jaapv Posted March 17, 2014 Share #61 Posted March 17, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) The bumbling clown is the most popular performer in the circus.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 Hi jaapv, Take a look here Our man Ken tells the true M240 story. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
lct Posted March 17, 2014 Share #62 Posted March 17, 2014 That is fine - as long as you specify what program you use and with what presets you have processed it. Sure but i don't know the presets when i open a DNG file in PS or Preview. I open it and i choose to tweak it or not before saving. I rarely do this actually as i prefer C1 but i just wanted to suggest that "unprocessed" means unprocessed image and not unprocessed data for ordinary people like me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 17, 2014 Share #63 Posted March 17, 2014 The minimum you will have to do in PS is choose the process (albeit once) and camera profile. Preview is indeed fixed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted March 17, 2014 Share #64 Posted March 17, 2014 But, in the context of testing a camera or a lens, what if the closest thing we have to an unprocessed image was going the opposite way : opening the image in ACR and pushing all values to a minimum or maximum instead of the default values? For example : if I wanted to speak of the dynamic range of a sensor, I would consider an image with highlight recovery to the max, black point to the min, luminosity to around 60-70 and contrast to 0 to be my to be much more relevant than the ACR default image which might already have clipped out highlights and blocked out shadows... Yes but to compare cameras or lenses you would have to choose ACR and the exact same presets for each test while your readers could think that other raw converters do better. No wonder why many reviewers (all French ones?) prefer testing jpegs instead of raw files like KR. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
osscat Posted March 17, 2014 Share #65 Posted March 17, 2014 I quite see where you are coming from and I do not intend to make life difficult- my point is you used the presets of ACR which inevitably add a bias. Not only are those presets user-customizable (for instance, which process did you use? 2012? or an earlier one?What camera profile? Embedded, Adobe or your own?, etc.), if you had used another raw converter the result would have been different. In that sense KR is right to use OOC JPGs, as those can be presumed to be a reflection of the way the manufacturer intends the image of his camera to look. Yaaawwn ..zzzzzz Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted March 17, 2014 Share #66 Posted March 17, 2014 So, what has changed since my 'assertions' in post #22? I was obviously referring to your post #32. You simply don't know what you are talking about. Why don't you honestly admit it ? I'd value being proven wrong if my mad ideas about honesty and choice are dangerous. Honesty and choice are good. Relax. You are not mad. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted March 17, 2014 Share #67 Posted March 17, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Yes but to compare cameras or lenses you would have to choose ACR and the exact same presets for each test while your readers could think that other raw converters do better. No wonder why many reviewers (all French ones?) prefer testing jpegs instead of raw files like KR. Then these reviewers should know better. Any camera has its own embedded raw converter that must be run before the JPEG creation stage. Users are simply not aware of it. Different brands and even different camera models have different embedded raw converters. The M has its own "hidden" raw converter, and the presets were chosen by some firmware guy in Leica. Be assured that Canon and Nikon have different algorithms and presets for raw conversion, chosen by different firmware guys, and possibly modified with a new firmware release. Hope we all agree now that comparing JPEG actually means comparing the output of different unknown raw converters, with unknown parameters chosen by different unknown guys, after a lossy compression stage that destroys a lot of information. Let's do this experiment: If the above makes sense to you, please click on "Thanks!" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted March 17, 2014 Share #68 Posted March 17, 2014 ...Hope we all agree now that comparing JPEG actually means comparing the output of different unknown raw converters, with unknown parameters chosen by different unknown guys, after a lossy compression stage that destroys a lot of information. ... Not sure if we are on the same line here. When we compare the outputs of say a Leica and a Nikon camera, we know perfectly well that the raw converters involved are from Leica and Nikon so we can say that we compare a Leica to a Nikon from this standpoint. But when we compare their raw files converted by C1 or ACR, we don't compare a Leica to a Nikon any more but their interpretation by Phase One or Adobe. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted March 17, 2014 Share #69 Posted March 17, 2014 His M240 - M9 - X100S - D600 @ 35mm "image quality comparison" is pretty useless for me. I would not use any of those cameras as jpeg cameras. The jpegs they make are the least interesting aspect of their performance. Image quality is not judged by sharpness at the center alone, nor by sharpness at a single aperture alone, nor by sharpness alone. Image quality in not judged by enlarging any image to greater than 100% -- that's pretty absurd. That comparison represents one bad decision after another, resulting in unreliable conclusions. It almost seems designed to confuse and mislead. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted March 18, 2014 Share #70 Posted March 18, 2014 But when we compare their raw files converted by C1 or ACR, we don't compare a Leica to a Nikon any more but their interpretation by Phase One or Adobe. Serious reviewers will use the same raw converter (e.g. Lightroom 5.3) and the same neutral set of parameters, which can even be tuned and optimized for that particular comparison, or to match your photographic style and preference. This is the only way to compare the actual camera performance... if you really need to see the result. Then again, some very important checks such as dynamic range are computed on the raw file itself, therefore the raw conversion is not even needed. You won't be able to see an image, but you will have the performance data you want. ...But I sound like a broken record Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 18, 2014 Share #71 Posted March 18, 2014 Finally on the same track… Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lenicolas Posted March 18, 2014 Share #72 Posted March 18, 2014 His M240 - M9 - X100S - D600 @ 35mm "image quality comparison" is pretty useless for me. I would not use any of those cameras as jpeg cameras. The jpegs they make are the least interesting aspect of their performance. Image quality is not judged by sharpness at the center alone, nor by sharpness at a single aperture alone, nor by sharpness alone. Image quality in not judged by enlarging any image to greater than 100% -- that's pretty absurd. That comparison represents one bad decision after another, resulting in unreliable conclusions. It almost seems designed to confuse and mislead. Remember when he compared M9, 5dII, and D3 by up-sampling each photo to the size of the 5dII output? Good times... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Jones Posted March 18, 2014 Share #73 Posted March 18, 2014 I had some fun this morning imagining a Ken Rockwell review of Ken Rockwell. Maybe comparing him with Erwin Puts and Steve Huff. Complete with life size photo (if viewed at the correct resolution of course). A fully mocked up review page in his style would be a great addition to the internet. i.e. The Ken Rockwell is the smallest, lightest, highest-quality reviewer ever created by the hand of Man. The all-carbon Ken Rockwell is less expensive than the old Erwin Puts, and weighs over four ounces (120g) less than the plastic Steve Huff! The Ken Rockwell weighs only 2.4 oz (69g) more than the dinkiest Thorsten Overgaard! etc. etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quadraticadder Posted March 22, 2014 Share #74 Posted March 22, 2014 Could someone explain this to me? I think it means that is raw converter is not optimized for the M240. He should compare the DNG's from the M9 and M240 using several raw converters to see if his observation holds true. Posting a picture comparison that illustrates his point would be helpful. Best, Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted March 28, 2014 Share #75 Posted March 28, 2014 Why did I buy the M 240 when I own an iPhone. Bill Why? Because you cannot take/make phone calls and photograph with your iPhone simultaneously. I have seen many photographers talking on their iPhone while shooting with a camera, camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted March 28, 2014 Share #76 Posted March 28, 2014 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 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... Sometimes I think he sets his jpeg saturation to +110! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill W Posted March 28, 2014 Share #77 Posted March 28, 2014 Bill Why? Because you cannot take/make phone calls and photograph with your iPhone simultaneously. I have seen many photographers talking on their iPhone while shooting with a camera, camera. Now you tell me..... I am really enjoying "Alice's" lens... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted March 28, 2014 Share #78 Posted March 28, 2014 Bill Why? Because you cannot take/make phone calls and photograph with your iPhone simultaneously. I have seen many photographers talking on their iPhone while shooting with a camera, camera. You most certainly can talk on an iPhone while using it's camera. That's what the speakerphone I'd for. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jjbru Posted March 28, 2014 Share #79 Posted March 28, 2014 Steve Huff has made a much better analysis months ago. Mr Rockwell always comes back with his Fuji x100s. I have sold mine After 6 weeks. They just do not play in the same league. The autofocus is too slow , there are too many settings, who continously change if you do not block the menu. High iso are much less acurate than in the m 240. The price is just not the same. So make your choice, in sports photograohy a D800 is probabby better, in extreme situations a D3 s on Nikon. But Leica is a system , not only a camera, and the lenses are just the best available. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.