DigLloyd reviews M246

[jrp]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

http://diglloyd.com/  (substantive content requires a subscription).

 

However, he does find "It is odd to find what appears to be digital artifacts in a monochrome sensor camera, but there it stood out (not shown here), found while assessing the scene for diffraction. Disabling sharpening leaves the apparent artifacts in place, so it’s not a result I yet understand."

 

It isn't clear whether the artifacts (in fine detail) are a product of Adobe Camera Raw conversion or something generated by the camera; is there such a thing as moire or false tone, as opposed to false colour, in b&w?.  We'll have to wait 'til he returns from his trip.

[pico]

http://diglloyd.com/  (substantive content requires a subscription).

 

 

His subscription requirement is discouraging, which I find to be a good thing.

.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[mjh]

It is difficult to comment on something that you cannot see (without a subscription); I have no idea what he is talking about. (And I don’t fall for subscription-bait.)

Edited May 28, 2015 by mjh

[Jager]

I subscribed to Digilloyd some years ago.  Notwithstanding his purporting to cover Leica in a comprehensive way, I found many curiosities - like his oft-repeated complaint of being unable to achieve proper focus with an M body - that ultimately led me to conclude he's neither as knowledgable as he would wish us to believe, nor does he get along particularly well with rangefinders.

 

Much like Erwin Puts, he would like us to think he's very scientific and unbiased and accurate in his evaluations.  But whereas you get a sense with Erwin that there's a long, distinguished background that informs his observations, with Lloyd Chambers it's more of a faux scientific method.

 

IMO, if you're going to pony up for a subscription site, Sean Reid goes far deeper in his evaluations of cameras and lenses.

Edited May 29, 2015 by Jager

[jrp]

He only uses Liveview on the M.

 

His reviews tend to focus on sharpness (where he ruthlessly roots out field curvature, etc).  This is fine, but does not really reflect real world usage (particularly with only a central focusing point).    He's a fan of the newer ultra-high performance elmar lenses (rightly) and the Zeiss 35mm f/1.4.  He is much less fond of the likes of the 35mm Summicron, which many here love.

 

He also seems to be unusually prone to receiving defective items to test (APO 50mm lens flare is but one example).

 

Whether the artifacting that he shows is a feature of the camera or his processing remains to be seen.

[sanyasi]

I subscribed to Sean Reid's site for a year or two.  If you are into that sort of detail, it is a great site, but I just don't care about all the charts, tests, and other machinations that these folks produce and undertake.  I came to rangefinders because they were small, unobtrusive, and fun to use.  When I go through my results, they live or die by the composition, tone, and subject matter.  I've never had someone way, "that's bad photo because it isn't sharp at the edges."

[derleicaman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I subscribed to Sean Reid's site for a year or two.  If you are into that sort of detail, it is a great site, but I just don't care about all the charts, tests, and other machinations that these folks produce and undertake.  I came to rangefinders because they were small, unobtrusive, and fun to use.  When I go through my results, they live or die by the composition, tone, and subject matter.  I've never had someone way, "that's bad photo because it isn't sharp at the edges."

Bravo! This is the most succinct, cogent take on all of these reviews. These are the same reasons I use a Leica RF camera. Small, unobtrusive, easy to use and great for travel. It's the results that matter with the camera you have with you. The Leica puts a smile on my face when I use it. When I write a review of a camera or lens for the LHSA Viewfinder, I refer to the "objective" mtf curves, etc., but it is the results you get that matters most. I enjoy the reviews that Jono writes and I recruited him to write for VF. David Farkas and Brian Bower write in this style as well. Otherwise we are like the clerical scholars of old arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. 

Edited May 29, 2015 by derleicaman

[batmobile]

IMHO Reid's reviews have excellent content for when you are trying to decide between similar items i.e. a Leica 28mm and a Zeiss one, but the platform is so bad I may not renew. It is oh so painful to extract that information. I regard him as objective and relevant. Lloyd I find odd. He fixates upon things that irritate him and I do not feel he has much of a grasp of real world use, or at least not at a standard that makes me take note. While reviewing and using are not precisely the same thing, a person who shoots to a high standard is more likely to understand what matters and how much, thus providing relevant commentary and conclusions. Sean is better here, but that said, artefacts in the M246 is odd, but one cannot be sure whether Chambers is viewing files under an electron microscope or has spotted an issue that needs to be addressed.

 

P.S. I agree that Chambers and rangefinders are not a great match. I also conducted my own tests re the Monochrom (m9) and the A7R and am left a bit puzzled by his assertion that the D800E was clearly superior. I guess it depends on application and this is where the art comes in. Is the D800 better at high ISO than the MM Mk I? On paper, yes. In print, goodness no (not to me). One has nasty noise and one has nice noise!

[colonel]

Its not really a review yet, its just two comparison tests. this can be seen from the non-subscriber index BTW. There is plenty more he will publish on the camera later.

 

Erwin Putts is free and is very interesting.

 

Amateur Photographer in the UK just reviewed in this weeks edition. It gave 5 gold stars which is pretty high for that magazine. The review is quite interesting.

 

I love Seid Reid reviews overall . I still think his ones are largely the best, despite his odd pictures of older folk dancing and the terrible user interface.

Edited June 4, 2015 by colonel

[ThePioneer]

I love reading Erwin's opinions.

 

I rarely agree with them but I do enjoy unraveling them.

[Hannes Lummes]

LLoyd has found weird artefacts, check his last blog entry. Bizarre. Hope that it is a converter issue

[FrozenInTime]

He just published more details - that are not behind the paywall.

 

http://diglloyd.com/blog/2015/20150606_2130-LeicaM_Monochrom-BlackDotInWhiteSpotArtifacts.html

 

The black dots in the middle of the fabric pattern are not real:

 

[batmobile]

Are these artefacts visible in the in-camera generated JPEGs?

[thighslapper]

I have looked at all the images I have taken .......and at 4:1 magnification and can find nothing like this..... including shots of fine patterned fabric ....

 

....... and he has to remember that that camera differentiates between 4096 shades of grey, but the human eye can only discern 50 ...... so that fact that he cannot see this with the naked eye does not mean there isn't a difference that the camera can register....

 

The 'pimples all over the bristlecone pine' photo don't seem to exist when I view it full size on my iMac ....... so I have no idea what he is going on about ....

Edited June 7, 2015 by thighslapper

[batmobile]

I can't see the ones in Britlewhatsit pine either.

[mjh]

The 'pimples all over the bristlecone pine' photo don't seem to exist when I view it full size on my iMac ....... so I have no idea what he is going on about ....

Same here.

 

As the the black dot issue this is nothing I have observed in my photographs; hard to say what’s going on here.

[colonel]

Probably time Lloyd bought a new PC/Mac

 

I remember when Ken Rockwell sent up a Leica training shoot as rubbish and incompetent, just to be informed that he was reporting on the documentary pictures of the actual shoot taken on a 1/7" compact. He had to withdraw the whole article

[timde]

 

....... and he has to remember that that camera differentiates between 4096 shades of grey, but the human eye can only discern 50 ...... so that fact that he cannot see this with the naked eye does not mean there isn't a difference that the camera can register....

 

The problem is that our human eyes are looking at the picture and seeing a dark dot in a white area. The camera would not turn "human eye visible white" to "camera visible grey", rather it would turn it to some shade of "camera visible white".

 

Curiously, the squares of the pattern are 3 pixels in each direction, 9 in total, and it is the middle pixel that is the wrong colour. I would guess RAW processing problem.

Edited June 7, 2015 by timde

[erlingmm]

I find it very strange that he publishes this without checking with at least one more RAW converter, Capture One is free for download

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[JonPB]

To my eye it appears that the darkness of the dots varies in intensity depending on the four pixels that are next-neighbors along the cardinal directions. That is, if the pixels two up, right, down, and left from any given pixel are all dark, then the pixel itself will be dark regardless of the lightness of the next pixel up, right, down, and left. This is exactly the behavior I would expect from a 2x2 Bayer color filter interpolating algorithm. Such a hypothesis would be easy to test with a raw luminance output from DCRaw, and it surprises me that a pixel peeper extraordinaire would not consider using that test. Perhaps there is a problem there that I'd not aware of.

 

Regardless, I find it telling that Lloyd says that it could be the camera or the software, and warns people against buying the camera but not against buying the software. The in-line advertisement to buy an M 246, which is countermanded by the blog post itself, further makes me question the quality of the content hosted by the site. In a way, this will incline me toward renewing my subscription for Reid Reviews when it expires, even if I don't frequently read his content, just to support his style of impartial, audience-oriented reporting.

 

Cheers,

Jon