Leica and DxOMark {MERGED}

[andyedward]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The image quality "bang-per-buck" title for current cameras must go to the d800, and I think the upcoming Zeiss 55/1.4 F will do the d800's sensor justice.

[kdriceman]

They are calculating the correlation between neighbouring sensor pixels. If there is no correlation, there is no smoothing. See http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Insights/Half-cooked-RAW/Noise-reduction. According to DxOMark, the new M does not apply in-camera noise reduction to raw data while the M9 does (at most ISO settings). Which should come as a surprise to some people.

 

Michael, is this a purely objective measurement/calculation on the part of DXO or do they include some subjective interpretation?

[david perry]

Given all the naysaying around the internet when Leica announced their partnership with CMOSIS, and the switch to CMOS technology years after the big players had perfected it for themselves, I for one think that credit is due to them for delivering from scratch a finished product that is capable of producing results which are in everyday practice indistinguishable from the best of its Japanese peers. Wherever one's allegiances lie, that of itself is a technical achievement worth celebrating.

[mmradman]

The image quality "bang-per-buck" title for current cameras must go to the d800, and I think the upcoming Zeiss 55/1.4 F will do the d800's sensor justice.

 

And don't forget current long telephotos and few other prime & zoom lenses

 

200mm f2 AFS VR

300mm / 400mm f2.8 AFS VR

500mm / 600mm f4 AFS VR

 

back to M sensor; my 4 year old D700 turns excellent high ISO images and I am pleased to see new M is now playing in the same ISO league.

Comparing SLRs and RFs both systems have their operational advantages but it is big posive to see new M is fitted with competent high ISO sensor.

New M camera fitted with M and now R optics will no doubt open new frontier in shooting quality colour images in difficult lighting situations.

[mjh]

Michael, is this a purely objective measurement/calculation on the part of DXO or do they include some subjective interpretation?

It is as objective as it gets. There should not be any correlation between different pixels; while crosstalk between pixels might introduce a small amount of correlation, the correlation results are for sensor pixels with the same colour filter and these are neither horizontally nor vertically adjacent, so crosstalk isn’t very likely as an explanation. In the noise reduction article by DxOMark there is an example showing smoothing as applied by Sony in the A900: there is no correlation between neighbouring green pixels, but a great deal of correlation between red or blue pixels, even though red and blue pixels are spaced further apart than the green ones. Deliberate smoothing of the sensor data is the only way this result could be explained.

[mjh]

The autocorrelation that DxOMark had detected in raw files of the M9 is of a somewhat odd kind, btw (see DxOMark - DxOMark review for the Leica M9). The correlation is so weak and the pattern so strange that I am not really sure what to make of it. If this is deliberate smoothing then it doesn’t look like Leica (or Jenoptik) was serious about it. Its effect on noise is negligible anyway.

[almoore]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What a difference a week makes.

 

Last week DXO was meaningless because it gave a low score to the M9/E. This week DXO is a really useful source of information because it suggests the M has a sensor in the same ballpark as the Japanese competition. The Leica forum at its entertaining best...

[Tonki-M]

What a difference a week makes.

 

Last week DXO was meaningless because it gave a low score to the M9/E. This week DXO is a really useful source of information because it suggests the M has a sensor in the same ballpark as the Japanese competition. The Leica forum at its entertaining best...

 

i would rather it be worse but with a unique draw rather than being in the same ballpark...(not to say that the M has no unique draw, i've yet to own one) even if it's DxO diagrams and charts wise..

[Guest tanks]

i would rather it be worse but with a unique draw rather than being in the same ballpark...(not to say that the M has no unique draw, i've yet to own one) even if it's DxO diagrams and charts wise..

 

That really does not make sense to me. If all one is considering for comparison is technical aspects, then why wish it to be worse.

 

Any "unique draw" would be subjective.

 

If one does not wish to consider technical aspects of a camera then don't. However, there is no reason to make excuses for bad reviews of technical aspects of the previous generation (M9, M-E etc.).

 

Let's face it, if the M did not have any improvements over M-9, then what would be the point of upgrading?

 

Looks like the M is an improvement technically, and also in features (higher resolution screen, EVF, live view, video, battery life, etc., etc.) for those that were also looking for improved features.

[almoore]

i would rather it be worse but with a unique draw rather than being in the same ballpark.....

 

I'm guessing you were one of the privileged few that pre-digital had access to worse but unique film emulsions for your Leicas. I had to make do with the very same Tri-X and Portra that went in to my Canons.

[barjohn]

Now that is appears to be established and accepted by the Leica community that a CMOS sensor is better than the M9 CCD sensor it would seem to infer two things:

1. The M produces better images than the M9 (appears to be the consensus, better DR, less noise, etc.) but

2. The corrollary is that the M must produce worse images than the higher DXO scoring competition like the RX-1 or Nikon D600/800.

This leads to the natural question then is a camera with superior MF but no AF worth thousands more than a camera with superior AF and merely good MF if the latter delivers better image quality?

[microview]

 

Isn't that usually expressed as = Lambda?

[barjohn]

Isn't that usually expressed as = Lambda?

 

 

No more like sheppard's pie.

[01af]

What a difference a week makes.

Huh!?

 

 

Last week DxOMark was meaningless because it gave a low score to the M9/M-E. This week DxOMark is a really useful source of information because it suggests the M has a sensor in the same ballpark as the Japanese competition.

Huh!? What makes you think so?

 

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.

[mmradman]

Now that is appears to be established and accepted by the Leica community that a CMOS sensor is better than the M9 CCD sensor it would seem to infer two things:

1. The M produces better images than the M9 (appears to be the consensus, better DR, less noise, etc.) but

2. The corrollary is that the M must produce worse images than the higher DXO scoring competition like the RX-1 or Nikon D600/800.

This leads to the natural question then is a camera with superior MF but no AF worth thousands more than a camera with superior AF and merely good MF if the latter delivers better image quality?

 

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.

 

In case of excellent Leica optics even poor sensors have fighting chance and I am not suggesting for one moment that any of sensors on Leica cameras is poor.

 

Now we have metrics, thanks to derided DxO, that M sensor is significantly better than M9 GAS frenzy can start in earnest. Considering how M cameras are scarce Leica must have made master stroke and provided camera to DxO for testing or DxO made it all up.

[macjonny1]

Now that is appears to be established and accepted by the Leica community that a CMOS sensor is better than the M9 CCD sensor it would seem to infer two things:

1. The M produces better images than the M9 (appears to be the consensus' date=' better DR, less noise, etc.) but

2. The corrollary is that the M must produce worse images than the higher DXO scoring competition like the RX-1 or Nikon D600/800.

This leads to the natural question then is a camera with superior MF but no AF worth thousands more than a camera with superior AF and merely good MF if the latter delivers better image quality?[/quote']

 

Not sure what you mean by all the MF/AF stuff but reason to get a Leica is rangefinder MF otherwise save your money. I don't want AF in my Leica I want a rangefinder.

[mmradman]

Huh!?

 

 

 

Huh!? What makes you think so?

 

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.

 

Marketing wise I would say Leica is starting to put faith in "meaningless" DxO results. Let's not forget that Leica wants to grow business and more new 1st time potential buyers will rely on DxO rather than opinion of specialist reviewer.

[jonoslack]

Now that is appears to be established and accepted by the Leica community that a CMOS sensor is better than the M9 CCD sensor it would seem to infer two things:

1. The M produces better images than the M9 (appears to be the consensus, better DR, less noise, etc.) but

2. The corrollary is that the M must produce worse images than the higher DXO scoring competition like the RX-1 or Nikon D600/800.

This leads to the natural question then is a camera with superior MF but no AF worth thousands more than a camera with superior AF and merely good MF if the latter delivers better image quality?

 

Hi There John

What you say is incontrovertible . . . assuming that you accept that a better DxO mark results in better image quality.

 

I think the M produces better images than the M9 as well.

On the other hand (for instance) the Pentax K5 (lovely camera) has a much higher DxO mark - but there aren't many people who would really aver that it produces better images.

 

Of course, if your aim in taking photographs is simply to produce a technically perfect image, then you might rely on DxO for to buy your camera . . although one might question the validity.

 

In my book, corrollary is an interesting (and useful) word, and rather like because and therefore, it's used as a way of jumping from an observation to an opinion (without any logical development).

 

Clearly the D800 and the Sony RX-1 are excellent cameras, but neither has a rangefinder, and neither takes Leica M lenses. So I'll just have to put up with my old M!

 

All the best

[jaapv]

 

DxOMark is pure nonsense as far as camera ranking goes. ItIt's a very bad idea to look at DxOMark when you're planning to buy a new digital camera. It will only delude you.

 

Very pretty graphs though...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[andyedward]

Jono,

 

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