willie_901
Veteran
I thought DxO revenues came from DxO Optics Pro raw processing software and a series of specialzed film simultion plug ins. If I remember correctly the DxOMark web site is a means to promote the technical excellence of DxO Optics Pro.
The camera evaluations they publish are essentially derivative measurements thay already make for the R&D conducted in support of DxO Optics Pro. They also have data for lenses.
A few years ago I discovered that DxO Optics Pro outperformed ACR for the DSLR/lens combination I used professionally. In my case the improvements were not practical because my workflow demanded overnight image delivery. Speed and convenience are more important to my clients than a 5-10% improvement in IQ.
I am not motivated to defend DxO nor am I interested in annoying Leica owners. At the same time it is relevant to state that every single method DxO uses is completely documented in mathematical detail. I personally can't see how DxO's results are not objective.
While I usually detest automobile/camera analogies, all DxOMark's data measures is the signal-to-noise ratio of the sensor to raw file data flow. Of course S/N is critically related to dynamic range and bit depth. This is similar to only evaluating the overall performance of sports cars' drivetrains. Of course these tests don't completely characterize any camera or lens. They just objectively measure one critical component of the complicated mixture of objective and subjective factors that comprise the whole of the camera.
If I used digital Leica Ms, I would point of that careful optimization of exposure is typically more important than the technical potential of the camera's S/N. The large number of cameras with higher S/N than the Leica CCD sensors rarely function at their full potential because sub-optimal exposure is the norm Convenience trumps evaluation and thinking about exposure. In general photographers tend to place more faith in the camera automation than their own experience and ability to evaluate and optimize exposure.
Finally, DxO will soon test the new Leica CMOS sensor. Let's suppose this system has the best S/N of any camera evaluated by DxO. Does this mean these results would be silly, unimportant and unauthentic? Should camera buyers ignore those results too?
The camera evaluations they publish are essentially derivative measurements thay already make for the R&D conducted in support of DxO Optics Pro. They also have data for lenses.
A few years ago I discovered that DxO Optics Pro outperformed ACR for the DSLR/lens combination I used professionally. In my case the improvements were not practical because my workflow demanded overnight image delivery. Speed and convenience are more important to my clients than a 5-10% improvement in IQ.
I am not motivated to defend DxO nor am I interested in annoying Leica owners. At the same time it is relevant to state that every single method DxO uses is completely documented in mathematical detail. I personally can't see how DxO's results are not objective.
While I usually detest automobile/camera analogies, all DxOMark's data measures is the signal-to-noise ratio of the sensor to raw file data flow. Of course S/N is critically related to dynamic range and bit depth. This is similar to only evaluating the overall performance of sports cars' drivetrains. Of course these tests don't completely characterize any camera or lens. They just objectively measure one critical component of the complicated mixture of objective and subjective factors that comprise the whole of the camera.
If I used digital Leica Ms, I would point of that careful optimization of exposure is typically more important than the technical potential of the camera's S/N. The large number of cameras with higher S/N than the Leica CCD sensors rarely function at their full potential because sub-optimal exposure is the norm Convenience trumps evaluation and thinking about exposure. In general photographers tend to place more faith in the camera automation than their own experience and ability to evaluate and optimize exposure.
Finally, DxO will soon test the new Leica CMOS sensor. Let's suppose this system has the best S/N of any camera evaluated by DxO. Does this mean these results would be silly, unimportant and unauthentic? Should camera buyers ignore those results too?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Then again, how many of them use Alpas? Enough to keep Alpa in business...
Cheers,
R.
Archlich
Well-known
The KAF-18500 caps its ISO at 2500 - this explains much of it. It was said long ago that the sensor performs on the same level as the original 5D, which was released four years earlier - and I find it strange that people start to react just now.
The new M sensor, no matter where it is designed/produced in according to various sources, will likely be on par with the D600/a99 in the tests. Finally something contemporary comes to the Leica land, no doubt a good news.
The new M sensor, no matter where it is designed/produced in according to various sources, will likely be on par with the D600/a99 in the tests. Finally something contemporary comes to the Leica land, no doubt a good news.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
We're back to the 'quality plateau'. Up to that plateau, which varies from photographer to photographer, a 'better' camera will give you 'better' pictures. You can define 'better' how you like: some people find Holgas 'better' than Leicas.
Above the plateau, the photographer is far more important: his/her compositional skills, how happy he/she is with the camera (you'll get better pictures with a camera you're happy with)... By the criteria of 'happiness', for most of my photography, any half-decent DSLR is 'inferior' to my Leicas: too big, too heavy, too festooned with buttons, too automated... So I can't get too excited about DxO.
It's also worth adding that even some lens designers say that some lenses are 'magical' and others not -- and not just Leica lenses or designers. People at Zeiss say the same.
Cheers,
R.
Above the plateau, the photographer is far more important: his/her compositional skills, how happy he/she is with the camera (you'll get better pictures with a camera you're happy with)... By the criteria of 'happiness', for most of my photography, any half-decent DSLR is 'inferior' to my Leicas: too big, too heavy, too festooned with buttons, too automated... So I can't get too excited about DxO.
It's also worth adding that even some lens designers say that some lenses are 'magical' and others not -- and not just Leica lenses or designers. People at Zeiss say the same.
Cheers,
R.
teleparallel
Established
Lens designers will always say their lenses are better. Point here is that people praise Leica's CCD so much, yet it can't really deliver all that much. Personally I think DxO is right. Take a look at dpreview's comparison tools. I just can't grasp the "Leica advantage" in a side by side look, using a leica lens, and all.
Some like the basic output of camera. I agree. Most cameras ooc jpeg are plane. But there's a reason: you can edit to obtain better results.
At today's technology, I really think that most cameras do the same in terms of IQ. Differences are to marginal to make any real difference.
Some like the basic output of camera. I agree. Most cameras ooc jpeg are plane. But there's a reason: you can edit to obtain better results.
At today's technology, I really think that most cameras do the same in terms of IQ. Differences are to marginal to make any real difference.
It can deliver enough to make a high quality photo. Please quantify "all that much."
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Maybe. Maybe not. Who cares, when the stumbling blocks for M Leica acceptance among pros lie completely elsewhere. Namely system cost (press work is at a all time low regarding payment and equipment cost) and rangefinder inherent deficiencies in studio/tripod use (where a tiny camera with finder parallax will always be at a disadvantage).
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Makes me wonder where the pros on LUF and GetDPI come from...
Not from Minnetonka, apparently
Not from Minnetonka, apparently
ottluuk
the indecisive eternity
Indeed. And while we're at it, look at the DxOMark scores for some medium format digital backs. They have good "Color Depth" scores but generally fall behind the latest 35mm DSLR sensors in other respects. Does that mean that high end pros are now all ditching their MF digital systems because of these numbers?
teleparallel
Established
All that much would mean above current technologies of other brands, such Canon or Nikon. And not only current, technology at the time of M9 release.
teleparallel
Established
Dude, every photographer has the right to choose what camera they work. Most press photogs will not choose Leica. It has little degree in automation, and cost involved getting Leica cameras and glass, up to three times the price. And I really don't care. My point is, that Leica is no better regarding it's sensor, like i've read several times.
noimmunity
scratch my niche
Until very recently, Leica was pretty much the only small format camera with no AA filter. Now there are a few, but the vast majority of sensors still have 'em. That difference is visible, and to my eyes it is still totally viable and meaningful today.
But the main thing is that the sensor is good enough (perhaps distinctive) so that what really matters is the total photographic tool, i.e., the camera, in which it is housed and of which it is only a part. The form, the viewfinder, and the focusing mechanism are elements that no other camera manufacturer combines in the same way as Leica. What that means is that as a photographic tool, the Leica dRF enables users to "get the shot" in a unique way.
Anybody who buys a Leica M9/M-E and doesn't understand and accept/need/desire that equation is IMHO going to be severely disappointed, just as anybody who bases their choice of camera system upon either DxO rankings or DPreview comp charts doesn't have a clue as to how images are produced (by using cameras not sensors) and viewed (as a whole, not as an isolated collection of pixels).
furcafe
Veteran
I'm also surprised that anyone thinks the DxO test is "news." The M9/M-E's sensor lagged in high ISO performance from day one. That's not a big deal for everyone, of course, but it's definitely a technical consideration that's important to many (including myself).
Roger Hicks
Veteran
All indisputably true, but the only people who will understand you are those who already know you're right. "My mind is made up. Do not confuse me with the facts."
Cheers,
R.
noimmunity
scratch my niche
Sounds like most of the students I meet these days, too, LOL!
My theory is that the internet in an age of cynicism produces a great anxiety for which people try to compensate by over-aggressive espousal of opinions.
teleparallel
Established
Dude,
That's exactly my point. Did you read the post? I only argue, that distinctiveness is deceptive. It's likely to not exist, and DxO helps to stablish as true. I did not say it's isn't capable, I said it's not better.
It's important to stop fantasize about this leica magic. I really like them. I love rf against slr. But aside that, you should not choose it by it's sensor capability.
gavinlg
Veteran
DXO is the worst indicator of camera system IQ out there. Their results have next to no correlation to real world results. I'd take the kodak design CCD in the m9 over ANY crop sensor out there ANY day of the week.
Duane Pandorf
Well-known
I don't know about you all but I'm enjoying my Leica M-E very much. I find the continual mine is bigger than yours and if you only had this then you could do this a real waste of time. Just like the amount of time I just wasted posting this ; )
noimmunity
scratch my niche
I hear you, but I simply disagree. The reason I disagree is because I use my eyes, and my eyes tell me that the M9 output is "distinctive", as I already said in post #34. (Did YOU read the post? lol).
DxO's ratings moreover do not have any parameters that measure "distinctiveness", so I don't see how they could ever be held to 'stablish' [sic.] that as true.
In fact, virtually every sensor is "distinctive". That's why I still have and use my Fuji F30. That's why I was really sad to let go of my M8. That's why people love the RD1. I bet in ten years Nik Software, OnOne and Alien Skin will be offering not just "film simulation" presets, but also funky "early digital camera" presets, too.
M9 output is distinctive in a way that I like better than most every other distinctive output around over the past decade.
"Better" has no meaning unless you specify the parameters. DxO only measures three parameters.
So your mission is to come to the forum named "rangefinderforum" and tell the enthusiasts there to stop fantasizing about the #1 player in rangefinder cameras? Sheesh.
Relax. Turn off the vidput. Reading is fun. I do it all the time.
teleparallel
Established
You're right. I won't waste anymore. Glad you like yours and just that, without the need to say "mine is bigger".
But, changing my opinion, just now, on the matter, Leica lovers are really blinded. It's one thing to have fun and work with it for personal, simple, true reasons. Other is to diminish scientific test(the only one) over simple eye perception and lack of understanding the the process image creation. It's like religion, you can't really put some "dogmatic truths" to the test, unless you somehow corroborate with it.
Peace and out.