Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 37 of 37

Thread: The Leica aesthetic ?

  1. #1
    Workshop Member glenerrolrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter FL/Atlanta GA
    Posts
    2,279
    Post Thanks / Like

    The Leica aesthetic ?

    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 .

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    103
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Leica aesthetic ?

    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
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  3. #3
    Workshop Member glenerrolrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter FL/Atlanta GA
    Posts
    2,279
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Leica aesthetic ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff S View Post
    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
    Roger Dunham
    http://rogerdunham.com/
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  4. #4
    Senior Member Hosermage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA, USA
    Posts
    1,034
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: The Leica aesthetic ?

    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?)

    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.
    David Young
    My journey into Leica: LeicaLux.com

  5. #5
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,502
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: The Leica aesthetic ?

    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.

  6. #6
    Senior Member edwardkaraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Leica aesthetic ?

    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.
    M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2

  7. #7
    Workshop Member glenerrolrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter FL/Atlanta GA
    Posts
    2,279
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Leica aesthetic ?

    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 .

  8. #8
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: The Leica aesthetic ?

    Quote Originally Posted by glenerrolrd View Post
    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!!!!!

    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.

    Just this guy you know
    Likes 12 Member(s) liked this post

  9. #9
    Senior Member edwardkaraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Leica aesthetic ?

    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.
    M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    103
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Leica aesthetic ?

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    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

  11. #11
    Workshop Member glenerrolrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter FL/Atlanta GA
    Posts
    2,279
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Leica aesthetic ?

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    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!!!!!

    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 .

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Jerusalem, Israel
    Posts
    1,282
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Leica aesthetic ?

    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

  13. #13
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: The Leica aesthetic ?

    Quote Originally Posted by scott kirkpatrick View Post
    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

    Just this guy you know
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  14. #14
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: The Leica aesthetic ?

    Quote Originally Posted by glenerrolrd View 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 .
    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 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

    Just this guy you know
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  15. #15
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: The Leica aesthetic ?

    Quote Originally Posted by edwardkaraa View Post
    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

    Just this guy you know
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  16. #16
    Senior Member KeithL's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    832
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Leica aesthetic ?

    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.
    http://www.keithlaban.co.uk
    Likes 4 Member(s) liked this post

  17. #17
    Senior Member edwardkaraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Leica aesthetic ?

    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.
    M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2

  18. #18
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: The Leica aesthetic ?

    Quote Originally Posted by edwardkaraa View Post
    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

    Just this guy you know

  19. #19
    Senior Member edwardkaraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Leica aesthetic ?

    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.
    M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    103
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Leica aesthetic ?

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    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

  21. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    889
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Leica aesthetic ?

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    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!!!!!

    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!
    ___________________
    Po-Ming Chu
    POPHOTO
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  22. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Varese Italy
    Posts
    226
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: The Leica aesthetic ?

    Quote Originally Posted by edwardkaraa View Post
    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

  23. #23
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    ashwinrao1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Seattle, WA - USA
    Posts
    3,276
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Leica aesthetic ?

    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...
    Ashwin Rao
    Seattle, WA
    My Photography

  24. #24
    Senior Member Amin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Boston, MA (USA)
    Posts
    1,809
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Leica aesthetic ?

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    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 .
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  25. #25
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    74
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Leica aesthetic ?

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    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.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  26. #26
    Senior Member edwardkaraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Leica aesthetic ?

    Quote Originally Posted by sergio lovisolo View Post
    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.
    M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2

  27. #27
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: The Leica aesthetic ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff S View Post
    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

    Just this guy you know
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  28. #28
    Senior Member JoelM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    San Diego, CA USA
    Posts
    264
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Leica aesthetic ?

    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
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  29. #29
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    51
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Leica aesthetic ?

    Quote Originally Posted by JoelM View Post
    '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.

  30. #30
    Senior Member bradhusick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Seattle, WA USA
    Posts
    2,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    53

    Re: The Leica aesthetic ?

    Steve Huff just posted a really good review on his site. Check it out.
    Brad Husick
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  31. #31
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: The Leica aesthetic ?

    Quote Originally Posted by JoelM View Post
    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.

  32. #32
    Senior Member Peter Klein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    375
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Leica aesthetic ?

    Quote Originally Posted by ashwinrao1 View Post
    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

  33. #33
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,502
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: The Leica aesthetic ?

    Quote Originally Posted by ashwinrao1 View Post
    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.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  34. #34
    Senior Member JoelM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    San Diego, CA USA
    Posts
    264
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Leica aesthetic ?

    Quote Originally Posted by douglasf13 View Post
    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
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  35. #35
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: The Leica aesthetic ?

    Quote Originally Posted by JoelM View Post
    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.

  36. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Leica aesthetic ?

    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.

  37. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Leica aesthetic ?

    Quote Originally Posted by douglasf13 View Post
    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

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •