Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
t024484

dpreview Test

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I said you can't set a Summicron to f/9, but you can set it to f/10. If dpreview says they can set it to f/9, I'd like to know how.

 

Actually the half-stop between f/8 and f/11 is f/9.5, not f/9.8. The one-third stops are f/8, f/9, f/10, f/11. (Most of these are rounded off: strictly speaking, one stop down from f/8 is f/11.3.)

 

But the difference between f/9 and f/9.5 is a sixth of a stop, which is negligible for practical exposure measurement, totally insignificant for image quality, and probably within the mechanical tolerances of the other cameras in the test. (For example, on a Nikon SLR, the aperture coupling lever moves only about 6mm between maximum and minimum apertures.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Additionally, it is my impression that a number of the people considering the DP-1 do want to see how it compares with an M8.

 

O.K. I just hope when I go to the Fiat dealer he will have a Ferrari 599 so that I can compare the two.

 

The trouble is Diogenis you are rocking the Leicaphile boat.The plain fact is in terms of performance the M8 has been left far behind by the new generation of DSLRs however you swing the test ; even the lowly D300 is on another planet.

 

It is also a sad fact that for R/F digital fans with the demise of the Epson R1 there are no alternatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange thing- there was a D300 test in Naturphoto with a 100% crop of a Iso 800 shot, designed to show how good it was. Yikes! No noise, but horribly mutilated electronically by the camera.This kind of remark confuses specifications with results. Let me be on my planet, please....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tompkins, that is just far from true. Very far. If you had an M8, you would be able to compare, but right now it is a mystery why you, and lots of people on the internet, have a need to write something without any experience or knowledge behind the words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should not jump to conclusions. I have owned Leica cameras for some 45 years. I have written,edited and translated several books on the Marque one of which has been in print for some 28 years,. Indeed I was awarded an Associateship of the Royal Photographic Society for research into the history of Leitz. I was lent an M8 for a months trial and returned it without the slightest regret.

 

I have been an ardent loyal supporter of Leitz but I am not blind to their somewhat antediluvian attitude.

 

Please excuse me for having an opinion perhaps you are more qualified.

 

it is a mystery why you, and lots of people on the internet, have a need to write something without any experience or knowledge behind the words.

 

Perhaps you are right, maybe I'm not qualified but if I'm not I don't know anyone who is.

 

Incidentally I do still own one Leica digital camera....a Digilux 2, great camera even if it's a Panasonic..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okram means that there is a difference in technology in sensors for rangefinders and DSLRs. Up to now nobody has been able to come up with a more advanced design than Kodak has, giving Leica a free field ahead of Zeiss, CV and even Nikon (who maybe could if they would). So the "other planet" remark seems a bit unfounded. To which I may add, that most comparisons in image quality in the final print give, for normal shooting situations, the M8 a clear lead over the D3, despite the immense capabilities of that camera. If that was not your experience, may I suggest that the processing of the files may have caused that? The Nikons are known to give better out-of-the-box results than the M8.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

But I'm talking about results rather then discussing technical reasons. It might be old fashioned of me but I still believe that it is the final result that counts. And as far as I am concerned the M8 rangefinder sucks, this and this alone would be sufficient reason for rejectig it. But I do wear Vario glasses which might not help.

 

Okram means that there is a difference in technology in sensors for rangefinders and DSLRs

 

No he isn't, he is jumping to conclusions.

 

Sorry I missed your edit. As you see from the above the reason wasn't processing it was the operation. And re the results I would say that vthe D3 is very very critical on the lens used.

 

But re processing from the Nikon D70 onwards the out of the camera results have got better and better. In fact I have now uninstalled everything up to and including CS3 and Lightshop andjust rely on Elements 6 and ACR 4.1 all set to default, very rarely need more than a tweek.. These new cameras are just so much more competant, I have far better things to do than spend hours putting right something that I have paid good money for.

 

By the way I chucked the D3 into touch, brilliant camera too bloody big. now happy with a D300.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry, tompkins, but conclusion such as that is just not true. I am sorry that you had bad experience with M8, but in my own, and I work side by side with them all the day, my M8 in resolution and picture noise sense, compares equally to my Canon Ds2.

I have compared it with D200 (not 300) and it turned in all senses as a camera with far superior resolution. I dont believe that D300 is so much better than D200, but even if it is.... your common sense has to say: such lenses and low pass filter on a 1.6crop. on such resoution can only result in lower IQ along with higher noise reduction at high iso- In a 70x100cm print there would be a nice difference in favour of Leica.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

But re processing from the Nikon D70 onwards the out of the camera results have got better and better. In fact I have now uninstalled everything up to and including CS3 and Lightshop andjust rely on Elements 6 and ACR 4.1 all set to default, very rarely need more than a tweek.. These new cameras are just so much more competant, I have far better things to do than spend hours putting right something that I have paid good money for.

 

 

 

 

That confirms the diagnosis - you could just as well be shooting Jpegs. And yes - Nikon is better at that than Leica.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But I'm talking about results rather then discussing technical reasons. It might be old fashioned of me but I still believe that it is the final result that counts. And as far as I am concerned the M8 rangefinder sucks, this and this alone would be sufficient reason for rejectig it. But I do wear Vario glasses which might not help.

 

This is interesting, Brian.

 

How do you square this comment, with your post of only 2 weeks ago?

 

<snip>

Seriously considering adding an M8 as back up for my Digilux 2, or might wait for Photokina. <snip>

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/digital-forum/54143-printers.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How do you square this comment, with your post of only 2 weeks ago?

 

I look forward to the response <grin>. I was ready to use the 'T' word earlier, but I'll hold back for a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seriously considering adding an M8 as back up for my Digilux 2, or might wait for Photokina. <snip>

 

 

My idea of a joke , no? Oh well it's my sense of humour. Maybe I should have put a smiley as a clue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually the half-stop between f/8 and f/11 is f/9.5, not f/9.8. The one-third stops are f/8, f/9, f/10, f/11. (Most of these are rounded off: strictly speaking, one stop down from f/8 is f/11.3.)

 

But the difference between f/9 and f/9.5 is a sixth of a stop, which is negligible for practical exposure measurement, totally insignificant for image quality, and probably within the mechanical tolerances of the other cameras in the test. (For example, on a Nikon SLR, the aperture coupling lever moves only about 6mm between maximum and minimum apertures.)

 

John--

Thanks for the correction.

 

Can you give me a calculation scheme? As I said above, this was my calculation, and I would like to do a better job. Where should I start, and what should be my multiplier?

 

I agree that the values are rounded, that diaphragm accuracy varies among cameras, and that any difference of less than 1/2 stop is photographically meaningless.

 

The point I was making (with which you seem to concur) is that the 50/2 Summicron has detents at f/8, f/11, and at the half-stop between them; dpreview claims that they are setting the lens to f/9; but f/9 would be less than the half-stop detent, something hard to achieve consistently.

 

In other words, to me the statement that they are using f/9 is both peculiar (not a normal choice of photographers, as compared to f/8 or f/9.5) and sloppy (since they probably mean f/9.5).

 

The same sloppiness is apparent in dpreview's misunderstanding of the IR problem cited earlier:

Below is Phillip Askey's response to my question of lighting and IR reflectivity.

 

John

Not sure what you're driving at but the M8's IR sensitivity is only an issue with certain man-made materials, the color test chart doesn't reflect enough IR to be an issue. The IR filter simply would have made NO difference in this test. We used our normal daylight simulation softboxes which use high CRI bulbs at about 5000 Kelvin.

 

The results found by dpreview don't match reality, and I'd like to get some understanding from them of why.

 

Please do let me know a source of 'standard' f/stops, since I've got only my own muddled calculations to go on. (Working from f/1.0 to f/1.4, my results show a duplication of f/1.2: I get the one-third stops as 1.0, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4; but I also get the half-stops as 1.0, 1.2, 1.4.

)

 

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guy_mancuso

John that was Phil's response, man is he so off with reality. IR affects every color of the spectrum. The source light does not matter they all will have IR in it , some more than others like Tungsten is loaded with IR. If he shot this test without the IR blocking filter than the color cannot be correct unless he was using a really good profile to at least alter it somewhat to correct. Sorry completely disagree with him on this alone. I have not read this test nor read anyones comments but if you are going to do a test with in camera jpegs than judge it for in camera jpegs alone not the camera overall. because that is not even close to correct what the camera is capable of . Jpeg in camera is based on algorithms that each company makes in the firmware be it right , wrong or indifferent that is not telling the whole story of the camera just the in camera processing. I seriously do not know when these guys will actually get there brains wrapped around that fact. For the jpeg shooter these test are fine because that is what you will get but for the Raw shooter it is a completely different ball game . Frankly i could care less who wins the ball game here but test like this mislead people if there not comparing what the raw files do because the raws are only the true way to tell. There is no influence from the algorithms that each manufacturer applies to there files.

 

You wonder why I don't read this stuff about these comparisons. Not saying these test are not valid but they don't tell the whole story and only part of it . On any test on any camera the first question i ask myself is this a raw test or a jpeg test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guy_mancuso

I should add here they do these test like this because it is quick and easy. If they really tested raw files between camera's it is a much tougher test to do and takes a lot of time. Been there done that and have the gold T shirt but there very hard to do and even if all the planets and stars align there still going to be a lot of questions asked and rightfully so. This is the main reason you see test like this because it is easier and faster to do a jpeg test in camera than do a REAL RAW test which takes a lot of time and patience but in the end gives you a much broader picture of how much you can squeeze out of a camera. You can debate this test all day long but the bottom line if it is a jpeg test than no one is actually correct about the overall ability of the camera just in camera jpegs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And as far as I am concerned the M8 rangefinder sucks, this and this alone would be sufficient reason for rejectig it.

 

Is this your idea of scientific analysis?

 

Incidentally, having written about Leica cameras for 45 years doesn't mean diddly squat when discussing a digital camera. This is a new technology and the fact that you have this history with Leica equipment does not mean you have any inherent knowledge about pixels and digital image processing. On the contrary, if your results were as bad as you imply, I'd go so far as to say you probably don't know what you're doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by barjohn

Below is Phillip Askey's response to my question of lighting and IR reflectivity.

 

John

Not sure what you're driving at but the M8's IR sensitivity is only an issue with certain man-made materials.

 

 

 

I can't believe Phil could write such BS...

IR contamination affects just about everything, particularly any living green leaf....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
O.K. I just hope when I go to the Fiat dealer he will have a Ferrari 599 so that I can compare the two.

 

The trouble is Diogenis you are rocking the Leicaphile boat.The plain fact is in terms of performance the M8 has been left far behind by the new generation of DSLRs however you swing the test ; even the lowly D300 is on another planet.

 

It is also a sad fact that for R/F digital fans with the demise of the Epson R1 there are no alternatives.

 

I am not rocking any Leica boat Tom.

I am questioning DP's test actually, and I am certainly not convinced about Japanese dSLR technology behind "modern" cameras. To my book it is certainly NOT and advancement if you stuff a bunch of motors some asics, lasers, oled displays and stereo speakers in a camera. And it is certainly NOT engineering the modern form factor of a full frame dSLR, and you have mentioned it already. If you forget about electronics for a while, close your eyes for a bit and compare pictures from those dSLRs you wont find differences able to justify weight and volume.Therefore, the engineering prize goes to Leica, for simplicity and IQ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please do let me know a source of 'standard' f/stops, since I've got only my own muddled calculations to go on. (Working from f/1.0 to f/1.4, my results show a duplication of f/1.2: I get the one-third stops as 1.0, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4; but I also get the half-stops as 1.0, 1.2, 1.4)

 

ho_co

A full stop is a factor 2 in the amount of light which is a factor 1.4142 (square-root of 2) in the diafraghm radius (or diameter). In practice people use 1.4 as an approximation.

 

Therefore a half stop is a ratio of 1.1892 (square-root of square-root of 2).

 

So a ½ stop from f/8 is f/(8*1.1892) = f/9.5137 or f/9.5.

 

The half-stop series is (approximately):

1, 1.2, 1.4, 2, 2.4, 2.8, 3.3, 4, 4.8, 5.6, 6.7, 8, 9.5, 11, 13, 16, 19, 22 etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HoCo (is that Howard?)

 

Just for the record, one third of a stop corresponds to a change by a factor of 2 to the power of one sixth in the f numbers. Thus (to three decimal places, which is meaninglessly precise) the one third stops between f/1 and f/2 would be:

 

1.000, 1.122, 1.260, 1.414, 1.587, 1.782, 2.000

 

and so on. (The whole stop 1.414... is of course usually approximated to f/1.4).

 

Hope this helps.

Share this post


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.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...