AbbeyFoto Posted January 17, 2011 Share #1 Posted January 17, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Just received my copy of the latest issue of BJP in which Jonathan Eastland has been busy. One article discusses the M9 and the new 35mm Summilux 1.4. While Jonathan says the Leica "is still my first camera of choice" he is critical of the M9's JPEG output and is not happy to be told to use RAW. At the same time he speaks well of the new 35mm 1.4 Summilux suggesting that, despite its price, for reporters it may be a perfect match for the M9. I can also note he has a positive piece on the Voigtlander 90/3.5 Apo-Lanthar SL II Close Focus for DSLRs and, oh yes, a piece on the new Kodak Portra 400. Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 17, 2011 Posted January 17, 2011 Hi AbbeyFoto, Take a look here Jonathan Eastland in BJP on M9 and new 35mm . I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
ShotCapture Posted January 17, 2011 Share #2 Posted January 17, 2011 Unless you are shooting snapshots with no intention to enlarge or concern yourself with correcting, I don't understand why anyone using a Leica or other highly capable camera would shoot anything but RAW. Even then one finds the odd photo that stands out and begs to be enlarged and tweeked in RAW. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted January 18, 2011 Share #3 Posted January 18, 2011 Interesting, Chris. I don't have an M9, but I remember when it came out, a number of folks on the forum commented that its JPGs were finally usable, a great improvement of the M8's. Is the review online? I'm curious what he's comparing it to, and where it falls down. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted January 18, 2011 Share #4 Posted January 18, 2011 Producing decent JPEGs is a matter of processing power and I don't expect we will see best quality JPEGs from the Leica Digital M until the Maestro chip set is used and Leica's software has moved on to make best use of it. A camera of the M9's elevated price level should be able to produce the best JPEGs of any comparably priced camera and, right now, it doesn't I'm one of those who would much prefer to be out taking pictures than sitting behind a PC processing images. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted January 18, 2011 Share #5 Posted January 18, 2011 Your first sentence is on the money, Mark! Thanks. Your second one is opinion. Maybe for the price I'm more interested in another feature other than JPGs. "For the price, I expect..." is seldom a valid argument. Just my two bits. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohnri Posted January 18, 2011 Share #6 Posted January 18, 2011 I love M9 files but, now that I have sold my M8, it is my only remaining camera in which I shoot RAW only. Best, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pelagia Posted January 18, 2011 Share #7 Posted January 18, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'm one of those who would much prefer to be out taking pictures than sitting behind a PC processing images. I don't agree. For me, being the film era person, the complaint sounds like "M9 should produce polaroids, I don't wish to sit in a darkroom". I always shoot RAW (in fact, RAW+smallest JPG, due to my archiving workflow) Stay focused! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted January 18, 2011 Share #8 Posted January 18, 2011 Unless you are shooting snapshots with no intention to enlarge or concern yourself with correcting, I don't understand why anyone using a Leica or other highly capable camera would shoot anything but RAW. A Leica M is a snapshot camera. That's why I use it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shade Posted January 18, 2011 Share #9 Posted January 18, 2011 Well shooting jpegs are great, but I always find that my pictures needed to be tuned to my liking anyway. Shooting jpegs or Raw would still need extra post processing. Until today, I can see no camera opting a "filter" I like.. So rather than processing jpegs, I'd rather process the raw files instead. Easier to fix noise and wb if necessary too. However, I do understand the point that m9 being a very expensive camera, should have more power to the punch. I agree to that, but it doesn't bother me. The only thing I wish I can change on a Leica? Is a larger/clearer focus patch haha.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
moikle Posted January 18, 2011 Share #10 Posted January 18, 2011 Producing decent JPEGs is a matter of processing power and I don't expect we will see best quality JPEGs from the Leica Digital M until the Maestro chip set is used and Leica's software has moved on to make best use of it. A camera of the M9's elevated price level should be able to produce the best JPEGs of any comparably priced camera and, right now, it doesn't I'm one of those who would much prefer to be out taking pictures than sitting behind a PC processing images. Mark, What do you know? Ken Rockwell has it all sorted. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/161096-m9-dng-color-problem-irresolvable.html Mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coup de foudre Posted January 18, 2011 Share #11 Posted January 18, 2011 i think the M9 JPEGs are definitely an improvement over the M8. my workflow remains the same with both cameras -- i shoot both RAW and JPEG. RAW to work the images i really want; JPEGs for when i need to send quick snaps to friends or family. i'm really quite pleased with M9 JPEGs, to be honest. however, if i was a photo journalist that needed to shoot and post almost instantaneously, i would find them lacking so i totally understand... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted January 18, 2011 Share #12 Posted January 18, 2011 I do find the RAW and JPEG debate quite interesting, nay amusing. Rewind, oh, let's say 20 years. Substitute "slide" for RAW and "print" for JPEG and we find many of the same arguments back and forth - "better quality", "more to work with", "closer to the original" and so on. Above all we find that "serious" photographers use RAW and anyone who dares to use JPEG is taking "snapshots". Worse, the RAW shooter acquires a certain patina of hair-shirt nobility that, in the film world, was the domain of the home processor. None of that in-camera/in-shop processing for them! How amateur! How ignoble! This form of polarised snobbery ignores a couple of important factors, already alluded to above. 1) Not everyone gets their kicks tweaking sliders while staring myopically at 100% crops on a colour-corrected screen while their lonely wife contemplates divorce in the other room. 2) Not everyone has the time to "process" their "digital negatives", either for professional reasons, with deadlines to meet, or because they do actually have a life. I for one would love to see the M10 produce straight-out-of-camera JPGS that are entirely usable. The D-Lux 4 comes close; there is frankly little point in shooting RAW with it because it is hard to gild the lily any further. My short acquaintance with the E-P1 also proved that such things are possible in small packages, or should I say small sensors... I entirely understand and agree with Mark who makes the point that it is a function of onboard processing power, but I am with Jonathan Eastland; I don't think it would be a corruption of the Leica ethos to give the photographer a tool that produces the goods without having to mangle each file through a computer after the event. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted January 18, 2011 Share #13 Posted January 18, 2011 i have never shot jpeg with the m9, certainly enjoy the jpeg and raw using my d-lux 4. i really find the raw product complete enough in c1 that i simple process to a jpeg and email to whomever. accepting what you are saying about the m9 jpeg is true, is this issue something a software upgrade can resolve ( i presume there is more processing power in the m9 than in the dlux 4 or 5)? steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gvanwesep Posted January 18, 2011 Share #14 Posted January 18, 2011 The "shoot raw" vs. "shoot jpeg" discussion seems to me to be without real content. It's a question of whether one wishes to have access to the raw capture, and of whether one wishes to convert to jpeg in camera or in computer. Using software like LR3 there is no real difference in workflow, just in possibilities. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackal Posted January 18, 2011 Share #15 Posted January 18, 2011 Images straight out of a digital camera generally look rubbish. They look digital, nasty. Apart from anything else the gamma curve is completely flat and linear. Don't even get me onto mixing exposures and properly grading images as is de rigeur on any professional job these days. The darkroom, the printing, the original choice of film stock... all these aspects now reside in the computer stage of the workflow. The bit that the camera does is not all of it, a digital camera cannot do the whole process alone. If you choose to ignore this then you entirely fail to grasp the nature of digital photography. Shooting jpegs is a joke and if that's your intent then just get a casio P&S and save yourself a shedload of cash. I personally couldn't care a less if the M9 shoots jpeg or not. I don't know who Jonathan Eastland is but it sounds like he shouldn't be let near a camera, let alone review one. I'd love to see any one of my client's faces if I told them one day that I only shot jpeg. Absolutely preposterous. Clearly Mr. Eastland isn't living in the real world. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coup de foudre Posted January 18, 2011 Share #16 Posted January 18, 2011 I don't know who Jonathan Eastland is but it sounds like he shouldn't be let near a camera, let alone review one. I'd love to see any one of my client's faces if I told them one day that I only shot jpeg. Absolutely preposterous. Clearly Mr. Eastland isn't living in the real world. if shooting for a news agency, most (if not all) use JPEGs and need the images downloaded quickly, sometimes even in the field. they don't have the luxury of time though obviously take pride in what they shoot and want their work to be as good as possible. i am not familiar with M. Eastland either, but i imagine he is speaking from his experience and needs as i stated above... the fact that the 35 Lux was mentioned as being perfect for reporters kind of gives you a clue. this isn't a RAW vs. JPEG thread here. it's about a tool not delivering the goods for certain people's needs. (your trashing a man you know nothing about doesn't make you look all that professional either.) ah, a quick google found his bio on RFF: Jonathan Eastland author of Leica-M Compendium Jonathan Eastland is the well known and respected author of the Leica-M Compendium, as well as other Leica books and general how-to books on photography. Jonathan is a UK based photojournalist specializing for the past four decades in maritime affairs, travel, social issues and street photography. His work has won several prestigious awards, including the Steuben crystal Kodachrome Cup. Currently, he is a regular contributor to The British Journal of Photography magazine and runs Ajax News & Feature Service, the news and info blog site at AjaxNetPhoto.com Photography news and information . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintotto Posted January 18, 2011 Share #17 Posted January 18, 2011 i've never understood how some pro's (or serious amateurs) doesn't shoot RAW! Why bother with a M9 or D3X etc if you're going to let the sensor throw away information. I get the use of JPEG's for sports or newspaper work. i really do. but for everything else, where maximun quality is the no.1 concern how could you possibly not shoot RAW??? The difference between even a really good JPEG and a RAW file to me is huge! but that's just my personal opinion! http://www.ottoschulzephotographers.com Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackal Posted January 18, 2011 Share #18 Posted January 18, 2011 if shooting for a news agency, most (if not all) use JPEGs and need the images downloaded quickly, sometimes even in the field. they don't have the luxury of time though obviously take pride in what they shoot and want their work to be as good as possible. i am not familiar with M. Eastland either, but i imagine he is speaking from his experience and needs as i stated above... the fact that the 35 Lux was mentioned as being perfect for reporters kind of gives you a clue. this isn't a RAW vs. JPEG thread here. it's about a tool not delivering the goods for certain people's needs. (your trashing a man you know nothing about doesn't make you look all that professional either.) ah, a quick google found his bio on RFF: Again, the idea of shooting for a news agency (jpeg or otherwise) with a bag full of leica lenses and bodies worth in excess of £20,000 is also preposterous. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coup de foudre Posted January 18, 2011 Share #19 Posted January 18, 2011 Again, the idea of shooting for a news agency (jpeg or otherwise) with a bag full of leica lenses and bodies worth in excess of £20,000 is also preposterous. i will recuse myself from this thread before i get really rude. but first i must say, your elitist attitude is laughable. is it because it's about Leica? i personally don't know anybody that is shooting Leica for a news agency (other than if they happen to pass upon a scene in their leisure, in which case they shoot with whatever they have --Leica, cell phone, whatnot). but i have seen photojournalists go out in full body protection to cover riots in Paris with top of the line Canons or Nikons with an array of lenses. i don't know the cost, but it wasn't cheap. regardless of what gear they have or how much it costs, they have full insurance. if something gets lost or broken or stolen or mucked up with tear gas, it gets replaced. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackal Posted January 19, 2011 Share #20 Posted January 19, 2011 i personally don't know anybody that is shooting Leica for a news agency exactly Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.