As was mentioned above, I doubt it is realistic to expect Leica's first sensor design to exceed the current leader of the market. I would be impressed if they can beat Canon in ISO performance, who currently lag a bit, yet retain good colour.
Bobu wrote:
For me the restrictions for the lifeview function of the M240 is clearly a deal breaker.
Boris, sad when a great photographer like you comes to that conclusion.
I guess I won't be alone.
I'm not gonna go back to the big DSLR, that's not gonna happen, ever.
I also prefer Leica lenses now.
I think I'm fine living with a crop NEX for a little longer, even if a FF NEX is not here this year,
it will come in 2014 at the latest, there is no doubt in my mind.
carstenw wrote:
As was mentioned above, I doubt it is realistic to expect Leica's first sensor design to exceed the current leader of the market. I would be impressed if they can beat Canon in ISO performance, who currently lag a bit, yet retain good colour.
I think it will be very difficult to distinguish sensor ISO performance with the precision required, let alone manufacture it, to make it fit between the RX1 and the 6D lagging with 0.1 dB
Actually, right through the range, with a couple exceptions, in DR and colour accuracy. They aren't unusable of course, but the advantage that Canon enjoyed over the years has been lost, and Canon needs to come out with a new sensor architecture at this point to pull even with Sony, pretty much across the board.
rscheffler wrote:
I tested a Transcend 16GB Class 10 SDXC card and it was a disaster. The worst banding I've ever seen. This was the 'icing on the cake' that led me to believe its not the sensor but something else to do with how the files are processed or moved between the sensor, buffer, CPU and card reader/writer.
Ron was that a SDHC or SDXC card? I use Transcend SDHC and its quite good (and cheap). I'm surprised that I had lockups with my brand new Class 10 SDHC 32GB SanDisk Ultra (from B&H, so I think it was not a fake).
Off topic but the Transcend Class 10 SDHC cards I have are the only Class 10 cards I can use on my hacked GH2 to span video files and not crash (at least 72mbps to 100mbps). All other Class 10 cards including faster SDXC had failures except the most expensive Sansdisk version costing 10x the price of these cheap Transcends.
Banding noise is also known as pattern noise and if you look at the example in Figure 3 and move your mouse over it, one can use software (or firmware) to average out the banding patterns but you cannot get rid of it completely due to our visual perception. So I still believe the weakest link in the chain of these Leica banding issues start with the sensor and the amplifiers and circuitry within the chip itself and as the sensor heats up, we also get the type of hot pixels seen in the examples Ron shared with us. All other components add further degradation and added random noise issues, so it would seem like the M9 all over again, the early adopters of the M240 are going to be the beta testers for Leica until a M240.1 is released?
charles.K wrote:
Joe, I couldn't agree more about the Sony sensor on the RX1 with the 35/2 lens. Low light is great at 6400 ISO, and has excellent DR. I would really hope the new M 240 is equal if not better. Only the caveat, is that at base ISO's, the IQ needs to be on par at least with the M9.
I think the M9 CCD sensor still holds on its own at base ISO, but with more megapixels on the M240, one might get the impression of better sharpness and acuity from the files? Which is why I believe, in the end Leica wants us to have 3 digital bodies, M9 for low ISO performance, M240 for general purpose and high ISO and MM for B&W?
carstenw wrote:
As was mentioned above, I doubt it is realistic to expect Leica's first sensor design to exceed the current leader of the market. I would be impressed if they can beat Canon in ISO performance, who currently lag a bit, yet retain good colour.
This could be a hurdle for Leica. A lof of their current target market users (the rich and wannabees) want to own the "Best" and most expensive gear for bragging rights. If I can pull out my 1/3 priced RX1 (which is also more compact and lighter and has AF) and the IQ beats the M240 and a 35Summicron ASPH, those rich hobbyist won't be too pleased and may switch to a Hassy Lunar
carstenw wrote:
Actually, right through the range, with a couple exceptions, in DR and colour accuracy. They aren't unusable of course, but the advantage that Canon enjoyed over the years has been lost, and Canon needs to come out with a new sensor architecture at this point to pull even with Sony, pretty much across the board.
Canon's current sensor architecture is optimized for high ISO DR and Sony's sensor architecture is optimized for low ISO DR. They are equal at ISO 1600. Above ISO 1600, Canon pulls ahead. In reality, low ISO DR is the only exception from the general rule that both Canon and Sony sensors are on top right now (for FF sensors).
I've been using four 16gb Transcend SDHC class 10 since my M9 fried a Sandisk card. There are no issues whatsoever. I haven't noticed any banding except when pushing underexposed iso 2500 shots by a couple of stops. I must be very lucky.
alundeb wrote:
Canon's current sensor architecture is optimized for high ISO DR and Sony's sensor architecture is optimized for low ISO DR. They are equal at ISO 1600. Above ISO 1600, Canon pulls ahead. In reality, low ISO DR is the only exception from the general rule that both Canon and Sony sensors are on top right now (for FF sensors).
Not at all. Canon sensor design hasn't been on top for years, at this point. Sony uses a completely different CMOS architecture with on-chip, column parallel ADCs, whereas Canon is still using the old off chip ADC design (not to mention the poorer color filters they've been using since around the 5Dii.)
It's a little misleading to say one has better DR at low ISO, and the other at high ISO, when the DR advantage of EXMOR at low ISO is a couple of stops, and the DR advantage of the Canon sensor at high ISO is relatively negligible.
Either way, it'll be impressive if the M 240's sensor competes with either.
Just bought two 16 GB Transcend Class 10 SDHC cards, thanks Joe/Edward. I've had a Sandisk corrupt and slow buffer/lockup with a Lexar recently. Fingers crossed!
douglasf13 wrote:
It's a little misleading to say one has better DR at low ISO, and the other at high ISO, when the DR advantage of EXMOR at low ISO is a couple of stops, and the DR advantage of the Canon sensor at high ISO is relatively negligible.
.
The DR advantage of the latest Canon sensors at high ISO is about 1 stop, and to Sony at low ISO is about 3 stops. However, if you shoot at very high ISO like 25600, the difference is readily seen in the shadows. If you shoot at low ISO, the difference is hardly seen unless you do shadow recovery. For many people the low ISO DR is a complete non-issue. For them it is more important to have 9 stops over 8 than 15 stops over 12 when maybe 10 stops is what they need.
What is misleading is to say that Canon is lagging in ISO perfomance. Very competent comparisons made by our member Snapsy has shown that by and large it is a wash.
alundeb wrote:
The DR advantage of the latest Canon sensors at high ISO is about 1 stop, and to Sony at low ISO is about 3 stops. However, if you shoot at very high ISO like 25600, the difference is readily seen in the shadows. If you shoot at low ISO, the difference is hardly seen unless you do shadow recovery. For many people the low ISO DR is a complete non-issue. For them it is more important to have 9 stops over 8 than 15 stops over 12 when maybe 10 stops is what they need.
Are you talking about Sony sensors or Sony cameras? I'm comparing Nikon cameras with Sony sensors to Canon cameras, where the high ISO DR difference is less than a half stop, until you get all the way to ISO 25600, where it is a little less than a full stop. Of course, if you compare Canon to something like the D4, which has a Nikon designed sensor with a different tech than Sony, it has better DR at low ISO and equal DR at high ISO.
Either way, my point is that it isn't so much the intentional design of Canon sensors. They're just behind in sensor technology, lately. I'm sure that will change.
douglasf13 wrote:
Either way, my point is that it isn't so much the intentional design of Canon sensors. They're just behind in sensor technology, lately. I'm sure that will change.
They had to work on whatever they could. It seems they didn't manage to approach the EXMOR performance, but they have improved read noise at high ISO substantially.
I was looking at the RX1 when I mentioned 1 stop at high ISO, to try to keep it slightly on topic (smaller cameras).
Either way, I think we do agree on most if not all parts. My point was what I added in the edit of my previous post, Canon is not lagging in ISO performance even with their old sensor tech.
I don't quite follow. They may be doing as well in the high reaches, but at the cost of banding in the low ISO region. Everything has a cost, and their tech is getting old, without them investing in a refresh.
Anyway, whatever, it wasn't meant to be a point to be argued, I didn't realise that there were people who didn't agree (just as everyone agreed that in the mid-2000s Canon was leading everyone else).
Ah, I see where we are missing each other I guess when I think of DR I think low ISO automatically, and so my statement may have read as if I meant high ISO. Apologies. Yes, Canon really needs to bump their process to the next feature size, but for some reason they are dragging their feet on the issue (probably the immense associated cost, but I think this is costing them dearly in reputation at the high end.)
Colour accuracy was something which no one argued with, so the thin CFAs they have been using the achieve better high ISO performance are common knowledge at this point, I guess.
I do hope that Canon gets back into the thick of it. Even if they aren't my favourite company, the competition is good, and right now, with mirrorless and all that, I think it is crucial that they don't lag behind.
rscheffler wrote:
I tested a Transcend 16GB Class 10 SDXC card and it was a disaster. The worst banding I've ever seen. This was the 'icing on the cake' that led me to believe its not the sensor but something else to do with how the files are processed or moved between the sensor, buffer, CPU and card reader/writer.
joe88 wrote:
Ron was that a SDHC or SDXC card?
Correction: SDHC, but it was UHS-1. I have a whole raft of regular Transcend SDHC Class 10 cards that are my normal staple for the M9. I wanted to try the UHS-1 because of the faster card to computer transfer speed. After I bought it I read there might be issues with these cards in the M9, but tested it anyway. Sure enough, horrendous banding!
carstenw wrote:
As was mentioned above, I doubt it is realistic to expect Leica's first sensor design to exceed the current leader of the market. I would be impressed if they can beat Canon in ISO performance, who currently lag a bit, yet retain good colour.
joe88 wrote:
This could be a hurdle for Leica. A lof of their current target market users (the rich and wannabees) want to own the "Best" and most expensive gear for bragging rights. If I can pull out my 1/3 priced RX1 (which is also more compact and lighter and has AF) and the IQ beats the M240 and a 35Summicron ASPH, those rich hobbyist won't be too pleased and may switch to a Hassy Lunar
I don't understand what you mean Joe?! All quantifiable evidence points to Leica producing the bestest, most advanced, modernest, full frame mirrorless interchangeable lens camera by a German(Portuguese) camera manufacturer. Owners will rightfully be very proud of its cutting edge technology and peerless optical performance, allowing artistic inspiration the likes the world has never before seen: the sharpest photos of brick walls, cats, tree stumps and eclectic shots of coat pockets and random body parts (from those unquestionable periods when the camera serves primarily as an urban status statement).
Seriously, I don't expect the average Leica fanboy's pride to be tarnished any worse than was the case with the M9, which very clearly was far from cutting edge. The only thing that saved it was the full frame sensor. Everything else (digital) about it, as I think I posted here, back when I first got mine in late 2010, felt like some bad 2001-era digital hodgepodge. The M240 will have to be pretty bad to beat the M9 in this respect. But it could potentially be a reversed scenario where Leica addresses all of the M9's operational nags, yet stumbles at the very heart of the system - image quality - if the banding issue persists. But then, as bad as the M9 is, it's still a great camera. Quite the paradox!
Referring back to the M9 for a moment… while processing some photos today I once again noticed the gatefold issue in some of the images...
I guess when I think of DR I think low ISO automatically, and so my statement may have read as if I meant high ISO. Apologies. Yes, Canon really needs to bump their process to the next feature size, but for some reason they are dragging their feet on the issue (probably the immense associated cost, but I think this is costing them dearly in reputation at the high end.)