Jeff S Posted May 25, 2015 Share #21 Posted May 25, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) So, is all the above worth another $7450? Plus various other M240 platform changes, covered elsewhere….battery life, frame lines (2m optimization and internally illuminated), faster processor, shutter release (not just less re-cock noise), etc, including no reports of sensor corrosion issues. Leica has stated that the lenses do not need additional weather sealing to take advantage of the M platform sealing improvements. Of course these differences may or may not have any importance for you. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 25, 2015 Posted May 25, 2015 Hi Jeff S, Take a look here erwin says MM-I is better at low to medium ISO than MM-II. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
tgm Posted May 25, 2015 Share #22 Posted May 25, 2015 I'm a little baffled by this. There are a fair number of reviews out now with samples that show 1.5 stops of better ISO performance or so (and even slightly better detail) in favor of the M240. Sean Read has lots of samples. I've also downloaded direct comparisions from one of our contributors, and the difference in the files at every ISO is easily noticible. I don't know what to think now that there's one reviewer who sees it the other way. Very interesting data point. I am very puzzled by the comparison, While I am not so surprized that at base ISO there is little difference in noise, there is no doubt that the read out noise of the CMOS sensor is lower and that of the MM-I CCD and it has 24 instead of 18 Mpixel, so at high ISO there must be clear difference as in the case between M9 and M240. Further, and even more surprsing, how can the higher Mpixel sensor show LESS detail and resolution and MORE moire at the same time? That puts the question how the images where post processed to show the same size. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GabrielIndalecio Posted May 25, 2015 Share #23 Posted May 25, 2015 I have both MM I & II – and regardless Erwin’s scientific Testing methodology the MM-II is way better than MM-I when you compare all factors together and I’m not trying to justify my Emotional MM-II purchase. J. Top 5 Reasons why MM-II is way better: · Eye/Brain perception of Grey-Scale tonality is richer; MM-II LCD bigger screen resolutions definitely helps here. · Shooter Sound is beautiful – Love it ! (no surprises here as I’ve been using M-240 for a while) · Viewfinder when you are +50 is a must to have; help me get better focused pictures. · Files structure similar; but playing with the new MM-II and Lightroom 6.0 have been a very pleasant experience, it took me 5’ to get proper profile combination; with MM-I I’ve been struggling finding right Post processing setup. · Last but not least; how I can regret on something just purchased. J This is my personal opinion, not intended to dispute mathematical or scientific comparation but share how I do perceive MM-II improvements vs MM-I. Jono is right !! attached example from my MM-II. 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/245466-erwin-says-mm-i-is-better-at-low-to-medium-iso-than-mm-ii/?do=findComment&comment=2821806'>More sharing options...
Hannes Lummes Posted May 25, 2015 Share #24 Posted May 25, 2015 how can the higher Mpixel sensor show LESS detail and resolution and MORE moire at the same time? That puts the question how the images where post processed to show the same size. Exactly. Makes no sense. Seems that his methodology has failed, miserably. But how and why? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannes Lummes Posted May 25, 2015 Share #25 Posted May 25, 2015 He does not tell how he scaled the resolution in the pictures, but it is obvious that the comparison is f***ked up somehow. At low isos MM2 shows immense amounts of moire, which is totally not possible, and in fact it contradicts his first test too. I give an F for his effort this time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannes Lummes Posted May 25, 2015 Share #26 Posted May 25, 2015 What on earth has he done indeed. The MM2 pictures show pixels about twice the size of the MM1. How can anyone take this test seriously for more than 5 minutes.... BTW, it seems that the sensor mapping is not working properly in his MM2, there are artefacts visible at a line which crosses vertically at about 1/6 from the right. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted May 25, 2015 Share #27 Posted May 25, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Puts Part 3, MM246 vs M240… http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/camera/styled-51/ Part 4 to follow, including 12/14 bit discussion. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandymc Posted May 25, 2015 Share #28 Posted May 25, 2015 The difference between reviewers really shows the perils "black box" reviews - aka reviews where exact methodology isn't specified, and the original raw files aren't made available. You end up having to simply place your faith in the reviewer. In this case, it looks like Irwin's images are (at least) scaled, which will change noise characteristics. But processing, especially if you're using any of Adobe's newer products that will automatically apply optimizations, will also change noise in unpredictable ways. Sandy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted May 25, 2015 Share #29 Posted May 25, 2015 I am very puzzled by the comparison, While I am not so surprized that at base ISO there is little difference in noise, there is no doubt that the read out noise of the CMOS sensor is lower and that of the MM-I CCD and it has 24 instead of 18 Mpixel, so at high ISO there must be clear difference as in the case between M9 and M240. Further, and even more surprsing, how can the higher Mpixel sensor show LESS detail and resolution and MORE moire at the same time? That puts the question how the images where post processed to show the same size. According to my measurements, noise is virtually identical at ISO 320; at any higher ISO setting the new Monochrom comes out ahead. Resolution-wise it is superior to the original M Monochrom at any ISO setting. More about this in the next issue of LFI. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 25, 2015 Share #30 Posted May 25, 2015 As Sandy said, without full disclosure of methods used there is little to be said about the conclusions of various testers. We do need to consider though, that Erwin is very well connected within Leica. It would be very surprising if he had not discussed his findings with technical people in Wetzlar. So we may assume that he has his bases covered. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 26, 2015 Share #31 Posted May 26, 2015 He does not tell how he scaled the resolution in the pictures, but it is obvious that the comparison is f***ked up somehow. At low isos MM2 shows immense amounts of moire, which is totally not possible, and in fact it contradicts his first test too. I give an F for his effort this time. If a conclusion does not meet our expectations that is not quite the same as f***ed up. The M8 has less resolution than the M9 in pixel number, yet the higher acuity due to the thinner filter array largely compensates in image rendering. We could suppose that the different technologies between the sensors of the MM1 and MM2 can well give a similar effect. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoffrey James Posted May 26, 2015 Share #32 Posted May 26, 2015 Because there are very few gaps in my ignorance about the technical aspects of sensors, I can't properly evaluate Puts's results. All they say to me is that both cameras are impressive examples of a mature technology and the differences are not large and mostly indiscernible. And I don't need to spend X thousands of dollars because of the sound of the shutter or the bright line frame. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannes Lummes Posted May 26, 2015 Share #33 Posted May 26, 2015 If a conclusion does not meet our expectations that is not quite the same as f***ed up. The M8 has less resolution than the M9 in pixel number, yet the higher acuity due to the thinner filter array largely compensates in image rendering. We could suppose that the different technologies between the sensors of the MM1 and MM2 can well give a similar effect. I kindly suggest that you spend another 2 minutes looking at the moire in the test. If you still think the test can be valid, I don't know what to say. The pixels somehow seem to be about twice the size therefore a gross error has happened somewhere. Either it was the methodology or it was the algorithm, but something did f**k the results up in a big way. I value Erwins lens reports and film test a lot, but I don't let it fool me when I see something like this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 26, 2015 Share #34 Posted May 26, 2015 Without an explanation of what is going on that appears to me to be a rather simplistic conclusion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandymc Posted May 26, 2015 Share #35 Posted May 26, 2015 I kindly suggest that you spend another 2 minutes looking at the moire in the test. If you still think the test can be valid, I don't know what to say. The pixels somehow seem to be about twice the size therefore a gross error has happened somewhere. Either it was the methodology or it was the algorithm, but something did f**k the results up in a big way. I value Erwins lens reports and film test a lot, but I don't let it fool me when I see something like this. If i understand Erwin's write-up correctly, he used Iridient as the raw developer. Like all other raw developers, Iridient has its pro and cons, but I would consider one of it's cons to be relatively high levels of moire. (It's believed to based on DCRaw's demosaicing algo). Running the images through another raw converter would almost certainly much reduce that. If you want to compare a monochrome conversion from a Bayer camera to a monochrome camera, I would suggest either Lightroom (which has very good moire suppression), or AccuRaw Monochrome (which is optimized for doing mono conversions from Bayer cameras). Sandy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannes Lummes Posted May 26, 2015 Share #36 Posted May 26, 2015 The funny thing is that parts 1 and 3 show logical and respectable results, there are no weird "hey, I somehow halved the resolution" -things going on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted May 26, 2015 Share #37 Posted May 26, 2015 There are many subtle parameters here, but other reviews (see for example Sean Reid's real life examples at ISO 10.000) show considerable improvement at high ISO. Same with Jono's high ISO test (he says he deliberately used low light in the high ISO test for it to be realistic - what lighting did Erwin use?) But no need to be unhappy with the original M. I upgraded because of the sensor issue, and the new M package (buffer, battery, finder, less noisy shutter). Hi there I wouldn't claim for a second to be as rigorous or as careful as Sean or Erwin. I am actually a scientist by training, and so I understand very well that they are trying to limit the variables which may affect their results. This is the correct thing to do in almost all scientific investigations. BUT It seems to me that they are removing the subject from the list of variations, and of course, that's one thing that varies in (almost) everybody's photography. It seems to me that if Sean finds a 1.5 stop advantage shooting vegetables, and Erwin finds none shooting test charts whilst Gregory reckons it's two stops shooting distant buildings then it might be the subject that's controlling this variation. Certainly shooting high ISO in good light makes a difference from shooting in poor light. I reckon that in a number of varying situations you'll find that 25,000 ISO in the new Monochrom is marginally better than 10,000 in the old, but it's tough to be scientific over thousands of different subjects in different sorts of light. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnbuckley Posted May 26, 2015 Share #38 Posted May 26, 2015 After using the Monochrom II over the past two weekends, I don't find there is any noticeable difference between its performance and that of my M9 Monochrom at ISO 320 in bright light except: I can use the EVF with the Noctilux or 21 Summilux and get a shot in perfect focus, quickly; the read-out on the LCD is larger and shows significantly better tonality; in the realm of pure subjective anecdote, not scientific measurement, images taken while using an ND filter seem, without any LR or Silver FX fiddiling, to have more life. Again in the realm of anecdote, my usual processing of Monochrom files has gotten just a touch more complicated: after basic adjustments are made in LR, when I send the image to Silver FX, the High Structure setting I love needs to be toned down a touch. These are not big changes. If the criterion for determining which camera is best for you is purely the quality of a low ISO image, there's no reason to upgrade, really. If the criteria are more multifaceted -- you want the same flexibility the M-24X platform provides, you want genuinely better high ISO performance, you want a quieter shutter -- the new Monochrom is worth the upgrade. And all this is said with full realization that if you don't upgrade, you still have a unique and glorious camera in the M9M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jvansmit Posted May 27, 2015 Share #39 Posted May 27, 2015 And all this is said with full realization that if you don't upgrade, you still have a unique and glorious camera in the M9M. I was thinking last night that I've never been so emotionally attached to a camera as I am with my M9M which replaced my now sold M240. The slowly developing silvery patina reminds me of so many experiences that I don't think I can ever part with it despite the siren call of the new Monochrom. I was shooting during a heavy monsoon downpour in Phnom Penh a couple of days ago. The M9M was fine but my (German!) watch misted up. It's been dropped a couple of times onto marble and concrete floors but still works fine. In the last year it's been to Palestine, Kolkata, UK, and multiple trips in SE Asia. It's been left behind on café tables, met lots of beautiful girls, been shouted at by Israeli soldiers and angry drunks, had endless conversations with strangers, and made many new friends. I can keep an extra battery in my jeans pocket without an embarrassing bulge; the shutter sound is quiet enough not to get me into too much trouble, and F2.0 and ISO1250 gets me through most situations. ....and I can get a 35mm Summi FLE instead of an M246 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted June 19, 2015 Share #40 Posted June 19, 2015 It's interesting how Erwins conclusions don't match others. Trouble is I'd trust anything Erwin published over others, does seem strange though. I thought a 1-2 stop high ISO advantage was a 'given' until I read this Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.