DxOMark tests the Leica Typ 240 - great news!

[ptomsu]

@ shashin

maybe you speak German - then here we go: "Wer viel misst, misst viel Mist" - an old saying which especially in case of DXO proves to be true again and again

Anyway I find it amusing why some fight so much for things they are not really affected or threatened - I hope never to understand why ....

 

[stephengilbert]

"I find it amusing why some fight so much for things they are not really affected or threatened."

It's the internet.

 

[fotografz]

Who said anything about real world "tests" Shashin? You added that "test" notion to other people's ideas of evaluative judgement, and then ran with it for four paragraphs. :ROTFL:

Some people are far more interested in how a camera performs in their world, not someone else's. It isn't a scientific test, it is an evaluation of how well a camera's gestalt, including the sensor, fits their aesthetic values. As previously said, One lens may scientifically outperform all those that came before it, yet many prefer the older optic for aesthetic reasons ... because we are making art, and that is subjective.

In Sean Reid's comparison, the M9 clearly showed more of a look and feel that I personally like over the new M's ... however, I am still interested in the new M because my friend Irakly used the camera to shoot with (not "test"), and is certain that it can deliver close to M9 "presence" while increasing imaging performance in other areas. Since we share similar aesthetic values, his word means more than 1,000 bench tests ... to me.

In short, I for one do not blame the DOX tests of anything ... they may hint at something worth exploring, but I've been burned by highly touted test results only to find the actual experience the tests seemed to promise to be aesthetically dismal and exceedingly disappointing.

Had Leica made a M-10 using a CCD that delivered a 2 stop increase in ISO performance while maintaining the same signature look and feel, I wouldn't even be pondering whether to get it. I'd have it. I do not need a camel M that shoots video, and can use R lenses which require CMOS. I need a M rangefinder that evolves the aesthetic I already had ... but increases the areas of darkness I can use it in. Nothing less, nothing more. Hopefully, the M can do that.

-Marc

 

[edwardkaraa]

I think the main point here is that many people these days forget to look at the photographs. I personally curse Zeiss for inventing MTF charts. I have missed many lens beautiful rendering because they have less than stellar MTF. Even today, while I know for a fact some lenses are really spectacular, I am still not able to pull the trigger because of the MTF. DXO mark is no different. People should definitely look at the photographs.

 

[Double Negative]

Case in point - the much-maligned Zeiss Biogon T* 2,8/28 ZM. Just because its MTF charts don't quite match the rest of the ZMs... It's the black sheep of the family. Yet in looking at the images it produces, there's NO fault to be found.

Charts are for geeks - photos are for artists. (though we all cross lines)

 

[Stuart Richardson]

Hi Shashin,
Yes, I most certainly do test, but I think the criteria and WHAT you test is also critical. So what I mean is that DxO doesn't really seem to line up with what my eye tells me is good in a camera. The M cameras and medium format backs were mostly pretty poor in the testing in comparison to cameras from Canon, yet I never liked the looks that came from Canon or Nikon as much. I think another really good way to look at it is like evaluating a restaurant's ingredients before their chef makes the dish. Ingredients are extremely important, but if you give good ingredients to a great chef you will get a much better meal than if you give the absolute best ingredients to a mediocre chef. I don't test my cameras scientifically, and don't really see much need to at this point.

So while I do color profile and test papers and so on, I don't always choose a paper because it has the largest gamut or the brightest white and blackest black. Hahnemühle German Etching is a beautiful matte paper, but it has a tiny gamut in comparison to most any gloss or semi-gloss paper, even the worst ones. But it makes a much nicer print!
So while I was a bit harsh in saying that DxO has as much use as dropping two cameras off a cliff and rating them on how fast they reached the ground, I stand by my point that it is not really particularly useful information in evaluating a camera. At least not for me. I really don't care how anyone else decides on their cameras!

 

[The Smoking Camera]

I find this discussion quite interesting (even though I do not own a Leica). I must admit, I enjoy Leica threads just because of their gestalt.

Here is my simple football (American) - DXO analogy. Each year college players attend a combine in preparation for the NFL draft. They are tested on a number of important factors such as speed, strength, agility, etc. The test scores are tangible and comparative, however, they do not predict the success or failure of a player in the NFL. Success on the field is the result of much more than test scores. A good example is Jerry Rice who came out of college in 1985. At the combine he ran 40 yards in 4.71 seconds which is terribly slow for a wide receiver. Nevertheless, he was drafted by the 49ers and went on to became the greatest NFL receiver of all time.

I view DXO marks similarly to NFL combine test scores - interesting and useful, but not a predictor of success.

I wonder if Jerry Rice owns a Leica M9?

 

[ptomsu]

But that is really not the case and you are assuming that I don't understand the other side of the equation (a position for one side does not mean I am holding a position against the counter argument--both have a place). What I am objecting too is this bashing of resources we have. People who bash it simply don't understand it. We have a new camera and folks are interested. We just got a piece of data on it. It is not the only piece of data either.

I don't understand the math behind Fourier transforms. How can I judge its relevance? Just because I evaluate my own pictures and cannot comprehend the transforms, does not mean the transforms are useless.

You don't like the science behind photography, that is fine. But don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

I think that arguing is going nowhere ......

 

[robertwright]

I'd love to see DXo test film in the same way they test a sensor. How would they do that? Maybe like Erwin Putts and his film tests I guess.

We do live in a time of amazing technology- almost any modern dslr outperforms film of the same format by a wide margin, yet I still stuff portra into my RZ and like the results.

 

[Lonnie Utah]

I'll just put this here....

 

[Double Negative]

The problem with digital cameras is they've got an inherent lifespan - and when it comes to technology there's a lot of churn. The "numbers" (specs) are a large part of that. They also appeal to the average "gadget nerd" and give rise to things like "GAS" and "upgraditis." A slippery slope with brief peaks of happiness amongst ragged cliffs.

 

[Shashin]

@ shashin

maybe you speak German - then here we go: "Wer viel misst, misst viel Mist" - an old saying which especially in case of DXO proves to be true again and again

Anyway I find it amusing why some fight so much for things they are not really affected or threatened - I hope never to understand why ....

Because you are implying that I and other that understand the scores are somehow fools. That is why.

 

[Auni]

...dropping two cameras off a cliff and rating them by which one hits the ground first.

They would both hit the ground at the same time. How do you like them apples? I believe that we have entered into a time where people have forgotten about science. Falling back onto arguments like; the aesthetic is all that is important is all good and I get this too, but having a working knowledge of the science behind photography is also important, isn't it?

 

[D&A]

They would both hit the ground at the same time. How do you like them apples? I believe that we have entered into a time where people have forgotten about science. Falling back onto arguments like; the aesthetic is all that is important is all good and I get this too, but having a working knowledge of the science behind photography is also important, isn't it?

That is exactly why I expressed this in detail in my post "above". Both have their place and are important and how much emphasis is placed on each is very much dependent on the individual.

Dave (D&A)

 

[Auni]

Dave -

Hi. I think you missed my first sentence.

Auni

 

[Stuart Richardson]

They would both hit the ground at the same time. How do you like them apples? I believe that we have entered into a time where people have forgotten about science. Falling back onto arguments like; the aesthetic is all that is important is all good and I get this too, but having a working knowledge of the science behind photography is also important, isn't it?

Haha, I didn't think I needed to state that the cliff was not in a vacuum! But I would reiterate that I don't think these metrics are very useful. They are tests, and scientific, but I don't think they are measuring something that provides much useful information, since they are leaving out the majority of factors that lead to the overall image quality, something which is subjective anyway!

 

[ptomsu]

Because you are implying that I and other that understand the scores are somehow fools. That is why.

Are you trying to qualify

Sorry but you obviously completely misunderstood everything ...

And actually I do not want to clarify any further - waste of time for both of us.

Enjoy further!

 

[rayyan]

They would both hit the ground at the same time. How do you like them apples? I believe that we have entered into a time where people have forgotten about science.....

Unfortunately, and without any further qualification to your statement, you are wrong!!

Right you are; some have indeed forgotten about science...that is the elephant in the room, and people make a feather of it.

Regards.

 

[innerimager]

"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

 

[fotografz]

They would both hit the ground at the same time. How do you like them apples? I believe that we have entered into a time where people have forgotten about science. Falling back onto arguments like; the aesthetic is all that is important is all good and I get this too, but having a working knowledge of the science behind photography is also important, isn't it?

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