Re: Fun with the New Leica M
I have been considering getting back into a Leica M system ever since the Leica M 240 was announced. The M9 seemed to have too many compromises for me to commit such a large budget.
Today I saw some images from the camera on rangefinderforum.com. It was a behind the scenes look at the Melbourne fashion show all photographed with the new M and a Leica 50mm and Voightlander 35.
To be honest the image quality was atrocious. Reminded me of my Canon DSLR's from the early 2000's. The images were plasticy with muted and lifeless colors.
I still haven't seen anything from this camera that gets me excited to spend a large budget to get into this system.
As a former photojournalist the Leica M6 and MP were (specially the M6) were my go to cameras for anything shot with a 50mm lens or shorter. Unfortunately I sold off my Leica's and five lenses during the beginning of the digital revolution in the early 2000's to finance Canon DSLR's.
To this day I have not used a camera from any manufacturer that has the feel of a Leica M.
Well, I applaud your straight talk on the "M". I too am having problems but it may be just "early days" while Leica works on the FW.
I tried (see below) a bit of 'punch' PP to get a more M9 look, and it shows that it CAN be punched up. Here, the image was a crop (graciously, Jono gave me permission to play around)
If we just say "the "M" is a Leica, therefore the best" then what about all the M8/M9 people who say "the look is different, not as good as the Former cameras"
They are not ALL crazy! So what is it? can some of what Sean Reid calls "presence" be returned? He shows that a downrez does a lot (and actually shifts color to M9 like spectrum) His review was enlightening.
A few points:
1. Not only is CMOS a different readout technology, there are other challenges and compromises, just as in CCD (see Tim Ashley's review that striking points out the M9 limitations, in fact of CCD in general! )
2. The pixel pitch may be getting to the semiconductor limit
3. The pitch is smaller as the resolution is higher. It may also be affected by the angle if incidence; it is not just diffraction of lens and aperture blades, the whole path is prone to edge effects.
So with that, the following is JUST to show that an "M" image can be manipulated and get some extra punch from simple clarity, tone and edge sharpening. The bridge scene is more subtle, but the bird? Yes, there is an artificiality, but to my eye, not 'plasticy' but rather a bit brittle. This is a crop though, and full frames will take a lot more shaking around as the parkscape shows
.
Before you complain about PP, I know many pros here dial in a "look" that adds punch with clarity, saturation, and tone, keeping the dreaded "oversharpening" at bay. It adds interest, and let's face it, the data in a bayer matrix just isn't what our eyes see!
With the risk that I may have gone over the edge, here is Jono's robin with some post. It does one thing at least for me; it starts to get back that 'isolation' of the key image from the background that gives the presence.
Regards
Victor
PS First is a larger image, the bird is cropped so PP has a more severe effect.
