arthury Posted February 22, 2014 Share #1 Posted February 22, 2014 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) After looking through hundreds of M240 images on the web, I picked up a distinct characteristic which I did not see in images from other cameras (Nikon D800E, D4, SONY a7r). There's a distinct sparkle in the darker tones when shooting in lower light scene. What to use to see the difference? The most effective device to see the difference is to use a full size iPad (with Retina screen) or a large Apple monitor with Retina display and you will know what I am talking about. It is quite revealing. Just the M-lenses? I'm sure the M-lenses helped greatly in this area but I do not think it's just only the lenses because I have seen images shot with M-lenses using other non-Leica bodies and there's something missing. Missing AA Filter? Well, if a missing AA filter is the answer, then I should also see the D800E and the a7r do just as well. But, my eyes are not picking up the same sparkle. Something is still markedly missing especially in the D800E: they still look pretty "cooked". Just the micro-lenses on sensor What about the custom-adjustments of the micro-lenses on the sensor on the M240 sensor versus the others? Don't the rest do the same thing now? Nikon has been making their micro-lenses gapless. What about the firmware? Could the firmware be the making the difference? What about ACR4.4 and RAW-converters? Not sure if the RAW converters in LR5.3 was supplied by Leica to Adobe? I am guessing they did. Somewhere, that may be adding to the way the images are molded to give that Leica look. That RAW Converter is particularly well tuned for indoor night pics shot with WB-Auto. I have to tell you that I am quite impressed. Conclusions So, I am guessing it's not one single item that made the difference but every link along the chain of image creation that did it. The question is this: the Japanese are supremely apt in copying. Why are they sticking to their way of processing images? Is it a cultural influence that looks at colors & tones differently? In my opinion, there is an artistic look at tones and color rendering that played into making a digital camera, not just technical and engineering. Someone has to determine what the tone and color rendering should look like as a reference target. That target is different among the Japanese manufacturers. Something to think about. Edited February 22, 2014 by arthury typos Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 22, 2014 Posted February 22, 2014 Hi arthury, Take a look here Interesting finding: M240 images. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Dannybuoy Posted February 22, 2014 Share #2 Posted February 22, 2014 I can't work out if your 'sparkle' is a positive or negative thing... Different manufacturers target emulating certain films in their digital files so that would explain why there are different look and feels from various cameras. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthury Posted February 22, 2014 Author Share #3 Posted February 22, 2014 I can't work out if your 'sparkle' is a positive or negative thing... Different manufacturers target emulating certain films in their digital files so that would explain why there are different look and feels from various cameras. Positive. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted February 22, 2014 Share #4 Posted February 22, 2014 here's a distinct sparkle in the darker tones when shooting in lower light scene. The most effective device to see the difference is to use a full size iPad (with Retina screen) or a large Apple monitor with Retina display and you will know what I am talking about. It is quite revealing. Illustrations would help. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 22, 2014 Share #5 Posted February 22, 2014 I think that the notion "Japanese are supremely apt at copying" is out of date by a considerable number of decades... 11 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 22, 2014 Share #6 Posted February 22, 2014 Retina screens are not the best ones to judge photographs on by a fair margin. I think you may be seeing the large dynamic range of te M. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthury Posted February 22, 2014 Author Share #7 Posted February 22, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Retina screens are not the best ones to judge photographs on by a fair margin. I think you may be seeing the large dynamic range of te M. Thanks, what is your recommendations for the best viewing device? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted February 22, 2014 Share #8 Posted February 22, 2014 Thanks, what is your recommendations for the best viewing device? A 16x20 print. 16 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthury Posted February 22, 2014 Author Share #9 Posted February 22, 2014 A 16x20 print. That adds another link to the chain that requires, at least, these 3 to be good: Experience and excellence in editing the image for printing A good printer that can translate those high dynamic range on ink and paper A superior quality photo paper Needless to say, although it is a good way to view images, where can you easily find a large collection of M-240 images from many photographers (not just professional ones) with this kind of 16x20" prints? Additionally, I have to say that these days, more than 99% of my images are consumed on the web, including the ones I sell. And, I do see a difference on the Retina screens, if you have not tried it. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 22, 2014 Share #10 Posted February 22, 2014 (edited) I would say that a Nec Spectraview or Eizo GC screen is a wholly different experience from a retina display. Not surprising, those are monitors designed with photography in mind, Apple caters to graphics professionals ( and the top end of the general market For one thing, the Retina display only renders 99% of sRGB, whilst Eizo and NEC come close to Adobe RGB. Edited February 22, 2014 by jaapv Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterP Posted February 22, 2014 Share #11 Posted February 22, 2014 The question is this: the Japanese are supremely apt in copying. Why are they sticking to their way of processing images? Is it a cultural influence that looks at colors & tones differently? In my opinion, there is an artistic look at tones and color rendering that played into making a digital camera, not just technical and engineering. Someone has to determine what the tone and color rendering should look like as a reference target. That target is different among the Japanese manufacturers. Something to think about. This is absolute nonsense! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthury Posted February 22, 2014 Author Share #12 Posted February 22, 2014 (edited) This is absolute nonsense! If you would care to share with us your reasons, so we can all learn. Thanks! Edited February 22, 2014 by arthury Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted February 22, 2014 Share #13 Posted February 22, 2014 (edited) Peter is most definitely not a troll! Apart from Leica there are virtually no non-Japanese digital camera manufacturers (although non-Japanese Kodak was a major sensor manufacturer) so there aren't enough to make a valid comparison. One could hardly say that the Japanese cameras produce crap colour and yes, every camera will have what is determined the best 'look' as determined by the manufacturer. However, we now also have significant control over manipulating the colour of our digital images. Fuji film has a very different look to Kodak but there are also significant differences across all of the non-Japanese film producing companies. Computer, monitor, and printer and paper manufacturers also have significant differences between their presentation of colour. I can't comment on more recent developments in audio as I've not been into high end audio for some time, but for years Japanese high end audio sounded very different to European and US equipment, and this was put down to 'culturally' different perceptions of music/sound. Finally, I'd argue that the non-Japanese Apple displays are far from accurate with their high dynamic range and oversaturated colour representation for the punters (yes I do have a MacBook Pro) - it is impossible to accurately calibrate Apple monitors, or laptop or retina displays. The Japanese NEC or Ezio monitors can deliver much more accurate colour fidelity than any Apple screen. Edited February 22, 2014 by MarkP Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthury Posted February 22, 2014 Author Share #14 Posted February 22, 2014 Peter is most definitely not a troll! That would depend on what he says next but as of now, his post was not helpful even if we lay aside all the negative emotional response it tries to elicit. I can't comment on more recent developments in audio as I've not been into high end audio for some time, but for years Japanese high end audio sounded very different to European and US equipment, and this was put down to 'culturally' different perceptions of music/sound. I think it's the same deal with Japanese pianos versus European or Steinways. Finally, I'd argue that the non-Japanese Apple displays are far from accurate with their high dynamic range and oversaturated colour representation for the punters (yes I do have a MacBook Pro) - it is impossible to accurately calibrate Apple monitors, or laptop or retina displays. The Japanese NEC or Ezio monitors can deliver much more accurate colour fidelity than any Apple screen. Thanks, I have owned NEC monitors before. They are a class of itself. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hendriphile Posted February 23, 2014 Share #15 Posted February 23, 2014 With film Leicas it was "glow." So with digital Leicas is it now "sparkle"? 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted February 23, 2014 Share #16 Posted February 23, 2014 I was thinking of the differences between Japanese and European pianos but forgot to mention it in my post - I completely agree. The Japanese pianos typically have that bright or 'sparkly' tone. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted February 23, 2014 Share #17 Posted February 23, 2014 There's a distinct sparkle in the darker tones when shooting in lower light scene. Seems like a thread that would benefit from some photos (to see the difference). 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthury Posted February 23, 2014 Author Share #18 Posted February 23, 2014 Seems like a thread that would benefit from some photos (to see the difference). I do not have photos shot with each of these cameras to scientifically compare them side by side. All I did was to browse images in Flickr groups belonging to owners M240 vs a7r vs Nikon D800E. If you insist, I would try to post some links to them but, again, they were shot by other people at different and unrelated locations. So, of course, there is, certainly, a possibility that most M240 photographers are better at editing their images than owners of the other two. I'd not rule that out. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthury Posted February 23, 2014 Author Share #19 Posted February 23, 2014 Actually, I'm not sure if I am legally allowed to post individual image here that do not belong to me. So, here are the groups I looked at and you are free to browse them at your own convenience. I cannot tell a difference on a LCD monitor but I can tell the difference on my iPad. Leica M240 Group Flickr: The Leica M (Type 240) Pool Nikon D800E Group Flickr: The NIKON D800E Group Pool SONY A7r Group Flickr: The Sony Alpha A7R Pool 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted February 23, 2014 Share #20 Posted February 23, 2014 The question is this: the Japanese are supremely apt in copying. Why are they sticking to their way of processing images? Is it a cultural influence that looks at colors & tones differently? It may be at a personal level, after all Japanese photographers can be very much freer in their style than the average Westerner and like to 'deconstruct' the image in directions that pixels peepers in the West don't often follow. They have a great liking for single coated lenses and old simple cameras for instance, and while the Leica myth does exist in Japan their preferences are for cameras that allow more organic image making (m4/3 etc) without needing to resort to counting pixels. Their visual language is an evolving aspect their culture, not visual mores that simply get re-recycled with a higher pixel count each time a new camera is released. But the essence of what you say above is questionable. In the digital age 'Olympus colour' (or color if you like) has been the aspirational goal of many other Japanese manufacturers, or at least their Western customers. 'Why can't I get the same colours with my Nikon as I had with my Olympus?' is the cry after a pointless 'upgrade'. If only the Leica M9 had 'Olympus Colour' I'd have one still, if only the M240 had 'Olympus Colour' I'd have one of those as well. And with the colour it's not just that Olympus get it right, but they get it right even at the expense of perfect accuracy. The scene looks how it should look rather than how it does look. They tickle the receptors in the eye with colour the brain wants to see, in the right balance, nothing glaring (like Leica red). Now this is a cross cultural thing, and Olympus have long prided themselves in doing it, and it doesn't mean other manufacturers can't do it, but it depends on priority. On to your 'sparkle'. I'm not having a go at anybody, but compared with an awful lot of serious Nikon or Canon photographers, Leica users tend to hold the brand in awe. And I mean they dare not deviate from the path, lenses need to be demonstrated, bodies need to justify all their pixels. But some guy with a Canon is liable to do a multi shot blend with three minute exposures to copy some other guy's wave crashing on the shore picture and believe it or not the lens and body are not the highest priority. This a sacrilege for a 35mm 'Lux, the money spent on it isn't being justified, you can't mess around with the picture! Which gets me to my point, the majority of Leica pictures I would say tend to simply hit 'Auto' in ACR, and lo and behold the shadows take a hike upwards and the highlights take a hike downwards and you have your sparkly shadows. It's just doing the minimum, it's trying not to mess up $10000 of 'investment' by having their own opinion about how the photo should look. So that's it, generally speaking sparkle comes from a lack of vision, wanting everything to be even, open shadows that demonstrate the lens and body are worth it, and no jeopardy in having somebody say they don't like a personal interpretation of a scene, neutral, void, even laziness describes it. It's an old cliché now, but the question 'how can I make it look more like film?' has more merit than it sounds. It is at least a jumping off point to a personal view, rebelling against stock JEPG's or Auto ACR and lifted shadows with detail you wouldn't have seen in real life. Sparkle is an irritating modern disease when used indiscriminately, wonderful when used intelligently, but it's not looking good generally for Leica health care when it's mostly down to awe and fear. Steve 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.