Jrp
Newbie
willie_901
Veteran
I really like this phrase. May I borrow it for future use?
chaospress
Established
Yes, and taking into account the lens you have attached as well.
Funny how with film we were always told in school "expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights."
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Yes, really. That test is about dynamic range. Highlight recovery is about one thing only. If you clip one channel the raw developer software can recover the highlight from the two remaining ones (with loss of colour fidelity and contrast), if you clip two channels the raw developer may be able to recover some detail (with significant loss of colour fidelity and contrast). The camera has nothing to do with this process. With one exception: If you clip one channel on the Monochrom you have no other channels to recover from, so there cannot be any highlight recovery at all.
The difference that your tests point out is exactly what I mean: The Sony is biased to expose a bit more to the left than the Leica. That is the reason many users dial in a permanent - 1/3 EV compensation on their Leicas.
Manuel Patino
Established
After more time using the M240, I find that it's much easier recover an underdeveloped image than an overdeveloped image. I don't know or care very much about all these laboratory tests of cameras and lenses. The bottom line for me is whether I can get the images I want from my camera/lens.
The higher usable ISO that the camera has, the more flexibility it offers for shooting in all types of light. I shoot a lot in less than bright light situations and if I need to stop down to get more depth of field and need a bit faster shutter speed, the higher usable ISO is indispensable.
The OP's test images don't really prove anything. IMHO, neither of the images are particularly good and frankly, the lighting is awful and the composition is marginal. The shot with the M240 is particularly poorly composed. How can any comparison be made?
Anyway, I like the M240, it works well for me and I get lots of good images with it. I have and Have had a variety of digital cameras including Nikon, Panasonic, Epson, and still have the olympus EM-1 and the DP2-M sigma.
They all have their pluses and minuses. The DP2 Merrill make beautiful images but it's a terrible camera because it's so limiting in it's use. The M43 cameras are quite good in some ways, but deficient in other ways. The M240 is not perfect but it's way better for my application than the other cameras. I don't have a M9 to compare, but I can see that the low usable ISO as well as several other features missing from it that the M240 has, would make it less usable for me. But then again, it's just my choice for the kind of shooting I do.
The higher usable ISO that the camera has, the more flexibility it offers for shooting in all types of light. I shoot a lot in less than bright light situations and if I need to stop down to get more depth of field and need a bit faster shutter speed, the higher usable ISO is indispensable.
The OP's test images don't really prove anything. IMHO, neither of the images are particularly good and frankly, the lighting is awful and the composition is marginal. The shot with the M240 is particularly poorly composed. How can any comparison be made?
Anyway, I like the M240, it works well for me and I get lots of good images with it. I have and Have had a variety of digital cameras including Nikon, Panasonic, Epson, and still have the olympus EM-1 and the DP2-M sigma.
They all have their pluses and minuses. The DP2 Merrill make beautiful images but it's a terrible camera because it's so limiting in it's use. The M43 cameras are quite good in some ways, but deficient in other ways. The M240 is not perfect but it's way better for my application than the other cameras. I don't have a M9 to compare, but I can see that the low usable ISO as well as several other features missing from it that the M240 has, would make it less usable for me. But then again, it's just my choice for the kind of shooting I do.
Huss
Veteran
Awful lighting is perfect to test the capabilities of the cameras. Perfect lighting would show nothing as any camera/smart phone can make good images in perfect lighting.
How can any comparison be made? By using both cameras at the same time, with the same lens, at the same subject, in next to the same pose, in the same awful lighting, at the same aperture setting, processed the same way.
FYI I have since replaced my M-E with an M-240 because I did not want to wait months for another sensor repair. The M-240 has since grown on me but I still think that at base ISOs the CCD sensor gives more pleasing images.
Anyway, enjoy your M240, I am enjoying mine.
Manuel Patino
Established
The problem is that the images are not the same. They are completely different. One photograph is better executed than the other. If the images were reversed the M240 would have likely produced a better image. The test proves nothing as far as a fair or valid comparison between the cameras.