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

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  

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

1       2       3              11      
12
       end
  

Archive 2013 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark
  
 
rscheffler
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.12 #1 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


rscheffler wrote:
Tariq, one thing about the 1DX though, is it doesn't show indications of banding. I'm still waiting for actual user tests of the M240 to see if the banding visible in some of the preproduction sample images has been fixed.

Tariq Gibran wrote:
Yes, higher ISO performance seems to be the area in the DxOMARK tests which the 1DX is noticeably better.

Steve Huff's review of the production M says:

"With the new M I can comfortably go to ISO 3200 if needed, hell even 6400. So 6400 is a huge improvement since the M9 days BUT if you are shooting in the dark or VERY low light you may see some banding in ISO 6400 shots. In average light you will not see it, at least I did not."

So, it sounds like the banding is in the production body.

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2013/03/11/the-leica-m-240-real-world-camera-review-2013-by-steve-huff/


Thanks Tariq, I completely forgot to check the Huffster's review.
Back on around the release date of the M, someone on LUF posted a link to some photos they did with a demo M at a Leica shop, and banding is visible in some of the high ISO images. I assume the demo camera would be production level.

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/274110-just-had-play-m240.html



Mar 16, 2013 at 04:25 PM
Tariq Gibran
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.12 #2 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


You're welcome Ron. In Huff's review, even though his M9/ M comparison shots are slightly focused at different points in the Fire Hydrant example (If you look at the bush on the right, the M9 is clearly sharper but just looking at the Hydrant makes the M look sharper, to my eyes anyway), I think what is clear are the dramatic improvements in color and DR.


Mar 16, 2013 at 04:44 PM
rscheffler
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.12 #3 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


DXO's M240 numbers are now available: http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Database/Leica/M-Typ-240


Mar 16, 2013 at 08:16 PM
Tariq Gibran
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.12 #4 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


rscheffler wrote:
DXO's M240 numbers are now available: http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Database/Leica/M-Typ-240


I'm a bit surprised that the Color Response is practically the same as the M9 (1pt lower actually which is probably insignificant). So, what appears to be noticeably better color out of the M must be down to much superior camera profiles maybe?



Mar 16, 2013 at 08:29 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



rscheffler
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.12 #5 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


Not sure about color response. It's an area I need to read up more for a better understanding. Perhaps the perception of better colors are somehow tied to increased dynamic range?

Interesting to me is that after three stops, the dynamic range drops more than about one stop, similar to, though more dramatically than the M9. It could be that past ISO 800 with the M, pushing in post might result in slightly better results.



Mar 16, 2013 at 08:47 PM
Tariq Gibran
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.12 #6 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


rscheffler wrote:
Not sure about color response. It's an area I need to read up more for a better understanding. Perhaps the perception of better colors are somehow tied to increased dynamic range?

Interesting to me is that after three stops, the dynamic range drops more than about one stop, similar to, though more dramatically than the M9. It could be that past ISO 800 with the M, pushing in post might result in slightly better results.


Yes, I know the increased DR in the M shows subtle color in the highlights that are often lost in the same image from the M9, at least from reviews and comparisons I have seen. Beyond that though, other colors look noticeably better. Look at the greens for instance. In the Huff review, they look artificial with the M9 and really nice with the M. That's the part that I suppose may be down to better color profiles for the M.

Good idea on the second point.

Great info from theSuede in this thread - and quoted below - with regard to DxOMark color measurements:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1196797/1

Color Depth:
"But basically it is the numerical count of [with statistical accuracy!] separable colors that the sensor can distinguish at the given ISO, given in log2 format (bits)

Color Response:

"Color accuracy on the other hand, is more about matching camera color to human vision color. Here DxO uses metameric indexes as in ISO standard 17321. This uses ONLY linear math to try and match camera raw's to human vision. It is a measurement of how well you can fit the CFA filters to the human eye response, without resorting to spot color corrections.

But spot color corrections are part of almost any camera more advanced than a cell-phone module nowadays, so the SMI should be taken with a big lump of salt. It doesn't tell that much about the camera, and it certainly does not tell if the errors produced are good-natured (easy to correct with spot color corrections) or pure metameric failures that are impossible to correct.

A camera with an SMI of 80 can be WORSE than a camera with an SMI of 75, if the errors are in sensitive colors and if they are incorrigible.
But a camera with SMI80 will almost certainly be a lot better than the camera with SMI60."

edit..I guess the Color Depth number is the most important and here the M is better than the M9.



Mar 16, 2013 at 09:20 PM
theSuede
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.12 #7 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


Color depth, and the fact that both red and green filters are much more saturated now. This increases hue separation capabilities all the way from mid-green, past yellow, orange, and into red. It makes subtle differences within greenery in landscapes and so on much easier to process in post.

But of course the internal camera profile has gone through some exhaustive new evolutions. You can also do so much more (get higher accuracy and correct more exactly) when noise is lower - so all seems good. I'm sure it's a very good camera. Looking forward to testing it more thoroughly once the initial interest peak has past, and I can get a loaner copy.



Mar 16, 2013 at 11:23 PM
Tariq Gibran
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.12 #8 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


Thanks theSuede. Great info!


Mar 16, 2013 at 11:50 PM
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