Jeff S Posted March 8, 2013 Share #21 Posted March 8, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) They don't even show things like skin tone differences Au contraire, Jamie...apple skin, onion skin, etc. I'm with you, though; no test matters to me other than processing and printing my own pics. (And I won't do that until the camera and profiles are sorted out.) Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 8, 2013 Posted March 8, 2013 Hi Jeff S, Take a look here Vegetable pictures - Part Deux. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
thrid Posted March 8, 2013 Share #22 Posted March 8, 2013 The M240 was only marginally better than the M9 at base iso, whilst the M240 pulled ahead at higher iso's due to having less noise. And he's surprised by this? The cameras were close at base iso and the 240 pulled away at the higher ISO? HElloo?! That's like saying "At f8 this $50 Vivitar performs, as good as the Summicron, until you shoot them wide open. I'm disappointed that shooting the Summicron at f8 wash't akin to a religious experience or prom night." Well, yes. Of course. Is that supposed to come as a surprise? At base ISO any sensor is performing at it's peak and unless you go back 3-4 generations the difference between a somewhat older camera and a newer model is not going to be like day and night. But turn up the gain, and you will see where all that R&D money went. The 240 gains 2-3 stops in high iso performance and exposure range. That's a big jump. We went from a mediocre 1600 asa to a solid 3200 and useable 6400. I really don't understand what people were expecting to see in the 240 images? Rainbows? Unicorns? Elvis? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted March 8, 2013 Share #23 Posted March 8, 2013 R2D2. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyedward Posted March 8, 2013 Share #24 Posted March 8, 2013 I have to say that studio tests of veggies are kind of limiting, no? They don't even show things like skin tone differences (and I'd be hard pressed to look at a banana and say wow--that shade of green-yellow must be wrong!) I think my subscription has expired, and I'm loathe at this point to renew it just to read the review, TBH (nothing against Sean, but I want a 240 in my hands to see if its got the goods or not--no amount of leaf or veggie shots is going to tell me that). IOW, quite apart from its charms as a Leica rangefinder (for some of us that's nearly enough), I suspect all the cameras performed similarly (from what I can tell) because, well, controlled light conditions for vegetables are just not that challenging. Technology is coming along. Every reasonable camera can take satisfying pictures of well-lit apples At the end of Reid's review he mentions that he will add a field report of the M240 in the near future Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eronald Posted March 8, 2013 Share #25 Posted March 8, 2013 Complete re-engineering of the body, new sensor, new DSP and firmware. If that had been my doing, I wouldn't have classed it as a "safe and unexciting gradual improvement". Mark, If some of us who know less than you about cameras, and electronics, had our say, there would be a D800-class Sony sensor, Fuji -style opto-electronic hybrid finder, and Leica lens mount on the new M. The overwhelming success of the new Fuji X series, and even the X100 show that people will recognize and buy ambitious Leica-inspired designs even in 2013. Fuji came from nowhere and engineered a front-runner, now that was *exciting*. Edmund Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanJW Posted March 8, 2013 Share #26 Posted March 8, 2013 Mark, If some of us who know less than you about cameras, and electronics, had our say, there would be a D800-class Sony sensor, Fuji -style opto-electronic hybrid finder, and Leica lens mount on the new M. The overwhelming success of the new Fuji X series, and even the X100 show that people will recognize and buy ambitious Leica-inspired designs even in 2013. Fuji came from nowhere and engineered a front-runner, now that was *exciting*. Edmund You raise a valid point. But Leica faces a difficult business decision in the coming years. Does the mechanical rangefinder survive as Leica's product differentiator? If not, do they continue to make bodies at all? Competing head to head with the EVF/Evil companies is not necessarily the ideal given Leica's higher costs. Do they continue to make " legacy" cameras only and expand lens sales? The M may be their temporary solution but the next few years will tell us if they can maintain the appeal they have in RF cameras. Some will say they should just stay on the mechanical RF track, but the markets may drive them in another direction if there aren't enough mechanical RF aficionados to keep things going. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted March 8, 2013 Share #27 Posted March 8, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Reid did not write "I'm dissapointed at M240's performance", but he wasnt too enthusiastic about it either. I was expecting someone with an input into the M240 to be less objective than Reid was. I have renewed my subscription to Reid's site following the aforementioned review. Hmm - Sean's not really into hyperbole. All I can really glean from this report is that all the cameras produce good quality images. Pick your poison. Sean doesn't have it in him to be less than perfectly objective. But if you want a rangefinder camera which takes full advantage of M lenses, then the conclusion is pretty simple. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macjonny1 Posted March 8, 2013 Share #28 Posted March 8, 2013 You raise a valid point. But Leica faces a difficult business decision in the coming years. Does the mechanical rangefinder survive as Leica's product differentiator? If not' date=' do they continue to make bodies at all? Competing head to head with the EVF/Evil companies is not necessarily the ideal given Leica's higher costs. Do they continue to make " legacy" cameras only and expand lens sales? The M may be their temporary solution but the next few years will tell us if they can maintain the appeal they have in RF cameras. Some will say they should just stay on the mechanical RF track, but the markets may drive them in another direction if there aren't enough mechanical RF aficionados to keep things going.[/quote'] The rangefinder's heyday was over decades ago. If they should have stopped making rangefinders they should have done so a long time ago. Why would they stop now? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted March 8, 2013 Share #29 Posted March 8, 2013 You raise a valid point. But Leica faces a difficult business decision in the coming years. Does the mechanical rangefinder survive as Leica's product differentiator? If not, do they continue to make bodies at all? Competing head to head with the EVF/Evil companies is not necessarily the ideal given Leica's higher costs. Do they continue to make " legacy" cameras only and expand lens sales? The M may be their temporary solution but the next few years will tell us if they can maintain the appeal they have in RF cameras. Some will say they should just stay on the mechanical RF track, but the markets may drive them in another direction if there aren't enough mechanical RF aficionados to keep things going. Hi Alan they seem to be doing okay with the Rangefinder at the moment, and they're certainly committed to it. Talking to them, it's perfectly clear that the M will always have the mechanical rangefinder at it's heart - that's what it IS (even if it's being refined - the rangefinder on the M is considerably modified - even if the only outward sign is the bigger red dot). As long as they keep to this they are NOT competing head to head with the EVF/Evil market. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted March 8, 2013 Share #30 Posted March 8, 2013 The rangefinder's heyday was over decades ago. If they should have stopped making rangefinders they should have done so a long time ago. Why would they stop now? Hi There You're right . . . . except that digital seems to have given rangefinders a new lease of life. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macjonny1 Posted March 8, 2013 Share #31 Posted March 8, 2013 Hi There You're right . . . . except that digital seems to have given rangefinders a new lease of life. Exactly! They can't make enough of them! Nice problem to have and certainly not a sign that they are doomed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted March 8, 2013 Share #32 Posted March 8, 2013 Exactly! They can't make enough of them! Nice problem to have and certainly not a sign that they are doomed. I'm not a Legacy Leica User - my first Leica was an M6 in 2006 - I found it challenging and rewarding . . . then I sold it and bought an M8; which I just found rewarding. Rangefinder photography (if it floats your boat) is a splendid way of taking pictures, I think that digital makes up for all the disadvantages it had over SLR cameras (and why the film rangefinder was in decline). I've spent the last year fiddling about with Monochrome cameras (lovely), prototype M cameras (fun). But next week I'm going on a trip to China, and I'm hoping to be back to my perfect way of shooting - two M bodies, one with a 75 and one with a 28. I'll be in heaven (mind you, I don't actually have the cameras yet!) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
photomeme Posted March 8, 2013 Share #33 Posted March 8, 2013 Can someone explain something? I haven't read Sean's reviews but as I understand it, he's somewhat disappointed with the camera. This surprises me as I also believe he bangs on endlessly about how he was involved in the definition, development and evaluation of the camera, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. So Sean, where precisely did you screw up? sean never suggested he'd advised Leica on the sensor. If you *had* read Sean's review, you'd understand he's first disappointed with the ISO bump of 1.3 stops from the M9, which the consensus views as below expections, more akin to (and even underperforming) the first generation CCD to CMOS migrations of Nikon and Canon. that's three generations ago on the technology curve, specifically for CMOS. Second, he's disappointed with the evident in camera median filtering noise reduction at ISO 1600+, smoothing the image and reducing resolution, which is so far a minority observation. In other words, even the 1.3 stops of ISO improvement may come at a cost in terms of lost detail via destructive, non-optional, in-camera noise reduction -- distinct from non-destructive on sensor double sampling and other CMOS tricks, if Sean is correct. (i say it's a minority view, but It's not that others disagree with his second point. it's that few others have done the comparisons he has and commented on the issue). it would suggest a deeper problem with Leica achieving acceptable levels of noise at the higher ISOs in their first generation CMOS release. it would further imply that part of the better appearance at higher ISOs is attributable to giving back the higher pixel resolution to destructive noise reduction algorithms that you can't turn off, applied to raw data in-camera. finally, it would be one of the reasons high ISOs on the CCD based MM continue to outperform this release markedly in resolution. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanJW Posted March 8, 2013 Share #34 Posted March 8, 2013 I don't want my post to be misinterpreted. I am one of the aficionados and I hope they keep making them. But Leica has obviously recognized that the mechanical RF can be complemented with electronics and I am one of those happy with that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macjonny1 Posted March 8, 2013 Share #35 Posted March 8, 2013 Rangefinder photography (if it floats your boat) is a splendid way of taking pictures, I think that digital makes up for all the disadvantages it had over SLR cameras (and why the film rangefinder was in decline). I've spent the last year fiddling about with Monochrome cameras (lovely), prototype M cameras (fun). But next week I'm going on a trip to China, and I'm hoping to be back to my perfect way of shooting - two M bodies, one with a 75 and one with a 28. I'll be in heaven (mind you, I don't actually have the cameras yet!) Wow two M bodies! Although you moved on from the Monochrom I just picked one up to compliment my M9P. Your photography was one of my influences to get one...although I like your B&W M conversions too like your Venice series in B&W. The Venice boat B&W picture is phenomenal for example. I'm not a legacy user either (Leica user only for 2 years) although I always fancied my father's Canon Canonet GL Rangefinder! I find myself needing a DSLR for sports but even with my D800E I always pick up my Leica first! (oh, and yes I have way more gear than talent I don't really need all of this ). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted March 8, 2013 Share #36 Posted March 8, 2013 sean never suggested he'd advised Leica on the sensor. If you *had* read Sean's review, you'd understand he's first disappointed with the ISO bump of 1.3 stops from the M9, which the consensus views as below expections, more akin to (and even underperforming) the first generation CCD to CMOS migrations of Nikon and Canon. that's three generations ago on the technology curve, specifically for CMOS. Second, he's disappointed with the evident in camera median filtering noise reduction at ISO 1600+, smoothing the image and reducing resolution, which is so far a minority observation. I have read his review - what's more I've talked to him about it, and, to be frank, this is a load of bollocks, and a total misrepresentation of what he said. It's entirely your opinion (which you're entitled to) but you shouldn't put it into Sean's mouth. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted March 9, 2013 Share #37 Posted March 9, 2013 Wow two M bodies! Although you moved on from the Monochrom I just picked one up to compliment my M9P. Your photography was one of my influences to get one...although I like your B&W M conversions too like your Venice series in B&W. The Venice boat B&W picture is phenomenal for example. I'm not a legacy user either (Leica user only for 2 years) although I always fancied my father's Canon Canonet GL Rangefinder! I find myself needing a DSLR for sports but even with my D800E I always pick up my Leica first! (oh, and yes I have way more gear than talent I don't really need all of this ). Thank you! absolutely no criticism of the Monochrom - it's peerless - it's just that I'm a colour kind of a guy (lots of the time) and I have a small brain! If there were circumstances where I ONLY wanted black and white - but somehow I'm always up for a bit of colour, even late night in unpromising circumstances!. I'd rather give up that special MM 'thing' for the colour option - but of course, that's me. . . . actually it's my wife as well - who doesn't appreciate black and white photography, and wasn't amused that last year's China trip was all in black and white! I don't have two M bodies at the moment either . . . I'm just hoping! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
photomeme Posted March 9, 2013 Share #38 Posted March 9, 2013 I have read his review - what's more I've talked to him about it, and, to be frank, this is a load of bollocks, and a total misrepresentation of what he said. It's entirely your opinion (which you're entitled to) but you shouldn't put it into Sean's mouth. Sorry, but it's a fair reading. It's not even a reading. It's what he says, plainly. Just yesterday, again, in his Leica M part II studio camera review, he referred to the non-optional in-camera noise reduction -- median filtering type and destructive of resolution -- evident at ISO 1600 and above. He is not talking about non-destructive on-sensor CMOS noise reduction strategies. As I write above, this is, so far, a minority viewpoint, but the field is sparse of technically oriented reviews. His 1.3 ISO stop improvement over the M9 is in line with the consensus views of the Leica M so far. The implications of such destructive in-camera noise reduction are plain. A trade off between noise and resolution at higher ISO. What this suggests, overall, about Leica's first foray into CMOS is also plain. This was not to pile on about the Leica M, but to reference two issues that are rather stunning surprises to those familiar with CMOS technologies. I was expecting a very different "look" (possibly not to my taste). But not these issues. I did not even refer to Sean's notations about banding problems at ISO 3200 and ISO 6400. (But I guess I did just now). Not so surprising, given the limited ISO gains of the upgrade. Sean has, in fact, *asked* his paid subscribers not to quote him, as you well know, sheesh. Jonoslack, it's disappointing to see references to male genitalia. I understand you're frustrated, but it brings down the forum. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted March 9, 2013 Share #39 Posted March 9, 2013 More photos of vegetables from a pre-production beta-firmware M from the vegetable photographer himself are now available! He compares the beta-M to finished production RX1, Fuji X-Pro 1 and Sigma DP2 Merrill. Don't mis it! Can't read it since my eyes are watering from the onions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rirakuma Posted March 9, 2013 Share #40 Posted March 9, 2013 Jonoslack, it's disappointing to see references to male genitalia. I understand you're frustrated, but it brings down the forum. I would have never read his comment the way you interpreted it, was that even neccessary? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.