Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Renszsu, that's the real bottom line. Technical aspects are irrelevant. If you want a FF digital RF, the M9 is now (and likely will always be) the only option.
ernstk
Retro Renaissance
Rockwell...
Rockwell...
It's interesting that Rockwell's results seem to tell a different story...
Ernst
Rockwell...
It's interesting that Rockwell's results seem to tell a different story...
Ernst
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
He operates on a different plane of consciousness to the rest of us ... I've heard he can remove high ISO noise from a CCD sensor with the touch of his hand!
ernstk
Retro Renaissance
Yes. It's called a mouse, trackball, or touchy-feely-laptop-thingy pad.
furcafe
Veteran
Exactly. While there is certainly a niche market for a full-frame dRF that has the high ISO performance of a D700 or 5D, no manufacturer is currently selling one. 
As the DxOMark site says in its disclaimer:
"This dxomark review evaluates only the selected camera’s RAW sensor performance metrics (i.e., Color Depth, Dynamic Range, and Low-Light ISO), and should not be construed as a review of the camera’s overall performance, as it does not address such other important criteria as image signal processing, mechanical robustness, ease of use, flexibility, optics, value for money, etc. While RAW sensor performance is critically important, it is not the only factor that should be taken into consideration when choosing a digital camera."
As the DxOMark site says in its disclaimer:
"This dxomark review evaluates only the selected camera’s RAW sensor performance metrics (i.e., Color Depth, Dynamic Range, and Low-Light ISO), and should not be construed as a review of the camera’s overall performance, as it does not address such other important criteria as image signal processing, mechanical robustness, ease of use, flexibility, optics, value for money, etc. While RAW sensor performance is critically important, it is not the only factor that should be taken into consideration when choosing a digital camera."
Last edited:
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Dxo chooses weighs what's important and what is not one way. You may weigh these parameters another way.
It's worth noting that in scientific imaging CMOS sensors are used relatively rarely; for the parameters that matter to scientists, CCDs usually have more usefully balanced parameters (this may change in the future).
Rangefinders and SLRs use lenses with different optical properties. As I said above it's unlikely that a D700 sensor would perform well with most rangefinder lenses.
One may view this as a limitation of the rangefinder optical geometry, which was optimized for film, or as a limitation of most digital sensors.
Now, why people can't get it through their heads that technical issues can be complicated, I cannot say.
I can say why some people think that the "best" sensor is the only one that can be used to make technically outstanding photographs. It's generally because they have shallow understandings of both imaging chains and of photography as an art. These are the sorts of people who (as Wilde said) know "the price of everything and the value of nothing."
It's worth noting that in scientific imaging CMOS sensors are used relatively rarely; for the parameters that matter to scientists, CCDs usually have more usefully balanced parameters (this may change in the future).
Rangefinders and SLRs use lenses with different optical properties. As I said above it's unlikely that a D700 sensor would perform well with most rangefinder lenses.
One may view this as a limitation of the rangefinder optical geometry, which was optimized for film, or as a limitation of most digital sensors.
Now, why people can't get it through their heads that technical issues can be complicated, I cannot say.
I can say why some people think that the "best" sensor is the only one that can be used to make technically outstanding photographs. It's generally because they have shallow understandings of both imaging chains and of photography as an art. These are the sorts of people who (as Wilde said) know "the price of everything and the value of nothing."
Last edited:
aizan
Veteran
just goes to show that the leica m9 is not at the forefront of low-light photography. if the image quality is still "good enough," people can use it for those purposes, but there's no denying that higher image quality is available at much lower prices, albeit in a different type of camera and mostly at higher isos. people just have to decide whether the form factor is worth the higher cost and comparatively poorer image quality.
there is also the question of lens quality. i would like to see a side-by-side comparison between a leica m9 and canon 5dmkii, both with 24mm f1.4 lenses. the summilux would presumably be sharper wide open, but does the sensor counteract the optics at high iso? how does the 5dmkii with 24mm L compare?
there is also the question of lens quality. i would like to see a side-by-side comparison between a leica m9 and canon 5dmkii, both with 24mm f1.4 lenses. the summilux would presumably be sharper wide open, but does the sensor counteract the optics at high iso? how does the 5dmkii with 24mm L compare?
user237428934
User deletion pending
That's a comparison I also would be interested in.
ferider
Veteran
I found this comment interesting:
"One other important fact is that a slight noise reduction has been detected on all ISOs from ISO 320. To provide the Leica M9 measurements, its noise filtering was precisely evaluated along the whole dynamic and noise curves were corrected by applying the resulting inverse coefficient. This noise filtering is very slight but constant along the whole dynamic. It increases slightly with ISO."
Roland.
"One other important fact is that a slight noise reduction has been detected on all ISOs from ISO 320. To provide the Leica M9 measurements, its noise filtering was precisely evaluated along the whole dynamic and noise curves were corrected by applying the resulting inverse coefficient. This noise filtering is very slight but constant along the whole dynamic. It increases slightly with ISO."
Roland.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Is Leica applying corrections before the RAW file is created? Is it really RAW?
Bill Pierce
Well-known
The performance of the M9 is important because (1) the rangefinder camera is a unique and useful tool and (2) the only full-frame, high end rangefinder is the M9.
In the world of film, Leicas provided exceptional image quality at low ISO’s and superior focusing accuracy with high-speed wide angles and normals combined with relatively low vibration at slow shutter speeds in dim. low-contrast situations requiring high ISO’s.
For a number of us, when the digital Leica’s high ISO performance was seriously outgunned by high-end DSLR’s, we gave up the many advantages of the smaller, quieter digital rangefinder in available darkness. It was not just that the DSLR had exceptional high ISO performance; the Leica had inferior performance.
Certainly, the promise of high performance at the base ISO in a camera that is smaller than a DSLR (which is often accompanied by a somewhat hefty zoom lens) is going to be welcomed by anyone walking with a camera - tourist, nature or landscape photographer, street photographer or just someone who always likes to have a camera with him. In these situations, if image quality is not significantly better than that of even smaller, less expensive cameras, the M9 may or may not make sense.
I have not used the M9 extensively, just a short time with a borrowed camera. But I have used the M8 and M8.2 extensively. I have to concur with the DxO evaluation. There are a number of reasons to use a digital Leica, but outstanding technical quality of an image that blows away the competition is not one of them. I’m a little worried, but understand and sympathize with folks who have an allegiance to a brand name. Quite apart from conspicuous consumption, we’re talking about positive experiences in the past. Leicas are wonderful. I think the DxO evaluation is limited (read what they have to say about it), but it is accurate and can’t be dismissed or called incorrect just because you don’t like it.
In the world of film, Leicas provided exceptional image quality at low ISO’s and superior focusing accuracy with high-speed wide angles and normals combined with relatively low vibration at slow shutter speeds in dim. low-contrast situations requiring high ISO’s.
For a number of us, when the digital Leica’s high ISO performance was seriously outgunned by high-end DSLR’s, we gave up the many advantages of the smaller, quieter digital rangefinder in available darkness. It was not just that the DSLR had exceptional high ISO performance; the Leica had inferior performance.
Certainly, the promise of high performance at the base ISO in a camera that is smaller than a DSLR (which is often accompanied by a somewhat hefty zoom lens) is going to be welcomed by anyone walking with a camera - tourist, nature or landscape photographer, street photographer or just someone who always likes to have a camera with him. In these situations, if image quality is not significantly better than that of even smaller, less expensive cameras, the M9 may or may not make sense.
I have not used the M9 extensively, just a short time with a borrowed camera. But I have used the M8 and M8.2 extensively. I have to concur with the DxO evaluation. There are a number of reasons to use a digital Leica, but outstanding technical quality of an image that blows away the competition is not one of them. I’m a little worried, but understand and sympathize with folks who have an allegiance to a brand name. Quite apart from conspicuous consumption, we’re talking about positive experiences in the past. Leicas are wonderful. I think the DxO evaluation is limited (read what they have to say about it), but it is accurate and can’t be dismissed or called incorrect just because you don’t like it.
ferider
Veteran
Are the "RAW" files vignetting corrected ?
BillBingham2
Registered User
Lots of companies seem to be tweaking RAW files these days. My read is that Leica has done this with the M8 and continues the practice. I still religiously think that raw should be raw from the chip and then you provide software to "Develop" (read adjust, convert, tweak) for a laptop/desktop or perhaps even better an application in the clouds for us to use.
All the concern about this makes me think back to darkroom days. If you enlarger lens sucks then your IQ will not be as good. If you enlarger wiggles a bit then your IQ will suffer. It's the total package that you need to look at. Your IQ will only be as good as the total is. Leica Ms have the advantage of using great glass so that helps a lot.
If you look at the pure DXO results then the M9 is about the same as a Nikon N90, sorry I think they need to evaluate how or what they are measuring. I'm thinking there is more to be measured to give you a total picture.
B2 (;->
All the concern about this makes me think back to darkroom days. If you enlarger lens sucks then your IQ will not be as good. If you enlarger wiggles a bit then your IQ will suffer. It's the total package that you need to look at. Your IQ will only be as good as the total is. Leica Ms have the advantage of using great glass so that helps a lot.
If you look at the pure DXO results then the M9 is about the same as a Nikon N90, sorry I think they need to evaluate how or what they are measuring. I'm thinking there is more to be measured to give you a total picture.
B2 (;->
photogdave
Shops local
Totally agree. This is like the flipside to the DPreview lens tests where they test a Nikon lens on a Nikon body and a Canon lens on a Canon body, then proclaim one lens is better than the other. The influence of the sensor is obviously going to affect the images they are viewing but this is not factored in.
Same with DXO. You can't say that camera X beats camera Y because the engineers are designing the sensors to receive light through their specific optics.
I know the intention of the DXO designers is not to suggest that their tests are supposed to indicate which is the better overall camera but we know some people will interpret it that way.
Either way the test results till won't make me go back to my M9 photos and say "these are no longer acceptable. I wish I had used a Nikon."
Gid
Well-known
The problem with these types of tests is that all they show is relativity - that is a ranking in a list. There is no statement regarding at which rank / position a piece of equipment becomes useless (this would differ for different users and end uses in any case). If there were an acceptable performance bar, one could then make some sensible decision regarding which equipment is usable and which is to be avoided, but there isn't.
In their day, the Nikon D1, D1X, D100, Canon 1D, D30, D60 etc. were held in high regard and I dare say many very good images have been created from these cameras and could still be today. Where would they be on the DXO list? It isn't about ranking in a list, its about whether or not you can get acceptable images out of what you've got. If you can, then, the fact that there are better or worse cameras is irrelevant.
In their day, the Nikon D1, D1X, D100, Canon 1D, D30, D60 etc. were held in high regard and I dare say many very good images have been created from these cameras and could still be today. Where would they be on the DXO list? It isn't about ranking in a list, its about whether or not you can get acceptable images out of what you've got. If you can, then, the fact that there are better or worse cameras is irrelevant.
user237428934
User deletion pending
peripatetic
Well-known
The Canon 5D MKII scores 10 points above the M9, and Nikon D700 is 12 points above and basically all of that is due to the extra performance at high ISO. 15 points is equivalent to one stop.
That's as bad as it gets? I would have thought it was worse than that.
Factor in the Leica lenses, especially at the wide angle end and the M9 comes out pretty well I reckon.
So we have that the Canon 5DMkII and Nikon D700 are almost one stop better in low light. Is anyone surprised at that? The only surprise is that it's that little, common "wisdom" would suggest it was more like 2-3 stops. Just goes to show what common wisdom is worth.
The Leica shapes up just fine IMO.
That's as bad as it gets? I would have thought it was worse than that.
Factor in the Leica lenses, especially at the wide angle end and the M9 comes out pretty well I reckon.
So we have that the Canon 5DMkII and Nikon D700 are almost one stop better in low light. Is anyone surprised at that? The only surprise is that it's that little, common "wisdom" would suggest it was more like 2-3 stops. Just goes to show what common wisdom is worth.
The Leica shapes up just fine IMO.
Gid
Well-known
I agree completely, but the relevance is not really about utility, unless you genuinely need to shoot in complete darkness, for example. If the camera you've been using quite happily, producing acceptable image quality, suddenly drops from 3rd to 20th in a list, it doesn't mean that it has to be replaced. However, marketeers know how to persuade us that we are unworthy
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Well, my old Nikon D1x is capable of good photos. But only if used carefully and within it's limitations. My 5DII produces higher quality images effortlessly. That's the real difference.