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!

DxOMark tests the Leica Typ 240 - great news!

animefx

New member
DXOMark doesn't *really* matter in the grand scheme of things but it's always good news if the camera your wanting tests well.

Leica typ 240:
Overall 84
Portrait 24 bits
Landscape 13.3 Evs
Sports 1860 ISO

I'm very impressed. The dynamic range was rated better than I had expected, although I knew it would be higher than the Canon 6D. All of the tests except for ISO rated better than any of Canon's current DSLR models. The ISO tests slightly better than the 5D Mark II which is great news because the 5D Mark II is no slouch in low light and 3 less megapixels than the M 240.
 

mmbma

Active member
What's the big fuss about some DxO test. Never read one in my life and probably never well. I ready at some forum today some guy is selling his M9 cheap because of the horrible review from DxO. Then steve huff is making a big deal of it on his website. What's the big deal?
 
What's the big fuss about some DxO test. Never read one in my life and probably never well. I ready at some forum today some guy is selling his M9 cheap because of the horrible review from DxO. Then steve huff is making a big deal of it on his website. What's the big deal?
I thought it was a marketing gimmick from a company that made raw-processors but couldn't compete, that makes certain aspects of a 'sensor' more or less favourable so that a particular manufacturer always wins the sensor war by being 'best', at the same time providing lots of categories for different sensors to excel, despite making no rational judgement of real-world needs or usage, thus encouraging fan-boys to rant and blow off steam with bullshit but seemingly justified arguments (in the face of people with limited knowledge) ruining otherwise great and friendly forums to justify their purchases of equipment they don't need, as they have no other means of justifying what they are doing.

:) Call me cynical, call me anything, just don't call me too late for me supper.

(not directed at the op or anyone on getdpi, as we're a friendly knowledgeable bunch over here mostly)
 

Shashin

Well-known member
What's the big fuss about some DxO test. Never read one in my life and probably never well. I ready at some forum today some guy is selling his M9 cheap because of the horrible review from DxO. Then steve huff is making a big deal of it on his website. What's the big deal?
What is wrong with information? DxO marks give a fairly simple metric to make comparisons so you can judge something. If someone sells their camera because of a score, then it is a little silly, but that does not invalidate the usefulness of DxO.

People are excited about the new M and there is little quantifiable information on it. This is the first real measurement. For some folks, this is very interesting.

That fact that you have no interest does not mean that it is useless.
 

anthonysemone

New member
I don't know much about all this sophisticated testing, although I never knew that a sensor by itself could take a picture. :D Does DXO report any of their data with a lens attached? And, if so, wouldn't these #'s change as a function of the attached lens? Just asking... Steve Huff LOL The new Ken Rockwell :D
 

Taylor Sherman

New member
What is interesting to me is simply the fact that it doesn't perform as well as many other sensors of the same generation in the quantifiable areas - DR and high-ISO performance. It might be that Leica made trade-offs to get what they believed was better image quality in other ways, but I don't know that.

It wouldn't prevent me from getting one, eg I wouldn't get an RX-1 or D800 simply because the sensors test better. I'm just curious in a geeky sort of way. Is it an engineering question? Artistic? Cost?
 

Shashin

Well-known member
I don't know much about all this sophisticated testing, although I never knew that a sensor by itself could take a picture. :D Does DXO report any of their data with a lens attached? And, if so, wouldn't these #'s change as a function of the attached lens? Just asking... Steve Huff LOL The new Ken Rockwell :D
How would the performance of the sensor change the optics? So how can the optics change the performance of the sensor? DxOmark is just giving a baseline on which to judge a sensor.

But these testing is not very useful to you by what you have said. That does not mean others don't find it useful. I don't think a position of not understanding something is a very good position for evaluation of that thing.
 

CharlesK

New member
What is interesting to me is simply the fact that it doesn't perform as well as many other sensors of the same generation in the quantifiable areas - DR and high-ISO performance. It might be that Leica made trade-offs to get what they believed was better image quality in other ways, but I don't know that.
I feel it is wrong to criticize DXO for their test results. The results are objective and don't consider the system and really how the different lenses work as a whole. For the new M, no doubt some compromises were made to achieve IQ with the huge array of M lenses. The colors and IQ with the new M look quite amazing, even with the initial showing of images so far.

As for the M9/ME, it is a wonderful system, even though the sensor is supposedly very dated, according to DXO, and yet yields wonderful shots, and only limited by the photographer. Do we look at the DXO results for the M9/ME and feel all of a sudden, we cannot take great shots!! Of course not, but it is a great yard stick for manufacturers to lift their game:)
 

Amin

Active member
I'm a big fan of DxOmark, but the usual caveats apply:

1) Their summary scores can be misleading. You really have to look at the graphs to understand the results.

2) Small differences between DxOmark results aren't meaningful. They can be within the error of measurement (typically seems to be about half a stop, give or take) or can be real differences that are too small to matter.

3) Many sensor performance issues are not captured at all by DxOmark testing. For example, sensor resolution isn't tested. Banding issues, if any are still present with the latest firmware, wouldn't turn up on a DxOmark test.

With all that said, I find their results to be both interesting and useful, and the new M results are very promising!
 

Double Negative

Not Available
Even with their "combined score" it's really just part of an even bigger picture. As pointed out, it's all about sensor metrics for them. Interesting by itself, fun to debate... But as with many things, there's more to it. All the little things, personal things. Like for example lens performance or characteristics. System size and weight. Simplicity or feature rich? No M shooter is going to look at these values alone and say, "damn, I've get me some of that Canikon!" Just as the reverse is true. Different tools and all that too.

Still, "worst image quality" was kinda funny. :D

Most M shooters shoot them because, well, they're "M cameras." Whatever that means to them, regardless of "score." At least I do. I have Canon gear. I just don't shoot it much since I got the M!
 

edwardkaraa

New member
As mentioned above, these are just sensor metrics, fun to debate, that's all. As far as I'm concerned, I trust my own eyes. I like the M9 look much more than my previous Canon and Sony cameras, even though they score much higher, and they do have better high iso performance doubtlessly. I am starting to like what I see from the 240 files and I think Leica did an excellent job with the general look of the files. That is what matters to me.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
I do not care too much about DXOMark tests, but it is impressive how Leica could improve in the last years and meanwhile is nicely playing in the top range of available sensors. Also much better than some of the heavyweight competition. They came a long way!

KUDOS to Leica!
 

retow

Member
We love DXOMark tests and find them relevant. Unless, of course, our favorite Leica camera sucks in their test and scores at the bottom of the bunch. :ROTFL:
 

fotografz

Well-known member
It seems that IF it is just sensor performance being measured, then to my eye the M9 gestalt must have made more of a worse sensor than others did with vastly superior ones. Which in turn begs the question why strive for a superior sensor then fall so short on the rest of the imaging chain? Doesn't make sense.

The dichotomy of opinion seems to be between subjective aesthetics and the more quantifiable science of measurement: I like what I see ... verses I like what I read, so I should like what I see.

Perhaps yet another example of the science of photography telling us what we should subjectively like? Could this be the hallmark of the digital age, where so many really aren't sure what they like and welcome some quantifiable data to decide for them? (present company excepted, to avoid a heated, but un-winnable quarrel :))

After all, quantifiable data is quite a verbal sledgehammer to beat subjectivity into submission ...not to mention how well it plays in the marketing mix because the science of measurement has set the evidential criteria ... leaving subjective judgment to fend for itself ... thus making "to my eye" or other aesthetically discriminatory pronouncements seem less valid.

Although I no longer have a M9, I've yet to see anything from any other camera that "to my eye" provides that certain aesthetic look and feel that is so hard to put into words. So far, this includes the new M images which look closer to the other stuff out there then it does the M9 aesthetic. I'm hoping that changes as we all work with it.

-Marc
 

Stuart Richardson

Active member
I agree. Personally, I think these kinds of tests are about as useful as dropping two cameras off a cliff and rating them by which one hits the ground first. I can see how people find them very interesting, but from my perspective, they are just too far from a real-world evaluation to be worth even looking at. Give me both cameras to photograph with, and that is how I will decide which are better. For me, the lenses, handling and color response are the most important, followed by the resolution, followed by high iso performance, followed by "features".
 

D&A

Well-known member
It seems that IF it is just sensor performance being measured, then to my eye the M9 gestalt must have made more of a worse sensor than others did with vastly superior ones. Which in turn begs the question why strive for a superior sensor then fall so short on the rest of the imaging chain? Doesn't make sense.

The dichotomy of opinion seems to be between subjective aesthetics and the more quantifiable science of measurement: I like what I see ... verses I like what I read, so I should like what I see.

Perhaps yet another example of the science of photography telling us what we should subjectively like? Could this be the hallmark of the digital age, where so many really aren't sure what they like and welcome some quantifiable data to decide for them? (present company excepted, to avoid a heated, but un-winnable quarrel :))

After all, quantifiable data is quite a verbal sledgehammer to beat subjectivity into submission ...not to mention how well it plays in the marketing mix because the science of measurement has set the evidential criteria ... leaving subjective judgment to fend for itself ... thus making "to my eye" or other aesthetically discriminatory pronouncements seem less valid.

Although I no longer have a M9, I've yet to see anything from any other camera that "to my eye" provides that certain aesthetic look and feel that is so hard to put into words. So far, this includes the new M images which look closer to the other stuff out there then it does the M9 aesthetic. I'm hoping that changes as we all work with it.

-Marc
Lets set aside for the moment sensors and think lenses. Take any number of well known pairs of lenses that are often compared. For example, the 50mm Lux asph and it's predecessor the pre asph; the 35mm Lux asph FLE and the lens it replaced, the Lux asph pre FLE; or the 35mm cron asph vs ver. IV that came before it. In each one of these cases and dozens of others, few would disagree that based on quantifiable optical measurements, the most recent versions would win hand down. Yet as we all know, there is a large percentage of those who would choose the earlier versions for their optical esthetics...the way they capture and present an image whether it be on film or with a digital sensor.

Quantifiable measurements in any "art", whether it be photography, audio equipment, even in a comparison of two cars, can only reveal part of the story and how one objectively feels about seeing, listening or enjoying the output of a given product. In addition, there are usually other elements within these designed products that contribute or work in concert with the measured component, so using quantifiable numbers to make a judgement can only reveal performance characteristics of that one component, no matter how integral that component is to the "whole" in terms of output and ultimately its level of performance vs. others.

Please don't get me wrong. There is "quantifiable measurements" and their is "subjectivity" and both are important. I think the answer is not to ignore that which can be measured and often times it can be a good predictor of performance, but generally only up to a certain point. Conversely we should not ignore that which cannot be measured but is still held in high regard by our senses

The esthetic component...what we hear in the case of using a particular piece of audio equipment or in the case of a visual art, what we see in an image produced by a camera is just as important as how it measures up in terms of lab values as Marc pointed out. What many ultimately see with their own eyes, is maybe the most important element in choosing any camera or lens...or at the very least, should lead the way when also considering scientific measurements made on some of its components as a predictor of it's ultimate performance.

Dave (D&A)
 
Last edited:

Paratom

Well-known member
The fact that people dicuss if they like the IQ of the new "M" as much as that of the M9 while the sensor of the new "M" is tested much better by DXO says a lot about DXO IMO.
 

johnnygoesdigital

New member
As mentioned previously, having empirical data as a base reference for sensor performance is most certainly useful, especially when understanding dynamic range. (imo, the most important criteria for a sensor). Being objective to the review is another key factor, and this transferable knowledge will apply to your personal shooting styles and lens/camera choice.

The M is a Leica with most features that people complained the M9 didn't have, add the amazing lenses and extreme portability, and you've got one really nice camera.
 
Top