onaujee Posted March 7, 2013 Share #21 Posted March 7, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) What was the point of this test? Why not the 240 or MM? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 7, 2013 Posted March 7, 2013 Hi onaujee, Take a look here Leica and DxOMark {MERGED}. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
pgk Posted March 7, 2013 Share #22 Posted March 7, 2013 ...which give a little more insight. The problem I have is: insight into what? Tests and scores satisfy those who judge equipment by numbers. Others, like myself, judge on their actual handling and usability and the viability of their outputs to fulfill the purpose for which they are being used. These are very different criteria and difficult to quantify numerically. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
douglasf13 Posted March 7, 2013 Share #23 Posted March 7, 2013 The problem I have is: insight into what? Tests and scores satisfy those who judge equipment by numbers. Others, like myself, judge on their actual handling and usability and the viability of their outputs to fulfill the purpose for which they are being used. These are very different criteria and difficult to quantify numerically. Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree that there is more than just numbers. I'm just saying that DxO is reputable testing house, IF comparing numbers are your thing. I'm perfectly fine with my M9's output, for my uses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rramesh Posted March 8, 2013 Share #24 Posted March 8, 2013 If we go down this path, you will not just see a red Leica dot on your future M, but also a whole host of other stickers: 50 MP Maestro V DxOMark 95 3D Sweep Panaroma etc. And it still will not be enough for some. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted March 8, 2013 Share #25 Posted March 8, 2013 Anyone here that has posted: In your own words and without using google, please define and explain, on a level that a physicist would understand, the methods DxO uses to evaluate a camera sensor and correlate your understanding of their methods to the importance of any camera's ability to create an emotive and pleasing photograph. Again, just killing time... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted March 8, 2013 Share #26 Posted March 8, 2013 Anyone here that has posted: In your own words and without using google, please define and explain, on a level that a physicist would understand, the methods DxO uses to evaluate a camera sensor and correlate your understanding of their methods to the importance of any camera's ability to create an emotive and pleasing photograph. Again, just killing time... ... and killing some more time. The problem isn't so much methodology as what's left out. To illustrate my point take MTF charts which are an industry standard method for comparing lens performance. But they don't show distortion (which has to have another graph). And they don't illustrate or quantify bokeh, nor do they deal with out of focus edge chroma, nor do they give info on ...(insert topic)... . So whilst they give a broad idea of some aspects of performance, they don't address a myriad of others. And its the myriad of others that go to make the whole, and some may be very important depending on the photographer's requirements. So whilst methodology may be acceptable (to be honest I can't be bothered wading through it all), its only giving a part of the picture. My problem with DxO is the final ultra-simplistic number assigned to a camera based on their criteria which IMHO damages their credibility. Imagine assigning a single number score to a lens which is derived from MTF graphs, distortion figures and so on - its a nonsense. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamiji Posted March 8, 2013 Share #27 Posted March 8, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) What was the point of this test? Why not the 240 or MM? I don't think there is a point, as it's the same sensor that they didn't like several years ago. Maybe it's just an excuse as to why their software just now supports the M9. I would think that testing the new cameras would make more sense if they really wanted to provide a service to Leica users, but I think that they have made up their minds and no matter what Leica produces they will not like. If we do ever see a MM or M240 test, it might be in 4 years, when and/or if, they decide to update their software for these models... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth3kpl Posted March 8, 2013 Share #28 Posted March 8, 2013 Does anyone know how many cells were in the steak I ate last night? It was gorgeous. Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
viooh Posted March 8, 2013 Share #29 Posted March 8, 2013 I think there are at least two aspects ranking high in DxO-evaluations that are quite unimportant for me; these are dynamic range and high iso performance. You can't print much more than a handful of stops of dynamic range, so an increase of dynamic range is only important if you compress the dynamic range of the scene in post, unless you need reserves to get the exposure right. And for me - I'm only talking of my personal needs! - iso 800 is the most I need. So whenever someone complains about the M9's sensor performance, I take another look at one of the A2 sized prints on my office wall, and I sleep better afterwards, knowing that my M9 shall not suddenly stop producing these results after taking note of one more of these evaluations. Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted March 8, 2013 Share #30 Posted March 8, 2013 You can't print much more than a handful of stops of dynamic range, so an increase of dynamic range is only important if you compress the dynamic range of the scene in post, unless you need reserves to get the exposure right. Compressing the dynamic range captured in the image to what can be printed is what we all have been doing for decades. Back then we had to choose the appropriate grade of the photographic paper or (preferably) use dodge and burn, and now we do it in software. If we didn’t, more than half of the dynamic range captured would be thrown away when printing, but we don’t do that if we can help it, no? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
viooh Posted March 8, 2013 Share #31 Posted March 8, 2013 Compressing the dynamic range captured in the image to what can be printed is what we all have been doing for decades. Back then we had to choose the appropriate grade of the photographic paper or (preferably) use dodge and burn, and now we do it in software. If we didn’t, more than half of the dynamic range captured would be thrown away when printing, but we don’t do that if we can help it, no? Sure, you're absolutely right. Please let me rephrase: the dynamic range of the M9 is all I need; I never felt that more dynamic range would improve my photography, but maybe I'm narrow minded. And of course any argument for not getting a M240 (better iso performance, better dynamic range) is welcome to me, as my wife would probably kill me if I ever spend so much for another digital camera again Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wok64 Posted March 8, 2013 Share #32 Posted March 8, 2013 Just 8.5% actually. Some variation such as this was to be expected; nothing fishy about it. DxOMark results should be taken with a grain of salt and have to be read in context; their aggregate scores are generally worthless. Still their testing methodology appears valid and their measurements trustworthy. Given that Leica claims to have the same sensors in the camera (and most likely the same electronics), I assume the <10% discrepancy in the measurements tell us something about consistency of testing at DXO and tolerances in manufacturing at Leica (or Imacon), so I think we can be pleased by the result. I don't see any reason for this forum to bash DXO or go into attacking / defending mode. Looking at the detailed data just confirms what we all see with the M9s: Excellent image quality in all respects at low ISO but much to be deserved at higher ISOs. Obviously there are some things DXO doesn't measure like e.g. resolution. In addition they don't care at all about camera features like focusing method, ease of use, compactness and the like. On occasion I'm a bit surprised by their result - e.g. the very bad ISO score of the Sony RX 100 doesn't fit at all to what I observe - but in general I find them a fairly reliable source for what you can expect to get from a sensor. Actually they are performing lens + sensor combination tests too, but so far there's lack of coverage of Leica gear, most likely due to price and availability deficits. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted March 8, 2013 Share #33 Posted March 8, 2013 I don't see any reason for this forum to bash DXO or go into attacking / defending mode. Quote from their website: "DxOMark is the trusted industry standard for camera and lens independent image quality measurements and ratings." That's a pretty strong claim to make IMHO. I stand by my comment: "My problem with DxO is the final ultra-simplistic number assigned to a camera based on their criteria which IMHO damages their credibility." There have been innumerable posts on this forum about, which is best', 'which is better' and so on. In reality trying to come up with simple answers (such as an overall score) is a flawed way of determining how good a camera or lens is. My background is in Scientific Photography and Photographic Science and obviously there are times when numbers and tests are important as I am very well aware. But for most photography they are not. Its about far more straightforward things such as handling, viability for the work on hand and so on. We've seen a plethora of testers appear on the web since digital appeared and at the same time IMHO few of us genuinely utilise our equipment's full potential all that often. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted March 8, 2013 Share #34 Posted March 8, 2013 "DxOMark is the trusted industry standard for camera and lens independent image quality measurements and ratings." Yeah, nice statement. Except it's hogwash. The guys at DxO Lab may know their stuff and be clever at what they're doing ... but the point is—DxOMark has nothing to do with image quality, and even less with photography. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamiji Posted March 8, 2013 Share #35 Posted March 8, 2013 But so far there's lack of coverage of Leica gear, most likely due to price and availability deficits. Not likely, all they need to do is ask. I am pretty sure Leica has demo units that they can loan, for such tests. They do it for others. I just find the timing of this review interesting, just as they added support in their software for the M9, they basically repeated an old test. As far as the actual numbers, I don't really care... There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics... M. Twain Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hey You Posted March 8, 2013 Share #36 Posted March 8, 2013 Here's how another website interprets the same report. MFT sensor better than the $5,500 Leica FF sensor! | 43 Rumors Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Alexander.88 Posted March 8, 2013 Share #37 Posted March 8, 2013 DxO test = Leica demystified Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
diogenis Posted March 8, 2013 Share #38 Posted March 8, 2013 DxO test = Leica demystified If it was only that easy... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoarFM Posted March 10, 2013 Share #39 Posted March 10, 2013 my wife would probably kill me if I ever spend so much for another digital camera again Peter You told her?! I rely on vague descriptions of price... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
photomeme Posted March 10, 2013 Share #40 Posted March 10, 2013 And of course any argument for not getting a M240 (better iso performance, better dynamic range) is welcome to me, as my wife would probably kill me if I ever spend so much for another digital camera again A CMOS sensor with 1.3 ISO stops over the CCD M9 sensor (which also caps dynamic range expansion to minor) will score badly on DxO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.