DxOMark trashes the Leica M9 sensor

[georgecpappas]

There seems to be a lot of intensity and emotion trashing DXO when their test methods and criteria for results are very transparent and objective. They provide a useful resource as one (and only one) factor in helping photographers navigate the various tradeoffs in deciding what equipment to use and purchase.

That being said, their Leica M9 sensor review and conclusion is entirely consistent with that the industry and users have been saying since the M9 was released - it is a great camera with excellent image quality at Base ISO and its high ISO performance leaves something to be desired.

I have been a Leica M9 user for several years and love the results I get from the camera; I also use a Canon 5D3 and am very pleased with what I get from that. They have different strengths, weaknesses, and ideal applications.

DXO should be appreciated for the service (self-serving though it is) that they provide the industry. It is a helpful resource.

George Pappas

 

[Rienzphotoz]

There seems to be a lot of intensity and emotion trashing DXO

I don't think most people (including me) necessarily have any problem with DxO ... however, when DxO fans come to Canon users neighborhood using words such as DxO "trashes" etc there is bound to be some "intensity" brother ;D

 

[georgecpappas]

Rienzphotoz,

I understand your point. However, this is point is much more about DXO Fans who are "anti-canon" fanboys than it is about DXO itself. Many of the posts on this thread were broadsides at DXO and were misplaced, IMHO.

Regards,
George

 

[wickidwombat]

People are using exposure bracketing to extend the Dynamic Range. This indicates to me that quite a few people think about DR at low ISO, and would like to have more of it without having to resort to exposure bracketing.

Both are relevant aspects of a camera for most users. Lens sharpness is thoroughly reviewed on the net. Autofocus is hard to review objectively, and sadly, we are often only fed the subjective opinion of some reviewer.
-h

I'm not sure why you're questioning my own thoughts about what I'm personally concerned with, and implying they're irrelevant. When I mentioned lens sharpness and autofocus performance, I was saying that these are the only aspects of performance I personally am left with when shooting at low ISO, as noise or dynamic range don't concern me down there, because it's already very good. Perhaps read what I said again...No need to nitpick, is there?

Regarding dynamic range at low ISO...I disagree with you. I assume you are heavily into HDR work? People will always exposure bracket to produce HDR images, no matter how big a dynamic range the sensor can achieve. Why? Because they like doing it. They will always want to maximize the number of bits they get in a final HDR image, to ease their own mind, and to essentially use as a creative toy later. But at the end of the day, what they achieve merely becomes an 8 bit "painterly" cartoon before it gets printed or displayed anywhere as a jpeg. It's still not preserving dynamic range in reality as the eye/brain saw it (or in the future, as some very superior sensor saw it.) It's artistically impressionistic of reality. In the future, if there are display devices and software that can accurately display 32 or 48 bits of dynamic range (and they are widely adopted...and people actually enjoy viewing pictures/video on them)...ONLY THEN will maximum sensor dynamic range (at low ISO) be truely a valid issue...in my opinion. This would require a contrast ratio orders of magnitude beyond even the claimed "10 million plus" of OLED displays, etc. It would also require the display device's ability to reproduce luminosity equal to that of the sun, while also being able to reproduce a black that is literally zero light output. I won't hold my breath on this...nor will I quibble over the difference between 16 or 13 bits of dynamic range in RAW files...because mostly I produce prints.

Even if future sensors do achieve 18, 20, 24, 32, or 48 bits of dynamic range...most people will probably be paying $1k on photo software plugins that will squeeze the dynamic range back down so it gets represented on a print. It will still look cartoonish...and the more elements in the picture that actually stretched the dynamic boundaries, the more cartoonish it will look. Sure it can sometimes look great and artistic...but it's still not representing what your eye/brain saw, the way it saw it.

great post

I would just like to tack "unless you are on crack" to the end of your last sentance

 

[ragmanjin]

DXO mark means nothing. They take their objective tests and interpret them in completely subjective ways, all (as it would seem) on Nikon's dime. Super biased, all rubbish, especially their ISO scores. Canon should be top of the mark for every camera they've put out in the ISO division, right next to Pentax, and Nikon and Sony should be right in the bin every time. But it's absolutely the opposite. If you've ever seen the DPReview studio comparison tool, I highly recommend cranking up the ISO on there and seeing for yourself what I'm talking about. D5200? Rubbish. D800? Rubbish at anything above or below ISO 200. 5DIII? A f@ck!ng mint. DXO scores the opposite in every case.

DXO meassure signal /noise
if you do not understand the simplest things of physics I suggest that you study the subject before writing statements as yours.
http://www.sensorgen.info
http://home.comcast.net/~nikond70/Charts/PDR.htm

Example:

No, I get it. That's why I know it's garbage.
The proof is in the pudding. I get to test and review a lot of cameras. I sold cameras for a living before starting my studio. My assistant's got a good set of cameras and I as well. I've seen these things work in real-world situations, in studio situations, and I've edited the raw files. Giving the D5200 a gracious F+ would be an exaggeration, but it actually scored better than the 1DX according to DXO. Bullsh¡t. Straight up. I know I mentioned it before, but the DPReview studio comparison tool is the quickest way to see a rough example for yourself. The D800 scoring better than the Phase IQ180? Steaming triple-coiler of bullsh¡t. If you've ever tried these two cameras — and I mean a full shoot and tried to print a 5'x8' or even 20"x30" poster from these two cameras — you'll see what I'm talking about. The out-of-camera quality, DR and colour depth of even seven-year-old medium format backs kick the junk out of the D800 HANDS DOWN. You can't beat the 5DIII and Pentax K-5II for noise and usability at high ISO. There's just no way. But the APS-C K-5II scored higher than the 5DIII, and the 5DIII scored only as high as the D3100. Bullsh¡t. Every Nikon crop camera from the last two years just dies at or after ISO 400. DXOmark is thoroughly rubbish, right down to their bias-blackened subjective hearts.

 

[Albi86]

DXO mark means nothing. They take their objective tests and interpret them in completely subjective ways, all (as it would seem) on Nikon's dime. Super biased, all rubbish, especially their ISO scores. Canon should be top of the mark for every camera they've put out in the ISO division, right next to Pentax, and Nikon and Sony should be right in the bin every time. But it's absolutely the opposite. If you've ever seen the DPReview studio comparison tool, I highly recommend cranking up the ISO on there and seeing for yourself what I'm talking about. D5200? Rubbish. D800? Rubbish at anything above or below ISO 200. 5DIII? A f@ck!ng mint. DXO scores the opposite in every case.

DXO meassure signal /noise
if you do not understand the simplest things of physics I suggest that you study the subject before writing statements as yours.
http://www.sensorgen.info
http://home.comcast.net/~nikond70/Charts/PDR.htm

Example:

No, I get it. That's why I know it's garbage.
The proof is in the pudding. I get to test and review a lot of cameras. I sold cameras for a living before starting my studio. My assistant's got a good set of cameras and I as well. I've seen these things work in real-world situations, in studio situations, and I've edited the raw files. Giving the D5200 a gracious F+ would be an exaggeration, but it actually scored better than the 1DX according to DXO. Bullsh¡t. Straight up. I know I mentioned it before, but the DPReview studio comparison tool is the quickest way to see a rough example for yourself. The D800 scoring better than the Phase IQ180? Steaming triple-coiler of bullsh¡t. If you've ever tried these two cameras — and I mean a full shoot and tried to print a 5'x8' or even 20"x30" poster from these two cameras — you'll see what I'm talking about. The out-of-camera quality, DR and colour depth of even seven-year-old medium format backs kick the junk out of the D800 HANDS DOWN. You can't beat the 5DIII and Pentax K-5II for noise and usability at high ISO. There's just no way. But the APS-C K-5II scored higher than the 5DIII, and the 5DIII scored only as high as the D3100. Bullsh¡t. Every Nikon crop camera from the last two years just dies at or after ISO 400. DXOmark is thoroughly rubbish, right down to their bias-blackened subjective hearts.

I have to agree with ankorwatt.

From your comment, it's clear you have no idea what you're talking about. You're mixing apples and oranges and complaining that they don't taste like kiwi. All based on you lording your own personal experience taking for granted that somehow you know better than anyone else.

 

[ragmanjin]

DXO mark means nothing. They take their objective tests and interpret them in completely subjective ways, all (as it would seem) on Nikon's dime. Super biased, all rubbish, especially their ISO scores. Canon should be top of the mark for every camera they've put out in the ISO division, right next to Pentax, and Nikon and Sony should be right in the bin every time. But it's absolutely the opposite. If you've ever seen the DPReview studio comparison tool, I highly recommend cranking up the ISO on there and seeing for yourself what I'm talking about. D5200? Rubbish. D800? Rubbish at anything above or below ISO 200. 5DIII? A f@ck!ng mint. DXO scores the opposite in every case.

DXO meassure signal /noise
if you do not understand the simplest things of physics I suggest that you study the subject before writing statements as yours.
http://www.sensorgen.info
http://home.comcast.net/~nikond70/Charts/PDR.htm

Example:

No, I get it. That's why I know it's garbage.
The proof is in the pudding. I get to test and review a lot of cameras. I sold cameras for a living before starting my studio. My assistant's got a good set of cameras and I as well. I've seen these things work in real-world situations, in studio situations, and I've edited the raw files. Giving the D5200 a gracious F+ would be an exaggeration, but it actually scored better than the 1DX according to DXO. Bullsh¡t. Straight up. I know I mentioned it before, but the DPReview studio comparison tool is the quickest way to see a rough example for yourself. The D800 scoring better than the Phase IQ180? Steaming triple-coiler of bullsh¡t. If you've ever tried these two cameras — and I mean a full shoot and tried to print a 5'x8' or even 20"x30" poster from these two cameras — you'll see what I'm talking about. The out-of-camera quality, DR and colour depth of even seven-year-old medium format backs kick the junk out of the D800 HANDS DOWN. You can't beat the 5DIII and Pentax K-5II for noise and usability at high ISO. There's just no way. But the APS-C K-5II scored higher than the 5DIII, and the 5DIII scored only as high as the D3100. Bullsh¡t. Every Nikon crop camera from the last two years just dies at or after ISO 400. DXOmark is thoroughly rubbish, right down to their bias-blackened subjective hearts.

I have to agree with ankorwatt.

From your comment, it's clear you have no idea what you're talking about. You're mixing apples and oranges and complaining that they don't taste like kiwi. All based on you lording your own personal experience taking for granted that somehow you know better than anyone else.

Obviously. I have very little experience with cameras.

 

[Hobby Shooter]

DXO mark means nothing. They take their objective tests and interpret them in completely subjective ways, all (as it would seem) on Nikon's dime. Super biased, all rubbish, especially their ISO scores. Canon should be top of the mark for every camera they've put out in the ISO division, right next to Pentax, and Nikon and Sony should be right in the bin every time. But it's absolutely the opposite. If you've ever seen the DPReview studio comparison tool, I highly recommend cranking up the ISO on there and seeing for yourself what I'm talking about. D5200? Rubbish. D800? Rubbish at anything above or below ISO 200. 5DIII? A f@ck!ng mint. DXO scores the opposite in every case.

DXO meassure signal /noise
if you do not understand the simplest things of physics I suggest that you study the subject before writing statements as yours.
http://www.sensorgen.info
http://home.comcast.net/~nikond70/Charts/PDR.htm

Example:

No, I get it. That's why I know it's garbage.
The proof is in the pudding. I get to test and review a lot of cameras. I sold cameras for a living before starting my studio. My assistant's got a good set of cameras and I as well. I've seen these things work in real-world situations, in studio situations, and I've edited the raw files. Giving the D5200 a gracious F+ would be an exaggeration, but it actually scored better than the 1DX according to DXO. Bullsh¡t. Straight up. I know I mentioned it before, but the DPReview studio comparison tool is the quickest way to see a rough example for yourself. The D800 scoring better than the Phase IQ180? Steaming triple-coiler of bullsh¡t. If you've ever tried these two cameras — and I mean a full shoot and tried to print a 5'x8' or even 20"x30" poster from these two cameras — you'll see what I'm talking about. The out-of-camera quality, DR and colour depth of even seven-year-old medium format backs kick the junk out of the D800 HANDS DOWN. You can't beat the 5DIII and Pentax K-5II for noise and usability at high ISO. There's just no way. But the APS-C K-5II scored higher than the 5DIII, and the 5DIII scored only as high as the D3100. Bullsh¡t. Every Nikon crop camera from the last two years just dies at or after ISO 400. DXOmark is thoroughly rubbish, right down to their bias-blackened subjective hearts.

I have to agree with ankorwatt.

From your comment, it's clear you have no idea what you're talking about. You're mixing apples and oranges and complaining that they don't taste like kiwi. All based on you lording your own personal experience taking for granted that somehow you know better than anyone else.

Obviously. I have very little experience with cameras.

 

[CarlTN]

Mr. Wickidwombat, thank you for appreciating my post.

As for the person who thought I was a complete idiot, well, I'm not. Everything I said is valid, and everything you said is invalid. So nah nah nah...

 

[CarlTN]

I think I would enjoy owning a Leica M9, if I had the disposable income. Perhaps by the time I have it, the sensor will be better. I just...would love to try that Noctilux...since apparently no one else will ever try to build a lens like that, at least not for a full frame camera.

I still want a really fast lens, the fastest ever...an f/.6. It would look ridiculous, and the price would be also. Seems like I recall Leica made a 90 or 95mm lens with an f/1 or faster aperture. Maybe it was Zeiss.

I searched, here is one, but it's not the 90mm: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Zeiss_Planar_50mm_f/0.7

Here's an interesting link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_speed

Wow, there were a lot of fast lenses...the top one is the one I was thinking of.

Leica ELCAN 90mm f/1.0
Kollmorgen 153mm f/1.0
Zeiss UR 250mm f/1.0 !!!! (Can you imagine what that thing looked like? A giant bowl of glass???)

 

[Aglet]

DXO mark means nothing. They take their objective tests and interpret them in completely subjective ways, all (as it would seem) on Nikon's dime. Super biased, all rubbish, especially their ISO scores. Canon should be top of the mark for every camera they've put out in the ISO division, right next to Pentax, and Nikon and Sony should be right in the bin every time. But it's absolutely the opposite. If you've ever seen the DPReview studio comparison tool, I highly recommend cranking up the ISO on there and seeing for yourself what I'm talking about. D5200? Rubbish. D800? Rubbish at anything above or below ISO 200. 5DIII? A f@ck!ng mint. DXO scores the opposite in every case.

Can't agree with you without knowing specifically WHY you think this. Not sure I would if I did, I don't care for the one-number DxO score either.
However...
Have a close look at the full test results for each camera sensor and compare those. To start with, look carefully at the full range signal to noise tests and you'll likely see results closer to your expectations.

 

[ragmanjin]

DXO mark means nothing. They take their objective tests and interpret them in completely subjective ways, all (as it would seem) on Nikon's dime. Super biased, all rubbish, especially their ISO scores. Canon should be top of the mark for every camera they've put out in the ISO division, right next to Pentax, and Nikon and Sony should be right in the bin every time. But it's absolutely the opposite. If you've ever seen the DPReview studio comparison tool, I highly recommend cranking up the ISO on there and seeing for yourself what I'm talking about. D5200? Rubbish. D800? Rubbish at anything above or below ISO 200. 5DIII? A f@ck!ng mint. DXO scores the opposite in every case.

Can't agree with you without knowing specifically WHY you think this. Not sure I would if I did, I don't care for the one-number DxO score either.
However...
Have a close look at the full test results for each camera sensor and compare those. To start with, look carefully at the full range signal to noise tests and you'll likely see results closer to your expectations.

I'm gonna start this off by saying I was always a journalist first and a photographer second. Deep, borderline-invasive research is in my bones. I've definitely combed DXO's tests and scores thoroughly before any camera review I've written, and often something seemed a little off.
The whole thing was exacerbated when I helped start up this large-format print shop up north http://www.counterfeitink.com (wait till the third banner to pop up on the homepage and you'll see my ridiculous cigarette-bearing face top left on the Canuck-style $5 bill) and got to see the results of all these cameras first hand. I was the one optimizing photos for print, doing the upsizing and re-sharpening, and priming the finished prints for delivery. When a camera that prints a perfectly sharp upsized landscape print at 4x8' with no noise or lack of dynamic range scores 8 points lower than a camera with no details in the shadows, noise at near-base ISO and smudgy-looking detail only a touch above its native resolution, there is a fault in the system.
I've since left that print shop and started up a medium format photography studio, specializing in large prints. I run photography lessons, edit other photographers' photos and I still write the occasional review. I know using Phase One — with even just the Schneider kit lens that's sharp enough to shave with — is like touching perfection, because it's my main setup on the job. I know where "the bar" is set.
I can't emphasize this enough: You can read all the books and studies you want on Irish boxing but it doesn't mean anything until you've been in at least your first handful of Canadian bar fights. Having used, tested and reviewed a huge range of these cameras, having made large prints for every soccer mom with an SLR, having cycled through my share of gear and having cycled through my share of assistants with their own wide range of cameras and lenses, I know an 85 vs. a 60 on DXO means literally almost nothing when you've really put a setup through a hard day's work.
I'm not asking anyone to take my word for it, either. Again, check out the DPReview Studio Comparison Tool or better yet, put Best Buy's über-flexible return policy to work and try a few out for yourself, side-by-side and you'll indefinitely come to the same conclusion.

 

[LSV]

DXO mark means nothing. They take their objective tests and interpret them in completely subjective ways, all (as it would seem) on Nikon's dime. Super biased, all rubbish, especially their ISO scores. Canon should be top of the mark for every camera they've put out in the ISO division, right next to Pentax, and Nikon and Sony should be right in the bin every time. But it's absolutely the opposite. If you've ever seen the DPReview studio comparison tool, I highly recommend cranking up the ISO on there and seeing for yourself what I'm talking about. D5200? Rubbish. D800? Rubbish at anything above or below ISO 200. 5DIII? A f@ck!ng mint. DXO scores the opposite in every case.

Can't agree with you without knowing specifically WHY you think this. Not sure I would if I did, I don't care for the one-number DxO score either.
However...
Have a close look at the full test results for each camera sensor and compare those. To start with, look carefully at the full range signal to noise tests and you'll likely see results closer to your expectations.

I'm gonna start this off by saying I was always a journalist first and a photographer second. Deep, borderline-invasive research is in my bones. I've definitely combed DXO's tests and scores thoroughly before any camera review I've written, and often something seemed a little off.
The whole thing was exacerbated when I helped start up this large-format print shop up north http://www.counterfeitink.com (wait till the third banner to pop up on the homepage and you'll see my ridiculous cigarette-bearing face top left on the Canuck-style $5 bill) and got to see the results of all these cameras first hand. I was the one optimizing photos for print, doing the upsizing and re-sharpening, and priming the finished prints for delivery. When a camera that prints a perfectly sharp upsized landscape print at 4x8' with no noise or lack of dynamic range scores 8 points lower than a camera with no details in the shadows, noise at near-base ISO and smudgy-looking detail only a touch above its native resolution, there is a fault in the system.
I've since left that print shop and started up a medium format photography studio, specializing in large prints. I run photography lessons, edit other photographers' photos and I still write the occasional review. I know using Phase One — with even just the Schneider kit lens that's sharp enough to shave with — is like touching perfection, because it's my main setup on the job. I know where "the bar" is set.
I can't emphasize this enough: You can read all the books and studies you want on Irish boxing but it doesn't mean anything until you've been in at least your first handful of Canadian bar fights. Having used, tested and reviewed a huge range of these cameras, having made large prints for every soccer mom with an SLR, having cycled through my share of gear and having cycled through my share of assistants with their own wide range of cameras and lenses, I know an 85 vs. a 60 on DXO means literally almost nothing when you've really put a setup through a hard day's work.
I'm not asking anyone to take my word for it, either. Again, check out the DPReview Studio Comparison Tool or better yet, put Best Buy's über-flexible return policy to work and try a few out for yourself, side-by-side and you'll indefinitely come to the same conclusion.

Unless of course you're a journalist for FOX News.

This is the most awful insult I've read on CR. Please consider offering an apology.

 

[bdunbar79]

How is that an insult? To who? Fox News? What?

I'll remove it for the sensitive people on here who have no idea what anything anyone posts means. Sorry.

 

[Hobby Shooter]

How is that an insult? To who? Fox News? What?

I'll remove it for the sensitive people on here who have no idea what anything anyone posts means. Sorry.

I thought it was fun.

 

[bdunbar79]

How is that an insult? To who? Fox News? What?

I'll remove it for the sensitive people on here who have no idea what anything anyone posts means. Sorry.

I thought it was fun.

You can't have fun on here anymore. You really can't.

 

[Hobby Shooter]

How is that an insult? To who? Fox News? What?

I'll remove it for the sensitive people on here who have no idea what anything anyone posts means. Sorry.

I thought it was fun.

You can't have fun on here anymore. You really can't.

Boring is bad and will make peoples leave which I hope won't happen.

I made a joke about baby Jesus a couple of weeks ago and an American friend took offense. Im from Europe and it's not so serious there. I clearly embaressed my wide. Note to self: don't joke about guns, religion and politics.

 

[bdunbar79]

How is that an insult? To who? Fox News? What?

I'll remove it for the sensitive people on here who have no idea what anything anyone posts means. Sorry.

I thought it was fun.

You can't have fun on here anymore. You really can't.

Boring is bad and will make peoples leave which I hope won't happen.

I made a joke about baby Jesus a couple of weeks ago and an American friend took offense. Im from Europe and it's not so serious there. I clearly embaressed my wide. Note to self: don't joke about guns, religion and politics.

LOL. You got that right!

 

[Hobby Shooter]

How is that an insult? To who? Fox News? What?

I'll remove it for the sensitive people on here who have no idea what anything anyone posts means. Sorry.

I thought it was fun.

You can't have fun on here anymore. You really can't.

Boring is bad and will make peoples leave which I hope won't happen.

I made a joke about baby Jesus a couple of weeks ago and an American friend took offense. Im from Europe and it's not so serious there. I clearly embaressed my wide. Note to self: don't joke about guns, religion and politics.

LOL. You got that right!

But I still haven't forgiven you for badmouthing the 35L.

 

[LSV]

How is that an insult? To who? Fox News? What?

I'll remove it for the sensitive people on here who have no idea what anything anyone posts means. Sorry.

I thought it was fun.

You can't have fun on here anymore. You really can't.

I'm sorry. I was making a joke -- obviously not a good one.