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!

The Leica aesthetic ?

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
What is the "magic" that has resulted in so much discussion of CCD verse CMOS ...with so little information being shared. The new M lacks the "pop" of the M9 ...the 3D effect . Its really important yet ....I sure can t describe it or explain why it seems to appear .

Somethings we know (IMHO) ....the new M will be "different " from the M9 and at base ISO ...some will prefer the M9 . The new M has lots of "cute" features ...some are even relevant to a die hard CRF user. The new M will blow away the M9 at anything above 400-640 ISO because of noise differences .

We also should know that the new M will improve overtime as raw conversions are fine tuned . This could make a significant difference ..as it did with the S2 . The early S2 files were flat ..lacking in overall image contrast . No "Pop" .

Leica lenses of course make a major contribution to the "Leica look" so I am speaking to differences in DR ,Color saturation etc etc that are established by the sensor/processor (and subsequent raw conversion ).


My initial assumption was that the CCD files did a better job with highlights ..the light colors had more brilliance ..like when I pull the luminosity up in a color . Puts states that the CMOS DR translates into better tone separation in the highlights and less noise in the shadows .

If so inclined look for Erwin Puts next post on the M where he covers the black and white set points differences between the M and the M9 .

Who cares ? Well ....understanding how the M and M9 differs could help in bringing back the "pop" ..even If I can t describe it .
 

Jeff S

New member
LUF has discussed this "Leica look" issue at great length. I couldn't begin to make judgements about the M until the camera, firmware, profiles, etc. are well sorted, and only then by looking at my prints of my pics using my workflow. Any assessment based on web shots, even after all of this, and especially of others' pics, is nuts.

The CCD versus CMOS issue is overblown in my view, as not all CCD and CMOS are created equally in the first place, let alone all the other camera internals and in-camera processing variables that must be taken into account. Plus, no two people will post-process and print their pics in the same way.

I bet if I showed a dozen prints to any audience, experienced or not, they would have no clue about the camera/lens used, except an occasional lucky guess. I've tried it. Jono also discussed elsewhere how he fooled his audience. There are just too many variables in the chain from camera to print.

As for comparing files that have not been subject to any PP, I couldn't care less.

Jeff
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
LUF has discussed this "Leica look" issue at great length. I couldn't begin to make judgements about the M until the camera, firmware, profiles, etc. are well sorted, and only then by looking at my prints of my pics using my workflow. Any assessment based on web shots, even after all of this, and especially of others' pics, is nuts.

The CCD versus CMOS issue is overblown in my view, as not all CCD and CMOS are created equally in the first place, let alone all the other camera internals and in-camera processing variables that must be taken into account. Plus, no two people will post-process and print their pics in the same way.

I bet if I showed a dozen prints to any audience, experienced or not, they would have no clue about the camera/lens used, except an occasional lucky guess. I've tried it. Jono also discussed elsewhere how he fooled his audience. There are just too many variables in the chain from camera to print.

As for comparing files that have not been subject to any PP, I couldn't care less.

Jeff
Jeff

No one is judging anything . My observation was that the M files were different and they are and will be in the future (and some photographers will prefer the M9 rendering ). Clearly acknowledged that it takes time for any new system to become fine tuned and that photographers like to control their own process. Those are pretty safe assumptions .

You make a number of pretty critical comments. I don t enjoy discussions much when others make really stupid comments and then attribute them to having been said by me . Did I say anyplace in my post that I was comparing jpegs ? Did I recommend comparing raw files without processing ? Did I hold myself up as an expert ? Thought I was pretty clear about finding it hard to describe .

As to being able to see the difference ..sometimes I can and with other examples I can t . I wrote Jono well before he released his work ..calling him out that he was using the new M on the photographs on Facebook . I also processed his DNG s in LR4 and did my best to match my preferred rendering of an M9 DNG .

Over the past 6 months I worked to convert the aesthetic of my D800E files using Leica R lenses to work well with my M8/M9/DMR/S2 files . So I have a little experience in color matching . The new M files look exactly as I expected and I am speaking of looking at a DNG . Now I have the advantage of seeing how Jono processed them in Aperture . I know what M9 files look like shot in Venice in clear sunlight (I have a few thousand of them to look at ). I was impressed that the DNG s provided by Jono appeared so finished ..even the embedded profiles yield nice renderings .

I am happy that you can wait until the new M has been out a while and Leica and Adobe have gone thru a few firmware /software releases . Then you can get a camera (really? Ok you can probably rent one ) and take your own photographs , fine tune your processes and make large prints ..then you will know . And perhaps there is no other way .

I am not on the fence in any way ..I will get a couple of new M s and get on with it .

Was hoping that by learning a little something about the aesthetic and perhaps how Leica is setting up the new M ..that I might gain insights going forward .

Roger
 

Hosermage

Active member
I have no idea what it is and I'm not sure it's Leica specific, but I can definitely feel it not being there sometimes when images are imported. I've shot NEX and OMD along side the M9 for a bit and even with Leica lenses, but I know that I would spend a lot less time on the M9 files to get them into a look that I like. Especially with the OMD, after the files the imported, I always think to myself: man, I wish these can start off like the M9 files.

I'm not technical at all with regards to photography, so to me it's kind of like asking me why certain songs are nice to listen to and some are not. Perhaps if we get totally scientific into it, we'll find that I like certain rhythm mixed with a particular harmony of sound waves patterns. But that's taking the romance out of listening to 80's Bon Jovi (what?! did I just say that?) :D

I certainly hope Leica knows what that it is, though, so they can continue to produce cameras that I will like in the future. Sorry for the rambling... I guess the short answer is: I know what I like when I see it, and I see it more often from the M9 than other digicams that I've used, so I'm sticking with it.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Well, I can't see the difference between the M9 and M files, except the M9 files are noisier. Certainly, when Jono was posting images from the M before we knew about that in the Fun with Leica M image thread, no one noticed.

I think we really have to establish the basic premise that there is a real difference.

BTW, I can see the difference in the MM files and so I am not a heathen.
 

edwardkaraa

New member
I agree with Roger that there is a difference between the M and M9 files, that sometimes it's not possible to tell and sometimes it's easy to spot, and that this difference is impossible to describe with words :)

This said, I am impressed by Jono's Venice album and it is what changed my attitude about the M. But deep in my heart I still feel the M images lack a certain "roundness" and "sparkle", but that could be because of the extended DR and could be recoverable in PP, though with extra work.
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
Sorry ..this post was not intended to create a pissing match about the differences between CCD and CMOS . I think even Jono would agree the aesthetics are different . I haven t found any M9 users that have said ..wow the M is so much better at base ISO than the M9 . Leica has known this from the beginning and to my eye have done a great job with the new M . The differences are certainly small ..the M will certainly have an aesthetic that is closer to the M9 than any other option (except the S2/S) .

What seems to be new information (at least to me ) is the role that the maestro processor
plays in creating the out of camera raw file . Yes this is a highly technical discussion but can provide insights in to tuning the new M files . There is no question that Nikon has used the in camera processors to map the dynamic range to favor higher ISO s at the expense of the mid tones . So the camera designer seems to be between a rock and a hard place .....favor high ISO to some extent or lose some of the pop at base ISO .

Ming Thein s test show this and now Puts is starting to write about how Leica set up the new M . It was my POV that better understanding the differences (as they stand today ) would be useful in fine tuning both your in camera protocol(ETTR?) and the raw conversion standards .
 

jonoslack

Active member
Sorry ..this post was not intended to create a pissing match about the differences between CCD and CMOS . I think even Jono would agree the aesthetics are different . I haven t found any M9 users that have said ..wow the M is so much better at base ISO than the M9 . Leica has known this from the beginning and to my eye have done a great job with the new M . The differences are certainly small ..the M will certainly have an aesthetic that is closer to the M9 than any other option (except the S2/S) .
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.
 

edwardkaraa

New member
Hi Jono, do you think you can post the M and M9 shots? Not really interested in the OMD (but maybe others would be) but it would be really great if you could show us the files.
 

Jeff S

New member
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.
Thanks for expanding on my reference to your experiment in my earlier comment to Roger. I perhaps didn't articulate it well, but it's this supposed difference between the cameras (what Roger partly described as 'pop') that is the 'judgment' that I contended he made, and that it is, as you say, not defensible, at least not now, and maybe never.

Jeff
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
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.
Jono

You could of course be correct ....we have all been fooled by comparisons . And depending on the light ,exposure and post processing you maybe be able to reduce the differences to the point they can t be identified . That is what I am trying to do . To create a consistent aesthetic .

Puts has not published his report yet but he talked about it on facebook . Because of the improvements in DR..Leica was able to change the set points for shadows and highlights . Look at the highlights as an example ....the set point on the M9 is at the limit (I believe it was 16883 /) and the new M is set at 15000... this provides greater room in the highlights for tone separation (good) but also reduces the brightness of the highlights out of the camera .

Doesn t mean that you cant achieve a similar look thru post processing ..but it explains the more linear (read that as flat ) look of the M files . Keep in mind that this may be a preferred set up of the file because it preserves the detail and does not restrict the photographer from adding contrast in post .

You are without a doubt skilled at creating a similar look . Are you saying that because you can closely match the aesthetic that the cameras produce similar DNG s .

Anyway the point of the thread was really to discuss how to get to a common aesthetic . I don t have the time or inclination to try to prove the files are different so this is my last post .
 

scott kirkpatrick

Well-known member
Jono, this should be too good to resist. Can you post the 6 pictures somewhere and invite everyone here to make fools of themselves as well?

scott
 

jonoslack

Active member
Jono, this should be too good to resist. Can you post the 6 pictures somewhere and invite everyone here to make fools of themselves as well?

scott
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
 

jonoslack

Active member
You are without a doubt skilled at creating a similar look . Are you saying that because you can closely match the aesthetic that the cameras produce similar DNG s .

Anyway the point of the thread was really to discuss how to get to a common aesthetic . I don t have the time or inclination to try to prove the files are different so this is my last post .
HI Roger
I wasn't trying to match the files - I only resized them and took out the exif - that was the whole point of the exercise.

Sorry if it was a little :OT: I understand what you're saying about a common aesthetic, but I simply don't see how you can define any such thing so that others will subscribe to it.

all the best
 

jonoslack

Active member
Hi Jono, do you think you can post the M and M9 shots? Not really interested in the OMD (but maybe others would be) but it would be really great if you could show us the files.
Hi Edward
I've actually deleted the files - but anyway, as I've pointed out to Scott, I'm not really happy doing comparisons on the internet - it always ends up in a punch up.

Maybe someone else wants to do it, there are plenty of people with both cameras now (and I don't have my final production camera yet anyway).

all the best
 

KeithL

Well-known member
The Leica aesthetic?

God forbid. I'm not looking for any camera to give me a look. Give me as much information as possible without the restrictions of a predetermined aesthetic that is difficult to correct. If I wanted that I'd go back to film.

I'd far rather have a flat but colour accurate raw with lots of detail than the look according to Leica, if it ever existed. I'll create the look.
 

edwardkaraa

New member
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.
 

jonoslack

Active member
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.
HI Edward
I still have some questions about the WB on the M - especially using presets like daylight - not complaints, just that I think there may be more that could usefully be done.

As you say, files are slightly different - but what I was saying is that presented with identical scenes, people can't tell one camera from another.

To me, what this means is that if the M floats your boat from an ergonomic/operational point of view, then you aren't actually going to lose anything noticeable WRT your M9.

all the best
 

edwardkaraa

New member
Jono, fully agreed. I don't think I could be able to tell the files apart in a blind test. The differences in color rendering are very slight and do not favour one over the other. Leica has done a good job in matching the output, even if different WB settings are required to reach the same look. FWIW, I used 5500/0 on the M file and 7500/15 on the M9 file, both with embedded profile.
 

Jeff S

New member
To me, what this means is that if the M floats your boat from an ergonomic/operational point of view, then you aren't actually going to lose anything noticeable WRT your M9.
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
 
Top