DXOmark released their Leica M9 test results. Leica M9 came 23th in the sensor ranking and 19th in low light ISO ranking. You can also compare the M9 RAW-based camera image quality with any other camera in their database. Have fun!
Read more about DXOmark tests.
Related posts:
20 Comments
Doesn’t look like the M9 compared too well with the Canon 5dII or the Nikon D3X. I think the Leica Lens more than make up for the deficiencies of the sensor in terms of an overall quality of the image, but still, it would be nice if Leica did a better job with the higher ISO performance and also the dynamic range of the sensor.
so lame
ouch. while i certainly think dxo results don’t always map perfectly to real-world use, it does indicate quite a lot of ground that leica would do well to make up. my 5d2 certainly does better in most respects in low light than my m9, but it doesn’t necessarily look as stark as these results would indicate; i find the leica handles color and detail quite well at high iso, perhaps slightly better than the canon through 1250 at least.
but all these cameras are very good. which doesn’t mean that i don’t lust after even better low light performance.
OK taken in context of a bench test this might not have influenced my perception so much if it ranked higher but to rank so low versus other systems/cameras this is a real eye-opener. I have been critical of Leica’s focus on opening retail stores all at a time when it can’t manufacture sufficient product to remotely satisfy demand and this just backs up my view. At least I can walk into an Apple store and walk out with product. Seems like Leica are pouring resources into brand building that is beyond their ability to actually supply branded product. That may prove to be huge mistake for them. Low light performance is particularly a concern, as is lack of material weather protection, when their are cheaper and better IQ solutions out there.
hmm.. those DXO Mark figures would put M9 in the same league as Canon D550/T2 Rebel technically (I just had a look at D550 for a short while ago before reading this and just see the figures are all the very similar for both)
No doubt the high ISO performance need to be better; this should be a priority. I would like to also see a better dynamic range (there is always a small spot in the sky that is over exposed regardless of whether I use a GND filter). HOWEVER, that said, the Leica lenses give plenty of cush; the MTF and bokeh are simply in a league of their own. And, the compactness and light weight of the M9/lenses when compared with something like a D3X makes taking picture more of a hobby than a choir. Once Nikon comes out with a smaller/lighter DSLR with the D3X sensor, however, the race will become closer.
I guess this is not surprising. The Canon 5d and Nikon D3X blow away the M9 at ISOs above 800. I still prefer the look of the M9 at ISO 160 and 320 though.
By the way, has anyone noticed that the contrast and colors of the M9 sorta look like old Kodachrome 25? I notice it especially in the blacks and skin tones.
Nice little techee report. But not any real news that wasn’t know before about high ISO’s.
So, how do the images look at low ISO’s ? Leica understands the tech issues, but let’s remember, they are squeezing high-tech into a ‘low-tech’ body that is the same physical size since it’s beginning. Time will change the tech side as long they can start with a clean sheet of paper.
@ Bruce. face it, Leica is a class on its own and is luxury. Consider it a handsome necklace that makes excellent pictures as well.
I feel like I dodged a bullet. I’m glad I didn’t shell out $7000 for an M9, when, according to these tests, the M9 sensor isn’t materially better than the Nikon D200 I bought on clearance for $599 at Best Buy.
Until that price/performance gap narrows, I will stick with my M6 and its sensor, which needs no improvement: a $3.50 roll of Tri-X.
adont let yourselves be confused. Lenses make more of a difference then anything else. A leica with top glass will do worse in some situations and better in others compared to a 5d2 or d3 whatever. Leica has always been about the lenses, always.
@Dave: You will get no arguments from me on the pleasure of owning and shooting a M6. However, you would be kidding yourself to think that the Nikon D200, or the Canon 5DII, can reproduce images anywhere close to the combination of a M9 and Leica lenses. I have a Nikon D700 and there is no doubt that my Leica M9 out performs the Nikon D700 in non-high-ISO situations. I don’t own the D3X so I can’t compare for myself, but then again the D3X isn’t much cheaper than the M9.
No question about the superior quality of Leica lenses. But for $7000 you have a right to expect a camera to match them.
If you’re forced to buy a second-rate $7000 camera as the price of using your first-rate $4000 lenses… or having to question how much the performance of your $4000 lens is diminished by your $7000 camera….well, I would take exception to that. Besides, I have a feeling that a 5D or D700 with Zeiss ZE or ZF-mount glass might outperform an M9 with Leica glass, for a lot less money.
Nonetheless, I’d still take an M9 over a D3x or D700, for its size advantage alone. So enjoy yours in good health while you wait for the M10!
I like how even the Nikon D90 beats it.
It is dissapointing for the Leica M9 owners that the M9 sensor has a lower tonal and dynamic range than, say, the Nikon D90. Being an owner of three Nikon DSLR myself, however, the Leica M9 remains my fav so far for landscape photos and street photography under normal lighting conditions. Once the lighting start to tricky, however, I am afraid the D3X will prevail; but, as Dave says, the D3x is not cheaper and weighs a ton. I have done long expeditions with both DSLR equipment and the Leica M series, and I will tell you right now the Leica M series is a life saver on my back. Walking the streets of a foreign city is also much easier with just a M9 and a cron lens on you than a Nikon DSLR (for one thing, the former fits in my girlfriend’s purse!). The D90 and D700, while beating the M9 slightly on sensor performance, do not have the benefit of the superior lens of Leica (I haven’t mess with the Zeiss mounted on a Nikon but that just gets entirely too complicated and time consuming for me; if I were to invest that kind of time, I’d rather shoot my M6 or Mamiya 7II, and wet scan the negatives to get superior results to any digital cameras out there). Bottom line is, the M9 remains the best camera for some situations, but not all. Same can be said for a camera like the D3x or the D700. I think Ken Rockwell probably summed it up the best in his write-up here:
“The LEICA M9′s excellent sensor, coupled with Leica’s superior optics, leads to better overall technical image quality than obtainable from Canon or Nikon.
Yes, with some certain exceptional lenses one could get the same quality from Nikon or Canon, but especially with wide lenses, neither Nikon nor Canon can offer the same always exceptional image quality that comes from every Leica lens, including many Leica lenses decades old. Leica has made no dogs.
With Nikon or Canon, you have to pick just the right lens, which is why I have to write tons of reviews sorting out good from bad. Even with the best SLR lenses, you still need to choose the optimum aperture and zoom setting for the best sharpness and least distortion.
With Leica lenses, they are all excellent, even wide open, and have vanishingly low distortion.”
His detailed comparison is here:
http://kenrockwell.com/leica/m9/sharpness-28mm.htm
Interesting reading, but I have to say how horrible the Nikkor 28/f2.8 prime lens is in comparison to Nikkor 24.70/f2.8…
Yeah I don’t think that the wide-angle primes have been a priority for Nikon; their zoom lenses do the job fairly well, though. I think if Nikon wants to make a great prime wide-angle, they can; but I am guessing the Nikon market doesn’t support that product as much as it supports a more useful zoom lens. That said, I haven’t tried the new Nikon 24mm f/1.4, which I hear is a great piece of glass. I love my Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8, but it too is no comparison to either of the Leica 24mm lenses. The Leica 24mm f/3.8 is the sharpest wide-angle lens that I have ever used; the resolution and contrast of that lens is simply incredible. I would be curious as to a comparison between the Summilux 24mm f/1.4 and the new Nikon 24mm f/1.4; the MTFs show that the Summilux 24mm out resolves and delivers a higher contrast than the new Nikon, but you never know until you shoot it yourself . . .
Reading the comments over the detailed image quality data for Leica M9 released by DXOmark is so entertaining, to say the least. I’m sooooo entertained and amazed at the non-acceptance of DXOmark data. This brings up a question, In Leica Infallible? Hahaha.
Reading the comments over the detailed image quality data for Leica M9 released by DXOmark is so entertaining, to say the least. I’m sooooo entertained and amazed at the non-acceptance of DXOmark data. This brings up a question, Is Leica Infallible? Hahaha.
Click this hand-held M9 image to enlarge.
http://kenrockwell.com/trips/2009-10/images/L1004250-cs2.jpg
Nuff said.