How come the difference?

Ken Rockwell got it right because he understands the 'pixie dust' principal described frequently by Pickett in digital M threads. Each sensor gets a liberal sprinkling before being fitted to it's host digital body!

No other digital camera in the world can compete with this sort of technology!
 
If they weren't testing raw data directly off of the sensor, they were testing the signal processing algorithms of the respective cameras.

Kodak publishes the long data sheets for their sensors, most other companies do not. It's hard to know the real signal to noise ratio of a camera without the specifications of the detector.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
If they weren't testing raw data directly off of the sensor, they were testing the signal processing algorithms of the respective cameras.

Kodak publishes the long data sheets for their sensors, most other companies do not. It's hard to know the real signal to noise ratio of a camera without the specifications of the detector.
Click to expand...

Well, at first blush that doe not sound too good either. Either the sensor on the M9 does not perform as well as the others in the tests or maybe it does but the algorithms Leica uses are not as good as the others tested. People seem to happy with what the M9 puts out in the real world so it really doesn't matter about bench testing. That may explain the difference between the tests and what KR and a lot of others think. Then again there's that matter of pixie dust too.

Bob
 
Signal processing algorithms can be applied outside of the camera. This saves power and size for the electronics in the camera, and allow different algorithms to be selected for post processing in Lightroom or other software platform. Signal processing algorithms generally do better in eliminating artifacts and preserving the image when operating on raw data. Complex signal processing requires more powerful processors, and these generally consume more power and produce more heat than cameras that store unprocessed imagery. There are exceptions. The SCSI drive in my first DSLR sucked a lot of power to store raw output from the sensor.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
On a more realistic note ... if the M9 had the Nikon or Canon logo on it, it's performance and price would probably stunt it's sales. Leica don't need to be in that top echelon of sensor performance to sell cameras ... thye're doing just fine where they are!
 
When I read some of the reviews of the M9, ISO 2500 performance, and such- and look at what my M9 produces, I can only conclude that I must have lucked into the best M9 ever made.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
When I read some of the reviews of the M9, ISO 2500 performance, and such- and look at what my M9 produces, I can only conclude that I must have lucked into the best M9 ever made.
Click to expand...

I pretty much feel that way about my M8.2. I especially like how casually I can shoot with it when set to aperture priority. And I find myself not chimping much with the M8.2. I find the menus easy to use. In general, I don't need to pay much attention to the camera. Focus and shoot. These things cannot be evaluated with charts and graphs.
 
Ken Rockwell's reviews are designed to boost his affiliate marketing commissions, nothing more. nothing less. The M8 and M9 have excellent sharpness due to their lack of an AA filter and top-notch lenses, but Kodak's sensors have distinctly lacklustre high-ISO performance, at least 3 generations behind the state of the art.
 
Again- High ISO performance comes down to the dark current- the number of electrons produced without light hitting the detector element. Dynamic range is limited by the maximum number of electrons that each element can handle before saturating. Most CMOS sensors have noise reduction processing going on at the sensor and in the camera electronics. I would like to see some numbers listed for system level noise and saturation measured in electron count. Kind of like putting up the "marked" and "measured" F-Stop of a lens, then listing it's T-Stop.
 
Ken Rockwell's statement is accurate... overall, for the fan of M cameras, the M9 is the "smallest, lightest, highest-quality digital camera ever created by the hand of Man.”

If you like using DSLRs, they are a better value and are at the forefront of tech. However, if you don' like DSLRs, then you have to be happy that the M9 exists.
 
I disagree that the Kodak sensors are three generations behind the sensors used in the DSLR's. In terms of acquiring the image, the specifications of the Kodak detectors are excellent. Sensor performance include specs for "Dark current", "Quantum Efficiency", "Uniformity". Looking at 2009 spec sheets for the Cypruss Rev D full-frame CMOS sensor and the 2007 spec for the Kodak KAF-10500 used in the M8, the Kodak has better performance for uniformity, dark-current, and quantum efficiency.

Leica had a lot to consider in designing the M8 and M9 that Nikon and Canon did not have to deal with. Short lens register meant steep angles for collecting light, and CCD's are better than CMOS for that. Leica wanted a camera that was smaller- which meant a smaller battery, less and lower-power electronics, and smaller storage media. That drove them to using an SD card rather than faster CF, and also in the direction of a CCD. The RAW image quality from a CCD is better than the raw image quality of a CMOS sensor.

I'll start a thread in the "Mad Scientist" forum for detector spec sheets. I've been reading these things for decades.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr Rockwell reports his opinions and DxO reports measurements. Exactly what it is that DxO mearures I cannot say, but apparently it is important and has a great bearing on "image quality". One day someone will tell me how a DxO mark is reflected in a picture and its image quality. Until then, I give it no importance at all.

BTW, that DxO article is getting old and the M9 must have slid down the table since then.
 
damien.murphy said:
The difference is, every camera Ken likes is the greatest camera ever made by the hand of man 😉
Click to expand...


That, and he writes in Truthiness. I believe that opinions are not facts, so I'd believe tests from a methodological means of comparative testing (even if it were a little biased) more as facts rather than for-profit opinionating (new word).
 
So people do not think that Ken Rockwell researched the relative quantum efficiency and dark current of the detectors used in the cameras and then developed his own signal processing routines for the M9 and based his opinions on that...

This is why people should be happy that I do NOT review cameras.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Bill Pierce
M9 Dxo tests
2 3
Replies
58
Views
7K
Turtle
T
dcsang
The New CMOS Sensor May Not Be As Bad As People Imagine
2 3 4
Replies
72
Views
10K
garygraphy
G
maitani
an ode to the M8
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
15K
kiromn
K
ferider
  • Sticky
Quantifying the 75/1.8 Heliar performance
2
Replies
36
Views
12K
Bill Blackwell
Bill Blackwell
B
Is the M9 a Clunky Motorized Beast?
Replies
9
Views
1K
ederek
ederek
Back
Top Bottom