jonoslack Posted February 25, 2013 Share #41 Posted February 25, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Nikon and Canon CMOS cameras have not generally improved their ISO performance between pre-production and final, because the redundant sampling noise reduction is hardwired on the sensor, unaffected by firmware. One of the reasons that none of the testers had the latest firmware is that it cannot be loaded without recalibrating the sensor. Just thought you might like to know! 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 25, 2013 Posted February 25, 2013 Hi jonoslack, Take a look here Sean Reid's M240 review raises a question. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
kirkwilliam3 Posted February 25, 2013 Share #42 Posted February 25, 2013 Hello Kirk I would seriously consider Jono's, Chris's, Erwin's comments regarding the M's move to a more M6, MP experience regarding shutter release, etc, as maybe worth ability to use even lower speeds negating even higher ISO requirements. I will purchase the M based on this alone, as the M9P, which I use, leaves lots to be desired in this area. Add in a stop or stop and a half ISO improvement, plus the other features and I think you cannot go wrong up- grading making your f2 lenses completely adequate. ( I too favor the f2"s ). Always nice to talk to another Kirk Kirkhttp://www.kitkwilliamphaling.com 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted February 25, 2013 Share #43 Posted February 25, 2013 Sorry, I can't agree. Your comment looks mean spirited and uncharitable. Sure, we all compromise, and we choose how we deliver our messages; but I don't see Jono, Chris, Ming, Sean or Erwin as unapologetic fan boys - these guys have the expertise to use the camera in ways which are either real life or empirical testing of limits. I don't think any of them held back to be assured of a supply of future cameras to test. They will test them anyway, even if they have to wait for formal release. If they pull their punches, and a camera they endorsed turns out to be a dud, they damage their reputations. I don't see any of them doing that. We don't know what they told Leica in their feedback - they will have given feedback directly to Leica. You may have a point on the banding issue - I know nothing about electronic camera development. I would guess, however, that Leica started with form and specification, then moved on to some form of bench testing, and once they were sure that the hardware worked reliably, they worked on the firmware; and in the last stage of development, they sort out the fine tuning of the firmware and deal with issues raised in beta testing. I don't know if the banding issue is big (like overheating, or coffee stains, or cracking sensors) or small (a software adjustment, like freezing), but I seriously doubt that Leica has been sitting on it for 5 months. They haven't told us what issues have come up or what they're doing about them, but that should come as no surprise. Cheers John Hi John, I think you forgot to mention mjh and his colleague from LFI. All these folks have done a great and honorable job providing their views and new information about the M240. I certainly am grateful to them for that. However, one also has to recognize the potential for the appearance of conflict of interest, if not outright conflict of interest. One just has to take that into account when reading their personal assessments IMHO. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jffielde Posted February 25, 2013 Share #44 Posted February 25, 2013 I could not agree more that the two regular posters on this forum who also regularly provide their thoughts on equipment are both gentlemen and magnificently talented photographers. I did not intend to imply anything to the contrary. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
photomeme Posted February 25, 2013 Share #45 Posted February 25, 2013 (edited) Once more you give a very free interpretation of what Sean Reid wrote. I do not find any foundation for your way of describing it in Reid's text. If one want's to compare, one might refer to my quotes from Reid's website: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/273235-ming-thein-leica-m-typ-240-a-3.html#post2325417 You skip over his concern about in-camera 'traditional' (i.e. median filter) noise reduction appearing at ISO 2500. He gives it a bit of a pass at ISO 2500. Although obvious, he says, it doesn't look too bad at that ISO level. But he also says it degrades image quality and resolution quickly as you move up from there. He's *not* talking about on-sensor double sampling style CMOS is famous for, but something that's been added on top in the firmware. Quite the surprise in a CMOS sensor release. Reid addresses the issue straight on, then tries to emphasize other positives. I see you have highlighted these other sections. I don't understand your omission of the destructive noise reduction issue from your summary of Reid's review. I am not interpreting his words, but attempting to summarize them as best I can, without trampling his copyright. Edited February 25, 2013 by photomeme Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
photomeme Posted February 25, 2013 Share #46 Posted February 25, 2013 One of the reasons that none of the testers had the latest firmware is that it cannot be loaded without recalibrating the sensor.Just thought you might like to know! Doesn't have anything to do with my comment. On sensor noise reduction won't be 'better' in a later release of the firmware, or after software level 'recalibration' of the sensor. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted February 25, 2013 Share #47 Posted February 25, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) HI There Reasonable suppositions - I thought I might chip in though. On the reviews, I think one has to keep in mind that all early reviewers have been fortunate enough to get a pre-release camera from Leica. If they were too harsh in reviewing the camera, they might not be among the lucky few who get the next pre-release camera / lens. Hmmm. well - you'll have noticed at the start of my review I wrote: This article is not meant to be a review. There are others better equipped to do that, and you should be aware that on the one hand I’m not an independent voice; as always, my loyalty as a camera tester is to Leica: If I find a problem, then I tell Leica, If I like something, then I tell everyone else! On the other hand I hope that I’m an honest correspondent, and I won’t say anything that I don’t really believe to be the case. I have an NDA with Leica, but I don't have an agreement to be kind to them! I hope they value me for my work (hard actually) and my insights, not because they think I'll be smarmy - and as someone else said, if you say it's fab and it turns out to be rubbish, then it doesn't do much for one's reputation! That isn't to say that people don't provide honest opinions anyway (for example, all early reviewers have noted banding at ISO 3200 and higher, but none have devoted the amount attention one might expect to such a concern), There are two relevant points here, one is personal and one isn't. Personally - I've taken literally hundreds of photos between 4000 ISO and 6400 ISO, and not a single one has been spoiled by banding (I have seen it in OOF shadow areas where it's easy to block in). I'm a practical guy - I care about things which affect my pictures. But it's hard to keep banging on about something which, in one's own experience, is acadamic. From a professional point of view, what banding I've seen has reduced with each of 4 firmware variations, there is another one before the camera is released. Like you, I don't believe that banding will be completely removed (which is why Leica have called these 'push') . It's hard to discuss a moving target meaningfully - but as you yourself pointed out, we have all mentioned it, and one thing I can say categorically is that there is no pressure from Leica WHATSOEVER to control what's said. but you have to take the reviews in the context of reviewers who wants to continue to receive early releases. These reviewers are in a precarious position in many ways, and must please lots of masters. You can think that, but I firmly believe that Leica want us to be honest, dishonesty will only produce a rod for everyone's back later on. We are no use to them as 'yes men'. Contrary to the hopeful speculation on the forums, I think the banding is here to stay. I don't think that Leica has waited - for dramatic effect - until the last month of the the five-year camera development cycle to deliver a solution to the most notable IQ issue the camera seems to have. That seems like a reasonable assesment - There is, however, a rather contrary argument to your world-weary assesment of our commitment (which you might not have considered), which is that we are all desperately careful not to have someone come back to us saying "You Said That Was Okay But It's Cr@p' Frankly, we get enough stick anyway, without righteous stick . Hey - I'm not trying to defend myself - it's fun testing the cameras, and I'd like to do it more. But not at the expense of my own comfort. It's pretty hard work as well, coming here and reading posts suggesting that one is just a pawn in Leica's masterplan is one of the downsides (by the way, I realise it wasn't meant personally). Still, what you should take comfort in, is that if you read Sean, Ming, and my separate reports, you'll find that they are remarkably consistent in their conclusios and criticisms. I can promise you that none of us new what the other was saying before publication. all the best 12 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgm Posted February 25, 2013 Share #48 Posted February 25, 2013 You skip over his concern about in-camera 'traditional' (i.e. median filter) noise reduction appearing at ISO 2500. He gives it a bit of a pass at ISO 2500. Although obvious, he says, it doesn't look too bad at that ISO level. But he also says it degrades image quality and resolution quickly as you move up from there. He's *not* talking about on-sensor double sampling style CMOS is famous for, but something that's been added on top in the firmware. Quite the surprise in a CMOS sensor release. . You are talking about raw of jpg files? The raw file exposed to ISO 5000 posted by Dr. Rohde show a lot of detail. What it is argument, that there is noise reduction in the camera software for ISO above 2500? Thomas Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted February 25, 2013 Share #49 Posted February 25, 2013 You skip over his concern about in-camera 'traditional' (i.e. median filter) noise reduction appearing at ISO 2500. Can you please quote the text by Sean Reid which you are referring to? He gives it a bit of a pass at ISO 2500. Although obvious, he says, it doesn't look too bad at that ISO level. But he also says it degrades image quality and resolution quickly as you move up from there. He's *not* talking about on-sensor double sampling style CMOS is famous for, but something that's been added on top in the firmware. Quite the surprise in a CMOS sensor release. Can you please quote the text, where he talks of degradation of image quality and resolution? Reid addresses the issue straight on, then tries to emphasize other positives. I see you have highlighted these other sections. I don't understand your omission of the destructive noise reduction issue from your summary of Reid's review. I am not interpreting his words, but attempting to summarize them as best I can, without trampling his copyright. I did quote Reid's statement about noise filtering in his comparison between M9 and M. In his comparison between black and white results, which includes the Monochrom there are other statements: "At ISO 2500 one could also argue that the resized M files and the MM file compare more closely in terms of noise. I'd still give the nod to the Monochrome but it's closer than it was at lower ISOlevels, That may be due in part, however, to the M applying a little bit of noise filtering to its high ISO DNG files." For ISO 3200: "At this rather important ISO level (it's the M's ISO ceiling before moing into "push" settings) things get quite interesting. Comparing full size M file to the MM file one could debate the noise advantages of each for some time. But once the M file is downsized to match the pixel dimensions of the MM file it looks, to my eyes at least, a little cleaner. But, at the same time, it does look like the M file noise has been smoothed somewhat in-camera. The smothing is quite mild, but it is visible. So, of course, one must consider that the noise from the MM could also be filtered if one desired. As such,its rather har to say whgich of the two cameras does better at this ISO level." For ISO 6400: "Once again, it seems clear that there is a bit of noise smoothing applied to the file from the M(240). The noise from the MM, on the other hand, seems more prominent but also seems unfiltered and distributed more evenly across the frame (as film grain would be)..." Now please read your statements to which I responded again and compare them to my quotes. Please tell me which statements about "degrading image quality and resolution quickly" (for the M240) I omitted. Where do you find the expression "destructive noise reduction issue" of which you accuse me that I omitted it? Giving evidence for what really has been said if one states that something was said does not mean trampling copyright. Without evidence for your interpretation I shall go on calling your interpretation a very free and unfounded interpretation far away from the text you refer to. 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Printmaker Posted February 25, 2013 Share #50 Posted February 25, 2013 Maybe not quite as much anymore. Used prices of summilux 50mm ASPH are about $800 less than last year! That's only because Leica has stepped up production. There were all kinds of scalpers out there when there was a shortage of popular lenses. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thompsonkirk Posted February 25, 2013 Author Share #51 Posted February 25, 2013 Hi Kirk, how do you find the 35mm summicron v4 at f/2 ? mine was very soft - requiring a large grained film like TMZ 3200 to give it an edge. The 35 summilux ASPH full open really amazed me. However I must admit with the 50/1.4 and even sometimes the 28/2, if there is much action going on - the only solution is using a much higher ISO to boost both the depth of field and shutter speed. Hi Donald, My 35 Summicron v4 is much better than that at F2, as is my 40 cron. This was not the case, however, with my v1, which was useless wide open (despite the prices people are willing to pay for them!). We recently checked Ingeborg's v2 and v3 – one fine, the other less so, @ f2. But these may be matters of re-calibration of elderly lenses to new digital bodies – if not sharp, maybe time to have lens & body calibrated together, rather than blame the lens. I'm going to have Youxin do that with my M4 and its 35 pre-a Lux. By 'much better,' I mean a gentle and proper vintage look, not the precision of the FLE. As you probably know, my favorite 50 is a Zeiss Sonnar-C in either ZM (digital) or Nikon S (film) mount. I'm trying to retreat from precision – I went too far in that direction and thought the prints looked less engaging. Kirk Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thompsonkirk Posted February 25, 2013 Author Share #52 Posted February 25, 2013 (edited) Hello Kirk I would seriously consider Jono's, Chris's, Erwin's comments regarding the M's move to a more M6, MP experience regarding shutter release, etc, as maybe worth ability to use even lower speeds negating even higher ISO requirements. I will purchase the M based on this alone.... Always nice to talk to another Kirk Kirkhttp://www.kitkwilliamphaling.com Hi Kirk W., You've hit a point I hadn't considered properly. My M8 and M9 shutter releases could only be described as 'unfortunate,' and I think I've lost a stop/shutter speed because of their glitchy movement. Whenever I use my M4 or Nikon RFs, I notice how much smoother they are than M8/9. Perhaps with an M240 we'll gain a stop from the smooth shutter release as well as from higher ISO. Kirk T. Edited February 25, 2013 by thompsonkirk 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted February 25, 2013 Share #53 Posted February 25, 2013 Hi John, I think you forgot to mention mjh and his colleague from LFI. True - an omission made in haste. However, one also has to recognize the potential for the appearance of conflict of interest, if not outright conflict of interest. As a lawyer (sorry), I get a bit twitchy when people use expressions which also have reasonably precise legal meaning - rule of law, conflict of interest and natural justice spring to mind. At its most banal, a conflict of interest is a personal interest at odds with the function a person is discharging - for example, a judge deciding a case where he is a shareholder in one of the patries or where his wife is a member of an advocacy group committed to an outcome (Lord Hoffman, on both counts). At the opposite side of the issue, it is impossible, in my experience, to find an expert in a field who does not have experience with the subject matter, and preferences or affiliations of some sort. The issue, as iffield not unreasonably observes, is to identify those preferences, and the background and affiliations of the reviewer. There would be little point in Steve Huff reviewing the M camera (he'd still be overheated from the excitement, and writing EVERYTHING IN CAPITALS - sorry, apparently nice guy, but a little overly effusive in his views of new equipment), or Lloyd Chambers (the great finder of fatal flaws in equipment, which seem to have no real relevance). Of the identified reviewers, let's then look at their "conflict of interest": Michael Hussman - an interesting and intelligent guy, it seems. Writes reviews for LFI, and seems to have a detailed knowledge of sensors and things digital. We know that LFI is a promotional mag for Leica, and indirectly he may be paid by Leica, or at least gets the kudos of writing for a Leica publication - is that a problem? If he writes that the M is rubbish, they might not ask him to write for LFI again (I doubt they'd publish his piece anyway). If he found that camera was rubbish, I suspect he'd tell Leica, and he wouldn't publish until they fixed the problem and he had something nice to say ... Whoever writes such a review for LFI is going to get access to the camera. If it's not Michael, it will be someone else. Does Michael write empty, superlative and misleading reviews, hiding problems and inducing people to buy the camera under false pretences? No idea, but it doesn't fit with what I've seen of the guy. Sean Reid - an established tester. He claims to have had a hand in planning the concept of the M. He reviews lots of equipment, and his website is an important source of income for him apparently. If he falls out with Leica, he can still buy, rent or borrow the equipment he needs for testing. Does he have a vested interest in writing fawning reviews? Erwin Puts - the font of wisdom on all things Leica. People live to point out the inconsistencies in his reviews and opinions, but his knowledge of Leica lenses and cameras is encyclopaedic. I for one find his reviews helpful, and I have his compendium and other books. Should we take his views with a grain of salt? Probably, but I'm not sure he has a conflict of interest - he writes about Leica stuff. If he was a shareholder, would that make a difference? Ming Thein - a professional photographer who uses a Nikon 800E, an OM-D, a Hasselblad, and has had an M9. What does he gain from promoting the M, and hiding its faults? Jono and Chris - members of this forum and professional photographers. It seems neither get free or cheap cameras (Jono wants a Monochrom, but can't justify the expense). They are what they are, and I'd have to say that I have benefited from their reviews. Had I not had the chance to play with Jono's Monochrom DNG files, I would not have bought that camera. I don't think he got a cut. A long winded response, and you may know more than you are prepared to let on. But the thing is that there is the world of difference between understanding comments from a person with particular preference (imagine a Digilloyd review saying the latest Leica camera was perfect, and value for money, or Ken Rockwell saying anything of value), and alleging that they have a direct personal interest in the outcome of what they say. Alleging a conflict of interest suggests that those who have provided reviews may have expressed opinions they don't believe, or not said adverse things, because they have a person interest in the success of the M camera. Is that really justified? I'd be amazed if any of the above pull their punches because they want to keep getting cameras to review - that is a churlish suggestion to my mind. I may be wrong, but we have no evidence to support this. Cheers John 15 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
-ph- Posted February 25, 2013 Share #54 Posted February 25, 2013 Sorry, but I just cannot get, how one can "review" a camera without a finished firmware. Sure, the final firmware won't give magical 2 stops less noise. However, if the banding played a role in the evaluation, that is something that surely can be tweaked with changes to the read out process. The ISO 6400 images I saw from the M in Lightroom, easily could compete with my M9 shots at ISO 1600, but to say that exactly, I would need to compare shots taken with both cameras, and of course both with final firmware. In the absence of that, I would postpone discussion till some tests with the final M firmware are available to the public. Peter Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted February 25, 2013 Share #55 Posted February 25, 2013 Sorry, but I just cannot get, how one can "review" a camera without a finished firmware. Sure, the final firmware won't give magical 2 stops less noise. However, if the banding played a role in the evaluation, that is something that surely can be tweaked with changes to the read out process. The ISO 6400 images I saw from the M in Lightroom, easily could compete with my M9 shots at ISO 1600, but to say that exactly, I would need to compare shots taken with both cameras, and of course both with final firmware. In the absence of that, I would postpone discussion till some tests with the final M firmware are available to the public. Peter HI Peter It's pretty clear that none of the recent articles are 'reviews' - and they don't claim to be. That some other people have called them reviews is a different issue. However, it doesn't mean that what has been said is worth nothing. Things may (or may not) improve with the final firmware, but it seems unlikely that they'll get worse! all the best Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted February 25, 2013 Share #56 Posted February 25, 2013 Hi Kirk W., You've hit a point I hadn't considered properly. My M8 and M9 shutter releases could only be described as 'unfortunate,' and I think I've lost a stop/shutter speed because of their glitchy movement. Whenever I use my M4 or Nikon RFs, I notice how much smoother they are than M8/9. Perhaps with an M240 we'll gain a stop from the smooth shutter release as well as from higher ISO. Kirk T. HI Kirk All I can do is suggest that if you have respect for your credit card - don't try the shutter on an M - for me it is still the single most important change between it and the M9. all the best 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
-ph- Posted February 25, 2013 Share #57 Posted February 25, 2013 HI PeterIt's pretty clear that none of the recent articles are 'reviews' - and they don't claim to be. That some other people have called them reviews is a different issue. However, it doesn't mean that what has been said is worth nothing. Things may (or may not) improve with the final firmware, but it seems unlikely that they'll get worse! all the best Hi Jono, I was only referring to the article by Sein Reid. By what I read in this thread, I got the impression it was a kind of review. I am happy to be wrong there, but then all this discussion about how many stops of noise is a bit early. I really appreciated your arcticle on the M with some really great shots! Best regards, Peter 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted February 25, 2013 Share #58 Posted February 25, 2013 It is quite easy to read Sean Reid's third sentence of his article about studio tests of a beta version: "I will do a formal review, of a production-level camera, when production test units become available to myself and other journalists." "I will do .. when" does not mean "I did". 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted February 25, 2013 Share #59 Posted February 25, 2013 Hi John, Thanks for your long explanations. I don't have a problem with what you wrote. And I am not a lawyer. Please, note I also used the phrase of "potential for the appearance of conflict of interest". That really is in the eye of the beholder. In politics that's certainly an important issue. All I am really saying is that the "appearance" part seems to be on some folks' mind. It certainly should not reflect badly on the folks mentioned by name. Of course, that all these reviews appear at the same time would indicate to me a coordinated effort with Leica. Also, getting early access to an M tends to indicate a special relationship between Leica and that person. I don't see anything wrong with that as long as it is out in the open as it appears to be. If I offended in any way I apologize. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted February 25, 2013 Share #60 Posted February 25, 2013 Of course, that all these reviews appear at the same time would indicate to me a coordinated effort with Leica. Also, getting early access to an M tends to indicate a special relationship between Leica and that person. I don't see anything wrong with that as long as it is out in the open as it appears to be. If I offended in any way I apologize. Hi there certainly I wasn't offended, and I'm sure nobody else was. There was a date when we could publish our work (22nd?). that's why it seemed co-ordinated (because it was). If you're testing a camera there needs to be a special relationship, and of course there is. all the best 2 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.