Jump to content

Monochrom 246 review from amateur Photographer magazine


Herr Barnack

Recommended Posts

Nothing very controversial, until he wrote this…

 

"The image quality on previous Leica M cameras has never been of class-leading quality, but the new CMOS sensor has brought Leica forward a lot."

 

Can hardly wait for comments.   :o

 

Jeff

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If I'm not mistKen DxO rated thr M9 CCD sensor and/or image quality as quite low. Yet measurements regarding performance characteristics in a wide variety of optical perameters doesn't always tell the full story. This is especially true what the eye perceives.

 

Thats one of the reasons many favor the output at base ISO from the M9 vs. M240 regardless the reasons and users of both cameras should respect each others choice. Ita about the image more than anything else and thats why when it comes down to it,some of the greatest images have been taken with far less capable cameras image wise.

 

Dave (D&A)

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Nothing very controversial, until he wrote this…

 

"The image quality on previous Leica M cameras has never been of class-leading quality, but the new CMOS sensor has brought Leica forward a lot."

 

Can hardly wait for comments.   :o

 

Jeff

 

I glossed over that review as it's pretty pointless at this point. That quote says it all. Got my M246 today and have the MM as well as M240 and all digital M bodies. Not worth replying to that quote other than to laugh.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's tough isn't it - Clarke is a good chap, an enthusiastic photographer - but his job is to test lots of different cameras, and actually owning each of them is rather a tall order for a magazine like Amateur Photographer.

 

I guess you could feel that they should buy in reviews from experienced photographers - but the whole point of that sort of magazine review (like those at dPreview) is that they're formulaic. . . and in terms of dXo scores, he's certainly right. It's obviously what people want to read.

 

To be honest, when Lloyd Chambers says something like:

since focusing Live View uses the actual image striking the sensor (vs a separate loosy-goosy mechanical rangefinder coupling, which I stopped using entirely once the M240 replaced my M9).

Then that turns me off in the same way, because it's missing the point of the camera so badly (for me at least) (just like criticising the quality of the previous Leica sensors).

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's tough isn't it - Clarke is a good chap, an enthusiastic photographer - but his job is to test lots of different cameras, and actually owning each of them is rather a tall order for a magazine like Amateur Photographer.

 

I guess you could feel that they should buy in reviews from experienced photographers - but the whole point of that sort of magazine review (like those at dPreview) is that they're formulaic. . . and in terms of dXo scores, he's certainly right. It's obviously what people want to read.

 

To be honest, when Lloyd Chambers says something like:

since focusing Live View uses the actual image striking the sensor (vs a separate loosy-goosy mechanical rangefinder coupling, which I stopped using entirely once the M240 replaced my M9).

Then that turns me off in the same way, because it's missing the point of the camera so badly (for me at least) (just like criticising the quality of the previous Leica sensors).

I can't agree more Jono. That guy is born to test DSLR and Point & Shoot cameras. Never an M never a rangefinder.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That guy is born to test DSLR and Point & Shoot cameras. Never an M never a rangefinder.

 

I wish there was less of this unsubtle oneupmanship about DSLRs from Leica owners. It gets pretty tedious quite quickly.

A camera is a camera. The AP piece seems like a perfectly reasonable review for the intended generalist audience who aren't all paid-up Leica fanboys.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't agree more Jono. That guy is born to test DSLR and Point & Shoot cameras. Never an M never a rangefinder.

 

Yes maybe Lomo cameras too I would imagine. Little snapshot digicams and DSLR's like the Canon/Nikon models which the vast majority of pro's use, or how about a Leica S? Yes let him faff with those crappy cameras. He's not good enough for an M - isn't there some way Leica can ensure some people don't get their grubby hands on them?

Edited by earleygallery
Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone actually read the article linked to above?

Hi there James

of course - and I've talked to him about it as well - I think it's a good article, and I quite agree with you and Ian about the "unsubtle oneupmanship" - but I also see how the article can be slightly beside the point for someone who'd been using a Leica rangefinder for years. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's tough isn't it - Clarke is a good chap, an enthusiastic photographer - but his job is to test lots of different cameras, and actually owning each of them is rather a tall order for a magazine like Amateur Photographer.

 

I guess you could feel that they should buy in reviews from experienced photographers - but the whole point of that sort of magazine review (like those at dPreview) is that they're formulaic. . . and in terms of dXo scores, he's certainly right. It's obviously what people want to read.

 

To be honest, when Lloyd Chambers says something like:

since focusing Live View uses the actual image striking the sensor (vs a separate loosy-goosy mechanical rangefinder coupling, which I stopped using entirely once the M240 replaced my M9).

Then that turns me off in the same way, because it's missing the point of the camera so badly (for me at least) (just like criticising the quality of the previous Leica sensors).

I was stunned when I read this statement. What is the point of the entire M system if not for the RF? As a 46 year Leica M shooter, the RF is the essence of Leica and a big part of the Leica experience. I recall reading things like this during the migration of dslr users to the M9 when Leica was billing it as the world's smallest full frame digital system. It was obvious these Johnny-come-latelies  just didn't get it and thankfully after pining for their dslr days moved on.

At the Leica Akademie, they would do a little test with a paper taped over the focussing scale on an M lens and an R lens. Participants were asked to focus several times, marking where focus was achieved on the lens each time. 90% of the time, the M lens was focussed at the same spot. The R lenses were all over the board. The point being, the RF was more consistent more of the time than the slr. I don't think the laws of physics have changed with the advent of digital. Of course, any viewing system can be out of alignment and need adjustment to be in spec to function properly. But to make the statement that you have abandoned the "loosely, goosey RF system" for the digital screen is frankly nuts. I'm sure this same thinking would have advocated using their film M with a permanent Visoflex attached. Oh wait, I think they called them SLRs!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

To be honest, when Lloyd Chambers says something like:

since focusing Live View uses the actual image striking the sensor (vs a separate loosy-goosy mechanical rangefinder coupling, which I stopped using entirely once the M240 replaced my M9).

Spending upward of $7,000 on a Leica M camera and using it exclusively in the less than "class-leading" live view mode is absolutely foolish and a big waste of money.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A camera is a camera. The AP piece seems like a perfectly reasonable review for the intended generalist audience who aren't all paid-up Leica fanboys.

Well for a start not all cameras are the same - some really are more fit for specific purposes than others. And IMO it wasn't even a review, it was a restatement of the issued information about the camera plus some uninformed assumptions, such as many Leica users being likely to shoot in B&W as opposed to colour (we could test this using the images posted on the forum) and having a 'different approach's photography(???). I'm sure that the author's a nice chap but do we really need such mediocre re-renderings of Leica's data together with ill-considered opinions to be written and called reviews? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Agree, but then I'm foolish although I use the RF when I can even thoigh my eyesight is OK in one eye only.

That's a different story, if your eyesight is bad and you use Leicas for the sake of Nostalgia. Nothing wrong with that. You are not calling the rangefinder clunky and inaccurate by design. Even in hyperfocal setting, which I know is tricky with digital cameras, the rangefinder still lets you see beyond the frame and gives you an immediate view of exactly what is happening in the frame at any given moment, which can't be said for the EVF with its lag time before exposure.

 

If your eyesight and technique allows it, you can easily achieve perfect focus with the rangefinder.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 I read it and thought it was a pretty fair piece, bearing in mind they're audience mostly aren't Leica users. Of course being AP someone here had to poo-poo it!

Just to refute any idea that I'm poo-pooing it because its from AP, I'm not. But surely we don't have to take assumptions and opinions based on them as being part of a review? IMO its a poor piece - its that simple. Because it says nothing new and adds assumptions and opinionated comments - which is fine IF the 'reviewer' fully understands what he/she is talking about and can back them up, but I don't see it in this case. Feeding potential inaccuracies to a 'generalist' audience isn't good regardless of who publishes them. My opinion of UK journalism (of any sort) is pretty low and this does nothing to improve it I'm afraid.

 

[When I write articles, which I occasionally do, I try to thoroughly research them, check them and then if possible have someone peer review them. It would be much easier and quicker to be sloppy.]

Edited by pgk
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...