Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2016/02/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I have seen that and said that the new Monochrom is better at high ISO. Lluis was asking about old vs new lenses on each and I am more curious about the lower ISO range. EVF and common batteries to my M(240) are useful but not enough so to pay for full price over the original Monochrom. I did not see anything in your tests that said anything to me... john -----Original Message----- If you want a test done on a tripod there are plenty on the internet. Here is one: http://www.reddotforum.com/content/2015/06/bw-iso-showdown-leica-m-monochrom-typ-246-vs-m-monochrom-m9-vs-m-typ-240/ He concludes that the M246 is much better at very high ISOs, but the MM and M240 hold their own at lower ISOs. And one of the comments after all of his tests: "what does any of this have to do with actually taking pictures. these tests are such a waste of time. who cares. just go and shoot. i never understood people who spend so much time benchmarking ISO and DOF, etc. Just spend more time shooting and less time analyzing." Not written by me! Tina Tina On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 2:42 PM, John McMaster <john at mcmaster.fr> wrote: > They are completely static subjects..... > > john > ________________________________________ > > They are to me. > > Tina > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 2:29 PM, John McMaster <john at mcmaster.fr> wrote: > > > Waste of time then, they are your cameras but what you show are not > > worthwhile tests ;-) > > > > john > > > > ________________________________________ > > > > As I have said before, I do not do controlled tests on tripods. I > > do > real > > life tests the way I would use the cameras. Tripod tests would be > > of no use to me since I never use a tripod. I hold the camera or > > prop it on > the > > nearest post. It works for me, maybe not for others. > > > > Tina > > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 1:43 PM, John McMaster <john at mcmaster.fr> > > wrote: > > > > > Not on a tripod so hard to compare (viewpoint changes), look for > tonality > > > differences at 320-1600asa as the 246 is better at +5000asa > > > > > > john > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > PESO: > > > > > > I did some tests with the Noctilux and Summilux on the MM and > > > M246. I have a hard time telling the files apart. I did notice > > > that neither > > camera > > > records the aperture correctly because all of the photos were > > > either > shot > > > wide open or at F/8 and they were not recorded that way. I also > > > shot > > some > > > with both cameras at ISO 6400 but that was not recorded either. > > > The > M246 > > > files are about half the size of the MM files. These are the ones > > > shot with the 50/1.4: > > > > > > http://www.pbase.com/tinamanley/image/162551679 > > > > > > and hit next until the end. These have absolutely nothing done to > > > them except importing into LR as raw files and exporting to pBase as > > > jpegs. > > I'll > > > post the Noctilux ones later. > > > > > > Tina > > > > > > -- > > > Tina Manley > > > www.tinamanley.com > > > http://tina-manley.artistwebsites.com/ > > > > > >