The Leica aesthetic ?

[pophoto]

Hi Roger
I sent six properly exposed files images - at 35mm and 70mm, all taken on a tripod:

M9 with 35 FLE and 75 'cron
M with 35 FLE and 75 'cron
Olympus OMD with 12-35 zoom at 35 equiv and 70 equiv.

all shot at 200 ISO

I shot shot the Leicas at a larger aperture to maintain a similar depth of field (f5.6 then f3.5 on the Olympus as I remember).

I resized all to 16mp and made the Olympus 3x2 rather than 4x3 - I removed the exif and output at the largest and best quality jpg, and renamed the files.

I then sent the files to 4 people with good eyes (including a Leica employee), explained what I'd done and simply asked them to name the camera.

The results are of course not statistically valid - but nobody was right - in fact, they were more wrong than if they had just been guessing.

When you're looking at files from a new camera you look at them differently - and so you think you see something different.

Now then - think of a situation where I did the same thing, but with different scene's and different lenses - if they can't get it right with the same lenses and focal lengths who's going to get it right with different ones!!!!!:ROTFL:

I'm sorry, I think it's all internet noise - I'm not saying that the cameras are the same - but just that the idea that there is some definitive identifiable difference between M9 and M files at base ISO is undefendable.

It seems a lot of people underestimate the Olympus aesthetic in comparison!

 

[sergio lovisolo]

New LEICA M vs M9

I downloaded both files and after adjusting the white balance (the M is much warmer at similar settings) I can still see some differences in color rendering but the files are almost identical.

Edward, did you notice the presence of moire' in many places of both images?
Or is just me with cs6?

Sergio

 

[ashwinrao1]

Speaking from no experience at all

But having talked to a few friends...

It appears that there's a period of adjustment and change in workflow to "accomodate" the image from the M. Several friends who shot the camera initially described a lack of pop, but now, after a couple weeks at it, seem to be increasingly pleased with output.

How much this has to do with adjusting as a photo editor, vs getting used to the new camera's output, vs simply getting used to how lenses play with the new sensor, is up in the air, but I have heard from many who are pleased with output from the M, moreso as time passes...

For me, it's not much of an issue, as I am 3 on my dealer's list, and no cameras have reached the Northwest US to date (per report from my store)....so it may be a long wait...Financially, I am in no rush...curiosity wise, well...that's a different story...

 

[Amin]

Hi Roger
I sent six properly exposed files images - at 35mm and 70mm, all taken on a tripod:

M9 with 35 FLE and 75 'cron
M with 35 FLE and 75 'cron
Olympus OMD with 12-35 zoom at 35 equiv and 70 equiv.

all shot at 200 ISO

I shot shot the Leicas at a larger aperture to maintain a similar depth of field (f5.6 then f3.5 on the Olympus as I remember).

I resized all to 16mp and made the Olympus 3x2 rather than 4x3 - I removed the exif and output at the largest and best quality jpg, and renamed the files.

I then sent the files to 4 people with good eyes (including a Leica employee), explained what I'd done and simply asked them to name the camera.

The results are of course not statistically valid - but nobody was right - in fact, they were more wrong than if they had just been guessing.

This is shocking!

Not the results but the fact that Jono went to all that trouble .

And it's true - you couldn't possibly post that on the internet without getting slagged off by know-it-alls. You might do okay here, but someone, somewhere would be slagging you off .

 

[sven]

Hi Scott
Regrettably, they were rather boring, and have long since gone. But there's plenty of people around here who now have both cameras and could do it.

Personally I'm also not very keen on posting comparisons on the internet - people always end up in slagging off the photographer for sloppy technique!.

All the best

This is indeed true and sad situation. Enjoyed the Venice photos a lot, hope you continue to share your work with us.

 

[edwardkaraa]

Edward, did you notice the presence of moire' in many places of both images?
Or is just me with cs6?

Sergio

Yes they both have moire at exactly the same places.

 

[jonoslack]

I generally embrace this sentiment, Jono, but with the qualification that ease and flexibility with which one can manipulate the files in post is critical. I found, for instance, that I preferred the M8.2 to the M9 for b/w work. In part I suspect this had something to do with the better effectiveness of the external filtration on the former versus the internal filtration of the latter. Regardless the reason, I found the M8.2 files easier to achieve the 'look' I wanted for many of my pics.

But, to your point, nobody else will likely ever notice these differences, but I might. So, I would just extend the definition of your words "from an operational viewpoint" to include not only the camera operation, but the PP requirements and flexibility, or lack thereof. These are key aspects of IQ, or the ability to achieve desired IQ, that I'll be testing on the M and the MM.

Jeff

HI Jeff
Good points all - I think that if you do a survey of all the reviews, you'll find two common points:
1. Everyone agrees that there is more flexibility with the M files in post
2. Everyone agrees that the black and white conversions are really good

All the best

 

[JoelM]

I think that if you want the "Leica Look" or pop, then you'll need to get back to film. '0's and '1's don't pop.



Joel

 

[photomeme]

'0's and '1's don't pop.

If going from a '0' to a '1' is not a pop, I don't know what is.

 

[bradhusick]

Steve Huff just posted a really good review on his site. Check it out.

 

[douglasf13]

I think that if you want the "Leica Look" or pop, then you'll need to get back to film. '0's and '1's don't pop.



Joel

A silicon sensor is analogue, and although the signal is converter to digital, one could make the same argument for scanning film. In fact, some argue that film is binary itself, since silver halide crystals are arguably on/off.

 

[Peter Klein]

It appears that there's a period of adjustment and change in workflow to "accomodate" the image from the M. Several friends who shot the camera initially described a lack of pop, but now, after a couple weeks at it, seem to be increasingly pleased with output.

I think it may not be a unique to the M. I felt the same thing with the OM-D. A big difference between the m8/m9 and the M (and the OM-D) is that all of a sudden you have all this great dynamic range. You don't have to protect highlights hardly at all. The price you pay is that things look a little flat until you juice up the curves a bit.

Initially you don't do that. Then you realize that while the camera can accomodate a greater brightness range, your screen or printer remains the same. So you have to do a little squishing of the range yourself, but now you have a choice where to do it, whereas the M8/M9 just did it for you.

--Peter

 

[Shashin]

It appears that there's a period of adjustment and change in workflow to "accomodate" the image from the M. Several friends who shot the camera initially described a lack of pop, but now, after a couple weeks at it, seem to be increasingly pleased with output.

But isn't that always the case, even in the good old days of film. I certainly go though an adjustment period as I learn how a new camera or film sees. I find processing for one things does not translate to something else. I also know that no matter how great the camera, people find it really easy to get pretty lame results from them. I find every new camera brings a whole new collection of brick wall photographs. The brick must be the most documented building material in the world--this is why I will never be a camera tester; I have vinyl siding.

 

[JoelM]

A silicon sensor is analogue, and although the signal is converter to digital, one could make the same argument for scanning film. In fact, some argue that film is binary itself, since silver halide crystals are arguably on/off.

I have to agree regarding scanned film. If you are correct about sensors being analogue, certainly there is nothing but digital by the time it gets to us. Seems old school prints have more glow and pop than scanned ones. As for film being binary, I think that the intensity of the light is recorded where as a sensor records photons, like a photomultiplier or gated nuclear counter.(Afterall, negatives have density). Please know, I could be wrong here since I have no clue about the sensors, just my science degree and background. It's like trying to calculate the area under a curve. If you use an integral, you will get it all, but if you use tiny rectangles, say, take the limit as it approaches 0, you get close, but there is always space between the curve and the corners. It's like a record compared to the finest digital recording. The ears or eyes can't hear or see the difference, but the brain senses that something is missing.

BTW, love my M7 and M8 equally.

Joel

 

[douglasf13]

I have to agree regarding scanned film. If you are correct about sensors being analogue, certainly there is nothing but digital by the time it gets to us. Seems old school prints have more glow and pop than scanned ones. As for film being binary, I think that the intensity of the light is recorded where as a sensor records photons, like a photomultiplier or gated nuclear counter.(Afterall, negatives have density). Please know, I could be wrong here since I have no clue about the sensors, just my science degree and background. It's like trying to calculate the area under a curve. If you use an integral, you will get it all, but if you use tiny rectangles, say, take the limit as it approaches 0, you get close, but there is always space between the curve and the corners. It's like a record compared to the finest digital recording. The ears or eyes can't hear or see the difference, but the brain senses that something is missing.

BTW, love my M7 and M8 equally.

Joel

Yeah, there have been some articles explaining why camera film isn't analogous (no pun intended!) to vinyl records, because the film grain is on/off, so you get spaces in the curve that you mention, whereas silicon sensors are a truly analogue recording device, but there are also some good rebuttals to those assertions. Fun topic, but off topic, so sorry about that.

 

[mmbma]

I feel the M9 files look better right out of the camera. May not be the most accurate in terms of temp or tint, but they just look darn good with that OOMPH. Similarly hasselblad files have been criticized for being over saturated etc. but they also have a distinctive look.

Base on the reviews I've read it sounds like the new M is more neutral than the M9. The files would contain a bigger dynamic range and would be more accurate in color. It's possible with post work to make them look like the M9 pics (notice Steve Huff in his review first posted the M files then tweaked them to have more "leica look".)

to each his own. I don't like doing too much post work on rangefinder shots so I value the out of the camera impact.

 

[mmbma]

Yeah, there have been some articles explaining why camera film isn't analogous (no pun intended!) to vinyl records, because the film grain is on/off, so you get spaces in the curve that you mention, whereas silicon sensors are a truly analogue recording device, but there are also some good rebuttals to those assertions. Fun topic, but off topic, so sorry about that.

In order to see the "analog difference", you'll need a CRT monitor, as those technically have no pixels but are results of electrons beams lighting up phosphors dots. I guess it could be seen as a loose analogy to viny vs. cd rendering