DxOMark trashes the Leica M9 sensor

[TheBadger]

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Leica-M9-M9-P-and-M-E-Type-220-Ahead-of-the-new-Leica-M-we-round-up-the-DxOMark-Scores-of-its-predecessors/Conclusion

This actually plays well for Leica, that just started shipping the new Leica M that comes with a CMOS sensor.
Leica: "Out with the old and in with the new!"

 

[wickidwombat]

now where did i put that bag of salt...

 

[untitled10]

now where did i put that bag of salt...

+100 c;

I've never even cared for DxO marks tbh, and dont get why anyone does, photographys an art, not a game of top trumps >.>

 

[TheBadger]

now where did i put that bag of salt...

+100 c;

I've never even cared for DxO marks tbh, and dont get why anyone does, photographys an art, not a game of top trumps >.>

I can agree with you on that, but on the other hand, I'm glad such scientific studies exists. If it were not for them, who would scrutinize the camera makers and raise flags when their products don't match the hype (or the price for that matter)? Otherwise it's all subjective, relative, like art as you said. They could release a POS and brandish it like the best thing ever and all we can do is fight and debate in forums based on our feelings.

This is how we put these camera makers in line.

 

[Pitbullo]

now where did i put that bag of salt...

+100 c;

I've never even cared for DxO marks tbh, and dont get why anyone does, photographys an art, not a game of top trumps >.>

I might be wrong here, but isn´t the DxO marks´s test results only a "side effect" from the making of their RAW - converter, Capture One? Studying the behavior of lenses and cameras/sensors they can implement corrections in the raw converter and so on. This study of lenses and sensors also gives a score, the DxO mark score we all argue about.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I've never even cared for DxO marks tbh, and dont get why anyone does, photographys an art, not a game of top trumps

You are certainly free to treat photography as an art-form only. Why are you then spending time on a forum about gear?

I see photography as a marriage between art and science. You can't have one without the other.

-h

Even Ansel Adams spent tons of time in the old-fashioned camera lab working on how to improve tech and get the most out of what he had.

 

[Aglet]

I've never even cared for DxO marks tbh, and dont get why anyone does, photographys an art, not a game of top trumps

You are certainly free to treat photography as an art-form only. Why are you then spending time on a forum about gear?

I see photography as a marriage between art and science. You can't have one without the other.

-h

Even Ansel Adams spent tons of time in the old-fashioned camera lab working on how to improve tech and get the most out of what he had.

Zactly!
Best way to know when you're pushing the limits of your gear is to know what and where those limitations are.

 

[Kernuak]

I've never even cared for DxO marks tbh, and dont get why anyone does, photographys an art, not a game of top trumps

You are certainly free to treat photography as an art-form only. Why are you then spending time on a forum about gear?

I see photography as a marriage between art and science. You can't have one without the other.

-h

Even Ansel Adams spent tons of time in the old-fashioned camera lab working on how to improve tech and get the most out of what he had.

And not the best out of what someone else had or he dreamed about

 

[infared]

DxOh-No!!!!!!!
Useless outfit. ;D

 

[meli]

I've never even cared for DxO marks tbh, and dont get why anyone does, photographys an art, not a game of top trumps

You are certainly free to treat photography as an art-form only. Why are you then spending time on a forum about gear?

I see photography as a marriage between art and science. You can't have one without the other.

-h

hey maybe he's still shooting artfull glass plates and his 79 posts so far in this Canon gear forum were about them; ah no wait, they're not, they're about gear.

 

[wickidwombat]

I've never even cared for DxO marks tbh, and dont get why anyone does, photographys an art, not a game of top trumps

You are certainly free to treat photography as an art-form only. Why are you then spending time on a forum about gear?

I see photography as a marriage between art and science. You can't have one without the other.

-h

Even Ansel Adams spent tons of time in the old-fashioned camera lab working on how to improve tech and get the most out of what he had.

Ansel Adams was a total gear head if he was around now he would be on these forums with a higher post count than neuro

 

[Hillsilly]

Another compelling reason not to switch to Leica.

But seriously...

Assuming their image quality actually is worse, it just means Leica buyers are probably putting more emphasis on portability, precision, quality workmanship and exclusivity. I don't think anything has changed here in the last 100 years. And despite a low ranking, you'd be a brave person to say that Leica's produce inferior results. Therefore, what's the use of the ranking anyway? Are they really meaningful in any useful way?

Interestingly, the low marks didn't seem to have affected the brand's prestige or sales. The same might be said of Canon's marks vs Nikon. It would seem most people view DxO Mark as little more than a scientific curiosity. Not something you'd base a serious purchasing decision on.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Good cameras do not become bad bcoz DxO "trashes" them ... I'm not challenging or disproving (nor am I capable of) what DxO claims, but I've never bought a camera or lens based on what DoX says. Their tests/claims are irrelevant to me.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Good cameras do not become bad bcoz DxO "trashes" them ...

I'm not challenging or disproving (nor am I capable of) what DxO claims, but I've never bought a camera or lens based on what DoX says. Their tests/claims are irrelevant to me.

How can you be so certain?
-h

Yes, I am absolutely certain bcoz I never bought a camera or lens based on what DoX or some other xxx company says or claims and their tests/claims are irrelevant to me.

 

[weixing]

Hi,
IMHO, if DxOMark use the RAW file produce by the camera to perform the calculation, the result is only valid for camera of the same brand.

Have a nice day.

 

[Hobby Shooter]

Good cameras do not become bad bcoz DxO "trashes" them ...

That is a tautology.

When buying a (new) camera, I dont have access to complete information about their "goodness". I might read subjective tests, measurements, or hire the cameras for a weekend or more. I still won't be certain which is the right for me, or which will allow me to take the better pictures for the next 4-5 years.

I dont have the skills, patience or equipment to do what DXO does. Certainly not for every camera on the market. Therefore I use their excellent data to aid me in choosing a camera.

I'm not challenging or disproving (nor am I capable of) what DxO claims, but I've never bought a camera or lens based on what DoX says. Their tests/claims are irrelevant to me.

How can you be so certain? Do you ever see noise in your pictures?

-h

That is not a tautology

 

[CarlTN]

The low score of the Leica CCD doesn't surprise me. But, I do think DXOMark's test results have always been skewed (as do most of us Canon people).

And I still don't understand why so much emphasis is placed on dynamic range, color fidelity, and low noise...at low ISO levels. On any modern full frame camera (regardless of brand...well maybe except for Leica, haha)...the noise is so low below ISO 800, that it's extremely silly to worry about it. Even the noise on my 5 year old XXD body is so low below ISO 640, that it's almost absurd to think about. Autofocus performance and lens sharpness are really the only things left to think about, at the low ISO's. I get basically no detail loss at all, due to any obsessive NR I might dial in, in this range.

I mean, if we're going to worry about the noise and dynamic range of a sensor at the lower ISO range, then we're really talking about small, point-and-shoot sensors (and to some extent 4/3 sensors)...but definitely not huge full frame sensors.

What counts most of all for me, is the noise performance, and how I can maximize it, above ISO 1000 (since I enjoy doing nature and wildlife shooting, and don't use strobes very often). And starting around this range or a little above it...all of Canon's full frame sensors, pull ahead of all Nikon's sensors save one, the D4 (or the older and "better" D3s with its bigger pixels).

Perhaps sensors will see a revolution of improved performance soon...or perhaps not. I'm still mostly happy with what I've got now, as humble as it is.

 

[Maui5150]

Further proof of the irrelevance of DxOMark scores.

 

[lol]

Wow, so much hatred for DxO? They're telling us nothing that hasn't already been widely reported throughout the years. The M9's sensor wasn't state of the art when it was new, and that was a lot of years ago now.

I think it does show for many people, you don't need to always be on the cutting edge. Once things get good enough, you don't look to upgrade unless something useful comes along with it. So even if the M9 sensor isn't the best, it does the job well enough for most.

As for DxO sensor scores as a whole, I do not think it fair to outright say their tests are wrong. They are only testing some factors and weighing them a certain way. Unless your needs exactly match those, then their overall scores will be of limited value. I believe their sub tests do show useful data but I wouldn't normally look at the overall score.

 

[Alrik89]

Who gives a s**t about DXO results?