Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3              11       12       end
  

Archive 2013 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark
  
 
kewlcanon
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


Hehehehehe, it spreads quickly like virus!

MFT sensor better than the $5,500 Leica FF sensor!



http://www.43rumors.com/curious-mft-sensor-better-than-the-5500-leica-ff-sensor/



Mar 07, 2013 at 07:48 PM
carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


But the lenses aren't better, and a better Leica M will be along one day (maybe the M240).


Mar 07, 2013 at 07:54 PM
zhangyue
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #3 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


Jman13 wrote:
Except when he's making stuff up, which he does a lot. He's an engaging writer and certainly knows how to draw traffic, which is to his credit, but accuracy and precision is kind of funny. His reviews are OK when he actually is thoroughly reviewing a piece of gear, but a lot of his 'reviews' are done from experience with other gear and then projecting that knowledge on to the spec sheet of a new camera. For instance, he reviewed the Fuji X100s without ever touching one....


Agree, but I don't really mind for it. It is his money source, and you obviously can tell if he really has the stuff reviewed or not. Sometime, he just put a template whenever a new stuff comes out and update it later.

His leica lens review is good resource especially for those really old ones. and his page layout is clean and easy to read from mobile device. He also talk many about build quality of particular body/lens which is usually spot on.
Anyway, A good resource but you just need have your own filter system to filter the infomation.





Mar 07, 2013 at 08:03 PM
redisburning
Offline
• • •
Account locked
p.2 #4 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


all that Im saying is that the 21/2.8 distagon has some of the very best fine detail resolution of any lens ever produced.

basically what Im suggesting is that a monkey could test the Distagon and find that it was a top tier lens. that says the DXOMark guys are basically what, slugs? Maybe lab rats? Honestly, why should I believe anything that anyone capable of demonstrating such thinking has to say?

it may turn out that the world's "greatest" cartographer is a flat earther. if I know this, I am no longer interested in his opinion on anything spherical much less maps of the Earth.



Mar 07, 2013 at 08:22 PM
onaujee
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #5 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


Comparing a 4-year old sensor against today's SLRs... what's the point?


Mar 07, 2013 at 08:39 PM
philip_pj
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


Ken Rockwell, besides being an amusing individual with a punchy writing style and home spun views, and lots of experience, lists dimensions and weights very well.

I get more from him than from DxO's algorithm based proclamations, issued forth from the church of pseudo-statistical gibberish. At least his opinions are just factors for people to consider, and don't pretend to any kind of final truth, which is the koolaid the measure sites aspire to have you 'believe'.



Mar 07, 2013 at 08:46 PM
philip_pj
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


And I am sure the new Leica will be a very nice camera indeed, like all (or almost all) the others that came before it.


Mar 07, 2013 at 08:47 PM
Jman13
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #8 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


onaujee wrote:
Comparing a 4-year old sensor against today's SLRs... what's the point?


Um, because it's a new camera. Yes, Leica chose to reuse a 4 year old sensor in it, and if any other company did this, they'd be lambasted for it (just like most everyone here completely dismissed the Panasonic GF5 for using the same 4 year old 12MP m4/3 sensor, despite every other m4/3 camera having been updated to more modern 16MP sensors). Why should Leica be immune, especially given that this camera costs $5,500?



Mar 07, 2013 at 08:50 PM
curious80
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


Not sure why the hate against DxO. Their sensor data is very useful and I have always found it to match very well with what I find in my actual photographic use. Their is nothing gibberish about it if you put some time in trying to understand what it is telling you.

Their scoring is of course a waste of time and the lens testing is not that great either. But as a means of assessing raw sensor performance it really does give you as close to truth as you could get without actually using the camera yourself.



Mar 07, 2013 at 08:55 PM
carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


onaujee wrote:
Comparing a 4-year old sensor against today's SLRs... what's the point?


To see how it does.



Mar 07, 2013 at 08:56 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



goosemang
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #11 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


philip_pj wrote:
Ken Rockwell, besides being an amusing individual with a punchy writing style and home spun views, and lots of experience, lists dimensions and weights very well.

I get more from him than from DxO's algorithm based proclamations, issued forth from the church of pseudo-statistical gibberish. At least his opinions are just factors for people to consider, and don't pretend to any kind of final truth, which is the koolaid the measure sites aspire to have you 'believe'.


i'm with you on this. if you can't tell when rockwell is just writing filler to have another page on which you can purchase something, then that's just too bad.

rockwell's pages on composition and the like are also about 1,000,000 times more beneficial to any photographer than anything DxO will ever do. i used to dislike his site, but the more i see other garbage like this the more i realize it's really not that bad. some of it is terrible, sure, but he makes no pretensions that he's the end all be all.




Mar 07, 2013 at 08:56 PM
curious80
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #12 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


onaujee wrote:
Comparing a 4-year old sensor against today's SLRs... what's the point?


Actually Leica Rumors seen to be unaware of the fact that DxoMark tested the M9 sensor back in 2010 so it is not a new review. The only thing new is that they have now added the M9-P and M-E as well.



Mar 07, 2013 at 09:03 PM
douglasf13
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #13 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


You'd think I'd be upset that my previous five digital cameras, the A900, NEX-5, NEX-5N, NEX-7 and X100, all score at or better than my current M9, but I haven't noticed.

Things get a bit dubious when you start comparing different formats and CCD vs. CMOS. The Samsung NX 20 scores the same as the Hasselblad H3Dii 39, but I'm pretty sure I know which I'd pick.

Either way, it comes as no surprise that a four year old CCD doesn't do so well in these tests.



Mar 07, 2013 at 09:20 PM
Mescalamba
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #14 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


Chm, I think some ppl dont get it.

DxO measures measurable data and as far as I can tell, they do good job in that cause its accurate.

Problem is when someone who doesnt understand tries to make some conclusions from that. Even DxOmark says it in last chapter, that its just about sensor, not camera itself.

Its pretty old Kodak designed sensor, so no suprises in being be weaker than today latest (not greatest, far from that). I think its rather other way around, its suprising that even that old designs are still viable today.

CCD vs CMOS is bit stupid, cause those CCDs were not developed any further for long time. If there was continued development until today, then it would be quite different. Unfortunately there wasnt. Last CCD I know of was in Sony A390 which was re-use of pretty old sensor tech going back somewhere to A100.



Mar 07, 2013 at 10:15 PM
flash
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #15 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


These comparisons are hillarious. When will people realise that CCD sensorrs don't do high ISO. Never have and never will. A $40K hassleblad back will get a crap score on DXO as well and is easily bested by a Canon rebel. You don't see the Hasslebald guys worrying about this rubbish. And those with any real experience with an M9/ME don't either. How hard is it to see that a camera that has no AF, no multi-zone exposure system, no weather sealing, no program or shutter priority modes, no video, no true macro and no usable zoom lenses isn't trying to compare with a do it all computer with a lens attached to the front. The sensor is just one small part of a camera system. And almost any sensor currently in production is capable of stunning results.

I own both the E-M5 and M9. At anything over 400 ISO the E-M5 has less noise and at all ISOs it has better DR. Then again an E-M5 has better DR than any Canon body except the 1Dx and 5D3.. But at base ISO the M9 wipes the floor with the E-M5. It's vastly superior in sharpness and pixel level detail. Back in the dinosaur days there was the same arguments about positive and negative films. Slides had half the DR of most negative films but people who shot landscapes still shot slides for the incredible sharpness and better colour. It's just the 2013 version of the same old argument.

Gordon



Mar 07, 2013 at 11:31 PM
Lee Saxon
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #16 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


redisburning wrote:
DXOMark is the biggest joke in photography; it makes Ken Rockwell look serious by comparison.


Strongly disagree.

The DXOMark scores, which I think they determine by throwing darts at a scoreboard, are a joke. Especially lens resolution, I have no idea what the hell that's about.

The actual charts, though, are some of the best resources around.



Mar 07, 2013 at 11:41 PM
Lee Saxon
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #17 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


flash wrote:
How hard is it to see that a camera that has no AF, no multi-zone exposure system, no weather sealing, no program or shutter priority modes, no video, no true macro and no usable zoom lenses isn't trying to compare with a do it all computer with a lens attached to the front.


How hard is it to see that a camera that has no AF, no multi-zone exposure system, no weather sealing, no program or shutter priority modes....is, based on usefulness and even more so based on cost of production, worth 1/4 what Leica charges.

See, it works both ways.



Mar 07, 2013 at 11:46 PM
zhangyue
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #18 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


Lee Saxon wrote:
How hard is it to see that a camera that has no AF, no multi-zone exposure system, no weather sealing, no program or shutter priority modes....is, based on usefulness and even more so based on cost of production, worth 1/4 what Leica charges.

See, it works both ways.


Leica's body is not that over priced consider top of line Canikon charge about the same price. and it is a luxury brand always. Their lens is kind of way more expensive relatively but nobody force people to buy.

1/4 of $7000 is $1750, even Sony can't build one, not to mention high precision mechanical part of rangefinder and the CCD sensor inside is very expensive for lots of reason ( though it is old) $1700 can't even cover the replace fee for that.








Mar 08, 2013 at 12:28 AM
curious80
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #19 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


Lee Saxon wrote:
Strongly disagree.

The DXOMark scores, which I think they determine by throwing darts at a scoreboard, are a joke. Especially lens resolution, I have no idea what the hell that's about.

The actual charts, though, are some of the best resources around.


+1



Mar 08, 2013 at 12:37 AM
flash
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #20 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


Lee Saxon wrote:
How hard is it to see that a camera that has no AF, no multi-zone exposure system, no weather sealing, no program or shutter priority modes....is, based on usefulness and even more so based on cost of production, worth 1/4 what Leica charges.

See, it works both ways.


1/4 of $5500.00 is $1375.00. There's no 35mm sensored camera in the world for that, new. The M220 is about double the cost of the cheapest 35mm sensored camera not 4x. Those cameras use a considerable amounts of plastic and are assembled by a robot. The M-E is made of solid brass plates and hand assembled. Your analogy is about the same as asking why a Porsche Carrera RS costs 4x as much as a Nissan GTR with the same engine capacity even though the RS has no radio or carpets. One's like driving a computer. One's had everything except the essentials stripped out to provide a simplified experience. It's more tactile. Some might say, more pure. There's nothing wrong with a GTR. Some people just prefer not driving a computer with wheels.

When most people use the term "you don't get it" often it's a put down, so I won't. But I'll say this. Until you've actually shot with a camera like a simple manual rangefinder, for a serious amount of time it's very hard to see what all the fuss is about. Playing with one at a Leica shop for 10 minutes won't do it. There's something different about the feel when you use a camera that's superbly hand built and that just offers you the essentials to make an image. There's also something very different in the files from a CCD sensor. While you see all the stuff that a camera like the M-E doesn't have as a deficit, I see a camera where endless menus and autofocus modes aren't getting in my way. i see a camera that doesn't get in my way all the time. It's all too easy to bash a camera like an M-E for what it doesn't have. But it's also possible to see that it does have some things most DSLR's don't. Simplicity. Ease of use. Tactility. Superb manual focus. Infinite depth of field through the viewfinder rather than viewing the world through a wide open lens. Being able to see what's outside the frame. Zone focusing. Balance in the hand. And of course access to all Leica's lenses without cropping them. And for me, they're just way more fun to shoot with. There's a connection there that just doesn't exist with a honkin' great DSLR. YMMV.

Leica's are a specialised camera for a particular type of shooter. They're hand assembled in germany. Specialised stuff costs more. Hand made stuff costs more. german stuff costs more. That's just the way it is.

Gordon



Mar 08, 2013 at 01:25 AM
1      
2
       3              11       12       end




FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3              11       12       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password