Nick_S Posted March 15, 2014 Share #21 Posted March 15, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) The whole KR article is written in a more tongue-in-cheek style than usual, which means that a reader is less likely to take the points made as Gospel, but as issues to check out when trying a demo of the camera (e.g., the revised menu structure, EVF lag and low light illumination etc). Perhaps this is a good thing rather than a common alternative which is when we read that X.Y has just published a comparison of Z brand lenses on his pay-to-view web site and finds them so much sharper/contrastier/less-distorting than the Leica alternative. Nick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 15, 2014 Posted March 15, 2014 Hi Nick_S, Take a look here Our man Ken tells the true M240 story. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
250swb Posted March 15, 2014 Share #22 Posted March 15, 2014 Ken is positively pragmatic but has little technical knowledge, and the fact he claims to be shooting JPEG is saying a lot. Comments about dynamic range, colors, and other technical aspects must be taken with a big grain of salt, and oftentimes just as plain BS. He also has another page with a comparison of the M, M9, and other cameras shooting JPEG. He does not realize that doing so he is testing algorithms more than hardware. Nevertheless, that page should be read very carefully by anyone still shooting JPEG on the M9. Little technical knowledge??? Lets look at that. You say he's testing algorithms in a comparison between the M9 and M because he is using JPEG. Well the JPEG is the manufacturers version of the best image the camera can produce, but a .dng file is testing the opinion of the person using it, hence I suggest the reason he uses JPEG's is because it puts all camera's on a level playing field, from M to iPhone. On the wider level it is easy to accuse Rockwell of BS because lets face it, he isn't likely to turn up on a doorstep and whup somebody's ass. But he does cut through some of the BS put about by 'fans' of certain brands. Good grief you've only got to read the forum to realise some people have bought a Leica because they've been told or they sincerely believe it is the best camera you can buy. When indeed an iPhone may produce a better photograph than an M in their hands they struggle to understand the basic's of photography (notwithstanding everybody has to start somewhere). You've only got to read about the anxiety of needing the box to be sealed, or the climax caused by 'unboxing', to acknowledge he does have a point about Leica owners and boxes. So the accusation is he has little technical knowledge. I say he has a lot of technical knowledge, but he is insightful enough to realise that nowadays there are no bad cameras, and a high end camera making bad photo's isn't better than a low end one making good photo's. That is cutting through the BS of photo forums, and is a pretty grown up approach considering the childish and inane bashing Rockwell gets. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 15, 2014 Share #23 Posted March 15, 2014 I find your analysis quite interesting, Steve and I guess there is a lot of truth in it, but I think if one makes behaving like a “man of the People” by oversimplification one’s trademark, expect to be treated as such by those that overcomplicate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted March 15, 2014 Share #24 Posted March 15, 2014 Rockwell isn't alone if common sense is being dispensed, indeed he may be ahead of the game if you don't just want to hear about how many megapixels it takes to make a photographic superhero. Michael Reichmann over on Luminous Landscape has similar thoughts..... What Matters Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 15, 2014 Share #25 Posted March 15, 2014 But, you must admit, a different level of common sense…. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevesurf Posted March 15, 2014 Share #26 Posted March 15, 2014 Rockwell isn't alone if common sense is being dispensed, indeed he may be ahead of the game if you don't just want to hear about how many megapixels it takes to make a photographic superhero. Michael Reichmann over on Luminous Landscape has similar thoughts..... What Matters Steve Well said, Steve. I really enjoy reading all the individual reviewers, from Thorsten and Steve Huff to Ken Rockwell. I agree that his focus on lens quality rather than a 15% difference in pixels has great merit. A lot of folks find his statements inaccurate; I find them compelling, and they have always helped my decisions in some way. As a bonus, his recurring theme of the "Leica Man" in his reviews is not only humorous but lets me not take myself too seriously in a quest for image quality! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted March 15, 2014 Share #27 Posted March 15, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) "A high quality lens will always trump the sensor when it comes to producing superior image quality" (Michael Reichmann) A breath of fresh air Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted March 15, 2014 Share #28 Posted March 15, 2014 As Puts has pointed out several times in recent years the technical capabilities of Leica cameras and lenses in image production far exceeds the requirements of even the most discerning user. All that differs between the pro/semi pro end of the market is size, ergonomics, functions and range of add-ons ....... and choice then becomes a matter of taste and how one uses a camera. A sensible review these days should consist of one line on technical capabilities (which will invariably be excellent) and the rest on the important isues of getting the damn thing to do what you want it to ........ The X-Vario and A7r for me were excellent examples of this .... both CAN produce fantastic images ...... it's just that I found doing it with the Sony painful, hit and miss and frustrating ..... and with the XV very simple, consistent and a real pleasure...... On paper the A7r trounces the XV ..... but in real world use the XV wins by a huge margin ..... in MY hands, that is ........ and that's the whole point ........ I continue to support KR and his growing family as there is usual a kernel of common sense amongst the bluff and bluster ...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted March 15, 2014 Share #29 Posted March 15, 2014 Well the JPEG is the manufacturers version of the best image the camera can produce, but a .dng file is testing the opinion of the person using it, hence I suggest the reason he uses JPEG's is because it puts all camera's on a level playing field, from M to iPhone. Sorry, I fail to understand your logic. And the sentence "a dng file is testing the opinion of the person using it" does not make any sense to me. That is cutting through the BS of photo forums, and is a pretty grown up approach considering the childish and inane bashing Rockwell gets. I agree KR gives lots of good advice, is pragmatic, speaks his mind, and is definitely cutting through the BS of photo forums. But he lacks technical knowledge, and as any human he sometimes is wrong. Do you find the previous sentence childish and inane ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lenicolas Posted March 15, 2014 Share #30 Posted March 15, 2014 I have owned both the X100 and the X100s and now have an M240 (plus an M6). The files from the M240 are mils better then the Fujis even to my unprofessional eye. Mr Rockwell is amusing but should never be taken as a serious reviewer! Keep in mind that he only shoots jpegs. And that as a landscape enthousiast he sets his image settings to something like : Contrast +11 Sharpness +11 Saturation +11 the fact he claims to be shooting JPEG is saying a lot. Comments about dynamic range, colors, and other technical aspects must be taken with a big grain of salt, and oftentimes just as plain BS. This. Mr Rockwell shoots jpeg only, and as you can easily verify by downloading his camera presets (they are available for at least some nikon cameras), he has very personnal preferences in terms of in-camera contrast and sharpness ajustments... Knowing that, how could anyone take his views and "mesures" on a given sensor's dynamic range as facts? Unless of course you shoot the same camera as he does with the same settings, and jpeg only... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazytiger Posted March 15, 2014 Share #31 Posted March 15, 2014 He's fun to read. But his site is a graphic designer's nightmare. Makes my eyes hurt each time I visit it. If photography has something to do with a sense for beauty, color and proportion, I cannot see it on his site. One question to this community: What are your experiences about that "red highlight" phenomenon he's talking about? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted March 15, 2014 Share #32 Posted March 15, 2014 And the sentence "a dng file is testing the opinion of the person using it" does not make any sense to me. Unless you simply press 'Auto' when it comes to processing a .dng file you make decisions over and above the JPEG engine of the camera, it is all the raw data available, and unless you have an opinion how you want the image to look how do you expect to make sense of it? You can even have an opinion on which RAW converter you want to use which also adds to the individuality of the image. These adjustable parameters are not carried over into the EXIF file so they are lost to any other person wanting to test/replicate/prove wrong a reviewers ideas. So a .dng file is not just about a quest for ultimate image quality and other nerdy concepts, it is about making a bespoke image, the one you wanted to make, not the JPEG the camera can make for you (and everybody else). Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
osscat Posted March 15, 2014 Share #33 Posted March 15, 2014 Unprocessed DNG file sumicron 35mm (replica hood now in the bin) with 100% crop unprocessed. No sharpening only image reduction for posting. The camera takes me back to my early shooting experience of manual camera, manual focus and more to the point 3 x 2 format which, for me, is the best format. Nuff said. Osscat 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/223512-our-man-ken-tells-the-true-m240-story/?do=findComment&comment=2550112'>More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 15, 2014 Share #34 Posted March 15, 2014 How do you “unprocess” a DNG file? It cannot but be processed to arrive at the JPG to render it on a display. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted March 15, 2014 Share #35 Posted March 15, 2014 Unless you simply press 'Auto' when it comes to processing a .dng file you make decisions over and above the JPEG engine of the camera, it is all the raw data available, and unless you have an opinion how you want the image to look how do you expect to make sense of it? Thanks for clarifying your thought. Now your sentence makes sense.... But it is incorrect in the original context of your objection The problem is that a human is the worst tool to estimate dynamic range (and many other parameters humans do care about). A simple algorithm will ingest the raw data available and find the dynamic range and a lot of important objective facts. No need to apply artistic processing, and no need to press "Auto" to render/print anywhere. KR is a one-man band. It is nice to listen to him, but his interpretation of the score is approximative, and he often plays a discordant note. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted March 15, 2014 Share #36 Posted March 15, 2014 How do you “unprocess” a DNG file? It cannot but be processed to arrive at the JPG to render it on a display. False. You don't need JPEG to render a DNG on a display. JPEG is a lossy image compression algorithm used to reduce the data size. It comes after the rendering phase, and only serves the purpose of saving the image to storage in a very small file (and quickly, due to the small file size). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted March 15, 2014 Share #37 Posted March 15, 2014 You can even have an opinion on which RAW converter you want to use which also adds to the individuality of the image.These adjustable parameters are not carried over into the EXIF file so they are lost to any other person wanting to test/replicate/prove wrong a reviewers ideas. False. You can store processing parameters and other metadata in the DNG without altering the RAW data. You can also store in the DNG the exact RAW converter software version you used to set the parameter as per your artistic taste. In any case, like I said in a previous post, user choices and RAW converters are not needed for a technical assessment of several important camera hardware capabilities such as dynamic range. So a .dng file is not just about a quest for ultimate image quality and other nerdy concepts, it is about making a bespoke image, the one you wanted to make, not the JPEG the camera can make for you (and everybody else). The DNG file is the actual hardware output plus, optionally, the user rendering preference. It has it all. Using JPEG in 2014 is stupid. It is just throwing away a lot of precious data that will make you re-discover all your pictures on future rendering devices. KR is clueless about this, and keeps spreading his JPEG BS around. When your JPEG images will lack that extra realism in the future, remember I warned you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbl Posted March 15, 2014 Share #38 Posted March 15, 2014 I like Ken's stuff usually. I don't always agree with him, but many of his articles, to me, are enjoyable and useful. His comments about color composition were helpful to me. I don't agree with a lot he says--his dislike of the Noctilux, for instance--but his focus on lighter weight cameras and traveling lightly I've found helpful. One thing in the M240 review I emailed him about was the part on the LTM adapters for M lenses. The Kipon brand covers the lens code sensor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
osscat Posted March 15, 2014 Share #39 Posted March 15, 2014 Ye Gods This is turning into a geeks paradise or a mere mortals' nightmare. Seems to me there are many contributers who have forgotten or never experienced developing and printing film. Post processing RAW or DNG files electronically to me is the same as processing film. You choose your own parameters regarding exposure and then 'develop' the electronic "neg' to your own satisfaction. I can't remember there being a auto setting for that - unless one counts polaroid. Osscat PS - Jaapv, can you tell me how to post an out of the camera DNG file from an M240 without breaching the file size limit? What do you call a DNG or RAW file that has not been manipulated in ACR or Lightroom (1) processed or (2) not processed (unprocessed)? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted March 16, 2014 Share #40 Posted March 16, 2014 DNG image quality from the M typ 240 has highlights with relatively little dynamic range that turn a dirty brownish-red if you attempt to recover extreme highlights Could someone explain this to me? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.