maclaine
Well-known
Perhaps "real world" is not the best way of putting it, but it's more useful to me in terms of helping me decide whether or not to purchase the camera. I don't know about you, but I have never and will never duplicate Sean Reid's testing methods because they don't reflect how I would use the camera. I'm glad he does them, as it's helpful to judge the performance of the camera under the ultimate controlled conditions. More important to me, however, is whether or not it gives me aesthetic results I'm pleased with. Mr. Reid's photos from actual field usage are dull at best, and therefore might give me a negative impression. I think that's been the problem with what we've seen from the M240 until now, a stream of poor quality photos that, instead of merely reflecting badly on the photographer, have colored people's perceptions of the camera.
If you don't like his writing style or endless enthusiasm, fine. Skip the words and just look at the pictures. To my eyes, these are the best pictures I've seen from the camera yet, better than anything official from Leica, better than Ming Thein, better than Jonathan Slack, better than Sean Reid, and certainly better than that one gentleman at the seaside resort. They are not too dissimilar from pictures that I might take if I had the camera. In that sense, this is the most useful review of the camera I've seen, because it's the first one that made me think "Yes, I would buy this." Every other review/preview so far has left me unmoved.
segedi
RFicianado
I'm going to disagree with you on this one. The M-E has a harsher highlight, the new M handles the highlight much better (top-right cheek). The M-E also appears to have a little bit of a yellow cast to some of the skin. Mike looks a bit red in the face in both, so I'm assuming he got some sun (or was feeling tipsy), but the M-E also adds in a less than desirable skin tone. Which is surprising because some other examples of the new M show a bit too pink a look to the skin - maybe this was fixed with a firmware update or maybe the JPGs don't look as nice as the DNGs.
Also, the 100% crop of the background shows a much smoother rendering in the new M - much better performance at ISO 400 than in the M-E shot.
I'm looking at these on a NEC Multisync LCD2690WUXi monitor.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Bubububububut... CCD is MAGIC! CMOS is what Canon and Nikon have been using for YEARS HOW CAN A CMOS SENSOR BE MAGIC!?!?!?!
[Denial… anger… bargaining… depression… acceptance… purchase.]
With apologies to Kübler-Ross.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Yup. It'll be a great camera. Overpriced (hey, it's a Leica), but a great camera.
hipsterdufus
Photographer?
I'd get one if I had the money. It would be great not only for M lenses, but also adapting just about any old film SLR lenses you have laying about. A great universal full frame camera back. Kudos to Leica.
maclaine
Well-known
My thoughts exactly. Other than a really nice Jupiter-3, I have no proper Leica-mount lenses at the moment. I would most likely pick up a lens to go with the body if I did buy it, but I wouldn't be able to afford to instantly round out my kit with my favorite focal lengths. However, I have a nice set of Nikon lenses, and I'd be curious to see how they worked on the new body.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
Jeez.. the ISO3200 looks decent.
Dave
Dave
noimmunity
scratch my niche
Now we are talking about the images! (Mr. Huff and his style are of little relevance to me).
I agree with your observations regarding the highlights and the smoother rendering.
Color cast issues aside, do you not see greater gradations of color around the eyes in the M-E image?
Further, do you not feel that the two shots are exposed differently? In both sets of comp shots the M-E looks 1/2 stop brighter than the M.
thegman
Veteran
I like Steve Huff, he seems like a really nice guy, but I think reading a Leica review on his site is like reading a Voigtlander review on cameraquest.com. You're not really assured of an objective view.
I wouldn't read too much into Steve or Ken's thoughts on any particular camera, they both have their favourites, but they both make entertaining reading when they are on form.
I wouldn't read too much into Steve or Ken's thoughts on any particular camera, they both have their favourites, but they both make entertaining reading when they are on form.
steveniphoto
Well-known
i never got why people dislike Steve. he's a cool guy and does pretty decent camera reviews. i have bought cameras that he reviewed and completely agreed with him 100%. i wont be able to buy the new M but it looks like he put some thought into this one. plus, the pictures speak for themselves.
Austerby
Well-known
I did once email Steve Huff suggesting he review the Harman Titan 5x4 pinhole camera, as I'd like to see his write up of that, but I never got a response.
thegman
Veteran
I think someone would need to be fairly coldhearted to actually dislike Steve Huff, he wears his heart on his sleeve, and seems a hard guy to not like. I don't think he'd even claim to be objective about Leica though, he is a fan, and that's cool, but his opinions I think are coloured by that.
I think it would be fair to say if Leica digital cameras did great on Dx0 ratings, then it's a vindication of everything Leica fans stand for. If they don't do great, then it's just statistics and pixel peeping, and does not matter in the real world.
leicapixie
Well-known
Leica are special.I love my M3,M2,M6TTL.
Leica Digital are just another camera, but expensive.
Not more than some top end Canon/Nikon.
The lenses are singularly special.
Truth tell the high end digitals of Canon and Nikon have features,
that make the Leica look like a man taking his first step, whereas they,
Nikon,Canon have Flash features, Huge Buffer, choice of lenses from cheap to equal in L and Pro models.Enormous resources and service facilities.
Sensor cleaning, anti-shake in more than one form.
In short they are headed across the Galaxy.
Leica Digital are just another camera, but expensive.
Not more than some top end Canon/Nikon.
The lenses are singularly special.
Truth tell the high end digitals of Canon and Nikon have features,
that make the Leica look like a man taking his first step, whereas they,
Nikon,Canon have Flash features, Huge Buffer, choice of lenses from cheap to equal in L and Pro models.Enormous resources and service facilities.
Sensor cleaning, anti-shake in more than one form.
In short they are headed across the Galaxy.
Same could have been said of film cameras by Nikon and Canon vs. the M6 in the 90s. And before that, and before that, etc.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
I've never met Steve Huff but from reading the review he's definitely "over the moon" for this camera but what I noted were some key items:
There's a few other statements in his review that are a bit "odd" but overall he writes like a fan of the brand - and that's fine - he's made that claim up front and as long as everyone's aware of that, they know what they're getting.
Regarding his high ISO shots - I still have yet to see some that are in dimly lit, really craptacular lighting. That's where you'll be able to tell just how bad (or good) the camera is. If the ISO3200 is usable without banding in those situations, then I'm all for this new CMOS sensor.
Cheers,
Dave
- new battery is good but doesn't seem to be that great with EVF (I honestly don't think I'd use the EVF anyway)
-
I find that a judgment call - and by that I mean to say - those folks who have the M9 may believe the "quality" of their files are better than the new M - this is part of the problem with "real world" reviews - it's subjective
-
I haven't a clue what Steve Huff does for a living but, really, has he "owned" 5 M9 variations over the past 3-3.5 years? As such, it's hard to take this review objectively.
-
That statement above, to me, sort of contradicts a statement made earlier in the review:
So which is it? do we lose DR with the new M or do we gain DR with the new M?
There's a few other statements in his review that are a bit "odd" but overall he writes like a fan of the brand - and that's fine - he's made that claim up front and as long as everyone's aware of that, they know what they're getting.
Regarding his high ISO shots - I still have yet to see some that are in dimly lit, really craptacular lighting. That's where you'll be able to tell just how bad (or good) the camera is. If the ISO3200 is usable without banding in those situations, then I'm all for this new CMOS sensor.
Cheers,
Dave
Range-rover
Veteran
What am I missing here? Was he supposed to wear gloves?
Well, You guy's have rangefinders, I had Leica's and now a Nikon and
I know how to handle one for the least amount of fingerprints. I always
kinda cringed when I handed a novice my Leica and I would get it back
with fingerprints all over the place, Lesson learned don't let other people
handle your Leica or Nikon Rangefinder!
Range
kehng
Established
I handled one the other day at Rg Lewis and although I couldn't test the images I shot in the shop I did feel like I was playing with a modern digital camera. There is something primitive about the m8 and m9 - and for that reason they speak to me more. They seem closer to the film experience that I love. The m240 felt bigger, more complicated, the Evf unwieldy but the shutter does sound better.
The images in huff's site appear good but ISo 1000000 shots are not really what I do. The dynamic range and robustness of file sound appealing but in honesty I'd rather have that pop straight off the sd card. The m240 images seem to have less of the filminess of the m8 and m9 and seem plasticky like the canikons. There are better cameras for technical shooting or video (like a h3d or 5d Mk ii) and although I'd like an m240 one day but I think I'll stick with my m3, m5, cl and m9 for now. I could probably trade them all in and come close to a m240 but would that be a good deal? Probably not in my books.
The images in huff's site appear good but ISo 1000000 shots are not really what I do. The dynamic range and robustness of file sound appealing but in honesty I'd rather have that pop straight off the sd card. The m240 images seem to have less of the filminess of the m8 and m9 and seem plasticky like the canikons. There are better cameras for technical shooting or video (like a h3d or 5d Mk ii) and although I'd like an m240 one day but I think I'll stick with my m3, m5, cl and m9 for now. I could probably trade them all in and come close to a m240 but would that be a good deal? Probably not in my books.
xdayv
Color Blind
It's good to know the new M doing better in some key areas... but I guess I'll go for an M-E or M9 somewhere along the way to pair up with my Monochrom.
SaveKodak
Well-known
Money aside, even if you slightly prefer the look of the ME/M9 why would you want to put up with it's shortfalls? The terrible screen with the 3 second load time, the bad buffer, the noise even at moderate ISOs. With good RAW processing i'm sure you can get the look of the CCD off the M9. People always leave out the notion of raw processing. That's what you do to get the look you want. Your pictures don't have to look like the out of camera jpegs. The pop you're talking about either comes from microcontrast in the lenses or an increase in contrast. You're using the same lenses, so figure out your contrast,
And if you're willing ot put up with the slow, under engineered M9 because it's so magical well, Hasselblad is selling their H4D-31 for $7500 with an 80 and if you can't get yer magic off that thing well then yer doing it wrong.
And if you're willing ot put up with the slow, under engineered M9 because it's so magical well, Hasselblad is selling their H4D-31 for $7500 with an 80 and if you can't get yer magic off that thing well then yer doing it wrong.
thegman
Veteran
Fair enough, but I feel quite the opposite. I'm always happy to have people try out my Leica, and could not care less about fingerprints. I think if you have a go of a good film camera like a Leica, you're likely want one for yourself, and I think that's good for the whole film-using community.