DxOMark tested M11

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, SrMi said:

Speed chess? 😂

Indeed. It's called «blitz». Better to have a good heart

 

 

[LocalHero1953]

So Wordle is a sport?

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

If you say so. I don’t know what it is. Every sport is a game in essence. 

[hdmesa]

41 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

So Wordle is a sport?

Is forum-posting about cameras is a sport?

[LocalHero1953]

1 minute ago, hdmesa said:

Is forum-posting about cameras is a sport?

It's certainly competitive.

There are also plenty of drama queens. And people argue with the referee mods. 

Edited May 1, 2022 by LocalHero1953

[M11 for me]

vor 4 Stunden schrieb jaapv:

Why does sport in general require a high shutter speed? Admittedly many do, but I can think of plenty less speedy sports, from archery to chess.

That is just as they call it: "Sport". Do not put 1000 things into it. Read their definition . . .

[tom.w.bn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

That is the first time, that a Leica M digital sensor is quite comparable to other current camera sensors. No smiley becaues I think that the DXOmark measurement was very useful expecially in that time when some sensors were hard to work with while other were already good enough for headache-free landscape photography.

The landscape measurement absolutely matches my experience in the field. I had so many camera with a score of almost 12 and lower (incl. Canons 5D (I, II, III) , 6D (I, II), Leica M8, M9) and others) and I always had to work around the limitations of the sensor. I hated that because that thing should support me and not the other way round. 

Beginning with a score of 13 things were a lot easier (for the photos I take). Less fiddling around with the exposure (almost no need for bracketing and blending it all together in post). Thankfully most new sensors are now good enough for everything and I don't need the DXO landscape score anymore to decide beforehand if it's a waste of time to use a certain camera.

[Eclectic Man]

As someone who can take truly terrible photographs with the best equipment (Olympus, Canon, Nikon, Leica, Hasselblad, Mamiya), it is still nice to know that the end result is entirely my own fault ;o)

But I won't be getting an M11 just yet.

[adan]

Just for the record, in English (which we are using on this international Forum), "sport" implies an activity involving physical exertion, exercise and excellence. With or without a competitive goal.

Chess, Bridge, and Backgammon are games, but not sports. Unless one has an - peculiar - idea of what constitutes physical exertion.

A game that a computer - with no muscles - can play, is not a sport.

DxO does describe why sports are their acid-test for ISO rating. Rapid and extensive movement, often indoors with limited lighting.

Back in my newspaper-internship years, I was often assigned to photograph secondary-school basketball games in poorly-lit rural gymnasiums. Where I didn't really use "ASA/ISO" at all - just set the camera for f/1.4 and 1/250th of a second (to freeze the action as much as possible), and then "boiled" the Tri-X in powerful, concentrated paper developer (Dektol). And rescued whatever image I got using grade 5 paper for printing. Probably EI 6400 or higher.

I'm still waiting to see how much the M11 improves on the M10 (original) in that regard. The DxO data is another little bit of information, although still not enough.

[anickpick]

 

DXO got it right: Carrying cameras is sports

Edited May 1, 2022 by anickpick

[tashley]

On 4/30/2022 at 9:06 AM, M11 for me said:

No, a very interesting data base that is published at no cost. 

I absolutely agree. And despite some frustrations I have been having with the M11 is has been very clear to me that the DXO score would be great when it came because my reference cameras have been many of the others in the top of the rankings table and I could tell that the M11 has absolutely top flight performance. 

[tashley]

On 4/30/2022 at 9:40 AM, jaapv said:

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. 

To be fair I think that its clear that they are not testing system performance in terms of ‘is the lens good’ or ‘does it shoot at 130FPS’ or ‘does it have 5 stops of IBIS’ so when they say ‘sensor performance’ they mean sensor + in-camera processing. So in the sense that it isn’t a camera review or a camera+lens review, I think their nomenclature is fair.

[tashley]

On 4/30/2022 at 5:03 PM, jaapv said:

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.

For what or whom? And how does DXO profit by in any way misrepresenting the quality of the gear they test? I have a lot of respect for you, but I think you’re not being very fair here!

[FlashGordonPhotography]

To be realistic it’s all a little bit of marketing. Sites like DXO need clicks to stay running. And the information they present does need to be taken in context. A high sensor score is far from the be all and end all about a camera. Same as claims of the fastest shutter or biggest buffer made that have pages of conditions attached. P2P is the same. You’ve got to take the information provided in context of the conditions that the testing takes place. Whether a race car is faster than a 4 door sedan depends on whether you’re testing on a track or in peak hour traffic. So you can find a way to make a Mini faster than a formula 1 car if you want.

That doesn’t make the information false or useless. It just means it’s not always relevant to all people all the time. For example P2P’s information isn’t relevant to me. I don’t equalise all my cameras to 8MP or compare them that way. I need pixel level findings. And I rarely shoot at really high ISO’s. So I ignore any DXO data on that. But I expect that some do find that information useful. For others it justify’s an expensive purchase, which is the stuff forums are built on.

The M11 has an excellent sensor. Good news! So did the M10R, M10 and many many other cameras if you learn their strengths and weaknesses.

Gordon

[jaapv]

12 hours ago, tashley said:

To be fair I think that its clear that they are not testing system performance in terms of ‘is the lens good’ or ‘does it shoot at 130FPS’ or ‘does it have 5 stops of IBIS’ so when they say ‘sensor performance’ they mean sensor + in-camera processing. So in the sense that it isn’t a camera review or a camera+lens review, I think their nomenclature is fair.

I don't have a problem them testing and publishing (nor having a (legitimate) commercial interest) at all, I object to the obvious discrepancies in their results (see a few examples in this thread), yet present "ratings" which are treated like gospel over the Internet. Call it a bit of push-back.

[nicci78]

On 4/30/2022 at 6:03 PM, jaapv said:

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.

By Bill Claff own words : DXO Mark is more accurate! 
On his web site. If you have the choice between its data and DXO Mark. Choose the latter. 
Bill Claff also stated that its data are not meant to compare cameras between each other. 
Why ? Because Photons to Photos did not normalised ISO accross the board. It took manufacturers ISO for face value. 
DXOMark on the other hand, translate everything into a common standard ISO. Making comparisons feasible. Hence why the data from the french company is more accurate than Photons to photos.

Let’s say that DXOMark show us what DXO Labs software can do with a given sensor output. 
So it is one common ISO value with one common RAW converter software. 
Two common basis for compelling comparison. 
 

By the way an APS-C can obviously beat a full frame sensor. It is just a matter of technology behind them. 
Canon and Leica used to lag behind. Not anymore hopefully. 

[nicci78]

Fun fact : Canon and Leica used to trash DXOMark. But not anymore. 
It was easy to shoot down the messenger when your sensor tech lagged behind everyone else. 
Now that they caught up, they are happy to let DXO tests their sensors. 
 

Canon upped its game and Leica joined the competition by buying Sony Semi sensors. 

Edited May 4, 2022 by nicci78

[SrMi]

18 minutes ago, nicci78 said:

By Bill Claff own words : DXO Mark is more accurate! 
On his web site. If you have the choice between its data and DXO Mark. Choose the latter. 
Bill Claff also stated that its data are not meant to compare cameras between each other. 
Why ? Because Photons to Photos did not normalised ISO accross the board. It took manufacturers ISO for face value. 
DXOMark on the other hand, translate everything into a common standard ISO. Making comparisons feasible. Hence why the data from the french company is more accurate than Photons to photos.

Let’s say that DXOMark show us what DXO Labs software can do with a given sensor output. 
So it is one common ISO value with one common RAW converter software. 
Two common basis for compelling comparison. 
 

By the way an APS-C can obviously beat a full frame sensor. It is just a matter of technology behind them. 
Canon and Leica used to lag behind. Not anymore hopefully. 

Can you point me to the place where Bill says "If you have the choice between its data and DXO Mark. Choose the latter."?

I see the following on the main page:

"DxOMark Investigations and DxOMark Derived Data: Data is derived from data available at DxOMark. In general these results are less reliable than those actually measured and presented in the previous Investigations section."

This means that P2P data (previous investigations section) is better. He also writes in DXOPDR: Measured Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR) is available for many cameras and is generally preferred when available.

 

[SrMi]

29 minutes ago, nicci78 said:

Fun fact : Canon and Leica used to trash DXOMark. But not anymore. 
It was easy to shoot down the messenger when your sensor tech lagged behind everyone else. 
Now that they caught up, they are happy to let DXO tests their sensors. 
 

Canon upped its game and Leica joined the competition by buying Sony Semi sensors. 

I have never heard Leica trashing DXOMark or P2P. I have never heard them referencing neither P2P nor DXOMark.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[nicci78]

not officially, but Leica salesmen used to say that DXOmark was not accurate and trash talk about it.