flyalf Posted March 11, 2013 Share #41 Posted March 11, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) For me its really hard to understand why so many seems so negative to DXOMark. Its one of the few that try to do objective test of sensor. It could be one of the two reasons; M9 owners feel that their precious get to low scores (no it dont, and to be honest it have some major flaws that are disregarded because their outside DXOmark scope) or people hate objective truths because they don't want to relate to facts. DOXOMark tests of sensors have noting to do with lens, artistic value of photos nor how much one enjoys a camera, so why bash them for what they do? Btw: M9 has been on DXOMark for quite a while, and as far as I can see their test are spot on according to low-light usage and dynamic range in real life photography. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 11, 2013 Posted March 11, 2013 Hi flyalf, Take a look here Leica and DxOMark {MERGED}. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
billo101 Posted March 11, 2013 Share #42 Posted March 11, 2013 The color rendering of the CCD in my opinion was not yet over today, not by DSLR and not by M240. b Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted March 11, 2013 Share #43 Posted March 11, 2013 For me its really hard to understand why so many seems so negative to DXOMark. Its one of the few that try to do objective test of sensor. I agree. I can't understand the hostility either. I have found DXOMARK very accurate in the past. Of course one needs to know how to read the graphs, a camera may offer better DR then another at low ISO, but this might deteriorate faster as the ISO is increased. I do recall on dpreview that when it rates a particular camera low the fanboys come out to denounce in droves. IMHO DXOMARK are therefore doing their job. There are no surprises in the M9 score, we all knew what we were getting into. Fanastic clarity at base ISO, mostly supplied by Leica lenses but a rapid deterioration as you whack up the ISO. The ME definitely has a new version circuit board (the arguments about the actual effect of this rage on), but also the M9-P and ME benefit from later versions of firmware which might have an effect over the original M9 firmware which DXOMARK originally tested the M9. In any event the difference is well within sample variation. Who cares .. move on! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted March 11, 2013 Share #44 Posted March 11, 2013 For me its really hard to understand why so many seems so negative to DXOMark. Its one of the few that try to do objective test of sensor. There would be fewer negative comments if they would make it clear that that’s what they do. The measurements are valid and useful; it is the various camera ‘scores’ that atttract criticism, and for good reason. Especially since many casual readers of these reviews don’t care about and/or don’t understand the actual measurements. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted March 11, 2013 Share #45 Posted March 11, 2013 The color rendering of the CCD in my opinion was not yet over today There is such thing as ‘the color rendering of the CCD’. It’s like talking about the square root of a sheep. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
billo101 Posted March 11, 2013 Share #46 Posted March 11, 2013 There is such thing as ‘the color rendering of the CCD’. It’s like talking about the square root of a sheep. Thank you. You're a nice person and polite. b Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MirekE Posted March 11, 2013 Share #47 Posted March 11, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) For me its really hard to understand why so many seems so negative to DXOMark. Its one of the few that try to do objective test of sensor. It could be one of the two reasons; M9 owners feel that their precious get to low scores (no it dont, and to be honest it have some major flaws that are disregarded because their outside DXOmark scope) or people hate objective truths because they don't want to relate to facts. As far as I know it is mostly the aggregated scores that fire up people. If I am not mistaken this is what started this discussion as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted March 11, 2013 Share #48 Posted March 11, 2013 DxOMark measures a lot of things which may be interesting for engineers who are designing digital imaging sensors but are entirely meaningless for photographers. It always was that way, and this always was the major of point of criticism from those with some basic technical comprehension—not just since Leica got a bad score. The problem is—many photographers cluelessly are taking DxOMark for gospel, and DxO Labs encourages them to. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted March 11, 2013 Share #49 Posted March 11, 2013 As far as I know it is mostly the aggregated scores that fire up people. If I am not mistaken this is what started this discussion as well. Absolutely. Testing specific parameters is one thing - and can be completely objective. Aggregating the test results is an irrelevant and pointless operation because it produces arbitrary overall score based on a few facets of the camera's performance, and fails to take into account many others. IMHO if DxO removed this aggregate score they would have a lot more credibility. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MirekE Posted March 11, 2013 Share #50 Posted March 11, 2013 It was my impression that the aggregate DxO scores penalize noisy sensors. That sort of explains the bad score for M9 and clones. But I was surprised to see the low color depth score. I thought Leica sacrificed some of the high iso performance to produce superior color. Can anybody explain how this is measured? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
manuela Posted March 12, 2013 Share #51 Posted March 12, 2013 It was my impression that the aggregate DxO scores penalize noisy sensors. That sort of explains the bad score for M9 and clones. But I was surprised to see the low color depth score. I thought Leica sacrificed some of the high iso performance to produce superior color. Can anybody explain how this is measured? DxOMark - Color sensitivity DxOMark - DxOMark testing protocols Does this help? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
glacierparkmagazine Posted March 14, 2013 Share #52 Posted March 14, 2013 I own both cameras and did a side-by-side at ISO 160 just for fun. The Leica M9 with a 21 mm f2.8 aspherical was noticeably sharper and had truer colors (blue skies, snow, skin tones) the D800 (with an admittedly poorer lens, an 18-35 zoom) was slightly less sharp and the colors were very nice, but just slightly less contrast. I suspect that if I had a Nikon 20 mm at my disposal results would have been a wash. The Leica 21 is a great lens and the DxO guys admit that they never put a Leica lens on a camera for their tests... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterP Posted March 14, 2013 Share #53 Posted March 14, 2013 Here is a link comparing M 240, M-E, and M-8 Leica M type 240 DxoMark score: better than the M9, not as good as Nikon's full frame cameras | Leica News & Rumors Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 14, 2013 Share #54 Posted March 14, 2013 And once again there is no indication of the amount of processing by the firmware... I do wish there were an objective way of comparing optimally processed files. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tanks Posted March 14, 2013 Share #55 Posted March 14, 2013 Here is a link comparing M 240, M-E, and M-8 Leica M type 240 DxoMark score: better than the M9, not as good as Nikon's full frame cameras | Leica News & Rumors Almost a 22% improvement in the overall score over M-E. Pretty telling I guess in the difference between the sensors. I guess justifies M being 28% more expensive than the M-E:p People bashing an objective test and mentioning subjective matters like photography skill, usability etc. reminds me of people that knock down automobile tests of sports cars. "Hey, you still gotta drive 65 on the highway, so my Chevy is still just as good as your Ferrari on the highway" . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 14, 2013 Share #56 Posted March 14, 2013 Agreed. I object to introducing an unquantified variable. i.e. in-camera noise reduction and other processing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted March 14, 2013 Share #57 Posted March 14, 2013 yes, but the test seems to be saying the M is the Chevy More telling is the comment above that they never tested using a Leica lens oh well, i never suffered sensor envy with my M9 and i doubt very much people will suffer with their M240. sometimes it is good to get off this forum for a bit and look at burn or other such sites and see what people today are creating with whatever camera. it snaps one back to the reality that the m8 m9 mm m240 etc are all more than good enough to create great, award winning, valuable, important and sometimes iconic images (isn't that what the leica blog and lfi have been showing us for years? although it seems a lot are also created with the m6). it's nice, fun, and ego rewarding (i can afford it!) to have and play with the latest greatest shiniest new toy on the block, let's just leave it at that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted March 14, 2013 Share #58 Posted March 14, 2013 I do wish there were an objective way of comparing optimally processed files. There is - its you. In our quest for ever better results we forget that we are the ultimate decider. I can compare two image by looking at them - and whilst difficult, its not impossible to obtain identical files if you are really that determined. Numbers are all very well, but just how many of us can translate them into visual image 'quality' I wonder? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted March 14, 2013 Share #59 Posted March 14, 2013 Not bad. About where I expected from recent reviews. The M9 rated dynamic range is 11.7. Add 1.5 stops to that and it comes in at 13.2. Pretty close to DxO's rating of 13.3 Evs for the M. Overall the individual numbers are very close to the top rated cameras. Wouldn't you say that sensor performance is now not a reason to buy all of these top cameras? It now has more to do with lenses, AF, MF, RF and other characteristics that would be important to an individual. Maybe, now we can concentrate on photography. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macjonny1 Posted March 14, 2013 Share #60 Posted March 14, 2013 Not bad. About where I expected from recent reviews. The M9 rated dynamic range is 11.7. Add 1.5 stops to that and it comes in at 13.2. Pretty close to DxO's rating of 13.3 Evsfor the M. Overall the individual numbers are very close to the top rated cameras. Wouldn't you say that sensor performance is now not a reason to buy all of these top cameras? It now has more to do with lenses' date=' AF, MF, RF and other characteristics that would be important to an individual. Maybe, now we can concentrate on photography.[/quote'] Agree there. It's like one car going top speed of 140 and the other going 152. I was surprised score bettered the canon 5d3! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.