Leica M review: How does the new 24-megapixel CMOS sensor in Leica’s latest rangefinder perform?
By Paul Carroll - Thursday, March 14, 2013 Camera Review| Introduction | Measurement | Comparisons | Conclusion |
Leica M: CMOS sensor provides a welcome boost for Leica M image quality scores
Featuring a new higher resolution sensor and updated functionality expectations are high for the new Leica M and it doesn’t disappoint. Although remaining true to their ‘no gimmicks’ approach the addition of an improved LCD screen with live view, as well as the increased ISO sensitivity range are welcome additions that update Leica’s digital rangefinder for the modern era.
The latest 24-megapixel CMOS sensor offers not only six million extra pixels but DxOMark’s Sensor Scores indicate a +1 Stop improvement in overall image quality compared to the previous 18Mp CCD sensor. As well as offering more consistent Color Sensitivity across the ISO range there’s also an impressive extra +1.6 Stops boost for Dynamic Range and its low-light ISO scores are improved too, again beating previous versions by around +1 Stop.
So a big step in the right direction although the new sensor doesn’t quite match the heights of the best sensors DxOMark have tested or those of flagship DSLRs. Compared to the best sensors the Leica M is a little off the pace with the Sony RX1 and Nikon D800 boasting around +1 Stop better image quality overall.
Against the Nikon D4 and Canon 1Dx the overall scores indicate the Leica M is either better or not far off in terms of Color Sensitivity and Dynamic Range. These overall scores are a little misleading however as image quality on the M drops quickly as ISO sensitivity is increased compared to this DSLR competition, which deliver a more consistent performance up to ISO 3200.
Nonetheless a welcome improvement in image quality demonstrates Leica made a wise choice switching to a CMOS sensor. If you’re after a Leica digital rangefinder and your budget can stretch to $6950 the new M offers better image quality, features and functions compared to the $5450 M-E Typ 220.
Comments
|
Added by Nick932 |
April 21
Validity
I just wonder why all pictures that I have seen taken with a Leica look better than the ones taken from Nikon. However the marks are not very great. It seems that there factors that are not measured. I did return my D800E back. It seems that the Technology is not there yet.
Reply |
|
|
Added by Nerval |
March 15
As good as it is...
The point of shooting rangefinder, and any way investing in a Leica M is not cracking burst shots at sport events, I take it...
One thing though, Leica did really make a fuss about this new sensor and all, well at least here in Europe, got some friends who were invited to a couple of events by the store in London (they're customers and Leica tends to take care (cling onto) their customers, well Leica does not sell potatoes...). And, here is the result, you'd think given what they ask for a M, they would fit it with top notch sensor technology (I'm thinking what Canon or Nikon (I mean Sony) manage to achieve). But the SNR curve is not that impressive and most of all the dynamic range, which is wrongfully labeled as landscape here on DxO, drops quite rapidly to below APS-C sensor average past ISO 800. And well DR at base ISO does not tell you the whole story, it's quite the opposite. At base ISO you'll barely even use more than 12 ev, unless you fancy over-everything radioactive HDR finish. BUT DxO measures DR from where the noise levels cripple the shadows to the highest reproducible gradations in highlights. Thing is, as you increase the amplification of the signal, the highlights are always maintained very well, the shadows however... that's a different story. Meaning, despite the score of ISO 1800 in acceptable SNR, the shadows turn to mush quite fast, which means the camera is already under-performing above ISO 800. Canon for instance has never done too well in the low ISO DR department, however what made their cameras perform "low light miracle" is that they manage to keep a reasonably good DR at high ISO, on par or even better than their Sony (I mean Nikon) counterparts. Sony's chip manage a tad cleaner SNR. My point is it's better to have a better headroom than sacrificing tones for the sake of a bit cleaner file... Cause when you have 8 ev of DR in your Raw file, in general it's game over, and well, the M does it two full stops earlier than its competitors, or so it seems cause the graphs do not display the data, DxO has not updated the site as of now. Isn't it a bit disappointing? (guess it still is an improvement over the M9). Reply | Read all replies for this comment |
First replies for this comment
|
|
Added by MikjoA |
March 17
Re: As good as it is...
Why dynamic range would be wrongfully called landscape, since having a good dynamic range is mostly important for landscape ?
The curve may be steep, but who would take landscapes at 800 ISO ? Most people shot landscapes at 100 iso or even less if the camera allows it. Anyway, 84 is surely a good score, but I'd expect it to matches Sony's sensor... Reply |
|
|
Added by bobn2 |
March 14
The problem
Looks like rather low quantum efficiency.
Reply | Read all replies for this comment |
First replies for this comment
|
|
Added by Nerval |
March 15
Re: The problem
Well, the dynamic range has a rather linear curve, so you could say that it follows a more ideal path of analog signal amplification than the 6D for instance... Except that it's not right, because the curve for this Leica is... well... Rather steep.
Reply |
Further readings for the Leica M review: How does the new 24-megapixel CMOS sensor in Leica’s latest rangefinder perform?
To provide photographers with a broader perspective about mobiles, lenses and cameras, here are links to articles, reviews, and analyses of photographic equipment produced by DxOMark, renown websites, magazines or blogs.