erick.boileau
Member
Do you know the difference in dynamic range between M9 and M(240) ?
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!
No.Do you know the difference in dynamic range between M9 and M(240) ?
but how do you know it ?The M240 has better dynamic range than the Canon 5D2, 5D3, or 6D
That wouldn't surprise me. Canon isn't exactly known for clean shadows.The M240 has better dynamic range than the Canon 5D2, 5D3, or 6D
good to know
and if you compare M9 vs M (240) what's the difference in Dynamic range ? 1 IL , 2 IL ?
thank you
thanksM9 is 11.7 Evs, Canon 6D is 12.1 Evs, Leica M is 12.4 Evs
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.M9 is 11.7 Evs, Canon 6D is 12.1 Evs, Leica M is 12.4 Evs
The new RED dragon = 20 EVI 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.
18 stops are ok for my needsRED 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.
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 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.
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.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