Jump to content

DxOMark tested M11


SrMi

Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, SrMi said:

FWIW, here are DxOMark scores and measurements. Enjoy:

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Leica/M11

pretty funny... M11 sports score: 3376,  SL2: 1821   At least the M11 rating, if not one's personal results, satisfies the need to feel things are state of the art.

Regardless, grain of salt on this stuff. I regularly shoot with both of the above at the same location and often a week or two on, I cant tell which was which without looking at the EXIF. 

 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Tailwagger said:

pretty funny... M11 sports score: 3376,  SL2: 1821   At least the M11 rating, if not one's personal results, satisfies the need to feel things are state of the art.

Regardless, grain of salt on this stuff. I regularly shoot with both of the above at the same location and often a week or two on, I cant tell which was which without looking at the EXIF. 

 

I don’t bother with these type scores, but if I read it correctly, the numbers you cite just refer to an ISO low light threshold.  The SL2-S scored a bit higher (3504) than the M11 in this regard, and by all reports is better than the SL2 in low light.  The overall DXO sensor scores are 100 for the M11 and 95 for the SL2-S.  Not very different or surprising, it seems.  Not that I care, relying instead on my own practical gear assessments.

Jeff

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

1 hour ago, Jeff S said:

I don’t bother with these type scores, but if I read it correctly, the numbers you cite just refer to an ISO low light threshold.  The SL2-S scored a bit higher (3504) than the M11 in this regard, and by all reports is better than the SL2 in low light.

Precisely why I find labeling it with sports as comical.   

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!

And oops... I cited the original SL, not SL2.  All a waste of time really. 

Edited by Tailwagger
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 18 Minuten schrieb jaapv:

 Basically a honeypot to sell their software.
 

That is correct. Of course there is a business model behind: They develop software. Nothing wrong with that. And as they depend themselves on their own data its more than just comedy.

And for all the M11 owners: The M11 is on top of the scale 🤪 We hope it will be forever.

Edited by M11 for me
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

No, but the results are presented as objective. They misrepresent what they are doing. They claim to test sensors, which they don't. They test the camera output, which is the sum of the lens used, the sensor output, camera electronics and firmware. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed. The Nikon D3X (from 2008) beats the Nikon D5 (from 2016) for instance. The Nikon D3400 ( 650$, APS-C) is better by a fair margin than the Canon EOS 6D mkII (2000$, full frame) and so on...

Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 3 Stunden schrieb jaapv:

Indeed. The Nikon D3X (from 2008) beats the Nikon D5 (from 2016) for instance. The Nikon D3400 ( 650$, APS-C) is better by a fair margin than the Canon EOS 6D mkII (2000$, full frame) and so on...

I understand: You are not a friend of DxO. I am.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not really a friend or not a friend - I only question the validity of their ratings, based on examples like I mention.

 

34 minutes ago, M11 for me said:

But the M11 is the best. That is whar counts 😑

Actually, what counts is whether the photographs you take with the M11 are the best. There is no objective "best" in cameras, 'most suited for purpose" is nearer the mark. Sometimes it is an iPhone, sometimes a Leica Sofort, sometimes a Phase One P100, sometimes an M11 (or an M3...)  See the laughable DXO score for "sports". What sports? Chess, an M11 is fine , Formula 1 or diving, not so much...

Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 23 Minuten schrieb jaapv:

See the laughable DXO score for "sports". What sports? Chess, an M11 is fine , Formula 1 or diving, not so much...

. . . see the DxO description. Makes all sense. Its not what you state above. 🤗

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, jaapv said:

However, with questionable results from time to time. Basically a honeypot to sell their software.
Best used filtered by Photons to Photos. 

DXOMark and DXO (PhotoLab) are two different companies. Which software is DXOMark selling?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You may well be right. However, it does not take away my objection that they pretend to measure the sensor, give camera output measurements instead and that their ratings have little value for real-life photography unless the measurements are translated by somebody like Bill Claff.

A high "DXO rating" is a marketing tool.

  • Like 1
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...