Jump to content

Jon Warwick

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jon Warwick

  1. Yes I think the colours between the two look highly similar indeed. Separately I also think the colours from the DNGs in the Raw thread that you kindly posted are magnificent, it’s one thing (beyond the less sharpened naturalness of the output and not looking overtly “digital”) that is standing out to to me about the M11, especially the greens that look so natural and with so many tonal gradients within a given colour that sculptures a depth to the image; the greens are also without that excessive yellow that seems to be endemic in other digital files I’ve used over the years.
  2. ....thanks for the new comparison, [AND THANKS FOR THE UPDATED LINKS! ]......my feel is both outputs look very similar indeed. The jpeg ending 565 seems to have slightly fewer digital artefacts, and might look at bit more "relaxed" in its output ...so I'm guessing that is the IQ4? That aside, I have never tried Enhance in PS, so just had a practice on one of my own images. My initial observation is it looks like a lot of extra sharpening is possibly applied as part of the process, so it might not be quite to my taste, but it's early days of me trying it. I have to say, for the completely static "studio" image that you have taken above, this is perhaps where multi-shot mode ("pixel shift") would be absolutely ideal ....so something like the SL2 / S1R / GFX100S would probably all work really well here. I think of multi-shot mode as correcting the digital problems that can crop up with Bayer filters (like false color, moire) and this gives the appearance of higher resolution and also less noise. As such, I regard multi-shot modes as giving very similar benefits to what we enjoy with Monochrom sensors including more fine detail despite the underlying sensor (in terms of megapixels) naturally having identical resolution in both "normal" and "pixel shift" mode.
  3. Many thanks again for sharing these DNGs. You’ve made a phenomenal effort here, and I’m very appreciative for your work as I’m sure many others probably are. So you ask about observations? Well …. (1) my maximum print size is 60”, and that’s partly why I used 5x4 film and a GFX100S. So I was curious to play with these DNGs at that same output size. What I see has surprised me …..in many ways the files remind me a LOT of the resolution of 100mp off the GFX100S. Clearly no apples-to-apples comparison is possible here, but my gut feel on screen of similar subjects (like the grass in posts #26, 30 and 31) is that the M11 isn’t really missing anything obvious of the fine detail I enjoy from the 100mp camera. IMHO maybe the exceptionally good Leica lenses are picking up some of the slack here in capturing equivalent fine detail, even though it’s “just” 60mp? (2) I’ve previously disliked some of the lenses such as the 35mm Summilux on prior cameras, thinking at the time they were a bit edgily sharp and “digital”. Whereas the output I see here has really none of that. I simply see smoother rendering of these lenses. I have to say, the rendering of your 90mm in #20 also looks wonderful ….at 60” on screen, it looks a so smooth in the transitions and the output to me feels really 5x4’esque there. (3) I find the GFX100S and even my SL2 + SL 50 APO are bordering on the “too sharpened” even when sharpening is set to zero in ACR. It’s perhaps very high acuity I see with those cameras, with high contrast of the lenses creating a “sharper than film would ever be” rendering by default and it’s not a look I like because it makes the output more obviously digital to my eyes. If it’s already too sharp with sharpening at zero, it’s difficult to tame. So perhaps my biggest observation with the M11 is DNGs have a starting point that isn’t “excessively and digitally sharp” (for my taste) ….which makes getting a gentler and more cinematic rendering from the M11 a whole lot easier than I’ve ever found on the GFX or SL2. If I get an M11, it would probably be for that one observation more than anything.
  4. Another one from the mountains ....here, Mont Blanc from Le Brevent. M240 + M 50 APO again.
  5. Yes, it was just clumsy composition I think. It would have been possible to have made it better at the time of capture
  6. I should have shunted the composition slightly to the right, so frankly i think it's an image that is not fully satisfying (I will have to retake it one day!), but I think it's pretty nonetheless. Taken from top of Aiguille du Midi in Chamonix, so just under 4,000 meters above sea level. M240 + M 50 APO. I printed it to 20" wide. I have a similar image that I took via drum-scanned Provia 100 on large format 5x4. I also printed that 5x4 film image to 20" wide, and I compared to the M240 one. The look / detail etc is ridiculously similar at that 20" print size - ie, you won't tell from the small jpeg here, but both prints are technical perfection (no surprise ....the 24mp off the M240 is native resolution - with no resampling needed - for a 20" print), and the 2 prints show no difference in rendering or feel (whatsoever) that I can detect. It perhaps re-emphasises to me the importance of deciding first how big the print sizes will be, and then reconciling it to how many megapixels one really needs!
  7. It's a fair comment. I have the GFX100S too, and even for whopping 60" wide prints for some subjects, I already found there was less difference than one might expect in terms of resolution versus my previously-owned 47mp SL2 + SL 50mm Summicron. Moving onto looking at DNG samples off the 60mp M11, at 60" again my gut feel is it's not always easy to argue the 100mp camera looks that overwhelmingly different to the M11 (at least when the latter is paired to an ASPH lens) in terms of fine detail capture for some subjects. Nothing scientific, but I also found the M11 reminded me a lot of my GFX100S sensor in terms of large post-processing headroom from dynamic range and tonal response. Would I personally ditch the 100mp medium format for an M11? Not yet, mainly given I haven't seen yet how it might compare to the 60mp M11 for subjects where fine detail really matters IMHO, ie, a view across to the mountains, where the very small pine trees on the distant mountainside can look a bit fake if not accurately resolved. But perhaps I will find that 60mp is getting close to sufficient for me for landscapes, even at 60" print sizes? TBD for me. The bigger possibilities of an M11 over my medium format that I currently see is tons of "native" M-mount lenses where I can more easily choose different renderings, ie, from the super resolving Voigtlander APO Lanthars or Leica M Summicron APOs for perfect edge-to-edge sharpness (ideal for my landscapes) .... through to to lenses with less contrast & less acutance like the M 50mm Pre-ASPH, 1.2 Noctilux, 50 v5 Summicron, 50 ASPH wide open (all could be more gently pleasing for portraits). Sure I could adapt a non-GF lens onto the GFX, but the "native GF" lenses are generally more focused on the rendering being remarkably sharp edge-to-edge with high contrast. There is an "in your face sharp" look of the GF-mount lenses IMHO that is arguably harder to escape from, when compared to the multitude of possible renderings available from so many M mount lens options. Given my goal is a gentler rendering for Portraits, I really really don't want to be capturing excessive detail like pores or miniscule hairs ....it's absurd, IMHO, that these are visible on digital when in reality it is invisible-to-the-naked-eye detail on (say) perfect children's skin! It looks totally unnatural. My SL2 took me in the wrong direction here vs my M's 24mp. So I would be curious to know if the 18mp S-DNG on the M11 might give a different and "softer rendering" at (say) 20" wide prints compared to a down-sampled 40mp or 60mp file? .....if that was the case (I have no clue if it is), that really would be of interest to me in providing a flexibility of "different renderings" for "different subjects".
  8. Thanks for flagging. I’ve just read it. As a Subscription website, I’m clearly not going to discuss anything about the article. But IMHO it was a very useful read about the M11 and M10-R, and as I often find typical with his analysis, he gets to his conclusions in an apparently very methodical and well-explained way.
  9. Both wonderful shots. What an incredible rendering you have captured. It's like being transported back to the beauty of images from Victorian plate cameras, with their exceptional deep tonality and rapid focus fall-off.
  10. As someone that appreciates the perfection of modern APO lenses for some subjects (eg, landscapes, architecture), I am equally starting to feel that the "look" is getting a bit boring and even unsuitable for other subjects. Hence why I am curious about this 1.2 Noctilux. I can appreciate the beauty of the images here that are less technically perfect, much less in-your-face sharp, and hence what I'm hoping to find is a lens that is better at mimicking -- on digital -- a look that is more reminiscent of the gentler rendering that I partly enjoy about film? But with the Nocti 1.2, something isn't clear to me, and there don't seem to many images in this thread to show it ....say for a head-and-shoulder Portrait, what is the look wide open? .....if the eye is in the center of the frame, is the "look" more similar to the gentler rendering I associate with film (lower contrast and much lower acuity than modern lenses, but still showing lots of fine detail)? Or is the overwhelming look more just one of being blurred and out-of-focus (which is different to the cinematic softness that I'd be seeking, if that makes sense)?
  11. ...yes, the SL primes are incredible, and the SL Summicrons (I had the SL 50 Summicron) are presumably sharper and more corrected than the 50SL Lux. For things like Landscapes, they're wonderful. For Portraits, however, I often find such lenses too sharp and with too high contrast & acuity to be naturally pleasing. I know there are re-releases like the 50 Noctilux 1.2, but it's not clear to me yet if that is a solution in adding a filmic "softness" to Portraits, or whether such a lens would mainly be adding just out-of-focus "blur"?
  12. I'm in the former camp, ie, wanting digital files to look as film-like as possible. For some images, I've achieved this to my full satisfaction. Albeit, here, I define that digital is better at mimicking large format film like 5x4, rather than 35mm. I think the level of fine detail and edge precision, even off 24mp, is more reminiscent of the larger formats in 20x16" prints, for example. But for some other images off digital, I am utterly defeated in ever getting them to look like film! I'm not entirely sure what drives the different aesthetic that can sometimes makes it impossible for some digital files to mimic film .....there is sometimes just a jarring look about those digital images that doesn't look smooth enough to mimic film. I suspect a part of it is too high acuity and too high contrast of the more modern lenses? I found my v5 Summicron could get to more filmic images than my M 50 APO. Would a vintage lens like the re-released 50 1.2 Noctilux get me even closer to a film look (via lower contrast, less acuity), or is it more uncontrolled blur that such a lens is adding? I agree with Artin's view that we are seeing a remarkable level of detail off this camera that probably needed large format before. For 60" wide prints, my GFX100 feels like it has a very similar resolution to drum-scanned E6 (like Provia 100) off 5x4. That's pretty remarkable, and there is perhaps less difference in fine detail capture when I look at DNGs off the M11 vs a 100mp camera than one might expect, at least for some subjects.
  13. Exactly. I think that’s exactly the right question to be asking. Until the targeted output size is answered, it’s easy to go round in circles with megapixels. 24mp is perfect for A2 size, given the sensor is essentially native resolution at that print size if outputted at 300dpi (eg, matching the need for Giclees on my local lab’s massive Epsons). I also think the subject matter can give direction as to whether an APO is the best choice ….I owned both the M 50 APO, and M Summicron v5, and on my M240 I’ve pretty much consistently preferred the rendering of the v5 (less contrast, less acuity) for Portraits. Whereas for Landscapes, i preferred the flat field, no curvature, and high edge sharpness of the APO.
  14. IIRC there is a round hole somewhere on the bottom of the camera for a pin to stop any twisting of the grip, it was mentioned on Red Dot Forum’s Camera Talk on the M11
  15. Starting to regret selling mine too. I used to be so-so about its image quality, but the better I’ve become in processing DNGs, the more I see it produced wonderful images. In hindsight, the biggest “upgrade” to image quality over the years has probably been my improved ability to get files to render how I like them in Raw processing!
  16. Haha, actually yes, purely given I understood them to be identically sized bodies! I was hoping it would fit, (1) to benefit from a tidy integration of grip + Arca style plate, which I’d find very useful and (2) be “future proof” with one bit of hardware if i ever got an M11 later on.
  17. Clearly some of these features aren’t needed for the M10 ….but any idea if the new M11 grip will mount onto an M10, so that one can at least benefit from the Arca attachment?
  18. ….fully agree; and IMHO also going up a sensor size into medium format can also help a lot
  19. haha, someone did have to start it! Billingham's Leica M Combination bag for me would always be my choice. ....a great compact size for any of my Ms, and has a very useful front zipped pocket (keys, phone, wallet etc) ..... and happens to also snugly accommodate an SL2 or GFX100S when they positioned on their side, so lots of flexibility.
  20. That is what I noticed too .....I took all the settings back to zero; sharpening too was typically massively high (especially for an already high acuity APO lens like the 35mm) compared to what I'd choose for my own processing.
  21. If you print to say 20" wide, then 24mp is absolutely enough IMHO.....the M10 or M240 is exactly native resolution for that print width at 300dpi output. Now ..... for the BIG prints, admittedly, I do also own a Fuji GFX100S and 5x4 film camera, both of which have remarkable resolution (the GFX100S can also do multi shot mode, a bit like the SL2, to boost apparent resolution ....it really is incredible if you really want tons of fine detail). But for lighter weight travel and smaller prints, and well, because I just like to use Ms occasionally, I'm now considering picking up a used 24mp M10 - I'd guess there might be some on the market soon! I quite like the baseplate too FWIW. It's quirky and fun, even if I've had near misses dropping it quite often. 😊
  22. I will be sticking to my GFX100S, but possibly I will now pick up a used 24mp M10 for light-weight travel and smaller prints. The M11’s DNGs that I’ve played with today do remind me of the rendering off the GFX100S sensor (great tonal depth, etc). For very very large image sizes, I can still see the benefit of 100mp and I still think there are benefits to image quality of using larger telecentric lenses (eg, better edge performance) over M lenses ….but if I was only printing to 30-40” it might be a harder decision, and I’d expect that I’d very closely be looking at the M11.
  23. You're losing quite a bit of resolution at 24mp (SL2-S) vs 50mp (Fuji), but whether that matters will partly depend on the print size you want to output. If smallish at 20"x16", which is already native resolution for a 24mp sensor, you might not see a large difference at all. Moire and false colors might crop up more often, however, with the 24mp. Re: Voigtlander, I have the 50mm APO Lanthar, and i am very pleased with it in terms of both image quality and build quality. No experience of the alternatives.
  24. what aspects are you talking about here ...technical / more objective ones like noise and dynamic range? ... or more subjective aspects like "rendering"?
  25. Very nice .....there is something a bit spooky and gothic about the image that I rather like!
  • Create New...