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!
I don't think the solution is to come up with your own profiles (that IS hard), but to be fearless about changing the individual color response, (saturation, hue, brightness). Play aggressively with all parameters (for instance, moving vibrance and saturation in opposite directions), not to produce outlandish results, but to understand the space of possibilities. Somewhere, you find the one you were looking for. The malleability of MF files, at least as they come OOC, lets you explore this space with plenty of room. You don't have to first undo the manufacturers own decisions, doing damage to the data in the process.Maybe I need to work harder on the profiles, but how to do this? And we read it so often that its much easier o work with MF-files in post processing. Is this a myth? (I dont think it is)
The SL pixels are EXACTLY the same size as the S. It is, indeed, a crop of the sensor. The lenses make a difference. In M language, the SL lenses have a Summicron look and the S lenses more Summilux (well, about midway between the two). The test I did was SL, S006, S007, and X1D. They could all produce the same portrait with some messing around, but the lenses (SL 24-90, S120, and X1D 90, all shot at f/4) had different OOC looks.While the SL images are fine the images from the S seem to offer (sometimes) better skin tone and its easier to work with them. If we think that pixel density is not far away, then it seems its not just size of sensor or size of pixel, but other things. And Leica doesnt offer for either camera native software.
I am not starting this discussion to fight FF vs MF, I started it because I really wonder why cant they put FF sensors with MF-sensor-quality in FF bodies for those people, who are fine with a little less resolution but want the color and tonality of MF?
Hi,While the SL images are fine the images from the S seem to offer (sometimes) better skin tone and its easier to work with them. If we think that pixel density is not far away, then it seems its not just size of sensor or size of pixel, but other things. And Leica doesnt offer for either camera native software.
I am not starting this discussion to fight FF vs MF, I started it because I really wonder why cant they put FF sensors with MF-sensor-quality in FF bodies for those people, who are fine with a little less resolution but want the color and tonality of MF?
I think that generally when the question is subjectively pleasing color this test misses the mark in at least four ways:
- Would be interesting if you see a difference?
- Which one you prefer?
All these images were processed using my own DCP profiles in Lightroom.
I wouldn't expect to see much difference in a 1200x800 jpg at 96dpi. Almost any camera will do.I shared this image shot with Phase One P45+, Sony Alpha 900 and Sony A7rII a while ago:
- Would be interesting if you see a difference?
- Which one you prefer?
Hi,I wouldn't expect to see much difference in a 1200x800 jpg at 96dpi. Almost any camera will do.
Also, if you had used the same lens for all three, that would give more credit to the "experiment".
Joel
Hi,
It would help if you supplied a little more information:
- What gear are you comparing?
- What raw converter you are using?
- Which profiles are you using?
- Which RGB are you evaluating in?
I shared this image shot with Phase One P45+, Sony Alpha 900 and Sony A7rII a while ago:
View attachment 139723
- Would be interesting if you see a difference?
- Which one you prefer?
All these images were processed using my own DCP profiles in Lightroom.
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
Honestly I can not see that much difference here in this sample you posted.
In addition to the IQ3 100mp...Just a small comment. The only MFD system that really ever had 16 bits is the Phase One IQ3100MP and probably others sharing the same sensor.
In addition to the IQ3 100mp...
IQ3 100mp Trichromatic
IQ3 100mp Achromatic
IQ4 100mp Trichromatic
IQ4 150mp
IQ4 150mp Achromatic
Ok,
I am a user of various different sensor sizes (dx/FF and small medium format).
One reason for me to use MF has allways been color, IMO better skin tones and better tonality.
But why does this have to be the case? Why shows (for example) the Leica S007 better color and tonality than the SL and the M10? Is it 16bit? And if so, why cant they make a FF sensor with 16bit?
The small MF options are still way less flexible to use and slower to use than FF. If there as a FF sensor wit the same IQ like a small MF, just with a little less resolution, this would be great IMO. Can we expect this in the near future?
Very good points.I think that generally when the question is subjectively pleasing color this test misses the mark in at least four ways:
- A contrived lab scene/lighting rather than a creative/interesting scene
- Using non native raw processor (LR) instead of the one where the hardware/software are coordinated (C1+P1)
- Creating lowest-common-denominator computer-generated profile that seek to standardize the response of the color
- Ignoring that different cameras influence the behavior of the photographer
In short: rather than have each look its individual best, your test seeks to make them all look the same – you more-or-less succeeded.
It's like trying to decide whom you prefer of Bach, Queen, Tchaikovsky, and John Lee Hooker by playing their music through a heartless MIDI synthesizer, exactly-as-written, in the same room. It ignores that each artist incorporated the instruments of their era, improvised from the written music, and expected to perform in different venues. It ignores all the things that make music music rather than sound.
I totally get the technical/science-oriented approach of reducing all the variables. But at some point you abstract so far away from the original question that the results are meaningless.
Much less scientific, but much more practically useful, in my opinion, is to simply to take a few hours (minimum) with each camera, making images the way you would if you owned that camera. The way you handle the camera may be different, where you stand in the scene may be different, the software you use may be different, the way you work up the files may be different. Even the way you print or present the work may be different. With so many confounding variables you certainly won't be scientifically exploring the percentage of correlation ascribed to a specific variable, but you will be answering the questions "which camera better helps me execute my vision?" and "which camera do I enjoy using the most?" which is, for 99.9% of photographers, the salient questions.
The SL pixels are EXACTLY the same size as the S. It is, indeed, a crop of the sensor. The lenses make a difference. In M language, the SL lenses have a Summicron look and the S lenses more Summilux (well, about midway between the two). The test I did was SL, S006, S007, and X1D. They could all produce the same portrait with some messing around, but the lenses (SL 24-90, S120, and X1D 90, all shot at f/4) had different OOC looks.
I do not have an SL-S adapter, or I could take that variable out of the equation.
(This is, of course, my opinion - not fact.)
Matt