pico Posted September 23, 2013 Share #41 Posted September 23, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Jeff, I am not a color photographer because I voluntarily fixed my role in B&W decades ago. So I defer to others as if I were color-blind. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 23, 2013 Posted September 23, 2013 Hi pico, Take a look here M-E vs other / advice. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Jeff S Posted September 24, 2013 Share #42 Posted September 24, 2013 Pico, my comments were about b/w, hence the reference to grey/black ink sets, etc. I did b/w film printing for several decades, in 4 different home-built darkrooms, and now do it digitally. With today's printers, papers, inks, etc, there's no excuse for not being able to generate wonderful prints, cold or warm toned, with either approach. I now have no hesitation exhibiting them side by side. I only began doing my own color printing 5 years ago, but that's a whole different thing. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted September 25, 2013 Share #43 Posted September 25, 2013 [...] With today's printers, papers, inks, etc, there's no excuse for not being able to generate wonderful prints, cold or warm toned, with either approach. I now have no hesitation exhibiting them side by side I fear that I could not see the differences between expert silver and ink prints. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted September 25, 2013 Share #44 Posted September 25, 2013 I fear that I could not see the differences between expert silver and ink prints. The whole reason for my post was to respond to your comment here that you found digital prints too 'cold' to use as a basis to judge image quality. Now you're saying digital and silver prints are the same when done well? Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecaton Posted September 25, 2013 Share #45 Posted September 25, 2013 I'm no fan of DXO either. By M, I meant the M series. Specifically the M-E the OP is referring to. MANY cameras have a better sensor (on paper at least) than that sensor. Pretty much every current 35mm sensor for a start. At over ISO 800 many of the current APSC cameras using the latest Sony or Fuji camera do as well. Now I "prefer" the output from my M9's over all those sensors but that's because I don't want infinite DR and I shoot 90% of my stuff at base ISO. As for the current m240 sensor. From the tests I have done it's thoroughly trounced by the Canon, Nikon and sony 35mm sensors in their current cameras. All of them have less high ISO noise and more DR than the type 240 sensor. And yet if I could do it all again, I'd choose a Leica M9 over any of those cameras. Although the M9 and M240 sensors are both quite excellent I don't delude myself that they are either state of the art or class leading. Gordon High iso race replacing the pixel mania of the old. Reminds me of the BMW 6 cylinder engines of the 90s. Above 4500 revs they started to deliver and sing above 5000. No torque and performance below, not my engines. The M9 sensor output is still my preferred one up to iso 800. And with the low light underexposing technique explained mainly by Mitch recently, the M9/M-E is a fine low light shooter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted September 25, 2013 Share #46 Posted September 25, 2013 DXO measures noise response on RAW determined by their software It does not test on the raw sensor output or normalise processing. i.e. Sony does so much in their firmware to get to raw, whereas Leica does zilch DXOMARK has posted no results for Fuji X cameras. Why ? Because even a simple change in bayer pattern throws their measurements which can not adapt. Leica + Lightroom @ISO 800 or below > Sony + Lightroom IMHO but DXOMARK does not measure this Therefore whilst I think that DXOMARK is a good reference I mainly use it to compare results between the same companies/technology level sensors, rather then between difference company's sensors. Another example, I managed to almost extract the same level of detail out of the shadows from the 6D as the D800E, however the D800E has a much higher dynamic range score. Why ? I don't know but Canon is clearly doing less to enhance their raw file then Sony+Nikon. See my comment here on 6D dynamic range (shadow lifting): Canon 6D Dynamic Range - Practically speaking: Canon EOS-1D / 5D / 6D Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review I have found no camera that can beat the acuity or colours of the M9. People say that the RX1 is better at high ISOs but frankly that's just a race to the bottom in terms of amplitude distortion. Here is a dynamically corrected RX1 picture I took, note the typical Sony colours: 1940s singing | Flickr - Photo Sharing! Lastly I recently found out some interesting things about CMOSIS. I originally thought it was some very small unknown company. Now I have found out who some of their key customers are, what sensors they actually produce for them, and what they are actually used for. Unfortunately I am not at liberty to discuss it here, but it does make me very excited about the company and their capability and what they actually could produce for Leica if Leica was prepared to pay for it and/or prices came down Finally, attached is a typical low light colours that come out of the M9 at high ISO, lovely ... West sunset, Charing Cross bridge by harold.whatever, on Flickr Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted September 25, 2013 Share #47 Posted September 25, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) ...I have found no camera that can beat the acuity or colours of the M9. People say that the RX1 is better at high ISOs but frankly that's just a race to the bottom in terms of amplitude distortion...Very good point, but people seem to prefer to read spec sheets rather than using their eyes on the output. —Mitch/Paris Bangkok Hysteria [download link for book project] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pascalg Posted September 25, 2013 Author Share #48 Posted September 25, 2013 so many replies... interesting to read, tx! @colonel : loved to compare the different photos I will really think twice before buying Leica rangefinder, Nex FF, or anything... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlashGordonPhotography Posted September 25, 2013 Share #49 Posted September 25, 2013 High iso race replacing the pixel mania of the old. Reminds me of the BMW 6 cylinder engines of the 90s. Above 4500 revs they started to deliver and sing above 5000. No torque and performance below, not my engines. The M9 sensor output is still my preferred one up to iso 800. And with the low light underexposing technique explained mainly by Mitch recently, the M9/M-E is a fine low light shooter. I agree with you on all counts. I rarely shoot over 640 ISO and there I much prefer the M9 output to any of its Japanese relatives. Of course, some of that is purely a personal preference. But others don't shoot the way I do. High ISO shooting is important to them. Likewise I couldn't care less about super fast continuous AF tracking. To others it's become of vital importance, or so they say. I'm just trying to give a broader opinion than the narrow band of my own preferences. Personally what I would really like in a sensor is some really useful lower ISOs. I wonder if I can special order an M250 with a native ISO range of 50 to 640 only. And maybe 1/8000 on the shutter dial. Gordon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.