I did not renew. I agree - secured PDF or HTML5 is the way to go.

 

Wilson

[Advertisement]

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

[Guest borge]

When there is a camera (and I am sure there will be) that shoots 24fps at ISO25,000 and 20mp, the fun of photography is over. Think about it.

 

The Sony RX1 already shoots extremely good high quality images at ISO 25,600 at 24mp.. not at 24fps though.

 

I guess that's why many people are sort of disappointed by the performance of the new M. Rightfully so when compared to the RX1 for example (which is a extremely good camera and lens also at a premium price - though the autofocus is slow and annoying in dim-lit situations).

[jonoslack]

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.

 

Hi Andy. I wasn't for a second criticising Sean's excellent work. But the wildly varying interpretations of it.

[rirakuma]

I personally think the high ISO on the MM is somewhat pleasing (when viewing the entire picture) and plus the MM doesn't have banding issues like the M. I don't mind the high ISO noise on the M but I find the banding extremely distracting. I hope that they will eventually fix it but I'm not going to hold my breath.

 

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.

[tgm]

The Sony RX1 already shoots extremely good high quality images at ISO 25,600 at 24mp.. not at 24fps though.

 

I guess that's why many people are sort of disappointed by the performance of the new M. Rightfully so when compared to the RX1 for example (which is a extremely good camera and lens also at a premium price - though the autofocus is slow and annoying in dim-lit situations).

 

Actually, the image qualitly of the RX-1 at ISO 25.600 is not very good:

 

 

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 Review: Digital Photography Review

 

From what I have seen so far, I would judge that the M 240 and Sony RX-1 and also the Nikon D600 are pretty close, what puzzles me ist that Sean Reid comes to different conclusions ( and it seems that he did a very careful test). I can not follow his conclusion.

 

Just compare:

 

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

 

All sizes | M240 noise test | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

In terms of noise the MM at ISO 5000 not so differnt from M 240 at 6400, MM at ISO 10000 is clarly much worse.

 

Thomas

[Guest borge]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Actually, the image qualitly of the RX-1 at ISO 25.600 is not very good:

 

 

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 Review: Digital Photography Review

 

From what I have seen so far, I would judge that the M 240 and Sony RX-1 and also the Nikon D600 are pretty close, what puzzles me ist that Sean Reid comes to different conclusions ( and it seems that he did a very careful test). I can not follow his conclusion.

 

Just compare:

 

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

 

All sizes | M240 noise test | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

In terms of noise the MM at ISO 5000 not so differnt from M 240 at 6400, MM at ISO 10000 is clarly much worse.

 

Thomas

 

I disagree. Considering that the RX1 shoots at 25,600 ISO the quality is very good - especially for B&W - I think. And I have played with it, and have friends that own it and use it for this type of stuff.

 

It's impossible to compare it to any Leica, since there are no Leica's that can come close to ISO 25,600 anyway, including the new and unreleased M.

 

I wouldn't put the RX1's 25,600 ISO shots too far from my MM's ISO 10,000 shots, and the RX1 pulls it off at 1,5 stops higher.

[tgm]

I disagree. Considering that the RX1 shoots at 25,600 ISO the quality is very good - especially for B&W - I think. And I have played with it, and have friends that own it and use it for this type of stuff.

 

It's impossible to compare it to any Leica, since there are no Leica's that can come close to ISO 25,600 anyway, including the new and unreleased M.

 

I wouldn't put the RX1's 25,600 ISO shots too far from my MM's ISO 10,000 shots, and the RX1 pulls it off at 1,5 stops higher.

 

Please don't get me wrong, for 25.600 ISO the quality of the Sony RX1 is good. However, I repeat that in terms of sensor noise the RX1 seems to be slightly worse the nikon d600, and ist expected to be similar to the M 240

 

Nikon D600 In-Depth Review: Digital Photography Review

 

 

It is sufficient to compare the noise at one ISO level, e.g. ISO 6400. The noise is photon statistics and read out noise. Changing the ISO setting does not change the noise, it makes it only more visible since dark parts become midrange.

 

By the way, you can shoot a Leica at ISO 10.000 or even 20.000, I did it with the M9, just use exposure correction.

 

Anyhow, it will be interesting to see were the M240 really stands. I am hoping that dpreview and/or DXOlabs test it soon. Then we can really compare

[ramosa]

The Sony RX1 already shoots extremely good high quality images at ISO 25,600 at 24mp.. not at 24fps though.

 

I guess that's why many people are sort of disappointed by the performance of the new M. Rightfully so when compared to the RX1 for example (which is a extremely good camera and lens also at a premium price - though the autofocus is slow and annoying in dim-lit situations).

 

The intrigue of the RX1 fades dramatically for me when considering its only adequate auto focus (which you note), but also its lack of a built-in viewfinder. (I just don't like using external viewfinders on any camera.)

[Guest borge]

The intrigue of the RX1 fades dramatically for me when considering its only adequate auto focus (which you note), but also its lack of a built-in viewfinder. (I just don't like using external viewfinders on any camera.)

 

Yup I know. I tried it quickly and the AF was slow. The main reason that I went with Leica was proper mechanical manual focusing and the rangefinder mechanism.

 

I will probably end up purchasing a Fuji X100s to bring with me every day at work and wherever I go which is cheaper than the RX1, offers the same focal length and is even smaller. The X100s AF speed is supposed to be great due to the PDAF + CDAF combination. My Leica kit (MM + 35/50 Summilux's) is just way too expensive to bring along in my laptop back while I am at work every day. I work as a consultant and bring my laptop often at different locations several times a week, and often I am away from the desk where my laptop + bag is stored (lunch, meeting, coffee machine, etc, etc) and I would never be comfortable leaving my Leica kit in a bag at a random desk while doing those things... Which kind of sucks.

[tgm]

 

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

..

 

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.

..

 

 

Actually, I compared a lot of files, analysed the noise of M240, M9 and Nikon D600 images with Noise Ninja and come to the conclusion that both, the M240 and the D600 are a littles than two stops (1,5-1,8) ahead of the M9 (compared to ISO 1600). These numbers for the M9 and D600 are very consistent with DXOmark low iso numbers. Whether the M240 or the D600 has less noise (at ISO 3200) I can't tell, the differences are in within the error bars (exposure, shutter speed, aperture). That the most recent cameras are so close ( the Canon 6D has almost the same noise) is may be not so sursing. The sensors have reached the physical limits, read out noise close to one electron and quantum efficiency of more than 50%. With new technology (back iluminated sensors) an improvment of 1 stop may be possible. But that's it, not only for the next five years, I think also for the next decade(s?).

 

So, from what we have seen so far we should not be dissapointed by the M240, it is almost the best what we can get, at least in terms of image noise.

 

 

Thomas

[Rick]

Actually, the auto focus is great in anything but low light. This is all getting to be one of those internet folklore examples where someone writes something and it gets repeated over and over until people believe the camera can't focus at all in any light.

 

I have the camera and I am amazed how quickly and accurately it focuses in all but poor light. My experience over the last week with the RX1 is that in poor lighting the RX1 hunts. I'm talking about lighting that you would start to have trouble seeing the RF patch.

 

Comparing it to a good DSLR, it is close behind in good light and in poor light there would be a big difference. The RX1 usually gets there but, it can take several seconds.

 

Put even another way, last night I shot friends that were over in low room lighting with the RX1 with no problems with focus or ISO noise. The conditions breached well into that zone where we wouldn't want to use our M9.

 

 

*Shooting with the RX1 this week has made me very excited to get the new M. Looking at all of these beta photos, especially the incredible photographs Jone posted on his site Testing the Leica M (240) this week, I can tell that the new M is going to be like the RX1. How close? Will it beat it? Will it be slightly noisier on tests of vegetables? IT WILL NOT MATTER.

 

If, the M is anything close to the RX1 (I think it is very close) it is going to be fantastic to take photos with.

[Jeff S]

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.

 

And for some, like me, it's less an issue of cost than workflow. I don't want to be forced to carry 2 cameras if I want the color/bw option. I sometimes carry 2 cameras anyway, but that may be for travel back-up, for quick access to 2 lenses, etc, but that's my choice, not a necessity.

 

Also, for me, since I don't print huge or shoot at extreme ISOs, any of the digital Ms are fully capable of producing pretty damn good results if I do my job well. So, much of my decision process on the best camera for my needs, assuming IQ is adequate, involves its reliability and ease of use, and getting the camera 'out of the way' as much as possible. I care about how well I can see, frame and focus on the subject, without having the camera intrude with lock-ups, shutter noise, weather related failure, etc.

 

Toward this end, I'm encouraged by the early judgment on the IQ of the new M, and expect that it will be sufficient for my needs. Beyond that, I embrace the many incremental improvements such as 2m frame lines, illuminated lines, quieter shutter, faster processing, longer battery life, and weather sealing,etc. (Anything else is gravy, as long as it doesn't get in the way.) The MM is a fantastic option for many, but it offers none of these operational improvements that have practical meaning for me, let alone its inability to shoot color, and the inability to use color channels for PP. So, it's not just cost.

 

At the end of the day, most people who look at a print have no idea what camera (or lens) was used. The issue is whether it works practically for the photographer to achieve the results intended. We now have one more great choice to consider; that is meaningful for some, not for others.

 

Jeff

[jonoslack]

 

So, from what we have seen so far we should not be dissapointed by the M240, it is almost the best what we can get, at least in terms of image noise.

 

 

Thomas

Hi Thomas. I'm sure you've done more work on this than I have, I'm quite happy to accept your findings. (Ie they're all fine: choose your poison!).

All the best