DxOMark tests the Leica Typ 240 - great news!

[ptomsu]

I'd argue the opposite. Science has become predominate since digital has rapidly evolved, and we spend inordinate amounts of time measuring, scrutinizing, debating, posturing, over every new development ... developments which have increased in incidence at an exponential rate. Mind-boggling actually.

Reviewing this stuff has become an industry unto itself ... where the debaters now endlessly compete for the latest greatest, and make pronouncements regarding minutia as earth shattering advancements ... everything is now carnival barkers proclaiming a "Game Changer" and we have the science to prove it!

Show me a similar scenario regarding the art of photography that has such a swell of followers hanging on every work, saliva dripping from their lips in anticipation, and a psyche tuned to snap up the all powerful next innovation secretly thinking themselves as armed to the teeth to make "better" photos.

Frankly, with the time I have to piss away on the internet I'd rather follow "Burn" Magazine, follow the lighting techniques of master photographers, or look at how someone has used a new camera for real, etc. than decipher DXO findings or the like.

But that's just me.

-Marc

Marc,

exactly see it as you do!

What I do with DXO is have a look from time to time WRT a camera I am interested in and then I decide if I continue wanting this camera or not. In many cases I then no longer care about DXO if the camera fulfills my needs otherwise. In case of Leica M I find it a positive add that it scores relatively high with DXO and I actually am very happy Leica could make it into the DXO top range of cameras (sensors) finally - it will further help them. But I would buy it anyway, as it is the best I can get for my M glass today. And so DXO diminishes pretty much in the final overall decision.

Peter

 

[wentbackward]

I've had a look at their website, first time in years. I want to understand two things:

1. D800/IQ180 comparison. The IQ180 fails miserably in the sports section, a vast vast difference, yet overall still comes in at 91. Can someone point me to the area of the website that has the formula they use to calculate the overall score as I would like to verify what they do.

2. Colour, depth in bits. Well now they claim the best measurement of colour is sensitivity: "Color sensitivity indicates to what degree of subtlety color nuances can be distinguished from one another". So if my device has a limited gamut or colour space of unnatural reds (Nikon, ahem), but can determine more shades of impossible reds that a camera with a limited gamut of natural colours, then it wins. Colour theory is vast, why don't they use measurements from colour theory?

And why over complicate using 'bits' as the unit? They could use steps, I presume the score of 26.5 bits for an IQ180 would mean 2^26.5 steps? I'm assuming thats what they mean by bits, they're talking about digital representation of numbers. Can anyone actually point to anything that can give meaning to this number, because last time I checked, my computer it didn't have half bits in it.

Frankly, unless someone can point to the exact specification of this supposedly scientific scoring, then I maintain it is nonsense. There's no such thing as a 1/2 bit, sorry. 2^26.5 = 94906265.62425156, if you're talking about the number of discrete steps a piece of digital hardware can differentiate, then what is the .62425156 portion? Again it makes no sense.

 

[edwardkaraa]

I'm very interested to know that the M has good high iso performance, but I'm not interested to know that the Nikon D800 or Sony RX1 have better performance. I can't use my ZM lenses on them, so why bother. In fact, I already know that the M performs well at high iso thanks to the generosity of Jono and others posting samples online. I also already know about the high iso banding, that DXO failed to recognize, but is quite obvious from Jono and others photos (admittedly with older FW). I also prefer the color palette of the M9, that scored so lowly on DXO color depth.

 

[douglasf13]

Well, the new M sensor looks to test about exactly where I though it would, fairly ahead of the M9, and a bit back from current Sony sensors, BUT...who cares?

As I just mentioned on another forum, since I don't work for clients, the look of my images comes down to my own taste, and what is better or worse technically has no real bearing in the world of fine art. Whether one paints with broad or fine strokes is up to the artist, and I'm not sure that I even care if my images become less grainy or hold another stop of DR. If anything, I'm probably better off with keeping a consistent look using my current equipment, rather than giving myself more choice. As the oft quoted Orson Welles said, "The enemy of art is the absence of limitations."

The new M looks great in most regards, but it's just not something I need. I think I'll keep working within the M9's limitations for a while.

 

[Double Negative]

The latest statistics out show that if you take banal and insipid photographs... The M240 still won't help.

 

[fotografz]

"I need a M rangefinder that evolves the aesthetic I already had ... but increases the areas of darkness I can use it in."
Marc- Kind of why I got the MM.......Peter

Me too.

-Marc

 

[Double Negative]

"I need a M rangefinder that evolves the aesthetic I already had ... but increases the areas of darkness I can use it in."
Marc- Kind of why I got the MM.......Peter

Another +1 here.

 

[mikel]

I'd argue the opposite. Science has become predominate since digital has rapidly evolved, and we spend inordinate amounts of time measuring, scrutinizing, debating, posturing, over every new development ... developments which have increased in incidence at an exponential rate.
-Marc

I might emphasize a distinction between science and data. Science is just an approach to answering questions.

Some of us (including me) are not interested in the questions asked, and data gathered, about sensor performance and mtf charts. And some of us do not use the data from such tests in choosing equipment. But that data, sometimes quantified with a scientific approach, is used to differentiate and market equipment, sell software tools, and bring eyeballs to websites.

But that is not 'science'. That's people using data for their own purposes, whether to make a buck or decide how they want to spend their bucks. And I agree, people select their gear using odd data these days...