Leica and DxOMark {MERGED}

[mmradman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I didn't think I'd enjoy the rangefinder focusing, and viewed leica M bodies as a compromise that enabled me to use M lenses, but fortunately I've grown to love the rangefinder and much prefer it to manually focusing my R9

 

Fully concur, for me list of advantages in order of importance (1) superlative optics, (2) full frame small size camera & (3) RF.

[IkarusJohn]

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.

 

So you can objectively say your images are better?

 

I have no interest in such testing as my eyes are very happy with what the lens, sensor and firmware produce.

 

The angst is intriguing.

[jaapv]

:confused:That is exactly the opposite of my post....It was a discussion of testing methodology of the sensor/camera not my images....

Your second sentence echoes my thoughts.

Maybe read the thread?

[barjohn]

Jono,

I too like range finder as a manual focusing means except when light is low ans I can't see when it is in focus. Notwithstanding that personal preference, I would not value it so highly that I would pay thousands more to have it. Fast and accurate AF has higher value. The thing I like about the Leica lenses is their small size and manual aperture control. Some are truly exceptional and some are not. It would be nice if they offered a similar sized lens with AF ability. Having tried my Leica lenses on various cameras with adapters, I can say that the sensor/design does make a difference. In many cases result were worse than with inferior kit lenses so how well the lens mates to the sensor design is clearly a factor. That is further eveidenced by cameras like the Fuji X100 and the Sony RX-1.

 

As to DXO Mark, all things being equal, it is probably no coincidence that cameras that are considered generally excellent are in the top tier so MF cameras like the Phase One IQ180 are up near the top despite its low high ISO scores and cameras like the Olympus XZ-1 are near the bottom even though it produces very nice snap shots.

[IWC Doppel]

I am very comfortable to accept accurate measurements in context of the relevance of the test. A full assessment is more than a test and I doubt if all of the subtleties of an image captured by a camera and lens are perfectly mapped by current tests. If MTF's told a you needed to know about the rendering of a lens I would have kept my Summicron ASPH 35 and not referred a MkIV.

 

I would also dislike my 75 Summilux at f1.4...

 

I look forward to seeing more images by the M240 I have no interest on seeing more by the Nikon D800E or a number of other cameras that's guy score well...

[jonoslack]

Jono,

I too like range finder as a manual focusing means except when light is low ans I can't see when it is in focus. .

I can - you need to practice more

Notwithstanding that personal preference, I would not value it so highly that I would pay thousands more to have it. Fast and accurate AF has higher value. .

Well, higher value to you perhaps. I've used AF for years, and the problem always is that it makes unilateral decisions about WHAT it's going to focus on fast and accurately - manual focus is usually slower (although sometimes not with a rangefinder) but it has the real benefit of allowing you to choose exactly what you want to focus on.

Having tried my Leica lenses on various cameras with adapters, I can say that the sensor/design does make a difference. In many cases result were worse than with inferior kit lenses so how well the lens mates to the sensor design is clearly a factor. That is further eveidenced by cameras like the Fuji X100 and the Sony RX-1.

 

But the point is that these cameras may be lovely, but they're fixed focal length 35mm cameras - no interchangeable lenses. . . it's like saying a train is better than a car.

 

As for Leica lenses - I think you've just constructed the perfect argument for using them on . . . a Leica camera!

 

As to DXO Mark, all things being equal, it is probably no coincidence that cameras that are considered generally excellent are in the top tier so MF cameras like the Phase One IQ180 are up near the top despite its low high ISO scores and cameras like the Olympus XZ-1 are near the bottom even though it produces very nice snap shots.

 

Sorry - the DxO marks are really useful and interesting, but they do not take into account lots of factors which are relevant to photographers. I admire the methodology, and I find the results useful (just like MTF values are useful). When cameras like the Pentax K5 are right up there, and ahead of the Canon 5D MIII you need to have pause for thought. Mind you, the new M is above both of these (FWIW).

 

John - clearly from your posts you value technical IQ above all else - even to the extent of limiting yourself to a camera with a fixed lens and a single focal length. Fine, but most of us value our cameras for their ability to allow us to take interesting images

[barjohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Jono,

 

All the practice in the world doesn't make up for aging eyes (I wish it did).

 

Yes, AF has higher value to me for precisely the reason that my eye sight is not what it once was, even with glasses. Additionally, it can focus faster than I can and is right far more often than it is wrong or I am right using MF.

 

I can only say in my experience so far, Leica lenses do work better (IMHO) on a Leica body because the sensor has been calibrated to their lenses, at least some of the newer ones. Some of the pre-digital ones don't seem as sharp on a digital sensor to me.

 

While, I may have given the impression that technical IQ is the most important thing to me and while I would admit it is very high up on my weighting scale, other factors like size, weight, AF speed and accuracy, low light performance and cost are all considerations. If high IQ at low ISO were my only criteria I would have all three DPxMs as I think their images at low ISO puts anything other than medium format to shame.

[jonoslack]

Jono,

 

All the practice in the world doesn't make up for aging eyes (I wish it did).

 

Sorry, I don't agree. I've got ageing eyes as well. I do a bad compromise with differential contact lenses, but I can still focus when the dioptre is really wrong. On the other hand, if you aren't into the rangefinder thing, why would you bother to do the practicing? Glasses are always a catastrophe though!

Yes, AF has higher value to me for precisely the reason that my eye sight is not what it once was, even with glasses. Additionally, it can focus faster than I can and is right far more often than it is wrong or I am right using MF.

 

I can only say in my experience so far, Leica lenses do work better (IMHO) on a Leica body because the sensor has been calibrated to their lenses, at least some of the newer ones. Some of the pre-digital ones don't seem as sharp on a digital sensor to me.

 

While, I may have given the impression that technical IQ is the most important thing to me and while I would admit it is very high up on my weighting scale, other factors like size, weight, AF speed and accuracy, low light performance and cost are all considerations. If high IQ at low ISO were my only criteria I would have all three DPxMs as I think their images at low ISO puts anything other than medium format to shame.

 

Well, Well. All you are saying is that you don't much appreciate rangefinders (which is fine -even if its on the basis of cost) . In which case it would be silly to buy one. But it isn't necessary to invoke DxO to qualify that decision.

 

If you DO like a rangefinder, then the image quality of the M is perfectly fine. If you don't, there's no need to invoke DxO to find a reason for not buying one.

 

 

 

All the best

[Guest Duane Pandorf]

I don't know why I've been following this thread but thought I'd add all of my .02 to the conversation.

 

I have owned my first Leica digital body (M-E) for a whole 2 months. It has exceeded all of my expectations. I had never bothered in the past nor maybe ever heard of DxO's testing to have paid any attention. The only reason I know about them now is I happen to finally own a FF camera and the forums I now follow have highlighted this organization.

 

I knew before I bought this camera that the M 240 was on its way. However the little bit I knew about prior Leica waiting lists (just look at any of the online camera stores and see all of the Leica products that are backordered) I knew I didn't have a chance to purchase the M anytime soon.

 

One of the biggest reasons I have bought into the Leica system is its "simplicity, size and durability" period. Quality, reputation, name brand etc all come second to me.

 

I travel every other week for my job and want to always have a camera with me and one that I can enjoy shooting with. The Nikon DSLR I have I quit carrying years ago due to its size. It had auto focus but there were many times in even normal lighting conditions it didn't function correctly.

 

Then came the Ricoh GXR and M mount. I really only learned about the Leica name in real practice in past year when I found a reasonably priced Leica 40mm lens to shoot with. Shortly after I bought a v2 35mm Summicron to get to 50mm FOV. I thought I was in heaven.

 

But then the battery clip broke on the camera. Then the EVF started acting finicky. It developed a short and became a pain in the ass. I'm sorry but I refuse to take pictures with a camera outstretched in front of me.

 

The Sony RX1 or whatever may have a great sensor and FIXED lens but that's what limits you. Fixed lens and the EVF to shoot at eye level sticking off the camera. Sorry no dice for me. I guess they'd have to come out with the RX2 with 50mm and RX3 with a wide angle fixed lens and then the RX4 with 90mm to cover all the ranges I have the option for in my Leica M body.

 

I'll shut up now and go back to lurking mode.

[pgk]

It was I think Thom Hogan (Nikon reviewer) who deducted that even poor optics paired with excellent sensor will produce good image quality- assuming photographer knows what he/she is doing.

Well, if it was he was completely WRONG. You cannot get out of something more than you put in. If image data is missing due to poor optics, no sensor can create it. Simple and straightforward! Oh, and the photographer can't induce it either, no matter how good.....

[mmradman]

Well, if it was he was completely WRONG. You cannot get out of something more than you put in. If image data is missing due to poor optics, no sensor can create it. Simple and straightforward! Oh, and the photographer can't induce it either, no matter how good.....

 

Of course you need input to get output but we are not talking about lenses no better than bottom of milk bottles but lenses that are not as good as the very best ones especially at full F stop.

 

What TH asserted is that with high res sensor and mediocre lens you get better image than with low res sensor and same lens.

 

In my own experience 12MP sensor on my D700 turned better image with R lenses than comparable Nikkors, maybe manual vs auto focus has something to do with this, and Nikon optic is not to be sniffed at. Diminishing returns play into this, every Summilux M lens cost me up to 10x or more than Nikkor SLR lens equivalent but hey I am not complaining.

[dwbell]

I've used AF for years, and the problem always is that it makes unilateral decisions about WHAT it's going to focus on fast and accurately - manual focus is usually slower (although sometimes not with a rangefinder) but it has the real benefit of allowing you to choose exactly what you want to focus on.

 

I've always been confused by this when people say it here. Hopefully your the measured man that can explain it to me. As a canon AF shooter and an M9 shooter for the last 3 years I simply don't have the AF problem you describe? Centre AF point, set to non expanded, place it on the eye, focus, shoot. Even at 1.2 on the 85L the thing I point it at is in focus? Where's the unilateral decision coming into it?

 

Not looking for a fight, especially not with you Jono. I genuinely don't understand this user experience I keep seeing?

[mmradman]

As there is sloppy manual focusing there is also sloppy auto focussing.

 

My 2c, modern SLR/DSLRs are capable cameras but getting best out of AF system requires sometimes bit more than selecting auto everything and point & shoot. I managed many sharp & well focussed images from 85mm f1.4 AFD fully open so it is possible. You could call it automated manual focusing - using single point AF instead of multi pattern focusing.

[kdriceman]

I've always been confused by this when people say it here. Hopefully your the measured man that can explain it to me. As a canon AF shooter and an M9 shooter for the last 3 years I simply don't have the AF problem you describe? Centre AF point, set to non expanded, place it on the eye, focus, shoot. Even at 1.2 on the 85L the thing I point it at is in focus? Where's the unilateral decision coming into it?

 

Not looking for a fight, especially not with you Jono. I genuinely don't understand this user experience I keep seeing?

 

You are right and Jono is right. I shoot Canon AF a great deal and with static subjects this is true. In a dynamic environment I prefer the RF focus because if I'm focusing through a narrow opening in say, moving people, I know I've got what I want with the RF even if something moves in front of my subject. Or, often I will pre focus on a subject so I can wait for the right moment and then put the camera down (or redirect) so I'm not standing there with a camera pointed at a subject, waiting. Then when you get that right moment, and quickly recompose, you don't want to risk the AF picking up something behind or in front of the subject. There are ways to handle it with an AF system, (I do it all the time when shooting sports) but I find it is just a little more inconvenient or adds an additional step than the very simple and straightforward RF.

[pgk]

What TH asserted is that with high res sensor and mediocre lens you get better image than with low res sensor and same lens.

Not quite the same as the statement in your original post, and even so it is only true to a certain extent. Oversampling poor data still can't make up for its deficiencies.

 

My experience of R lenses on my 5D2 is that some are still superb by current, stat-of-the-art lens standards, but others are showing the age of their designs and simply may not perform as well as newer designs from either Nikon or Canon (depending on your 'quality parameters' of course - isn't this where this thread started?).

[mmradman]

 

My experience of R lenses on my 5D2 is that some are still superb by current, stat-of-the-art lens standards, but others are showing the age of their designs and simply may not perform as well as newer designs from either Nikon or Canon (depending on your 'quality parameters' of course - isn't this where this thread started?).

 

When i embarked into R lens adventure i made sure i was picking up lenses that were regarded better than Nikon counterparts otherwise it would be pointless, some notable examples:-

Elmarit 28mm V2,

Summilux 80mm,

Apo Elmarit 180mm.

[01af]

Very pretty graphs though ...

Yes indeed. I guess that is why people love it so much

[colonel]

DxOMark is pure nonsense as far as camera ranking goes. It used to be this way from the beginning, it is this way, and it will be this way always (unless it gets changed substantially).

 

It just tests a few very specific properties of the cameras' sensors which however have no significant correlation with the cameras' image qualities whatsoever. It's a very bad idea to look at DxOMark when you're planning to buy a new digital camera. It will only delude you.

 

It tests useful things which have a significant correlation with how a sensor performs

 

I am always amazed how people can easily throw away the facts to conform to their beliefs

 

"changed" usually means - it ranks the camera I just bought very highly

 

I am sorry for the lynch mob here for DXOMARK, really disappointing

 

Sure there are other things in a camera that are important, the lens for example, but that's obvious right !

[mjh]

"changed" usually means - it ranks the camera I just bought very highly

 

I am sorry for the lynch mob here for DXOMARK, really disappointing

Looking back on my history of posts, I think I have been pretty consistent in my assessment (damning as well as praising) DxOMark:

 

March 2010:

The individual measurements are usually valid and the results are interesting, even when they may not adequately reflect the quality you see in an image. But when you aggregate all the various measurements to a single number it becomes largely meaningless.

 

April 2011:

As valid as DxOMark tests are, using the results for comparing cameras is quite pointless; I wonder why DxO is offering this option at all. Of course they get a lot of free publicity by fuelling my-camera-is-better-than-your-camera debates.

 

If you know what is actually tested, DxOMark is a great resource. It is misused far too often, though.

 

June 2011:

It has to be said that they try their best to get as close to an assessment of sensor performance as possible. If a manufacturer uses some kind of averaging of pixel data to reduce noise, they can spot that by analyzing correlations between adjacent pixels. Standard CMOS stuff like dealing with pixel non-uniformity will go undetected, but since it doesn’t introduce an unfair bias towards CMOS sensors, it doesn’t pose a problem.

 

If I have an issue with DxOMark results it is with the aggregated values that are next to useless. The individual measurements are generally fine and their methodology is sound. You have to interpret the results yourself, though; the numbers aggregated from the actual measurements can be seriously misleading.

 

Obviously, if you care for features such as resolution and sharpness that DxO doesn’t measure at all, DxOMark results won’t help you. A 36 x 24 mm sensor with 12 MP will outperform a 50 MP CCD sans AA filter since for DxO, resolution doesn’t count at all.

 

March 2013:

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.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[01af]

It tests useful things which have a significant correlation with how a sensor performs.

 

Okay—saying there was "no correlation with image quality whatsoever" was an exaggeration. There is some correlation indeed, and a high DxOMark rank is not a bad thing. The point, however, is—a low DxOMark rank is no bad thing either.

 

So for photographers trying to decide about their next digital camera, the DxOMark ranking is entirely useless. The only benefit is some infelicitous peace of mind for those who are unable to assess a camera's image quality with their own eyes.

 

 

I am always amazed how people can easily throw away the facts to conform to their beliefs.

And I am always amazed how gullible people are and how there are willing to take DxOMark for a sensor test. Or worse yet, for a camera test.

 

But DxOMark doesn't test cameras. It doesn't even test sensors. And DxO Labs is very clear and open about that ... but people just refuse to understand. DxOMark just tests a few very specific properties of sensors which the average layman thinks were important. And it culminates in a single number. 94.6 is more than 89.2—that's what people can understand. So they love it ... oh well.