thighslapper Posted May 17, 2015 Author Share #41 Posted May 17, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) MM246 12500 iso 100% crops 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/245136-mm-m240-mm246-comparison-images/?do=findComment&comment=2817342'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 17, 2015 Posted May 17, 2015 Hi thighslapper, Take a look here MM, M240, MM246 comparison images. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
thighslapper Posted May 17, 2015 Author Share #42 Posted May 17, 2015 MM 10000 iso 100% crops 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/245136-mm-m240-mm246-comparison-images/?do=findComment&comment=2817343'>More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted May 17, 2015 Author Share #43 Posted May 17, 2015 I have a further set using the 21/3.4 which I will post later that include some intermediate ISO's. I fully accept the viewing reduced JPG's on a monitor bears no resemblance to prints ...... but as we can't circulate those amongst us this will have to do. I reiterate that the only things done to these were minor tweaks to keep the exposures as close as possible. The degree of sharpening and NR was done to MY taste ..... and with a lot of trial and error to get the best image I could. Some of the differences ...... or lack of ..... are interesting ...... but I personally see nothing that suggests I have wasted my money ...... and fiddling about with all 3 on a tripod reveals very quickly that the MM246 is a much more flexible and ergonomically pleasurable camera to use. ..... oh .... and Dee ...... when has the 'need' for a new camera ever entered into it ? ........ it's 'want' that is the overriding human factor ...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted May 17, 2015 Share #44 Posted May 17, 2015 A Leica is never a waste of money, neither do we ever need to be in a hurry to buy the most recent body. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted May 17, 2015 Share #45 Posted May 17, 2015 So thanks so much for posting those very high-ISO photos when I thought I'd made my decision - now I'm impressed with the M246 ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenshacker Posted May 17, 2015 Share #46 Posted May 17, 2015 Thankyou for posting these. ISO The 100% crop ISO12500 shots from the M246 show some fixed-pattern noise in the form of horizontal lines running across the image. If you have the chance, could you try some ISO12500 shots with a slow memory card? http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/196777-monochrom-banding-normal/ Would be interesting to do this test early on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted May 17, 2015 Share #47 Posted May 17, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Jeff, while I do agree that I wouldn't make purchase decisions based on a few web pictures, I sometimes make non-purchase decisions based on a couple of web pictures. These days, anything that can keep my GAS in check and keep me on track with just making the best of what fantastic equipment I have is most welcome. I know you did the same when you had your M8 and skipped a generation. It's hard enough to do that, and it feels extra special and justified when you actually do upgrade, as you can probably also attest. Nope. I didn't skip the M9 because of any pics, or any opinions, I saw online….that was a result of my own priorities, testing and assessment using my own workflow, the same I'll do eventually with the new MM once all the dust settles. Reading is fun, but the only thing that matters to me gear-wise is how that gear suits my own print workflow. GAS has not been my issue for several decades (when I worked my way through all formats)…cameras are tools used to make prints, and that's where my joy comes. Having a camera that suits my shooting style (like the M8) is a necessary, but not sufficient gauge…in the end, it's whether it helps me produce better prints…and the M9 didn't for me. I'm also not an early adopter, content to wait for bugs and issues to sort out. Those user reports are much more useful for me than forum pics, which I find entertaining, but ultimately uninformative unless there are some glaring problems. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
profus Posted May 17, 2015 Share #48 Posted May 17, 2015 it's late and I've had too many beers ..... thanks for pointing it out before the whole world notices ..... corrected the typos .... I thought it was something like that Not a big deal at all - just wanted to be sure I didn't miss a new M model However - thank for posting those images! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted May 17, 2015 Share #49 Posted May 17, 2015 From one grumpy old fart to another, thanks for all your time consuming work. Most appreciated. For me since I already sold my M9 amd MM some months ago and needing EVF for my failing eyesight, I am "stuck" using the M-P and M246 when it arrrives. To me these new "tools" wil just keep the fun of photography (and me) alive that much longer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edward Louis Marit Posted May 17, 2015 Share #50 Posted May 17, 2015 To my eye the velvety curtain in the enlargement and the stone wall are very similar between mm and 246, but have less detail and less mid tones with the 240. My conclusion is that the increased usability of the 246 ( live view, weather sealing, quieter,better lcd, bigger buffer,) is the main advantage over the mm. . Others may think differently. Plus I guess not having the inconvenience of sensor corrosion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted May 17, 2015 Author Share #51 Posted May 17, 2015 PRINTS from the MM246: Oh dear, oh dear Oh dear ....... In-between gardening duties this afternoon I have run off A2 (23.5x16.5 inch, 59x42cm approx.) prints of the MM246 images at 320, 3200, 6400 and 12500 iso. Same NR and sharpening as the ones I posted with no other adjustments apart from output sharpening for printing and exported at 360 ppi. Printed with Printao to my 3880 at the highest detail settings and almost borderless to get the biggest prints ...... on Brilliant Museum Silver Gloss White Paper ( which I got a pile of from Calumet when I got my printer ..... and it's actually pretty good) Would you like the good news or the bad news first ....... ? ......... initially I thought I had cocked everything up and printed the same image 4 times ...... to a cursory look with naked eye and without looking very closely ...... there is almost NO difference between them at A2 size ........ looking a bit closer you can spot the 12500 image ..... there is a slight loss of crispness, but basically noise is not apparent to the naked eye ...... The detail on the 320 image on the 100% crop posts is not discernible to the naked eye ..... I had to get my old 2.5X Keeler Surgical Loupes out to see it ....... and I had to use a x10 magnifier to discern the grain structure. God knows how big you would have to print to actually see everything ..... the potential resolving power of the 50/2 apo combined with the MM246 sensor is well beyond what most of us actually need ...... unless printing huge or cropping drastically. At 3200 with 2.5X magnification you can discern faint and unobtrusive fine granularity in the out of focus areas and shadows ...... and the detail at 2.5x is very slightly less .... but still quite remarkable. At 6400 you can just start to make out a slight loss of detail crispness, and at 2.5X mag this is easily seen and there is slightly more obvious noise ..... but again really unobtrusive. At 12500 the in-focus areas are still well defined , but the stonework behind the altar is less crisp and the out of focus areas such as the chairs are beginning to look very slightly fuzzy...... the grain of the wood on the right hand stand with flowers on is now gone .... and with 2.5X mag a fine granularity is starting to appear even in the in focus well exposed areas ... and is now obvious in the out of focus areas and shadows ..... but again remarkably little. Detail, even the subtle patterning on the embroidered altar cloth is still very well preserved. There is less detail in the shadow areas, but without magnification you would not notice unless you looked carefully. Tonally they all look the same to me ..... and there is no banding or other issues. I very rapidly had to write the iso on the back of the prints as I kept losing track of which was which ....... and although if you put them side by side you could put them in order after a bit of scrutiny ....... trying to identify the iso without the others to refer to is actually quite difficult .... they are ALL that GOOD ..... The bad news ...... ???? Those of you looking for a reason not to get a Monochrom 246 won't find it when it comes to print quality ...... sorry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted May 17, 2015 Share #52 Posted May 17, 2015 Interesting, but frankly I wouldn't care if there were differences a varying ISOs, especially without using using other PP actions, and without knowing what 'look' I was after with any given photo. Again, this is interesting anecdotal information on limited out-of-camera pics…but of no practical concern for my print needs and preferences, which always require PP actions, just as my silver prints always required darkroom manipulation. I'm more interested in file flexibility. Remember the initial unfavorable comments on 'flat' out-of-camera MM files, which dissipated once people realized the potential to manipulate files and 'looks'. Any M…film or digital... is frankly capable of producing wonderful prints…in the context of a full workflow…depending of course on one's personal tastes and requirements…and skills. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedaes Posted May 17, 2015 Share #53 Posted May 17, 2015 Jeff - isn't some of the quality aspects thighslapper has demonstrated generic and therefore a useful measure. If you are operating on a higher plane, in your view, so be it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted May 17, 2015 Author Share #54 Posted May 17, 2015 Interesting, but frankly I wouldn't care if there were differences a varying ISOs, especially without using using other PP actions, and without knowing what 'look' I was after with any given photo. Again, this is interesting anecdotal information on limited out-of-camera pics…but of no practical concern for my print needs and preferences, which always require PP actions, just as my silver prints always required darkroom manipulation. Jeff Well I'm so glad I've been of some assistance to you. I apologise for for my 'limited' photos and the fact I haven't processed the hell out of them to a recipe that suits you. Perhaps you would like to suggest just what you would like me to do to produce a meaningful comparison ...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted May 17, 2015 Share #55 Posted May 17, 2015 No offense intended. As I wrote above, I appreciate your efforts. I'm merely stating my belief, unlike others', that these type of posts …by you or anyone else…could never determine whether this camera (or any camera) could satisfy my print needs, no matter how many photos you or others post. That requires my using the camera, in my workflow, for an extended period. I need to do the work…enhanced or limited by my own skills, needs and tastes, as the case may be. That's all. Just offering my conceptual thoughts…without reflection on your work per se. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted May 17, 2015 Share #56 Posted May 17, 2015 Jeff - isn't some of the quality aspects thighslapper has demonstrated generic and therefore a useful measure. If you are operating on a higher plane, in your view, so be it. See above. Sure it's useful in some respects…just not determinative for me…unlike others who base purchase decisions on online postings. Nothing to do with 'mine is better than yours' type of nonsense. Everyone who prints has his/her own style and workflow….the camera is but one of myriad variables in a disciplined workflow leading to print quality (even to include display conditions). No different than the darkroom days…just easier and more flexible processing when done digitally. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenshacker Posted May 17, 2015 Share #57 Posted May 17, 2015 Well, from one Grumpy Old Fart to another, Thankyou for your effort, it helps me understand this camera much better than before. I would still appreciate it if you could try a quick shot with a Slow memory card at High ISO. If the image is even cleaner than now, some users might want to try for themselves. I still get this question in regard to the M9 and M Monochrom, the slower cards make a difference in them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
profus Posted May 17, 2015 Share #58 Posted May 17, 2015 It could be me ( or my screen ), but in your ISO 6400 M240 image I see less noise compared to MM image?! Would you care to give us chance to see DNG images ( I would be interested in 6400 ISO between those 3 cams ) Thank you very much! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterjcb Posted May 17, 2015 Share #59 Posted May 17, 2015 Well then. I'll just go out and take some photographs and never buy another camera again? Money is definitely better spent on the 50mm APO if you already own any digital M camera. there I said it. +1.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilfredo Posted May 17, 2015 Share #60 Posted May 17, 2015 Thanks for posting these. I think these will help folks decide what "look" they like best, or if in the end it doesn't really make any significant difference. I would love to see the same test using a human subject. ThighSlapper: Any chance you will do comparison shots using a human subject, even at a single ISO setting? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.