Jump to content

Reid's review on colors of M10R vs. M11


otto.f

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 20 Minuten schrieb rob_w:

Sorry Uli.  I have to disagree with you here.  Not with your statement about sharing opinions, but what you did next, which was to summarise the actual content for non-subscribers anyway.  In my view, Sean offers his site as a subscription so he can make a living.  He asks us not to reproduce content and offers the service on that basis.  I respect his wishes.  I have a choice not to subscribe if I do not agree with them.

Secondly, I don't think your summary is incorrect in several respects.  I just read the review this morning and came to a different conclusion.  So I would advise anyone who has not read it, not to react to your summary.  Better to subscribe and read the real thing.  It's only 30 bucks or so, for heaven's sake!

No offence to anyone.

 

+1. The controversial discussion here about Reid’s findings may have generated more subscribers for him, hopefully.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, rob_w said:

Sorry Uli.  I have to disagree with you here.  Not with your statement about sharing opinions, but what you did next, which was to summarise the actual content for non-subscribers anyway.  In my view, Sean offers his site as a subscription so he can make a living.  He asks us not to reproduce content and offers the service on that basis.  I respect his wishes.  I have a choice not to subscribe if I do not agree with them.

Secondly, I don't think your summary is incorrect in several respects.  I just read the review this morning and came to a different conclusion.  So I would advise anyone who has not read it, not to react to your summary.  Better to subscribe and read the real thing.  It's only 30 bucks or so, for heaven's sake!

No offence to anyone.

 

I disagree with this completely. There is such a thing as fair use of content, and a reader's comments about content is fair use even if it summarizes or interprets that content. Just look at Richard Prince. He's made a fortune pushing the envelope on fair use. Second, I don't think @UliWerfailed to read it right. He was more than fair. Seems that Reid's review demonstrates that the M11 is more of an evolution than a revolution of image quality. I think some of the beta testers even said that the M10R might be better at low ISOs and that is what Reid found, too.

Edited by John Smith
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

The M10-R sensor is a cut-down version of the S3 sensor, so the differences are the C1/LR profiles, the incredible S lenses, and the sizes of the sensors. The S3 sensor is older technology (FSI) while the M11 is newer (BSI). Likely the S4 will be a scaled up version of the M11 sensor, the same sensor used in the GFX 100/100S. 

 

I agree the S lenses are special particularly on the S bodies. The 120 Macro is my favorite (although I don’t own it …yet). I find on the SL they are not as good. I do not like the colors from my GFX 100S and have to work too hard to get them to my liking. I struggle with giving up on the GFX because there is so much to like about it. I am hoping that the M11 gives me the color and resolution close to the S3 so then I can use my M lenses and have a small landscape kit. The M10R colors are much better than the GFX for me but the M11 has the resolution for very large prints (my bread and butter) and hopefully even better color. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 6 Minuten schrieb John Smith:

I disagree with this completely. There is such a thing as fair use of content, and a reader's comments about content is fair use even if it summarizes or interprets that content. Just look at Richard Prince. He's made a fortune pushing the envelope on fair use. Second, I don't think @UliWerfailed to read it right. He was more than fair. Seems that Reid's review demonstrates that the M11 is more of an evolution than a revolution of image quality. I think some of the beta testers even said that the M10R might be better at low ISOs and that is what Reid found, too.

And if „low ISOs“ would mean anything up to 3200 or 6400, any improvement for high ISOs would be technically irrelevant for me in 99.9% of the cases.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

As a long time subscriber to RR I have a love/hate relationship with the site. I love his technical reviews, but hate the limitations of the site which are present to prevent us from copy pasting to forums. On the other hand I fully understand why its necessary, but frankly in the end it punishes the subscriber. Regardless I continue to subscribe and enjoy his content.

Keep in mind this is just part two of a six part analysis of the M11. I am curious what the next chapters reveal.

I will say that thru chapter 1 and 2, the M10R and M10M look pretty strong still...personally I am disappointed I sold my M10M to fund the M11. I defiantly should have kept both cameras.

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rob_w said:

Sorry Uli.  I have to disagree with you here.  Not with your statement about sharing opinions, but what you did next, which was to summarise the actual content for non-subscribers anyway.  In my view, Sean offers his site as a subscription so he can make a living.  He asks us not to reproduce content and offers the service on that basis.  I respect his wishes.  I have a choice not to subscribe if I do not agree with them.

Secondly, I don't think your summary is incorrect in several respects.  I just read the review this morning and came to a different conclusion.  So I would advise anyone who has not read it, not to react to your summary.  Better to subscribe and read the real thing.  It's only 30 bucks or so, for heaven's sake!

No offence to anyone.

I sympathise to your sympathy that i do share towards Sean Reid as a photo reviewer and old colleague here but some of us are also publishing books and articles actually and the rules are the same, more or less, for all of us. As often said, summarizing in your own words is not a copyright violation (link). Of course copy and paste is another story but this is not the point here obviously :cool:.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, lct said:

I sympathise to your sympathy that i do share towards Sean Reid as a photo reviewer and old colleague here but some of us are also publishing books and articles actually and the rules are the same, more or less, for all of us. As often said, summarizing in your own words is not a copyright violation (link). Of course copy and paste is another story but this is not the point here obviously :cool:.

The TOS for the subscription signup go beyond standard copyright protections. I think if you contractually agree to these more strict limitations to content sharing, you're bound by that. 

Think of a non-disclosure people sign when settling a lawsuit out of court. They're not allowed to summarize the settlement to the public.

Edited by hdmesa
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've renewed my subscription to read the original, and encourage everyone else to do the same.  If you read all the instructions you'd agree this is what Sean asks you to do when signing up.  The review is very detailed and it's not fair to boil it down here, but we can discuss results.  The results are probably that it makes sense to keep the M10-R for me.:)

15 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

The TOS for the subscription signup go beyond standard copyright protections. I think if you contractually agree to these more strict limitations to content sharing, you're bound by that. 

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

The TOS for the subscription signup go beyond standard copyright protections. I think if you contractually agree to these more strict limitations to content sharing, you're bound by that. 

Think of a non-disclosure people sign when settling a lawsuit out of court. They're not allowed to summarize the settlement to the public.

That would be a matter of attorney-client privilege i guess but I don't know what the Reid's terms and conditions say.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, lct said:

That would be a matter of attorney-client privilege i guess but I don't know what the Reid's terms and conditions say.

The site says: For content security reasons, the site content may not be copied, downloaded, saved or printed. None of the material published on Reid Reviews may be reproduced in any form without permission from the author. One must agree to this before using the site.

It is an ordinary copyright qualification. Reid could withhold a subscription, but that's another topic. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Can anyone who's read War and Peace tell me who dunnit? Or must I buy it to find out?

Some say Napoleon, some say Alexander, most say Tolstoy.  I did not agree to any non disclosures when I read it however 😄

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 4 Stunden schrieb Chaemono:

You guys are going to make me borrow both cameras to see for myself. I gave the M10R back and don’t own an M11, but what struck me first when I saw M11 images, was how good the reds and the skin tones were, supposedly in untouched DNGs. Jono was the one who mentioned it and that immediate struck me as, ‘finally, they fixed it.’

I have read the report as well and I reall say thank you to Seans work and think its worth the money.

I would like to add one thing: many of his analyses are done with one subject in one kind of light. So Intake it as an indication, but its not the whole picture. It also doesnt include skin tones.

So were are we now? Comments about color varying from not big difference to totally improved, 

some say the internal dng resize doesnot improve noise compared to resizing in post, while Sean has come to other conclusions.

I think Sean is doing the most ‚scientific‘ analyses.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, John Smith said:

The site says: For content security reasons, the site content may not be copied, downloaded, saved or printed. None of the material published on Reid Reviews may be reproduced in any form without permission from the author. One must agree to this before using the site.

It is an ordinary copyright qualification. Reid could withhold a subscription, but that's another topic. 

I think I remember reading the below when going through the actual subscription signup, but I can't remember.

But whether he stated it during signup, and I agreed to it or not, I think it's in the spirit of good faith to abide by his wishes to not summarize. The summary is part of the payoff for subscribing.

From his emails that go out announcing new articles:

Most camera review sites are supported by a combination of advertising income and commissions from click-through sales of photography equipment. Reid Reviews has always been supported entirely by its subscribers and I think it's very important that a resource like that exists. I want to thank you for your support and for not summarizing the information in reviews like this on forums and the like. I also know that some of you may be pressured by people who want to read the site without paying for it. Thanks for not caving into that. By making these choices, you are supporting an unusual, independent and -- I hope -- useful source of reviews for serious photographers.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, tom0511 said:

I would like to add one thing: many of his analyses are done with one subject in one kind of light. So Intake it as an indication, but its not the whole picture. It also doesnt include skin tones.

Agreed, esp in the latest report which consists mostly of systematic tests of static objects.  Elsewhere there is quite mix of subjects including plenty of people.  They are the kind of photo Sean likes to take.  So still one man's opinion, as I suspect he would be the first to agree.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, rob_w said:

Sorry Uli.  I have to disagree with you here.  Not with your statement about sharing opinions, but what you did next, which was to summarise the actual content for non-subscribers anyway.  In my view, Sean offers his site as a subscription so he can make a living.  He asks us not to reproduce content and offers the service on that basis.  I respect his wishes.  I have a choice not to subscribe if I do not agree with them.

Secondly, I don't think your summary is incorrect in several respects.  I just read the review this morning and came to a different conclusion.  So I would advise anyone who has not read it, not to react to your summary. ...

I think it is quite easy.

if someone goes public he has to accept being talked about. He can demand not to be plagiarized by any means which infringe his own copyright, but he cannot demand that nobody mentions that he published something.

Different people coming to different conclusions about what they read is normal. No author is entitled to control the individual perception of his readers and neither is he entitled to forbid sharing these individual perceptions. 

  • Like 3
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...