IWC Doppel Posted July 6, 2013 Share #1 Posted July 6, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) AP have reviewed the M, the summary is a little harsh, but probably fair at least from my perspective. "however as a serious photographic tool the m type 240 is something of a sideways step from the M9, rather than the step Leica meant it to be." Seems they were somewhat unimpressed by image sharpness of the sensor as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 6, 2013 Posted July 6, 2013 Hi IWC Doppel, Take a look here Amateur Photographer M240 review . I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
dwbell Posted July 6, 2013 Share #2 Posted July 6, 2013 Here we go. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindolfi Posted July 6, 2013 Share #3 Posted July 6, 2013 Seems they were somewhat unimpressed by image sharpness of the sensor as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrp Posted July 6, 2013 Share #4 Posted July 6, 2013 Actually, I found that it was a fairly thoughtful review. Their basic finding was that the new features, while useful, detracted from the rangefinder experience. Eg, you have to switch on the camera to get framelines. They found that the sensor was about as sharp as a typical 24Mpix sensor with low pass filter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindolfi Posted July 6, 2013 Share #5 Posted July 6, 2013 Direct comparison between Canon 5DII sensor and Leica M (typ 240) sensor, using same distance, same lens (Elmarit 90/2.8 at f/5.6), same testcard at 100%, selection form center of image. Testcard at 3.6 meter, so numbers are line-pairs/mm. Same sharpness settings in LightRoom 5. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted July 6, 2013 Share #6 Posted July 6, 2013 Surprised that AP has the temerity to criticise a Leica product. I normally think of them as being the mouthpiece for what passes as a marketing department in the UK. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalfx Posted July 6, 2013 Share #7 Posted July 6, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Same sharpness settings in LightRoom 5. Each sensor/fw requires its own sharpness setting in LR, why would they compare two different sensors using the same setting. It should be adjusted to the cameras ideal settings in LR Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindolfi Posted July 6, 2013 Share #8 Posted July 6, 2013 Each sensor/fw requires its own sharpness setting in LR, why would they compare two different sensors using the same setting. It should be adjusted to the cameras ideal settings in LR Well, if there is more in camera sharpening in the Canon, for the end result (normal workflow) you are right, but for a clean comparison, this is better. Just pass me the "ideal" LR settings for both camera's and I'll create a second direct comparison. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted July 6, 2013 Share #9 Posted July 6, 2013 Bert, Thanks. Wouldn't a comparison with the 5D3 be more appropriate? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindolfi Posted July 7, 2013 Share #10 Posted July 7, 2013 Yes, K-H, it is, so perhaps someone who owns a 5DIII and an M can do it for us. But I would suggest to do it with the same lens on both camera's at the same aperture. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinzX Posted July 7, 2013 Share #11 Posted July 7, 2013 I own both cameras, a 5 D III and a M 240. I will do no testing, but my visual impression is, that the pics taken with the M 240 with the Summilux 50/1,4 ASPH FLE at f 2.8 are sharper as that taken with the 5 D III and the new - and very good - Canon 24/70 2.8 II at 50 mm at f 2.8 - at least at low ISOs up to 400. I use Photoshop CS 5 and the RAW files. All my personal Impression and might be the other way round with other parameters (lenses, focal length,ISOs, aperture ...). The dynamic range of the M 240 is higher than that of the 5 D III - which is sometimes of importance. But anyway - both cameras give excellent results, which should fulfill all requirements. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwbell Posted July 7, 2013 Share #12 Posted July 7, 2013 M 240 with the Summilux 50/1,4 ASPH FLE at f 2.8 are sharper as that taken with the 5 D III and the new - and very good - Canon 24/70 2.8 II at 50 mm at f 2.8 - Comparing a zoom with a prime would normally be deemed apples to oranges. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrianUK Posted July 7, 2013 Share #13 Posted July 7, 2013 ZZzzz... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinzX Posted July 7, 2013 Share #14 Posted July 7, 2013 Comparing a zoom with a prime would normally be deemed apples to oranges. This professional zoom = Canon 24/70 II is - not considering the max. aperture- not worse than the prime lenses of Canon at 50 mm. That is why I have recently sold my Canon 50/1,2 and my 24/1,4 II. By the way this is valid too for the professional zoom 70/200 IS II USM in its focal range. I have only kept prime lenses from Canon as the 100er Macro, the 180er Macro, the TS-E 17 mm (tilt shift - a special lens) and the MP-E 65 - a special lens for image ratio up to 5:1. Even my 85/1,2 was sold. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwbell Posted July 7, 2013 Share #15 Posted July 7, 2013 Ok, compare what you like for your own reasons within your own frame work. You already are it seems. It's always subjective, and gets more so the more personal opinion you include going into it. Sometimes 'testing' can serve to avoid buyers remorse. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted July 7, 2013 Share #16 Posted July 7, 2013 Ok, compare what you like for your own reasons within your own frame work. You already are it seems. It's always subjective, and gets more so the more personal opinion you include going into it. Sometimes 'testing' can serve to avoid buyers remorse. I would like to suggest to read Roger Cicala's writeup on lensrentals about the 5D3 and that new lens. It's quite informative. He actually shows that this combination gives consistent repeatable improved autofocus results over a combination of new and old. So, the new lens on the 5D2 or the old lens on the 5D3 are inferior. Seperately, the 5D3 is a stunning high ISO performer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth3kpl Posted July 7, 2013 Share #17 Posted July 7, 2013 Back on topic, did they say anything about reliability? Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest borge Posted July 7, 2013 Share #18 Posted July 7, 2013 Comparing a zoom with a prime would normally be deemed apples to oranges. This professional zoom = Canon 24/70 II is - not considering the max. aperture- not worse than the prime lenses of Canon at 50 mm. That is why I have recently sold my Canon 50/1,2 and my 24/1,4 II. By the way this is valid too for the professional zoom 70/200 IS II USM in its focal range. I have only kept prime lenses from Canon as the 100er Macro, the 180er Macro, the TS-E 17 mm (tilt shift - a special lens) and the MP-E 65 - a special lens for image ratio up to 5:1. Even my 85/1,2 was sold. The professional zoom is wide open at it's widest aperture f/2.8. The prime is stopped down to f/2.8. That makes a huge difference. Stop down the zoom to f4-5.6 then check again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwbell Posted July 7, 2013 Share #19 Posted July 7, 2013 The professional zoom is wide open at it's widest aperture f/2.8. The prime is stopped down to f/2.8. That makes a huge difference. Stop down the zoom to f4-5.6 then check again. Or compare the zoom at f/1.4, oh no, wait... Subjective at best, always. Edit : Just to add, as I may appear to be "attacking". I compare apples to oranges all the time, I get blasted for it on here too. My X100s has replaced my M9 & 35 cron. "But it's not a rangefinder / full frame / metal body / got a red dot" - couldn't care less, I want an orange. So I'm not saying HeinzX is 'wrong' , just 'right for him'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindolfi Posted July 7, 2013 Share #20 Posted July 7, 2013 Subjective at best, always. As soon as you add comments to the images it becomes subjective. But just shooting the same object with the same lens and different sensors and keeping everyting the same (lens settings, camera settings and postprocessing) and showing the results (for you to subjectively interpret) is as objective as it gets. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.