Shashin
Well-known member
The M image will have higher frequency detail. Both will look really nice.
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
My humble observation
- Thread starter VINCET
- Start date
S
sheikh
Guest
thanks all
S
sheikh
Guest
guys i have epson 4900 printer, please advise the best exhibition 17 inches paper for me.
glenerrolrd
Workshop Member
Exactly like the M9 . The first shipment (M9 ) provided 20 cameras for the USA . The 2nd round of cameras was a good 4-6 weeks later . It was 3-4 months before they had filled the first day pre orders .
Considering how much they must have lost on the M8 recall seems reasonable approach .
jonoslack
Active member
I thought 500 - but I could be wrong.
Shashin
Well-known member
douglasf13
New member
I like Canson Baryta Photographique usually, and, lately, I've been kind of into MOAB Lasal Exhibition Lustre 300.
Mike Woods
New member
No matter the M camera I am always using my LCD to view the histogram which IMHO is about the most important feature on any digital M. In the case of the M, Leica has finally emulated the Monochrom histogram and made it reach both ends of the larger screen from left to right. It is now a thing of beauty in RGB.
With regards to nice long R glass, the LCD, but more importantly the EVF, provides invaluable input into the image scene.
Huh? The MM offers a distinctive raw histogram.
New M displays a run of the mill RGB histogram of the DNG's embedded tif file.
Hmmm. Don't really see the "converted late adopter phenom".
What we're seeing with the Leica M is quite a few M9/MM owners taking a pass on this model, "generation skippers", who hope for an more substantial image quality upgrade in perhaps 2 years, and who could live without the bells and whistles that curiously chase DSLRs (many of us own Nikon or Canon systems).
I'm probably in that camp. I'm certainly a buyer for the next M if, say in another couple of years, Leica offers an upgrade that works the kinks out of this manufacturers first CMOS for a professional digital camera, and offers a substantial dynamic range bump and better high ISO performance without resolution sacrificing in-camera noise reduction (noted by Sean Reid at 1600 and above). Getting color right might also be a factor in waiting for the next M. It's hard to comment without an official color profile to process the sample DNGs I've received from associates.
erick.boileau
Member
Canson infinity Baryta
The M histogram goes full screen L to R. If you own an M9 the difference is welcomed and if you own an MM it reminds one of the width of its histogram, but I never mentioned the M had an 11 zone true DNG histogram (not raw as you mentioned) like the MM. See p95 of the English MM Manual.
The M9 and M histograms are built from a jpeg file (having nothing to do with "DNG's embedded tif file"as you mentioned) pretty much like all digital cameras with the exception of Phase One files which are TIF on the P45+.
oh goodness grief, I think you need to spend some more time on the technical side of things, including the DNG spec.
meanwhile, note my main point was the distinctive MM raw histogram, whereas the M histogram is a plain RGB histogram.
The day you get an MM read the manual and you will see its a DNG histogram. Talk about the technical side of "things", simply put, Raw is a bunch of 1' and 0's whereas DNG interprets those 1's and 0's into an image.
Godfrey
Well-known member
Um, no.
A DNG file is a standardized container for raw data, where the layout of the file's metadata and sensor data components are well known via a publicly disclosed format specification (see http://www.adobe.com/dng). DNG file do not contain interpreted raw data, it is simply a raw data file structured with an easily understood structure that an application can read and write without ambiguity. Native, proprietary raw files contain the same information but do not have a publicly disclosed file structure, that's all.
BTW: The sensor data in either a DNG file or a proprietary format raw file is all just a bunch of 1s and 0s. ;-)
G
Odd comment. Has nothing to do with the point I'm making. The day I get an MM? I have one, and the manual is online in any event.
If you want to do the reading and bone up on the DNG spec, see here:
Did you know that DNG is an extension of TIFF 6.0 standard? The format for the embed, if included, should be TIFF-EP.
With the MM, uniquely, there is no application of white balance data, no color channel admixture, what is displayed is the industry's only true raw histogram, applying just a simple gamma transformation to the raw data.
Not so, with the M240, it's a plain old standard RGB histogram making a lot of assumptions that may have nothing to do with your final image. Same as the M9 and every color CCD and CMOS alternative for years.
Seriously, this is what you're hanging your hat on? The labeling of two graphic images? LMAO, oh my goodness.
You really need to bone up on the technology. Read the DNG spec, and the host of articles and Leica interviews, including transcripts and reports at the announcement event, and review your notes if you or any of your associates have talked to Leica engineers on the subject.