Well, it might interest some...

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Perhaps there's some confusion here. Lower contrast lenses reduce contrast so yes, of course, the photo's contrast will be lower (unless it is changed in post). But by lowering the subject's contrast range, a sensor is better able to record detail from highlight to shadow (because of the noise floor).

 

It's a lot like shooting Tri-X at 250 and pulling development by 15% to get a longer scale negative.

 

I know you know this stuff, Alan so maybe there was some confusion in the Q and A exchange.

 

Will the M8 be able to handle the brightness range of a contrasty scene a bit better with a lower contrast lens? Yes, it will but there are trade-offs that come with that.

 

Given equally high contrast lenses on both cameras, will the Canon 1Ds III record detail across a broader dynamic range than the M8. According to DXO - yes. And that matches my experience.

 

Does an older, lower contrast Nikkor, have the same affect on, say, a D200? Yes, it does.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

I think any possible confusion has to do with the difference in concept of recording a given scene vs. testing for brightness range. Of course a lower contrast lens will let you record a scene with less clipping on the sensor. But all you have done is clipped the subject contrast in advance. Now the way it does this may look different from lens to lens depending on the characteristic of a given lens.

 

However, this is not what DXO is trying to measure objectively. From what I can tell, they have designed their test to measure the sensor's characteristic and seem to be able to eliminate the lens from being much of a factor in this. (Although I can't say for sure.)

 

As DXO also tests and measures lenses, those results might be on a future DXO test site.

[georg]

The basic idea of doing scientific, comparable tests in RAW (the ONLY professional way) is great.

 

That the M8 sucks at 1250/2500ASA in comparison to the 12MPixel-Full-Frame-cameras is already known by most users and even testers.

 

But after using the M8 since 2 years (@160-640ASA) with C1 and Asph-lenses and comparing them to other systems, I have to say that the IQ is still excellent.

Resolution, colors, dynamic range are great.

I've never taken pictures of DR-charts, but from my personal experience I highly doubt that there are "normal" (no SuperCCD...) DSLRs (expecially with high-resolution CMOS-sensors) that are capable of the DR of the M8 (& DMR/MF-backs with the same basic design).

 

Right now the mssing AA-filter, the CCD (high fill-rate) and especially the lenses squeeze about the same practical IQ out of the small (-60%!) 10MP-sensor as the full-frame 12MP-DSLRs.

 

Of course the M8 isn't as demanding in terms of corner performance (but needs more resolution in the center) but I've tested my Asph-lenses with 25ASA-B/W-film and high-resolution-scans, the differences between Leica and other cheapers lenses become even more dramatic.

Right now, the M-lenses are a bit über-engineered/priced for the M8 because 60% of their image-circle is wasted, but I see them as an investment for film and future 24MP-M9 :-)

 

" Of course a lower contrast lens will let you record a scene with less clipping on the sensor. But all you have done is clipped the subject contrast in advance"

 

He is absolutely right, a low-contrast lens doesn't recover any information for the sensor with it's limited DR, it even reduces the information that reaches the sensor.

[Advertisement]

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

[sean_reid]

 

I think any possible confusion has to do with the difference in concept of recording a given scene vs. testing for brightness range. Of course a lower contrast lens will let you record a scene with less clipping on the sensor. But all you have done is clipped the subject contrast in advance.

 

Exactly, that's why we talk about it as a change in "effective" DR. The camera behaves the same way but the lens can drop the contrast range of the subject (allowing more detail in the shadows to be recorded).

 

DXO may already be doing this (I haven't asked them yet) but before doing the DR tests, one would want to establish that the lens used delivered more contrast to the sensor than it could record. We might assume that to be the case but, methodologically, it should be eliminated as a variable. So long as all of the cameras are tested using high contrast lenses (an important variable) then that variable is effectively not operant.

 

Many modern lenses deliver high contrast but not all of them

 

Lenses are also potential confounding variables in cameras res. tests and this may be why DXO does not include them on the site (as of this writing).

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

He is absolutely right, a low-contrast lens doesn't recover any information for the sensor with it's limited DR, it even reduces the information that reaches the sensor.

 

It doesn't recover information, it moves the shadow information further from the noise floor. That, with digital capture, can help to preserve shadow detail and/or allow less exposure so that more highlight detail is preserved.

 

To understand the DR effects of lower contrast lenses on digital capture one needs to understand the noise floor and its effect on DR.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[AlanG]

DXO may already be doing this (I haven't asked them yet) but before doing the DR tests, one would want to establish that the lens used delivered more contrast to the sensor than it could record. We might assume that to be the case but, methodologically, it should be eliminated as a variable. So long as all of the cameras are tested using high contrast lenses (an important variable) then that variable is effectively not operant.

 

I think we can assume that a modern Leica normal lens would not be a limiting factor in the sensor's ability to record dynamic range.

 

Consider that the new Nikon D90 tested out at 12.5 stops of dynamic range whereas, the old Nikon D2H tested out at only 10 stops. I am "assuming" that a similar or identical Nikon lens was used on both tests.

[tomasis7]

Sean, thank you for explanations. It makes me understand better about noise floor and indeed it is true if I look at my previous experiences with old and "new" lenses. I did a lot of processing so all this makes it faster to understand.

 

Let me know if I did understood right. Does it means if Dxo laboratory shots a prick lets say the most white prick. Then it goes through high contrast lens to Raw file. When you open raw, the result shows that instead of Zone1 it shows Zone 2 for shadows if M8 has to be shot at lowest iso like 160? It could go worse if you have to shot at iso 2500 due lower S/N ratio and flattening DR already 4 stops away from the base of noise floor. At the same rate Canikon would recover through heavy processing for iso 3200 when S/N ratio is screwed higher up already with releases of infinite amount of models. Of course it depends on typical characterics of Cmos (coolness, less energy use, pixel density factor).

 

Dxo tests are taken on the tripod. in life it might show different results so I dont put dramatic weight on the results of Dxo anyway.

[sean_reid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sean, thank you for explanations. It makes me understand better about noise floor and indeed it is true if I look at my previous experiences with old and "new" lenses. I did a lot of processing so all this makes it faster to understand.

 

Let me know if I did understood right. Does it means if Dxo laboratory shots a prick lets say the most white prick. Then it goes through high contrast lens to Raw file. When you open raw, the result shows that instead of Zone1 it shows Zone 2 for shadows if M8 has to be shot at lowest iso like 160? It could go worse if you have to shot at iso 2500 due lower S/N ratio and flattening DR already 4 stops away from the base of noise floor. At the same rate Canikon would recover through heavy processing for iso 3200 when S/N ratio is screwed higher up already with releases of infinite amount of models. Of course it depends on typical characterics of Cmos (coolness, less energy use, pixel density factor).

 

Dxo tests are taken on the tripod. in life it might show different results so I dont put dramatic weight on the results of Dxo anyway.

 

 

I don't quite follow you here after a quick read but I'll look again tonight. Essentially, as ISO goes up the noise floor rises and the sensor's DR may also decrease for other reasons.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

I think we can assume that a modern Leica normal lens would not be a limiting factor in the sensor's ability to record dynamic range.

 

Consider that the new Nikon D90 tested out at 12.5 stops of dynamic range whereas, the old Nikon D2H tested out at only 10 stops. I am "assuming" that a similar or identical Nikon lens was used on both tests.

 

That depends on the lens. The Summarits show more moderate contrast. It's better to test that aspect so that assumption isn't necessary. Why is "assuming" in quotes above?

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[AlanG]

That depends on the lens. The Summarits show more moderate contrast. It's better to test that aspect so that assumption isn't necessary. Why is "assuming" in quotes above?

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

I put assuming in quotes to emphasize that I have no idea if the same or a similar lens was used on both cameras. But it makes sense to do so. I speculate that if a typical Nikon lens can let the D90 get 12.5 stops of dynamic range, then the typical Leica lens should not be holding back the M8's dynamic range. But the sensor and electronics can.

[tomasis7]

I put assuming in quotes to emphasize that I have no idea if the same or a similar lens was used on both cameras. But it makes sense to do so. I speculate that if a typical Nikon 50mm lens can let the D90 get 12.5 stops of dynamic range, then the typical Leica 50mm should not be holding back the M8's dynamic range.

 

It would be easier to compare only Nikon bodies with different sensors like Jfet, Cmos, Ccd. So we can assume there are differences between sensors if the same lens is used. But if Zeiss lens used on Nikon body with ccd sensor, one can make tests if it does affect capability of the range. But does it represent a contrasty scene outside in Morocco as the condition in the Dxo laboratory?

[Tina Manley]

Hey, guys!! Quit looking at the tests and go out and take photos! Not photos of test charts but actual photos of people and landscapes and sports and flowers and everyday life. I don't have all of the answers for everybody, but I've done the tests for what I want to communicate. That happens to be documentary photographs of everyday life. For what I want, M8 rangefinders are absolutely perfect. For sports or macro or wildlife, you might come up with a different combination of cameras and lenses. I don't see how any tests can come up with the best combination for everybody! YMMV

 

Tina

Tina Manley- powered by SmugMug

[AlanG]

It would be easier to compare only Nikon bodies with different sensors like Jfet, Cmos, Ccd. So we can assume there are differences between sensors if the same lens is used. But if Zeiss lens used on Nikon body with ccd sensor, one can make tests if it does affect capability of the range. But does it represent a contrasty scene outside in Morocco as the condition in the Dxo laboratory?

 

It is always up to the end user to decide if a camera give the results one is looking for. Scientific testing is simply a method to come up with a standardized way to compare specific parameters.

 

As for your example, a camera that scores high in dynamic range on the DXO tests will also record a higher dynamic range in the field as long as you are not doing something with the optics or the exposure to reduce it. Will this matter to you? I can't say. I often can control my lighting and don't need a very high dynamic range anyway.

[lct]

...Any other photographers who've been using moderate and lower contrast lenses on DRFs want to chime in?...

DRFs are hardly different to DSLRs from this standpoint but blown highlights are indeed easier to avoid with moderate than high contrast lenses. Suffice it to compare asph to pre-asph Leica lenses for instance, or simply a current to an early Elmar 50. But i'm stating the obvious i guess.

[sean_reid]

DRFs are hardly different to DSLRs from this standpoint but blown highlights are indeed easier to avoid with moderate than high contrast lenses. Suffice it to compare asph to pre-asph Leica lenses for instance, or simply a current to an early Elmar 50. But i'm stating the obvious i guess.

 

Hi LCT,

 

I think that the difference with DRFs, in practice, is that many of us DRF photographers use at least some older and/or lower contrast lenses on them. It's possible with the Nikon DSLRs, for example, but much less common I think. And of course the Canons must use EF lenses (or the new ZE lenses I'm testing), etc..

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[colorflow]

...the Canon 24 "can't begin to match" the Leica R19. ...

Tina

Tina Manley- powered by SmugMug

 

Hi Tina:

Did you have to shave the mirror or the lens shroud? I don't have the 5D but have a few R lenses including the R19 and the Lux 35 and am considering getting the 5DII.

 

Thanks,

Alan

[lct]

... And of course the Canons must use EF lenses (or the new ZE lenses I'm testing), etc...

They must not my friend. You should try Mandler R lenses with your Canons. They are inexpensive nowadays. Mine are the 35/2, 50/2, 90/2, 135/2.8 and 180/3.4 but the 19/2.8 and 80/1.4 are said to be good as well. Tina must have used a 19/2.8 vers. 1 or 2 if i remember well.

[chris_tribble]

Hey, guys!! Quit looking at the tests and go out and take photos! Not photos of test charts but actual photos of people and landscapes and sports and flowers and everyday life. I don't have all of the answers for everybody, but I've done the tests for what I want to communicate. That happens to be documentary photographs of everyday life. For what I want, M8 rangefinders are absolutely perfect. For sports or macro or wildlife, you might come up with a different combination of cameras and lenses. I don't see how any tests can come up with the best combination for everybody! YMMV

 

Tina

Tina Manley- powered by SmugMug

 

Tina - couldn't agree more. When I originally posted this I had a sneaky feeling that it would generate some heat - and it has. But this links in with other posts on the need (or not) to fo for the M8.2, Sean's thoughts on obsolesence, and our general concerns about the digital upgrade treadmill. The issue for me remains - "Can I use this camera to make publishable images which please me and please my clients?" For me, the M8 remains the first non DSLR camera that does the job. Not perfect, not a universal tool, but plenty good enough.

 

When I look back on what I could achieve with M6/M7 + film and scanning, I know which I prefer - the M8. When I look forward, now that the problems of physical shutter / recock noise have been solved, I'm not panting for the newest, wowiest incarnation of the digital M. Full frame? Maybe - but I'd miss the image quality edge to edge that I get from the 1.3 cropped sensor. Better high ISO? Maybe - but especially since FW 2.0, I'm really not hitting major problems shooting in low light.

 

But it was good to see that the thread's offered some amusement as we descend into winter...

[stunsworth]

In the ancient days of film it was perfectly possible to use identical sensors in Leica and Nikons and Canons, and yet many of us chose to use Leicas even though we could buy a cheap SLR for a fraction of the price and use the same film. What's important IMHO is to look at the whole photograph taking chain. Many of us chose an M over an SLR because a. it was a rangefinder, and b. the glass. Both of those still apply to the M8.

 

Would I like a sensor in the M8 that was better at high ISOs? Yes. Do I need one? Not really. There are a few shots every year where I'd find such a sensor useful, and of course if the M9 had a 'better' sensor I'd probably buy one, but it's more of a 'nice to have' option than a 'must have' one. Obviously others will differ in their opinion and if you need state of the art performance at high ISOs then the M8 isn't for you. If on the other hand you need state of the art performance at low to medium ISOs...

 

Tina's advice is the best, and advice I've not been taking myself recently.

[danyves]

I do suscribe to Tina's advice.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[georg]

"It doesn't recover information, it moves the shadow information further from the noise floor. That, with digital capture, can help to preserve shadow detail and/or allow less exposure so that more highlight detail is preserved"

 

Why are the dark areas with a low-contrast lens brighter? Where does the light come from?

Even if the dark areas are further moved from the noise floor because of low-lens-contrast, it isn't real information from the dark areas!

That's at least my understanding, but I also know which effect you mean, but I think it's an illusion.