ravinj Posted October 30, 2015 Share #41 Posted October 30, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) No, the test is not void, at all, for reasons I've already stated. But since you claim it's void, here is the same process, with the Sony down sampled to the SL's 24MP. Supersampling a 42MP file to 24MP actually makes the image quality better. Leica is looking really horrible in the cropped samples. Either something is wrong with the focus in the test shots or Sony is king of the hill. Or, maybe both. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 Hi ravinj, Take a look here DP Review Studio Test Comparison. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
adam80 Posted October 30, 2015 Share #42 Posted October 30, 2015 I wondered about that as well (the focusing that is) because the Q images seem better than the SL versions with a very similar sensor. Agreed, the focus is completely off, I wonder why they used these 2 images that are clearly out of focus for a comparison?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gpwhite Posted October 30, 2015 Share #43 Posted October 30, 2015 Agreed, the focus is completely off, I wonder why they used these 2 images that are clearly out of focus for a comparison?? Well, dpreview.com developed as a very interesting independent vehicle, starting 15 years ago. Although Mr. Bezos has left well alone with the Wahington Post, Amazon applied its commercial footprint on dpreview ver quickly. I would wager that Sony products generate substantially more revenue and gross earnings for AMZN than do the pittance of Leica products. I imagine it is that simple . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dupiastko Posted October 30, 2015 Share #44 Posted October 30, 2015 Of course, that's why they sabotaged the test for people to buy more Sony... ROTFL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 30, 2015 Share #45 Posted October 30, 2015 Just developed a couple of raw files shot with the Summilux 35/1.4 asph out of the dpreview site. The results look pretty similar to those i'm used to with the same lens on the M240. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
viramati Posted October 30, 2015 Share #46 Posted October 30, 2015 Look to be fair to dpreview the bulk of the 2 pages covering the test shots is to do with the 'Raw dynamic range' and jpeg performance and Raw performance and only one paragraph on resolution. It maybe that the the lens was slightly out of focus but this isn't what they are really testing in these comparison shots they are looking at sensor performance not lens performance and here IMO the leica doesn't appear to be anything special in fact it would appear to have the banding issue in the shadows which would stop me in my tracks if I was considering purchasing it. On the positive they say this In the interests of fairness, we should note here that Leica has informed us that a future firmware update may make a difference in this regard. As such, we'll revisit these tests when the time comes. So maybe there is hope of a solution to the banding issue. So I think you could maybe criticise them on the sharpness of the images but there is no getting away from the way the sensor performs with regards to DR compared to the competition Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted October 30, 2015 Share #47 Posted October 30, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Sensor performance is intimately connected with the firmware corrections and processing of the RAW data. The two are inseparable .... and I suspect the underlying fundamental performance of sensors varies very little ..... it's what the camera manufacturers do to that output before you finally tinker with it yourself in a raw processor that makes the difference JPEG comparisons are misleading ....... our Japanese friends are past masters at manipulating the images in camera ....... something that Leica has never been terribly good at .... or interested in for that matter. The whole business is full of elephant traps for the unwary. As I said earlier .... the only way you will get a satisfactory answer is to spend several days trying the camera yourself under varying circumstances and process the files yourself ...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicaflex Posted October 30, 2015 Share #48 Posted October 30, 2015 But it is also a matter of Fairness to decide what you publish. If it's clear that this is not the final image Quality why do they publish it? Why do they compare the Leica against the Nikon and not a Canon, which is even worse? Why do you use a zoom lens if you know it's not a good choice ... Dpreview could make a huge article about sample variation with the sony/zeiss 35mm f1.4, but they don't ... It's their decision ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daedalus2000 Posted October 30, 2015 Share #49 Posted October 30, 2015 This review has some tests that show that the corners are not that good, but good enough. (maybe not for the money though...) http://uk.pcmag.com/leica-vario-elmarit-sl-24-90mm-f28-4-asph/72379/review/leica-vario-elmarit-sl-24-90mm-f28-4-asph Also, check his discussion of the vignetting at 24mm... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted October 30, 2015 Author Share #50 Posted October 30, 2015 As I said earlier .... the only way you will get a satisfactory answer is to spend several days trying the camera yourself under varying circumstances and process the files yourself ...... Fine if you have the time and interest, but otherwise that is what we have personal recommendation for, the internet, and a mix of respected reviewers, to formulate a starting point that you decide if it's workable or not. In this case, so far, it's not so good. Sure, you can never know until you've used it yourself but I don't have the luxury of testing gear out for days on end on jobs when it appears possibly not performing. That is far from appropriate. When it looks as bad as this, and with no lenses to speak of, I don't even have the inclination to do so at this point. I will await further testing, because I feel the difference in this test here is too large to be normal. I'm hoping/expecting something is wrong with camera, lens, or test, we shall see. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted October 30, 2015 Share #51 Posted October 30, 2015 ....Why do they compare the Leica against the Nikon and not a Canon, which is even worse? ... I haven't got the link right now, but on the site I've seen you can choose the cameras with which you want the Leica compared. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
psss Posted October 30, 2015 Share #52 Posted October 30, 2015 But it is also a matter of Fairness to decide what you publish. If it's clear that this is not the final image Quality why do they publish it? Why do they compare the Leica against the Nikon and not a Canon, which is even worse? Why do you use a zoom lens if you know it's not a good choice ... Dpreview could make a huge article about sample variation with the sony/zeiss 35mm f1.4, but they don't ... It's their decision ... i guess you don't know how to use the site.....you can compare to whatever you want....that is what the drop down menus are for.....canon, nikon, sony, leica......raw, jpeg...set your iso....compare away.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 30, 2015 Share #53 Posted October 30, 2015 This review has some tests that show that the corners are not that good, but good enough. (maybe not for the money though...) http://uk.pcmag.com/leica-vario-elmarit-sl-24-90mm-f28-4-asph/72379/review/leica-vario-elmarit-sl-24-90mm-f28-4-asph Also, check his discussion of the vignetting at 24mm.... Very informative review, thank you for sharing this. I was wondering how a wide prime would fare, by way of comparison. His summary was: The 24-90mm is big, and it's heavy. Aside from that, I don't have anything that bad to say about this lens—it's another excellent optic from Leica, and a good companion for the SL (Typ 601). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlesL Posted October 30, 2015 Share #54 Posted October 30, 2015 Here is a 100% crop from the developed DNG shot at 0 EV, ISO 100. I had to reduce the JPG quality slightly to meet the restriction on the size of attachments here. The development was done with Raw Therapee, and a final step of minor noise reduction in Picture Window Pro. Most uses would not be at 100%. Just view the image in Fast Stone at 50% or 60% and you see how good it is. For a print at 100%, more work could be done, selectively sharpening some areas and applying more noise reduction to other areas. The crop is from the lower left of the entire image, taken at 90mm focal length. It is not clear how far away the camera was nor the focus point. I see no fatal flaw, which clears the way to like or not like the camera based on many considerations. 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/252291-dp-review-studio-test-comparison/?do=findComment&comment=2917408'>More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 30, 2015 Share #55 Posted October 30, 2015 I'd be very happy with that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted October 30, 2015 Author Share #56 Posted October 30, 2015 Here is a 100% crop from the developed DNG shot at 0 EV, ISO 100. I had to reduce the JPG quality slightly to meet the restriction on the size of attachments here. The development was done with Raw Therapee, and a final step of minor noise reduction in Picture Window Pro. Most uses would not be at 100%. Just view the image in Fast Stone at 50% or 60% and you see how good it is. For a print at 100%, more work could be done, selectively sharpening some areas and applying more noise reduction to other areas. The crop is from the lower left of the entire image, taken at 90mm focal length. It is not clear how far away the camera was nor the focus point. I see no fatal flaw, which clears the way to like or not like the camera based on many considerations. I don't want to come across as rude or continually negative, but the artefacts and chopped up tone and detail in this are horrendous and completely unacceptable. If this were a portrait or beauty shot it would look awful and need to be retouched. If this were taking a photo of your clients expensive fabric or product you wouldn't be booked again. It would make, for example, smooth expensive leather look like rough sand paper. This is inadmissible to a client, therefore I disagree, it's fatal. If this was up sampled from here it would be even worse. How could anyone even consider spending £8K for this? Our chosen tools are suppose to create solutions, make our lives easier, render things more natually. Why would you chose to spend this amount of money when another camera more than half it's price would give you something that looks normal, as it should, good? It's the madness of King George! Lets wait until we see more tests. These DPReviews smell bad. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 30, 2015 Share #57 Posted October 30, 2015 I don't want to come across as rude or continually negative, but the artefacts and chopped up tone and detail in this are horrendous and completely unacceptable. If this were a portrait or beauty shot it would look awful and need to be retouched. If this were taking a photo of your clients expensive fabric or product you wouldn't be booked again. It would make, for example, smooth expensive leather look like rough sand paper. This is inadmissible to a client, therefore I disagree, it's fatal. If this was up sampled from here it would be even worse. How could anyone even consider spending £8K for this? Our chosen tools are suppose to create solutions, make our lives easier, render things more natually. Why would you chose to spend this amount of money when another camera more than half it's price would give you something that looks normal, as it should, good? It's the madness of King George! Lets wait until we see more tests. These DPReviews smell bad. Either I'm really stupid, or we're looking at different images. This is a 100% crop ... Are you sure there's not more than a little overstatement going on here, George? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted October 30, 2015 Share #58 Posted October 30, 2015 1018 x 753 pixels. Upsample to 42 Mpx and send to a client? Perhaps not! Let's wait for a slightly better example. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted October 30, 2015 Share #59 Posted October 30, 2015 I don't want to come across as rude or continually negative, ..... errr....... well that's a surprise ....... Anyway it entirely depends what the end use of these images is going to be ....... I bet that as prints there would be no difference....... When I printed A2 M246 test images at ISO's from base to 12500 iso it was almost impossible to tell them apart even though at 100% on a monitor there was clearly a difference. When we all have wall sized ultra HD TV sets and want to view from close up it might be an issue ...... but that day is a way in the future yet ..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 30, 2015 Share #60 Posted October 30, 2015 I'm going out to take some pictures - M-A, 50 Summitar, Tri-X The images might be a little soft in the corners, and I don't know what the shadows will be like blown up 100% and exposure upped 6 stops, but I'm rather hoping something might be worth printing to A3. The great thing is, there's no client and if my friends like the images, I will be well pleased. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.