DLDMT Leica M question

[gogopix]

and it means
"don't leap down my throat!"

I see a difference between the bulk of M9 and M images; just that simple. I'm not going to speculate why. (well, maybe-more telling of an experiment with processing)

The M9 just seems to present more punch and depth...

so, WHY?

Reid reviews did something pretty amazing; by downrezing the M to M9 size it changed color, depth etc, so that the M looked more M9-like, but better as there was more detail and some better shadows. Not sure I want to sign up to downrezing, but I will if the 'objects in view are more separated" look can be achieved

I did some playing with DNG and jpg M images and added a bit of clarity and vibrance, maybe a TAD contrast...and wow, that too made the M more M9ish

Are we actually looking at CMOS/CCD differences (as a physicist I actually thought about how in readout there may be some 'crosstalk' in the CMOS that would kill a little of the edge sharpness and the feeling that an object really was separate from the background.

There's been surprising little speculation here on a very important subject to me; get the M or the ME :facesmack:

I LIKE that punch and 3d and depth, and yet I REALLY want the live view focus peaking etc of the M

But I don't want to lose what I see in almost every M9 image; a kind of depth and separation of object that, so far, the M just cant seem to get (except with processing)

Is the FW in the M9 more contrasty by default? is it color space, or, is there really something fundamental going on that will make CCDs and CMOS different

regards
Victor'

 

[segedi]

If I can sum up my feelings in a line, the M9 is Leica's Velvia(or maybe Ektar) and the new M its Portra.

If you like all of the features of the new M, it might be as easy as creating an "M9 action" that you can batch process things through. Or try printing. I find that many of my digital prints compress the dynamic range a bit. More M9 like.

I think there are differences in the out of camera files, I do think you can remedy that a bit by adjusting the settings in the new M.

For me, I didn't have an M9, so the choice was between used M9 or new ME with full knowledge of their weaknesses. Or new M with it's advantages. I chose the new M. The write times, shutter, frame lines, battery.... All better for me.

But have a read here and be sure to read the comments as well:
Leica M240: More thoughts. | P r o s o p h o s

I had a very similar discussion with a friend that has an M9 and isn't upgrading.

 

[robertwright]

My canon files look punchier and more separated in C1 than in Lr.

My old Canon 10D files look really punchy and edgy compared to my 5DmkII files.

Higher res normally does mean lower contrast by definition.

 

[gogopix]

Kevin,

Thank you for the reference. Lots of comments too, all point to a less 'leica' look, but then it could be 'self definition of the in group'

Leica proponents (I like "Leica Pros" vs "Leica Fanboys" as a sobriquet. The latter being popular pejorative here on the forum.) seem to miss the difference from Canons and Nikons, but then, many great images are made by those cameras.

Robert,

I have seen what some processing can do, and remain on the fence (but to be straight, now facing the Leica ME )

regards
Victor

 

[Paratom]

My canon files look punchier and more separated in C1 than in Lr.

My old Canon 10D files look really punchy and edgy compared to my 5DmkII files.

Higher res normally does mean lower contrast by definition.

Why?
The S2/S for example has more resolution but does not look less punchy to me.

 

[Paratom]

and it means
"don't leap down my throat!"

I see a difference between the bulk of M9 and M images; just that simple. I'm not going to speculate why. (well, maybe-more telling of an experiment with processing)

The M9 just seems to present more punch and depth...

so, WHY?

.....

I ask myself the same question and I am still undecided . I would like the speed, high ISO, weather proof and silent shutter of the new M (not interested in EVF though), but I admit I also miss the punch in most "M"240 images I have seen in the net.
I wonder if the standard processing in the M is just a little more "neutral" or if it is a sensor thing.

 

[Shashin]

Well, I am not really seeing a difference in anything posted. But I am not looking hard either.

So, what could be the difference? I think it is a valid question. The photosites are just photon counters, whether on a CCD or CMOS. There could be s difference in the Bayer filters if the color in the M is letting in more light. That could lower color contrast.

A higher rez sensor would have lower contrast, but that should be a 100% view thing. Naturally, if you are viewing at 100%, you are biasing the result in favor of the M9. A better test would be two prints of the same size.

DR could certainly give a perception of greater contrast as the image processed to a particular black and white point would appear to have greater contrast is it had less DR. Especially if you are hiding noise in the shadows. But you then just do the same with the M--but you may find the extra DR is changing your images and giving you better data to do something better.

Then there is what happens after the data comes off the sensor. There could be an impact there with the camera profiles.

Then there is a psychological bias. You hear a thing often enough and you learn a few cues, you can simply fool yourself into believing something. The more you do it, the easier you "see" it. The moon illusion is a classic effect. But it certainly happens in photography with gear.

 

[D&A]

I recall the days when I was using the Fuji S3 and S5 DSLR's with their unique sensors and shaped pixels that resulted in extremely expanded dynamic range (DR), compared the the NIkon and Canon DSLR's available at that time. Needles to say out of camera RAW files were extremely flat looking and it took a good amount of post processing to bring some life back to the files. By doing so, some DR advanatge was lost but it still benefited from its unique sensor. Still when all was said and done, I felt these Fuji DSLR's had their advantages with some types of images and lighting senarios and at other times lacked something that the other brand of DSLR's had at the time.

I feel that the M240 due to its increase of DR over the M9 also exhibits this somewhat flatter look and as a result less punch. What is compounding this is the color bias of the camera is "warm" ( seems almost done intentially to partially overcome this flatter look)' and when these two factors are quite evident in a file, it has not always been the most attractive look. I too have often seen the some advantage to M9 files vs. the M240, but also feel that as time goes on, new profiles and firmware may address some of these concerns. Time will tell.

Dave (D&A)

 

[Jeff S]

Nobody seems to mind that the Monochrom files appear 'flat' out of the camera according to many folks; rather they view that as a significant advantage given the 'malleability' of the files (flexible edits) to create various desired looks without adverse effects.

Glass half full or half empty?

The CCD versus CMOS argument is a bucket of worms. Not every CCD or CMOS sensor is created equally, and a lot more goes on inside any given camera than the mere sensor type to determine camera output.

The only real test for me is making my own prints, of my own images. Web results? From others? Who cares?

Jeff

 

[Vivek]

and a lot more goes on inside any given camera than the mere sensor type to determine camera output.

The only real test for me is making my own prints, of my own images. Web results? From others? Who cares?

Jeff

I agree with that a lot more goes on inside part. If the question is about choosing to buy the M or the ME then the real test part becomes irrelevant.

I do not think the MM can be compared with the M for many reasons.

I am curious about the AA less CMOS sensor. Leica should address that point, Ithink. Has anyone seen moire with the M like its was seen in M8/9?

I suspect that one of the factors alluded to by Victor about the CMOS pixel cross talk could be in play along with a massaged RAW file to take care of moire.

 

[D&A]

Nobody seems to mind that the Monochrom files appear 'flat' out of the camera according to many folks; rather they view that as a significant advantage given the 'malleability' of the files (flexible edits) to create various desired looks without adverse effects.

Glass half full or half empty?

The CCD versus CMOS argument is a bucket of worms. Not every CCD or CMOS sensor is created equally, and a lot more goes on inside any given camera than the mere sensor type to determine camera output.

The only real test for me is making my own prints, of my own images. Web results? From others? Who cares?

Jeff

Jeff, I would agree with a lot of what you expressed with the exception of one example you cited (more on that in a moment). I would though especially agree onevaluating the final image file in print form. This is generally how I make my assessments, including the comparisons I've made in very similar files fom the M240 vs. M9 and my comments and observations statedin my previous post still were evident in prints.

The one area I would respectfully and partially disagree with is the value of "flat" raw files from the monochrom vs. the M240. The former are B&W files whereby the flat tonality leaves a wide range of possible adjustment, especially to the extremes of the histogram. The M240 color files are a different story and although at times a wider DR files is advantageous, it also can be problematic at time. We're not just dealing with tonal gray scale gradations that at times are simply subjective with the monochrom, but also color hues and contrast that has a marketedly different impact to the look and accuracy of of the final product. That's why the acceptance of flat files with one camera may not be quite the equivalent of flat files with the other (camera).

Dave (D&A)

 

[Jeff S]

The one area I would respectfully and partially disagree with is the value of "flat" raw files from the monochrom vs. the M240. The former are B&W files whereby the flat tonality leaves a wide range of possible adjustment, especially to the extremes of the histogram. The M240 color files are a different story and although at times a wider DR files is advantageous, it also can be problematic at time. We're not just dealing with tonal gray scale gradations that at times are simply subjective with the monochrom, but also color hues and contrast that has a marketedly different impact to the look and accuracy of of the final product. That's why the acceptance of flat files with one camera may not be quite the equivalent of flat files with the other (camera).

For the sake of brevity, I wasn't trying to draw an exact analogy, nor referring specifically to DR. I was trying instead to speak conceptually about the flexibility, in whatever regard, to adjust the out-of-camera files to the extent desired. Colors from the M, for example, are an obvious characteristic; one wants 'accurate' colors, or at least ones that can easily be adjusted in post (especially skin tones) without adversely affecting other colors. Similarly there may be other differences that may affect one's impression of the out-of-camera files, e.g., vibrance, clarity, exposure differences, etc., that may be 'brought to life' in post as desired.

Anyway, my basic point is that the out-of-camera output is only the beginning of the IQ assessment, and the flexibility and ease to achieve the final desired look is what counts, be it the MM, the M or any other camera. At least that's how I look at it. YMMV.

Jeff

 

[gogopix]

Thank you all for thoughtful comments ( and NOT jumping down my throat )

The resolution and comment about the 100% view seems consistent with Reid's comparison of downrezed M files to M9, where it is clear the contrast increases visibly, even at web sizes.

I have played with a few of the M DNG files and I can see ways of getting more punch. What I wonder is why, with the M8 to M9 12 to 18 MP change, we didn't see similar differences. But then the M8 had some issues...

It will be a coin toss for me, as I will likely rebuild along newer M lenses and will likely want 2 cameras anyway (down from 6! )

But at 70 YOA, the compact M format is a real draw, as are the lenses.

Now, the 'put on the spot' question.....TA DAHHHH....

" who of you who sold your M9 for the M regret it!"

you can PM me with your answer, if you want to avoid reprocussions! :ROTFL:

regards
Victor

 

[Jeff S]

I have played with a few of the M DNG files and I can see ways of getting more punch. What I wonder is why, with the M8 to M9 12 to 18 MP change, we didn't see similar differences. But then the M8 had some issues...

Not in the way you mean it, but the M8 does deliver more 'punch' compared to the M9 for out-of-camera b/w output, but that probably results from the weaker internal filtration of the M9 compared to the stronger external UV/IR filtration on the M8.

I still prefer my M8.2 over the M9 for various reasons (after making print tests of course), and will do likewise with the M at some point. Theory is great; testing (on your own work, using your own methods) is key.

Jeff

 

[robertwright]

Why?
The S2/S for example has more resolution but does not look less punchy to me.

I was thinking of how hi resolution films had low contrast. High contrast enhances the difference between lines of resolution but obscures finer and finer gradations of those lines. Hence lower contrast had more lines.

On a sensor it is not the same exactly since the res is finite regardless of contrast so my comparison doesn't really apply I guess.

In appearance for example, platinum prints had low contrast but could express more tones than higher contrast processes. So we might like "punch" if that is what we are talking but it is at a cost.

 

[robertwright]

Flat bw files is one thing, Flat colour files is another.

It is very hard from a perceptual standpoint to deal with colour that is out of our ordinary perception. I think we forget how colour films were engineered to render "lifelike" colours- memory colours. And to render on an S-curve which mimics our perception of tones.

Once you start fooling with colour wrt contrast its a can of worms. When Lr switched its processing versions and canned the traditional exposure, brightness, contrast controls they also went to a default linear tone curve. And my processing time went up exponentially!- Starting with a linear profile (5DMII) just made them look like crap. I made the old S curve the default.

So much of what I see is highly overcooked colour and contrast- nothing that you could ever approach with films. Velvia apart- at least with Velvia there was no shadow HDR added- it was crushed. Now we can just "velveeta" over all areas of the image from shadow to highlight and it looks like nothing I have ever seen in nature and certainly not on film. All subtlety is lost. I think we forget how much engineering went in to film and its reality "look"- it was a very very good compromise. And its always a compromise.

What does this have to do with the M? Leica has often been colour challenged in my opinion- the M8 was all over the map. The 9 I never had. From what I've seen so far of the M it might have skintone issues wrt IR. Its all about the profile, if there is a good one from adobe or phase then all is good. Otherwise it wandering in the wilderness.

 

[Shashin]

Film has an S-curve, not because it was designed that way, but because of the process. (Our perception is not like the film S-curve.) Most of the time, you were not hitting the top of that curve, especially if you were shooting neg film. Every color process, chemical or digital, has color "engineered"--color is not real and photographic processes do not naturally imitate human perception.

As far as over saturation in digital, that is simply bad processing and folks not having a good eye for color. It is easy to boost contrast in color and not have unnatural saturation. As far as the M, I have seen good color produced from it. The bad color come from "human error."

 

[D&A]

but the M8 does deliver more 'punch' compared to the M9 for out-of-camera b/w output, but that probably results from the weaker internal filtration of the M9 compared to the stronger external UV/IR filtration on the M8.


Jeff

Jeff, might you have by mistake written your sentence above, backwards (possible typo?). It's the M8 that had the weaker filtration of contaminating IR that gives it an advantage in B&W, not stronger filtration. It's the M9 that has the stronger filtration (not weaker as your sentence suggested).

Dave (D&A)

 

[D&A]

Flat bw files is one thing, Flat colour files is another.

Exactly! You said in a single line what took me an entire post (above) to say.
Dave (D&A)

 

[Paratom]

One of the reasons why I like the M8/9 and also the S is that I like the raw files converted in LR without having to do much pp. A little exposure or WB, sometimes a little shadow boost, that's it.
I hope the new M and/or the profiles get to the same point soon.

Maybe we will see the same what Nikon did for the D3/d700: a D2x-profile

So maybe a "M8/9" profile for the new M