It's an interesting read. I really like Ming's approach and candor in his reviews.
All in all, I think that it is what most people expected. A little bit of a hybrid look. I'm certain that the color will get sorted out before release.
His images are beautiful ... he has a very nice style.
The 50APO delivers.
Good read all around... Thanks for bringing it to attention.
All in all, a solid read. It seems to be a camera that's evolved substantially and positively in user interface, while making some imaging compromises (subtle loss of that hard to describe pop, but better ISO, and color profiling that may need some work, as well as a compromise in shadow detail at higher ISO). ISO seems to be well regarded by Ming up to ISO 1600 (with significant DR drop off and shadow noise beyond this). Yet, he favorably compares the camera to the MM for black and white...which is harder to believe from my handling of the downloaded files...
I overall still have a feeling of pause...I think it'll come down to me trying one, and editing files on my own accord at some point. I think part of the matter is that I am so satisfied with the M9, despite its quirks...
1. Refined user interface & less buggy
2. Improved DR over the whole image scale
3. Quieter shutter
4. Improved battery life
5. Improved ISO
1. What's up with the several second start up time?!?!?
2. Is he saying in his own way, that there's less CCD pop, due to the loss of tonal response/non-linearity?
3. Thicker and heavier in hand
4. EVF, in his estimation, is not ideal, but the camera can still be used as an M
1. LCD in back is okay, but not class leading
2. Colors may take some work to refine (more post, or more work in firmware to get things right?)\\
Overall, he seems satisfied, in a measured sort of way....and his files are lovely, in his classic style...though I'd like to see larger samples, as always, to see how much is microcontrast, and how much is macrocontrast.....
Last edited by ashwinrao1; 22nd February 2013 at 00:14.
Sean Reid's review is available too...
Did Jono mention anything about the slow start up? I didn't read all the posts but it seems to me he did not. Could it be specific to Ming's body and FW?
M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2
face it.... we are all getting one
3 Member(s) liked this post
Thank you Jono. That sounds good.
M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2
I could not completely follow his description of differences between the M9 (CCD) ,the D800E(CMOS) and the new new M (CMOS) .
Tone separation (described as quarter tones ) at base ISO ......he puts the new M between the m9 and the D800E. This is how it appears to me from the samples so far .
DR ...he seems be saying that the CCD M9 maps more DR into the highlights resulting in better high lights (4 EV? ) compared to the M (1 EV) but at the expense of shadow detail where the reverse mapping favors the new M .
When he speaks to a linear drop in DR ......it appears he is speaking to the fact that most CMOS sensors drop DR consistently as you increase ISO ..a linear drop . CCD drops faster and has a ski slope drop past a certain point . This is why the M9 looks decent for most uses at 640 but takes a large drop in DR etc at 1250 . So as ISO increases the differences between the M and M9 increases .
Color ..he seems to be seeing differences in saturation .but thinks this may be due to lack of profiles . I think he may be incorrect in saying that the DNG has not been profiled and that you are looking at sensor raw data ... the embedded profile was created by the in camera Maestro processor . It is designed to produce good IQ right out of the camera ..its not the linear flat profile that the S2 had (now that was a tough profile to get right ). I expect that the in camera embedded profile will get tuned . I would say that the files in LR4 look incredibly finished using the embedded profile . But I am not discounting that better profiles can improve the color etc.
This is purely my interpretation not an evaluation ..interested if I understand this correctly .
Thanks for the link OP - interesting reading
oh and btw - who is kidding who in here about this or that or the other thing? - all of us will end up owning one of these little puppies
check out what the bloke had to say in comparison to his D800E
1 Member(s) liked this post
Keep in mind that his comparison to the d800E is affected by two very important factors :
1. The glass ..he is using the 50 APO on the new M and Nikkors/Zeiss on his D800E .....
2. The file out of the camera is tuned to a specific color and contrast level..even in the DNG . The D800E .NEF is lower in contrast out of the camera even with Leica R glass. The Leica M file looks finished .
This is a little like comparing the D800 to the D800E ..after processing to an optimum file both are extremely close .
Sean Reid showed the his comparisons with first the actual files and then with a downsized M file to match the M9 . Really a huge difference . Take a D800E and downsize it to the same 18MP standard ...
There are plenty of great learnings in these test reports beyond a consumers reports strengths and weaknesses .
For example what are the practical limits of the new M for high ISO .....
ISO800 if you expect full color and DR and no noise reduction (in post)
IS3200 if you are speaking to acceptable (handled in post ) noise
A camera reviewer who refuses to post full size images
"I won’t be posting full size images as is my standard policy; there is just too little respect for intellectual property online and poor images are rather meaningless."
Poor images ? I would rather say that web-sized images are rather meaningless in a camera review.
Enjoy the index page "review" link posted here : http://www.getdpi.com/forum/leica-m-...omparison.html
I agree full size images are nice but maybe that reviewer was "burned" in the past.
M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2
Maybe you could go to his paragraph were he describes the ccd verse cmos differences. I don t think he indicated the recoverable EV but rather how the individual tones where mapped into the sensors DR . So in the CCD sensor there were 4 EV in the highlights and 1EV in the shadows . This allows for more tone separation in the highlights and less in the shadows . CMOS was the opposite ...I never heard this before and wonder what he was speaking to?
This is not in the high iso discussion .. The Cmos has a clear advantage in high iso and the difference between the two increases with ISO .
After re reading Ming s comments ...starting where he compares the new M CMOS sensor with an old hybrid Nikon design (CCD+CMOS) ..it appears that he is saying the new M retains the tone detail in the highlights (a characteristic of CCD ? ) and still manages to hold shadow values .
Am I missing something or isn t this directly relevant to the whole concept of CCD "brilliance" .
For clarity - my reading of the review indicates a very favourable comparison for Leica - given the Nikon is a 'benchmark' camera in many ways - this is good news for Leica M.
On CCD versus CMOS - the real world difference from my experience is the 'brilliance' you refer to above - CMOS to date can't match the sparkle of CCD...feed a CCD fat light and you get luminance 'pop' - without the need for a lot of post processing
How well Leica are able to manage the difference now that they have moved to CMOS will make for fascinating comparison.
Personally I am excited about how much more I can extract from my Leica M glass on this higher resolution body. I must admit to some apprehension regarding my ability to hand hold and do 24 megapixels justice - time will tell.
All the Best
I was digging in on the why CCD have that aesthetic often referred to as "brilliance " or "sparkle " . Ming s report seemed to indicate that Leica has accomplished quite a lot with the new CMOS sensor and the Maestro processor and that the aesthetic is better than the D800E but still short of the M9 s CCD . Personally I ve always viewed this as a given moving from CCD to CMOS .
Leica seems to be paying very close attention to this comparison and from test samples looks to have probably the best "brilliance" of any CMOS based system.