Jeff S Posted June 20, 2013 Share #1 Posted June 20, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) According to E. Puts' testing. I read these types of things for kicks, content to discover a camera's attributes and limitations mostly by taking lots of pics. For those more technically minded than I, I do wonder how he might account for sample variations in the test, and whether lenses make any difference (since they transmit the light to the sensor). Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 20, 2013 Posted June 20, 2013 Hi Jeff S, Take a look here M vs MM Exposure and DR. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
macjonny1 Posted June 20, 2013 Share #2 Posted June 20, 2013 Interesting. I would be curious to hear thoughts from those that currently own BOTH right now. Jono?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pieterpronk Posted June 21, 2013 Share #3 Posted June 21, 2013 I just skip most sentences with numbers in them and feel good when I read a sentence that I think I understand. My perception then translates the graphs and numbers into meaning my Monochrom is worth using. And then in a state of bliss induced by this new knowledge I tell my wife my expensive toy is worth using, to which she responds with a faked surprise. Feeling misunderstood in my moment of joy, I press the issue by showing the graphs to her. Then she brings me down to earth by asking: what precisely do all these numbers refer to? Ah the joy of reading Puts' articles... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOZ Posted June 21, 2013 Share #4 Posted June 21, 2013 Well, as for me, i just showed very large prints to my wife (20x30 inches) and for the first time she understood why i bought a MM. I guess prints talk better than numbers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted June 21, 2013 Share #5 Posted June 21, 2013 I was going to précis the article, but I couldn't find a point to précis. I think he uses the term 'Upshot' ironically, because there is no upshot, both camera's have less DR in practical use than lab tests imply (no surprise there, same for all camera's), and even .5 of a stop difference away from optimum exposure changes the graph radically. To my mind that limits both the M and MM to photographing perhaps a properly calibrated wall, and at most fruit. Sometimes less knowledge is a good thing. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
viramati Posted June 21, 2013 Share #6 Posted June 21, 2013 goes over my head but I do know that I seem to be getting a lot better DR from my M compared to the M9 especially at higher iso's Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
theno23 Posted June 21, 2013 Share #7 Posted June 21, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) goes over my head but I do know that I seem to be getting a lot better DR from my M compared to the M9 especially at higher iso's Definitely. I shot with my M9 for a week while my M strap lugs were being fixed, and there was noticeably less DR. The MM has more DR than the M9 though, as I understand it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick De Marco Posted June 21, 2013 Share #8 Posted June 21, 2013 goes over my head but I do know that I seem to be getting a lot better DR from my M compared to the M9 especially at higher iso's Without a doubt - my experience too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pieterpronk Posted June 21, 2013 Share #9 Posted June 21, 2013 It seems its not so much the quantity but the quality of the dynamic range that counts... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Branch Posted June 21, 2013 Share #10 Posted June 21, 2013 In my opinion this is just about the most confusing article that Mr. Puts has published for some time. I understand it, (after >40 years working for Kodak I jolly well should), but I can only do so by discarding the conventional terminology of sensitometry and substituting new terms. For example where in conventional sensitometry one would refer to “Greater Exposure” in this article the term “Less Dense” is used. It’s self-evidently true that the image of the less dense parts of the target will be brighter and hence increase the exposure but to mix up the terms normally applied to the “Input”, i.e. Exposure, with terms normally applied to the “Output”, i.e. Density, is unhelpful. I know it is inherent in digital photography but it does not help that the highest output numbers refer to the least dense parts of the curves. Having struggled with it for some time I’ve come to the conclusion that it makes sense but is of little, if any application, to the real world of taking photographs. With regard to how sensitive the results are to exact exposure this mirrors many professional films. Manufacturers have, for obvious reasons, sought for years to minimise this effect in amateur films, but exposure of some professional films is every bit as critical in one wants to obtain optimum results. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Photoskeptic Posted June 21, 2013 Share #11 Posted June 21, 2013 In my opinion this is just about the most confusing article that Mr. Puts has published for some time. Having struggled with it for some time I’ve come to the conclusion that it makes sense but is of little, if any application, to the real world of taking photographs. Agreed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth3kpl Posted June 21, 2013 Share #12 Posted June 21, 2013 goes over my head Let me explain: These are inverse plots against Time of my Interest in various states of Inebriation. The area beneath the curve is my Will To Live. Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shade Posted June 22, 2013 Share #13 Posted June 22, 2013 I think indicating that the MM has more dynamic range values should be correct. As they properly use each diode to record a single tone and depth. Unlike the RGB sensors, they are divided into 3 tasks, which means less data of dynamic range recorded due to colour recordings. (at least this is what *I* understand). However, I was told that if you blow up a highlight, it's unsalvageable - since there are no other colour channels in the highlight, theres nothing you can pull back (is this true?). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick_S Posted June 22, 2013 Share #14 Posted June 22, 2013 For me the most interesting statement was left undeveloped (excuse the pun): "Under- and overexposure by 0.5 to 0.7 stop changes the tonal scale significantly and one should experiment with the parameters to get the result that suits the expectations" I would like to have seen the graphs showing how the tonal scale shifts with increments of over- and under- exposure, e.g., an animated Flash or GIF graphic cycling through each level of exposure. A graph at the optimum is not that useful. At night or in sunshine (common here in Greece) I'm usually having to weigh up how much to simultaneously clip the shadows and highlights, as the dynamic range exceeds that of the sensor. Nick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
diogenis Posted June 22, 2013 Share #15 Posted June 22, 2013 It would be simpler if he would say that x axis represents a certain patch of the total 20 and that y axis represents the digital value that the camera's sensor outputs that is from 0 to 255. So you have anumber of distinct values for luminance according to whitch patch your sensor reads. After this tramslation one can easily say that the M is really way more linear than the monochrom. Especially in the darks and highlights. I don't know how he claims that the mono is more linear in the mid tones, because I don't see that by watching at this graph there. Erwin has an amazing talent at making things harder than they are. We are lucky to have him, because this thing that he shows us is the guts of every camera. It all boils down to this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwbell Posted June 22, 2013 Share #16 Posted June 22, 2013 Let me explain: These are inverse plots against Time of my Interest in various states of Inebriation. The area beneath the curve is my Will To Live. Pete LOL! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted June 22, 2013 Share #17 Posted June 22, 2013 Whilst I don't understand it in full or probably not even in part. A few things strike me about the technical comparisons between CCD and CMOS from the new M, this is the shape of the curve and the more stepped curve of the M. I do not know what the target is I'm sure someone could tell me whether linear or following a gamma curve and when any adjustments to the core sensor output are applied to acheivable the target. Would I be wrong to conclude that whilst the ultimate DR may be different the information in the graduation either end of the range is different between the two ? Bear with me here, I'm no scientist but given we can choose to broaden a narrow range in post process software are we trading a small amount of very low light shadow information with the M for better tonal graduation in the shadows (albeit possibly clipped at the bottom end) with the MM or dare I say 9 ? Some tell tale signs to me regarding CMOS are in the highlights, particularly light on skin, perhaps the high end of CMOS does have less ultimate graduation. I like Putts as he gets it and thinks about what his analysis says, I wish I was a little more intellectual to keep up. Either way, I'd love an MM just hoping they become unloved on the secondhand market some time soon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted June 24, 2013 Share #18 Posted June 24, 2013 Hahaha, you and I are waiting for the same thing: an MM becoming unloved to the point of $5,000? This makes me think that it is probably not going to happen any time soon. Maybe, and only maybe, when an M240-MM comes out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted June 24, 2013 Share #19 Posted June 24, 2013 I think indicating that the MM has more dynamic range values should be correct. As they properly use each diode to record a single tone and depth. Unlike the RGB sensors, they are divided into 3 tasks, which means less data of dynamic range recorded due to colour recordings. (at least this is what *I* understand). However, I was told that if you blow up a highlight, it's unsalvageable - since there are no other colour channels in the highlight, theres nothing you can pull back (is this true?). I think you are correct; by sure, supposed you have the same sensor, having NOT a colored filter on it does increase the ability to record low lights... and the Bayer filter is a pattern of colored filters. But here, two quite different sensors are compared... CMOS and CCD, one filtered and the other not... the graphs by E.Puts are interesting... but the conclusions not so deep... ; frankly, I think that mainly he takes fun playing with those standard test patterns... there are many of the most various kinds, and for a man who loves lab testing they are a sort of temptation... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJH Posted June 24, 2013 Share #20 Posted June 24, 2013 The graph is interesting, the text is the sort of nonsense babble one expects from a non-scientist dabbling with a scientific test. Pure drivel. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.