fredmiranda.com
Login

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

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

1       2       3              7              9              11       12       end
  

Archive 2013 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark

  
 
redisburning
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #1 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


bro go look at a review of the 50 summilux or summicron on an M9 versus any Canon or Nikon 50 on any camera they have.

it's not even close.

DXOmark can give the camera whatever score they want, just like I can say a Honda accord is a better car than a 911 gt3 because it gets way better gas mileage, costs way less and won't try to kill you when it rains. because, like DXOmark, it's ignoring the most important part. which is performance under normal conditions. for a car, it's a dry road, and for normal amateur shooting it's performance at base iso.



Mar 09, 2013 at 10:37 AM
ryankarr
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.8 #2 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


Well I'm done with this thread. It's just full of assholes now.

I'm guessing the trolls (Uncle Mike and monkeycolonel) opinions spring more from jealously on disposable income amounts than anything else.



Mar 09, 2013 at 10:52 AM
douglasf13
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #3 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


Lee Saxon wrote:
This is a pretty unfair test since the D800 and 5D3 are so much newer and cheaper than the M9 (and Leica is pricing the M-E well below the M240, so I think it's fair to say they aren't pretending its a new camera).

We should compare the M9 to the Nikon D3s that was announced around the same time and costs a similar amount. Those results should be totally differ...what's that, they're not? Oops.


I would not want to switch the sensor from my M9 for the D3s sensor. MAYBE the D800 or D600 or new M 240, but not the D3s, although anything would work, really.

The M9 sensor situation reminds me a bit of the a900's sensor, in that people often criticized its testing numbers, while others thought there was something special there. Having owned both cameras, I'd still take the M9 in good light, and I'm not sure which I'd pick in lowlight, but, whether its just processing, or the cfa, or whatever, the output from both of those cameras has a certain something.

Either way, to be honest, who cares? Just about every FF camera since the 5D has had acceptable IQ, for me. I picked the A900 for the wonderful viewfinder and af ZA lenses, and I picked the M9 for the rangefinder and lenses. The sensor hasn't really been on the top of the list in a while. All of the manufacturers are stringing us along with incremental sensor improvements, as if it will improve our photography, whereas some film shooters often stick with the same film for decades (stock willing.) If you're not taking fantastic pictures from cameras made in the last 5 years (or more,) it's not the sensor's fault. After owning several more recent CMOS cameras, I bought the M9 used last summer, and it is doing a fine job.

The whole thing kind of reminds me of choosing a Corvette vs. a 911. The Corvette is a better deal with often better testing numbers, stats, more hp, etc., but it is still different from driving a 911. I've got no problem with the choice anyone else makes, but I know which car I would pick, since it's about enjoyment as much as anything else, and a better driver could probably outrace me with a Camry, anyways.



Mar 09, 2013 at 11:00 AM
sebboh
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #4 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


redisburning wrote:
I dont understand why you continue to post in this section Snowboarder.

I've not seen you post any pictures and your form of trolling is neither original or extreme enough to be interesting.

just as a general rule maybe the people who don't shoot Leica and don't have specific questions about purchasing one should keep it to themselves? alternatively, everyone who owns a Leica could just threacrap some Canon/Nikon threads with posts about how stupid you must be for buying cameras with plastic on them? Why is it that the civilized options has been repeatedly demonstrated to be off the table?


to be fair snowboarder does own a ton of leica gear (just not cameras) and has posted many fine pics (one alt contest winner too). he's just exceptionally good at angering leica users.

in any event, this comparison is pretty pointless. most people would prefer a m9 shot at base iso to the same shot taken most of the cameras that score higher to it (d3x and d800 excepted), even with a pedestrian voigtlander lens on the m9. on the other hand the situation is reversed at high iso. some people value different things, whatever.



Mar 09, 2013 at 11:16 AM
redisburning
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #5 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


he actually posts images?

you'll have to forgive me, both times I've looked everything he posted on the entire first page of his posts contained zero pictures.



Mar 09, 2013 at 11:33 AM
carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #6 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


ryankarr wrote:
Well I'm done with this thread. It's just full of assholes now.

I'm guessing the trolls (Uncle Mike and monkeycolonel) opinions spring more from jealously on disposable income amounts than anything else.


Just use the "Hide Me" button when you don't like someone's posts.



Mar 09, 2013 at 11:35 AM
edwardkaraa
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #7 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


I totally agree with you Douglas. I remember when the A900 used to be bashed by Canikon guys because the 5D2/D700 had 1 stop advantage at high iso, ignoring the beautiful rendering at high iso even with the noise, not to mention the exceptional low iso performance. Sometimes I wonder what photography is about nowadays.


Mar 09, 2013 at 11:50 AM
bobbytan
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #8 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


OMG ... how did I get on DPR? I was pretty sure I was surfing the FM forum. Oh shit, I am in FM.

Fred, you need to ban anyone who uses bad language, and shut down the thread when it gets this nasty ... or you will start losing quality members.



Mar 09, 2013 at 11:59 AM
sebboh
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #9 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


redisburning wrote:
he actually posts images?

you'll have to forgive me, both times I've looked everything he posted on the entire first page of his posts contained zero pictures.


understandable, from time to time he'll post a lot: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1120029



Mar 09, 2013 at 12:00 PM
carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #10 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


bobbytan wrote:
OMG ... how did I get on DPR? I was pretty sure I was surfing the FM forum. Oh shit, I am in FM.

Fred, you need to ban anyone who uses bad language, and shut down the thread when it gets this nasty ... or you will start losing quality members.


Fred has a fairly hands-off style of moderation and only jumps in when someone is repeatedly deeply offensive, and I think he has made a great choice. If you don't want to read Uncle Mike's posts, just use the "Hide Me" button.



Mar 09, 2013 at 12:15 PM
Mescalamba
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #11 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


edwardkaraa wrote:
I totally agree with you Douglas. I remember when the A900 used to be bashed by Canikon guys because the 5D2/D700 had 1 stop advantage at high iso, ignoring the beautiful rendering at high iso even with the noise, not to mention the exceptional low iso performance. Sometimes I wonder what photography is about nowadays.


A900 has beautiful rendering at high ISO? Huh..

I know it does have superb low ISO with one of best colors (and huge OVF).



Mar 09, 2013 at 12:27 PM
edwardkaraa
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #12 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


Mescalamba wrote:
A900 has beautiful rendering at high ISO? Huh..

I know it does have superb low ISO with one of best colors (and huge OVF).


That was my experience with it. It is true that it has more chroma noise at high iso, but it keeps its nice color rendition very well. I've shot a couple of concerts with it at iso 1600 and the results were truly amazing, while the high iso of the other bodies mentioned are certainly cleaner but also desaturated and not as interesting, in my opinion of course.


A900 ZA 135 Sonnar by edward karaa, on Flickr


A900 ZA 135 Sonnar by edward karaa, on Flickr


A900 ZA 135 Sonnar by edward karaa, on Flickr

Edited on Mar 09, 2013 at 01:11 PM · View previous versions



Mar 09, 2013 at 12:46 PM
wiseguy010
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #13 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


What a lot of irritation about a crappy review of an old camera.




Mar 09, 2013 at 01:03 PM
Mescalamba
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #14 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


edwardkaraa

Actually never saw much pics at or over 1600 ISO with A900. Looks good, suprisingly good..



Mar 09, 2013 at 02:04 PM
flash
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.8 #15 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


May I suggest a "My shitty old sensor is better than your shitty old sensor" thread.

Gordon



Mar 09, 2013 at 04:31 PM
philip_pj
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.8 #16 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


IF you do plenty of sensitive work in post you can get pretty fair results at up to 2000 ISO for subject matter that does not require a lot of detail rendition for its impact, the a900 that is.

Most people drew the line at 1000 ISO, even less. I drank the '320 is better than 200/160 base ISO' Koolaid one trip and came back with a bunch of painstakingly setup tripod shots with nastly little blotches all over, and intractable it was too in post work, though to be fair Adobe took forever to get to know how to process Sony RAW files. The 12 bit files did not take kindly to too much pushing around either, despite most people thinking this a non-issue.

Yet the colour was peerless compared to C/N, even as NR-resistant chroma/lum began invaded your image.

Sony takes the view that noise is not the devil incarnate, being what the image is made of, the other guys seem to pursue the 'got to be super smooth' look, they do it well but it loses the true grit of reality.



Mar 09, 2013 at 04:41 PM
philip_pj
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.8 #17 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


One of the really nice things about FM, and I guess Fred, is that this site self-polices overly disturbed posters very effectively; they seem to go away or go quiet quite fast if the shoulder chip gets too big. Adults have that effect on children and each other at times, lol.

You get a fine balance up to spirited disagreement, not an overly bland non-opinions website policed by a self-appointed nanny state moderator, nor a free for all goat rodeo.

We all get angsty about something or other, or at times each other - but seriously how many have anyone or many set to 'Ignore'? You learn the most from those you disagree with...

Then, flash gordon, I nominate the venerable Canon 5D ;-) Maybe D200...



Mar 09, 2013 at 04:50 PM
snowboarder
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #18 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


Really not sure how I end up being a bad guy when all I did here was pointing
at a vulgar and obscene post from someone who is known for personal attacks
including one pointed at me?
I never ever personally attacked him, but he keeps doing it in every post...






Mar 09, 2013 at 05:21 PM
Mescalamba
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #19 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


If Im correct A900 has or had tied JPEG NR with RAW NR, or not?

Those "between" stops are usually not healthy. I tried it yesterday with Fuji S5, not good idea. ISO 200 pics are nice, ISO 400 pics are nice, ISO 250 and 320 are not nice at all. I guess that unless these steps between are truly native (I think in case of M9 are?) then its better to avoid them and do same in LR/PS etc.

A900 files seem nice in either slightly overexposed ISO 200 or good exposed ISO 100 (less DR, but cleaner shadows).

I think Sony got quite bashing for forced NR in A700, not sure if it was same with A900 (neither what current FW is). A99 seems pretty much normal in this regard.



Mar 09, 2013 at 05:23 PM
douglasf13
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #20 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


Mescalamba wrote:
If Im correct A900 has or had tied JPEG NR with RAW NR, or not?

Those "between" stops are usually not healthy. I tried it yesterday with Fuji S5, not good idea. ISO 200 pics are nice, ISO 400 pics are nice, ISO 250 and 320 are not nice at all. I guess that unless these steps between are truly native (I think in case of M9 are?) then its better to avoid them and do same in LR/PS etc.

A900 files seem nice in either slightly overexposed ISO 200 or good exposed ISO 100 (less DR, but cleaner shadows).

I think Sony
...Show more

The A700 originally had jpeg NR tied to raw NR, but a later firmware fixed that, and the A900 never had that issue.

In between ISOs is an issue with Canon, but not Sony. The whole ISO 320 thing was brought by Iliah Borg and Andrey Tverdokhleb, who claimed that, at least with their RPP converter, adding a little bit of gain by boosting to ISO 320 actually made deep shadow areas less splotchy, although it increased overall noise and sacrificed some DR, so it was a trade off.

As Edward said, the A900 files at higher ISO were certainly noisier than Canon and Nikon, but they did seem to retain more color saturation. As a Lightroom user, the A900 improved quite a bit at high ISO as Adobe updated their processing engine, too.



Mar 09, 2013 at 05:36 PM
1       2       3              7              9              11       12       end




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

1       2       3              7              9              11       12       end
    
 

Welcome back
Log in to your account