erick.boileau
Member
Do you know the difference in dynamic range between M9 and M(240) ?
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
M9 vs M(240) dynamic range
- Thread starter erick.boileau
- Start date
V
Vivek
Guest
No.
I would speculate that the new M would offer at least 2-3 stops more than that of the M9/M9P/ME.
erick.boileau
Member
but how do you know it ?
animefx
New member
I've seen the measured results of the sensor used in the M240, in addition a lot more photos than haven't been made public yet.
What I haven't seen are a lot of high ISO images or full sized images to judge sharpness vs. something like the M8 which has "biting sharpness". But I can tell you the color is very neutral and fairly accurate. The color might be a bit muted for some people, but honestly that gives you more freedom in post processing to get exactly the look you want. It is very impressive especially compared to the M9.
My concern is definitly not the dynamic range, I think everyone will be pleasantly surprised. My only 2 concerns at this point is that I want sharpness as good as the M9 if not better, preferably the sharpness of the M8. Also, banding at higher ISO take a look at the ISO 4,000 photo that has been made public, you can be seen in the highlights, midtones, and shadows. Hopefully Leica can fix this banding issue unless it was just an anamoly. Notice the ISO 4,000 photo holds detail pretty well, still good dynamic range, and the color remains neutral.
I'm hoping to get one to help test, but I'm not sure if that will happen or not.
Sorry, I got off the topic of dynamic range.
What I haven't seen are a lot of high ISO images or full sized images to judge sharpness vs. something like the M8 which has "biting sharpness". But I can tell you the color is very neutral and fairly accurate. The color might be a bit muted for some people, but honestly that gives you more freedom in post processing to get exactly the look you want. It is very impressive especially compared to the M9.
My concern is definitly not the dynamic range, I think everyone will be pleasantly surprised. My only 2 concerns at this point is that I want sharpness as good as the M9 if not better, preferably the sharpness of the M8. Also, banding at higher ISO take a look at the ISO 4,000 photo that has been made public, you can be seen in the highlights, midtones, and shadows. Hopefully Leica can fix this banding issue unless it was just an anamoly. Notice the ISO 4,000 photo holds detail pretty well, still good dynamic range, and the color remains neutral.
I'm hoping to get one to help test, but I'm not sure if that will happen or not.
Sorry, I got off the topic of dynamic range.
erick.boileau
Member
good to know
and if you compare M9 vs M (240) what's the difference in Dynamic range ? 1 IL , 2 IL ?
thank you
and if you compare M9 vs M (240) what's the difference in Dynamic range ? 1 IL , 2 IL ?
thank you
douglasf13
New member
That wouldn't surprise me. Canon isn't exactly known for clean shadows.
animefx
New member
erick.boileau
Member
thanks
douglasf13
New member
That's good to know. That isn't all that much of an advantage for the M over the M9, although I'd guess that the DR gap would widen as the ISO goes up.
Jason Muelver
Member
Any comparison to the D800?
It's an upgrade and update year for me
It's an upgrade and update year for me
Dynamic range can be tested in various ways and leads to vastly different results. Stray light also affects the perception of dynamic range, dark areas are artificially brightened by the bright segments of the test setup.
ARRI developed a professional DR-measurement setup which doesn't suffer stray light and cannot be tricked by processing because it involves spatial detail.
The results with this setup are usually lower but more relevant to practical purposes.
I would like to see the results from various digital still cameras but more than 12 stops are very difficult to achieve due to the physical limitations of electronic acquisition.
ARRI developed a professional DR-measurement setup which doesn't suffer stray light and cannot be tricked by processing because it involves spatial detail.
The results with this setup are usually lower but more relevant to practical purposes.
I would like to see the results from various digital still cameras but more than 12 stops are very difficult to achieve due to the physical limitations of electronic acquisition.
erick.boileau
Member
I got it
76 dB ÷ 6 = 12,7 EV for the new M
76 dB ÷ 6 = 12,7 EV for the new M
erick.boileau
Member
RED overrated their previous sensor-generation in a similar manner. They claimed a dynamic range of beyond 13 stops, rivaling their competitor. With a real scientific test setup and under real-world conditions it remained about 2 stops behind.
18 stops would result in a currency ratio of 2^18 = ~1:250000!!! Talk to an electric engineer experienced in semiconductor design about that...
But marketing was always the strength of certain companies.
18 stops would result in a currency ratio of 2^18 = ~1:250000!!! Talk to an electric engineer experienced in semiconductor design about that...
But marketing was always the strength of certain companies.
erick.boileau
Member
I hope this isn't like the Nikon D3X which had the same attributes of neutral and muted color results which was "hyped" using the same logic of "freedom" ... but actually provided a nightmare in post under different shooting conditions. It was the very reason I dumped the D3X in favor of the A900 using the same sensor but different approach ... which cut post time more than in half over the Nikon.
The small mount of M shots I've seen so far leave a LOT to be desired even compared to the M9. So, I remain skeptical and cautiously hopeful at the same time.
-Marc
Of course there is more than just the sensor type employed that goes into what an image from a camera looks like, but at the same time there's a reason why many favor the look of CCD's over CMOS. How successful Leica (or anyone else for that matter) is in making the transition depends on lots of factors which we're all too familar with. Its obvious that Leica had little choice but to work with CMOS if they want to implement live view, better high ISO performance and a number of other key features, so I think emulating or approaching the kind of output they achieved with the M9 isn"t an easy task and I too at this point am cautiously optomistic.
Dave (D&A)
gogopix
Subscriber
We forget how impressed (and surprised!) we were when the M8 came out at 14MP if I recall. RF "M" and the sharp incidence was a challenge. And the IR red problem, and cut filters... Oh my!
THEN the M9, 18MP. Really good and yet seems 'not quite' as sharp as M8. But FF. And not much sacrifice at the edges.
Now, 24MP, FF, CMOS (of course, the EE's know all the sensors are CMOS, just read out differently! ) I think Marc is right to be skeptical, but, you know, Leica worked through it all, and all the M cameras are still used and enjoyed.
On the name, at least Leica didn't call it "THE CAMERA FORMERLY KNOWN AS "M" .... ":ROTFL:
we shall see
Regards
Victor
THEN the M9, 18MP. Really good and yet seems 'not quite' as sharp as M8. But FF. And not much sacrifice at the edges.
Now, 24MP, FF, CMOS (of course, the EE's know all the sensors are CMOS, just read out differently!
) I think Marc is right to be skeptical, but, you know, Leica worked through it all, and all the M cameras are still used and enjoyed.On the name, at least Leica didn't call it "THE CAMERA FORMERLY KNOWN AS "M" .... ":ROTFL:
we shall see
Regards
Victor