Vegetable pictures - Part Deux

[AlanJW]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

IMHO you're the one who's out of line. You persist in making misstatements. Jono deserves some credit for tolerating it up to this point. To put it mildly, I don't think you have as much credibility as he does here, deservedly so.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[xrogers]

In Sean's article he discusses how he didn't resize images for crops, and presents %100 views for each camera. The crops compare pixels, and the M and Sony have more of them than the other two cameras. I have no quarrel with this approach, Sean is quite clear about it and its implications. But a comparison isn't as straightforward as it might appear.

 

My impression is that Sean likes the M quite a bit, but isn't going to sugarcoat shortcomings in a review. I don't detect disappointment, I detect someone working hard to be totally honest and objective.

 

At the end of his RX-1 review, he states that he's "very impressed" with the M, X100s and RX-1. I'll take him at his word.

[macjonny1]

 

Jonoslack' date=' it's disappointing to see references to male genitalia. I understand you're frustrated, but it brings down the forum.[/quote']

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollocks

FYI

Note the 2nd sentence

[andyedward]

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.

 

I think some people's disappointment (mine included) comes from the fact that despite the M240 being a newly released camera, it's image quality is only marginally better than the 3 year old M9, which has stood the test of time. My poison would be the MM

[theboch]

Here is a similar test:

 

Test Leica M - Focus Num

 

It is in french - you can use the Google Translator to get a relatively good translation

 

Please have a very close look at the RX1 images in comparison to the M images, especially at high ISO. Yes, the RX1 high iso images have a lot less noise - but look how the RX1 also smoothes the images to gain this low noise... it seems that the RX1 adds way more smoothing at high ISO than the M...

[jonoslack]

I think some people's disappointment (mine included) comes from the fact that despite the M240 being a newly released camera, it's image quality is only marginally better than the 3 year old M9, which has stood the test of time. My poison would be the MM

 

Hi Andy

Of course I understand this point of view. I also completely acknowledge everybody's right to their own interpretation of Sean's results. As you say. Some people are disappointed

On the other hand Some people aren't disappointed!

 

Personally, in my version of the real world, I've found shooting at 3200 produces noticeably better and more reliable results than the M9 at 1250, especially using colour in nasty mixed lighting. So we might need to discuss the definition of 'marginal' .

 

Of course, their is no doubt of the characteristics of the MM. As long as you don't find the lack of colour to be a shortcoming it's a bit of a no- brainer.

 

What Sean's review says to me, is. Choose the camera which suits you best as IQ isn't much of a limiting factor. But that's just my interpretation, not his!

[jonoslack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Jonoslack, it's disappointing to see references to male genitalia. I understand you're frustrated, but it brings down the forum.

 

Perhaps 'nonsense' would have been more elegant, but somehow it's less spirited - I apologise to anyone to whom I've caused offence (including you) - but it isn't considered as offensive around here.

 

We might even have an interesting discussion about where the word came from and what it's first usage was.

 

all the best

[andyedward]

Hi Andy

Of course I understand this point of view. I also completely acknowledge everybody's right to their own interpretation of Sean's results. As you say. Some people are disappointed

On the other hand Some people aren't disappointed!

 

Personally, in my version of the real world, I've found shooting at 3200 produces noticeably better and more reliable results than the M9 at 1250, especially using colour in nasty mixed lighting. So we might need to discuss the definition of 'marginal' .

 

Of course, their is no doubt of the characteristics of the MM. As long as you don't find the lack of colour to be a shortcoming it's a bit of a no- brainer.

 

What Sean's review says to me, is. Choose the camera which suits you best as IQ isn't much of a limiting factor. But that's just my interpretation, not his!

 

I'm a pedantic and argumentative b**tard, so I apologise both retrospectively and in advance. In my last post I omitted the fact that the marginal difference in image quality between the M240 and M9 in Reid's review occurs towards base iso, whereas the M240 pulls ahead at higher iso. I've always tried to shoot at as low an iso as possible for the best image quality results, and rarely shoot above 400 iso, so the better high iso performance of the M240 would be a negligible benefit for me. I have no complaints with using the rangefinder and would have little use for an evf or liveview. Perhaps leica could produce CCD cameras alongside CMOS in future for people who dont need the evf or liveview.

 

Kind regards,

Dissapointed.

[marknorton]

Well that's an interesting thought, whether Leica can keep CCD alive beyond the M-E by building a version of the M with CCD. All the body improvements - and there are many - with the existing CCD sensor and firmware ported to the Maestro platform.

 

Hardly an afternoon's work but the business case might be easier with the M tooling and development sunk costs.

 

Maybe that's what the M-P should be.

[andyedward]

How about 30mp CCD sensors both with and without bayer filters?

[lct]

Here is a similar test:

Test Leica M - Focus Num..

Thanks for sharing.

I don't know what raw converter they've used but my old C1v4 does better.

M240, 3200 iso, 100% crop

C1v4: DNG File Neutral, default settings

CS3: Red saturation -40, no sharpening, no noise reduction

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[marknorton]

It's a strange choice of subject matter, maybe the images appear plastic because... they are.

[marknorton]

The new M should have been an even more improved M9P with a weather sealed body.

 

Leica have listened to all the "Me Too"clamour and just made a hotch potch of totally irrelevant features with a plastic looking awful CMOS sensor with a Heath Robinson visoflex electronic viewfinder.

 

Silly concentration on ridiculous high ISO that NOBODY needs just for the sake of saying that the camera will take pictures at 10,000 ISO Hahahaha - i couldn't give a damn for chocolate boxy crappy CMOS images at any ISO.

 

Leica STOP pandering to non photographer collectors of new toys and STICK to what your core buyers want.

 

I have had it with all the crappy Live View, Video, High ISO nonsense - TOTALLY IRRELEVANT in a Leica M. If you want, note want not NEED that fluff then go buy a cheap DSLR and marvel that it can shoot images at 100,000 ISO.

 

Gosh Paul, I think you really need to tell us what you think, no holding back!

 

The M240 for me is not a toy, I'm a keen though hardly competent photographer (call me a hobbyist if you must) but the new camera ticks lots of boxes. The EVF, especially in Olympus form, is less obtrusive than the Frankenfinder and Live View opens a world of wide-angle use which previously was just a hassle that I rarely ventured wider than 28mm.

 

It's almost as if high-ISO is the new megapixel race and I personally don't need to go above 1600, I have lenses which are 1, 2, 3 stops faster for just that reason.

 

It may be there's a school of opinion in Leica that getting their first CMOS sensor out has been a struggle, that there's room for improvement in the future to tame noise and with it the need for in-camera smoothing. I don't see the plasticity at low ISO that you do but I respect your opinion as an experienced working photographer and it's a pity that the camera doesn't appeal. Perhaps someone shoud lend you one to see if using it would change your mind?

[Peter H]

An M9 with a quieter shutter release, better battery life, a bit of sealing, switch-offable Live View for the extremely rare occasions when it might be useful to see exactly what the camera is seeing, and the ability occasionally to use a smaller aperture or faster shutter speed than the iso performance of the M9 allows; these are a few reasons why the M may be of interest to an M9 user like me.

 

The fact that it can record video may be irrelevant to many of us, but the fact that the M9 can be programmed to take jpegs with a range of pre-determined settings is also irrelevant to me so I ignore it and it doesn't get in the way.

 

Basically its a slightly improved body with a sensor that most people, most of the time, in real life, will find indistinguishable from an M9, which is a good thing. In reality, the differences between the M9 and the M appear far smaller than the similarities, which again is a good thing.

 

I can't quite understand the antipathy to a tiny injection of modernity. Its hardly a DSLR is it?

[Peter H]

Paul, except for one thing, image quality, all of your objections are beside the point, because you're talking about options and features that can be ignored.

 

Its not about high iso or EVFs and stuff: these are things any M user can use or ignore, like Visoflexes with bellows and many other traditional Leica things designed in the pre-digital age that also won't get you very far at a floodlit football match.

 

If you find the image quality disappointing, fair enough, though I'm far from convinced that the differences are as pronounced as you suggest, but of course that is a matter of personal preference and opinion. The rest doesn't make much sense to me though.

[Rick]

This certainly has boiled up to a veritable vegetable quandary. Lettuce remember back in thyme a few months ago with the leek of the first M photos. We were peppered with terrible M photos. Beets me how everyone else seemed to have an M and all I had was my M9pea. That started the sensor comparisons and that is how it has bean and no amount of posts will squash it.

 

 

p.s. Nicoleica - I miss the old bat.

[macjonny1]

This certainly has boiled up to a veritable vegetable quandary. Lettuce remember back in thyme a few months ago with the leek of the first M photos. We were peppered with terrible M photos. Beets me how everyone else seemed to have an M and all I had was my M9pea. That started the sensor comparisons and that is how it has bean and no amount of posts will squash it.

 

p.s. Nicoleica - I miss the old bat.

 

One of the best posts ever!

[thighslapper]

I'm almost afraid to poke my head above the parapet in this thread ..... but.....

 

there is 'good' noise and 'bad' noise .......... and in my experience the M9 noise is intrusive and difficult to get rid of or mitigate without it looking obvious in the image.

 

M noise seems a lot more forgiving and in fact looks quite film like .... as a result it doesn't seem so troublesome and LR4 dose a great job in removing it if you have to ..... and leaves the image very acceptable.

 

absolute noise at a given ISO is only one measure ..... what it does to the photo and how easy it is to reduce it is much more important.....

 

like most photography ..... it's things that make a real-world everyday difference that need to be worried about.... not nit picking, anally retentive pixel peeping.....

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[thrid]

The whole CCD vs CMOS debate is a storm in a teacup and pixel peeping at it's worse.

There was more of a difference between two flavors of Velvia, than were seeing here.

 

The difference you're going to see between the M9 and M240 is noise and increased dynamic range. If you want to make your 240 look like an M9, skew the reds, add some noise and turn up the contrast. Problem solved.

 

If you want your pictures to look like the MM, go out and buy an MM. Bringing the MM in to this discussion is pointless for obvious reason.

 

Most of the hand wringing about this subject is psychologic, but I'm not going to wade in to that morass, because it's a losing battle.

 

You guys are wasting your time. Go out and take some pictures.

[zlatkob]

The new M should have been an even more improved M9P with a weather sealed body.

 

Leica have listened to all the "Me Too"clamour and just made a hotch potch of totally irrelevant features with a plastic looking awful CMOS sensor with a Heath Robinson visoflex electronic viewfinder.

 

Silly concentration on ridiculous high ISO that NOBODY needs just for the sake of saying that the camera will take pictures at 10,000 ISO Hahahaha - i couldn't give a damn for chocolate boxy crappy CMOS images at any ISO.

 

Leica STOP pandering to non photographer collectors of new toys and STICK to what your core buyers want.

 

I have had it with all the crappy Live View, Video, High ISO nonsense - TOTALLY IRRELEVANT in a Leica M. If you want, note want not NEED that fluff then go buy a cheap DSLR and marvel that it can shoot images at 100,000 ISO.

 

"The new M should have been an even more improved M9P with a weather sealed body."

"Leica have listened to all the 'Me Too' clamour."

"High ISO that NOBODY needs."

"Stop pandering to non photographer collectors."

"Stick to what your core buyers want."

 

Well, weather sealing is absolutely a "me too" feature because whenever it was discussed here in the context of the M8 and M9, the common reply was that it was pointless because the lenses could not be weather-sealed. So weather sealing was dismissed as a gimmick to please people from the DSLR world, more marketing than substance.

 

And delivering higher ISO is certainly not pandering to non-photographer collectors because they don't need it and never asked for it. High ISO is a request from real photographers who know that being able to make pictures with less light has been an ongoing quest throughout the history of photography, from its invention in the 1800's to the present. Because the world exists at night. Because action sometimes happens indoors. Because flash is not always desirable. Because more depth of field is sometimes desirable. Because lighting equipment can be more portable. Because a tripod isn't always practical. Because not everyone has Noctilux or wants to carry one. Because there isn't a Noctilux for every focal length. And because noisy digital pics look like crap and require more work.