35photo
Well-known
It would have been nice if had told us which lens he used on the Nikon...Or Or better yet use a similar lens on both...say a Zeiss 35 f2 since they are available for both cameras...I've got a D800E and I use it with a Zeiss 35mm f2 and I converted and old Leica R 50 mm f2 to a Nikon mount, both these lenses are tone machines IMO... The old Leica lens is really great the color and sharpness is amazing...Color can also be tweaked to your hearts content...Both are great cameras that can be used for a variety of purposes...I wouldn't mind getting a chance to shoot the M 240 when it becomes more available...
Marko
airfrogusmc
Veteran
He did say what lens he used on both.
See the first para under A Comparison Was In Order
See the first para under A Comparison Was In Order
ray*j*gun
Veteran
That's a very good question.
I personally believe that while the images are obviously digital (and by that I mean "non-film like" - which of course is a completely non-scientific way of describing them) the lens signatures remain the same.
That is, I know my 35mm summilux pre-asph wide open has that "glow" that apparently people talk about. Well the glow remains on a Leica M9 (I did try one out a couple of years back at a local camera store) so I would assume the same glow would appear on the M (240).
So, to me, if it's a digital camera, the images will always look "digital" regardless of camera brand but how those digital images are rendered, I've found, is dependent on glass used and the type/effectiveness of post processing.
If I do get that M (240) I'll be profiling the camera similarly to what I did with the Fuji X-Pro1 - it may not be perfectly exact but it will do for my purposes
Cheers,
Dave
A big reason I use an M8 is because of the lenses that I have. However when comparing any DSLR to an M there are lots of other considerations. An M (rangefinder) for me is simply a better tool, than a digi slr. Except for sports its the M8u if I am going to pass on shooting film that day.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Yep for me to. I like the useful DoF scales on the lens and I prefer manual focus actually I only shoot in manual modes. Have for decades. I am probably going ot dump all of my DSLR gear in the next couple of years and switch completely over to Leica M even for my commercial/advertising work. I am so in love with my MM. I had forgotten how much I loved the range finder shooting experience.
35photo
Well-known
Ok, missed that, but its not a fair test not using the same or similar lens by the same brand...this speaks more to the lens and not the camera the differences you see...
bwcolor
Veteran
Given that he wasn't going to use his 'M' lenses on his Nikon, I think that it is perfectly fair to use Nikon lenses on the Nikon and 'M' lenses on the 'M'. After all, it is the system that one invests in and not just the lenses, or the camera. He also selected his favorite 80mm Nikon lens to compare to the 90mm APO Asph. It sure sounds like a reasonable approach and one that cost him a pretty penny.
Based on shooting with my wife's NEX-6 and my X100s, I think that we are a couple of generations from more reliable/fast autofocus mirrorless. Central focus daylight is pretty good.. not for shooting sports, but at least you can catch your kids running around.. at least most of the time. For now, the DSLR is safe. I would not expect a dramatic improvement in autofocus with the XPro-2.
Based on shooting with my wife's NEX-6 and my X100s, I think that we are a couple of generations from more reliable/fast autofocus mirrorless. Central focus daylight is pretty good.. not for shooting sports, but at least you can catch your kids running around.. at least most of the time. For now, the DSLR is safe. I would not expect a dramatic improvement in autofocus with the XPro-2.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
To me its the end result that matters and you can't put Leica M glass on a Nikon D800 but you can on a new M but what really surprised me was the low light performance compared to the d800.
willie_901
Veteran
The LuLa article is both amusing and sad.
The writer starts off clearly stating his article is not a scientific or technical comparison.
Then he gradually transitions to making conclusions and statements as if he had done a technical, controlled evaluation.
Apparently the author does not realize practically the noise in a blue sky is dominated unavoidable shot noise and has very little to do with the camera's fundamental performance. Small differences in noise filtering can mske a large difference in the key's appearance.
Likewise shadow-region quality is highly dependent on exposure. For shadow regions a small increase in exposure will significantly increase the S/N. This means ad hoc comparisons can be meaningless.
The fact is the M-240 has outstanding sensor and signal path performance. What carefully controlled technical comparisons do show is the M-240 outperforms every Canon offering to date. For the first time a digital M body can do everything better than most cameras with 24x36 mm sensors. People don't have to say things like, low ISO performnce is the most important thing, or above ISO 800 noise can be adequately controlled using software, or make any other rationalizations and excuses. Kudos to CMOSIS and Leica.
If the ad hoc comparisons to the D800 were omitted, the M-240's impressive improvements over the CCD systems' could have received more of the readership's attention.
The writer starts off clearly stating his article is not a scientific or technical comparison.
Then he gradually transitions to making conclusions and statements as if he had done a technical, controlled evaluation.
Apparently the author does not realize practically the noise in a blue sky is dominated unavoidable shot noise and has very little to do with the camera's fundamental performance. Small differences in noise filtering can mske a large difference in the key's appearance.
Likewise shadow-region quality is highly dependent on exposure. For shadow regions a small increase in exposure will significantly increase the S/N. This means ad hoc comparisons can be meaningless.
The fact is the M-240 has outstanding sensor and signal path performance. What carefully controlled technical comparisons do show is the M-240 outperforms every Canon offering to date. For the first time a digital M body can do everything better than most cameras with 24x36 mm sensors. People don't have to say things like, low ISO performnce is the most important thing, or above ISO 800 noise can be adequately controlled using software, or make any other rationalizations and excuses. Kudos to CMOSIS and Leica.
If the ad hoc comparisons to the D800 were omitted, the M-240's impressive improvements over the CCD systems' could have received more of the readership's attention.
willie_901
Veteran
Erwin Weighs In
Erwin Weighs In
Erwin Puts shares his perspective on the LuLa M-240 article.
http://www.imx.nl/photo/blog-2/the-value-of-camera-reports.html
Erwin Weighs In
Erwin Puts shares his perspective on the LuLa M-240 article.
http://www.imx.nl/photo/blog-2/the-value-of-camera-reports.html
35photo
Well-known
You can put Zeiss glass on both or you could put R glass on the D800 which I've done and its awesome!
furcafe
Veteran
Couple more "dirty light" club shots:
http://brightestyoungthings.com/articles/livedc-bleached-dc9.htm
http://brightestyoungthings.com/articles/livedc-bleached-dc9.htm
thirtyfivefifty
Noctilust survivor
I've been waiting for a Leica rangefinder with clean files that matches a DSLR equivalent Full-frame sensor. Type 240 is the one that has finally broke though. I agree with previously mentioned, it's about the lens and post processing that determined the look of digital files. Maybe this Type 240 technology will trickle down into a Leica ME-2, please...
garygraphy
Established
i must say after the initial hype has died down, i have not really thought about acquiring the new M the past month or so.
on other hand, my mind is playing games with me about asph vs old school noctilux...
on other hand, my mind is playing games with me about asph vs old school noctilux...