Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: M9 vs M(240) dynamic range

  1. #1
    Member erick.boileau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Germany / France
    Posts
    247
    Post Thanks / Like

    M9 vs M(240) dynamic range

    Do you know the difference in dynamic range between M9 and M(240) ?

  2. #2
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,604
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: M9 vs M(240) dynamic range

    Quote Originally Posted by erick.boileau View Post
    Do you know the difference in dynamic range between M9 and M(240) ?
    No.

    I would speculate that the new M would offer at least 2-3 stops more than that of the M9/M9P/ME.

  3. #3
    Member animefx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Springfield, IL
    Posts
    166
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: M9 vs M(240) dynamic range

    The M240 has better dynamic range than the Canon 5D2, 5D3, or 6D

  4. #4
    Member erick.boileau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Germany / France
    Posts
    247
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: M9 vs M(240) dynamic range

    Quote Originally Posted by animefx View Post
    The M240 has better dynamic range than the Canon 5D2, 5D3, or 6D
    but how do you know it ?

  5. #5
    Member animefx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Springfield, IL
    Posts
    166
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: M9 vs M(240) dynamic range

    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.
    Likes 7 Member(s) liked this post

  6. #6
    Member erick.boileau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Germany / France
    Posts
    247
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: M9 vs M(240) dynamic range

    good to know

    and if you compare M9 vs M (240) what's the difference in Dynamic range ? 1 IL , 2 IL ?

    thank you

  7. #7
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: M9 vs M(240) dynamic range

    Quote Originally Posted by animefx View Post
    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.

  8. #8
    Member animefx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Springfield, IL
    Posts
    166
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: M9 vs M(240) dynamic range

    M9 is 11.7 Evs, Canon 6D is 12.1 Evs, Leica M is 12.4 Evs

    Quote Originally Posted by erick.boileau View Post
    good to know

    and if you compare M9 vs M (240) what's the difference in Dynamic range ? 1 IL , 2 IL ?

    thank you

  9. #9
    Member erick.boileau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Germany / France
    Posts
    247
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: M9 vs M(240) dynamic range

    Quote Originally Posted by animefx View Post
    M9 is 11.7 Evs, Canon 6D is 12.1 Evs, Leica M is 12.4 Evs
    thanks

  10. #10
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: M9 vs M(240) dynamic range

    Quote Originally Posted by animefx View Post
    M9 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.

  11. #11
    Senior Member Jason Muelver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    653
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: M9 vs M(240) dynamic range

    Any comparison to the D800?

    It's an upgrade and update year for me
    http://jasonedwardphoto.com http://jasonmuelver.tumblr.com
    Nikon FX, Leica M8, Mamiya 645, Canon F-1

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    154
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: M9 vs M(240) dynamic range

    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.

  13. #13
    Member erick.boileau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Germany / France
    Posts
    247
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: M9 vs M(240) dynamic range

    I got it
    76 dB 6 = 12,7 EV for the new M
    Leica M

  14. #14
    Member erick.boileau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Germany / France
    Posts
    247
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: M9 vs M(240) dynamic range

    Quote Originally Posted by georgl View Post
    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.
    The new RED dragon = 20 EV

    Enter the Dragon
    Leica M

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    154
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: M9 vs M(240) dynamic range

    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.

  16. #16
    Member erick.boileau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Germany / France
    Posts
    247
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: M9 vs M(240) dynamic range

    Quote Originally Posted by georgl View Post
    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 are ok for my needs

    but I have already ordered the 12.7 Leica's stops
    Leica M

  17. #17
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: M9 vs M(240) dynamic range

    Quote Originally Posted by animefx View Post

    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.
    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
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  18. #18
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,674
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: M9 vs M(240) dynamic range

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    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)

  19. #19
    Subscriber gogopix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,383
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: M9 vs M(240) dynamic range

    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" .... "

    we shall see

    Regards
    Victor

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •