Do you get better pictures from your M9 than you did from your M8?

[wattsy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Good white balance is necessary, but not sufficient, to getting the best color out of any digital camera.

 

Very true. There's a common misconception flying around that if you nail the white balance, colour casts and other problems will just go away.

[Guest BigSplash]

Isn't colour balancing part of the workflow for every shot?

If you are talking about post production on an image you want to be perfect and/or reflect your artistic intentions I agree with you.

 

I would however believe that you would want to start with an image that is as near to "Neutral Colouring" as possible. It is surely unacceptable to somehow always suffer for example a magenta cast on black subjects, and red blotchy faces as has been reported...........I believe that the job of the unique camera profile is to achieve that neutral colour within the image.

 

I learned at Brett's course to select on my M8 ..5800Kelvin as the norm for outside shooting, and use manual white balance for inside shots. This allows easy batch adjustment if I am slightly out.

 

Prior to doing this I needed to effectively adjust the levels on every shot. Now perhaps because the M8 generic profiles are good I have very little colour adjustment to do if any...unless I want some special artistic effect.

 

I cannot imagine wanting to manually adjust each image purely to reflect what the camera profile should do anyway.

[wattsy]

If I traded up to an M9 I'd have to get myself a 50mm and 90mm lens to get the same field of view - essentially starting over.

 

It depends. My most used lens on the M8 was a 35mm but I always tended to see it as a kind of pre-cropped 35mm, not a 47mm lens. Even cropped, there was something more '35mm' about it than '50mm'. I'd assumed that I'd switch to my 50mm as the standard lens on the M9 but I've been surprised by how much I like the same 35mm lens on the M9. I'm probably stepping forward a little to get the same kind of composition that I was used to with M8/35mm but I find the FOV far more useful than I expected. It's also nice to see a bit of 'natural' lens vignetting again.

 

It's difficult for me to justify starting again unless the image quality is truly staggeringly better than what I can get with the M8.

 

It's not staggeringly better by any stretch of the imagination. Where full frame versus cropped frame always wins out for me (and I've stated this many times before in the face of numerous claims that the M8's crop was the ideal format) is that it allows you to use a longer lens for a given FOV. For me, this provides for a more attractive spatial relationship between subject and other compositional elements. It's the same reason I like the 'look' of medium and large format.

[wlaidlaw]

If you are talking about post production on an image you want to be perfect and/or reflect your artistic intentions I agree with you.

 

I would however believe that you would want to start with an image that is as near to "Neutral Colouring" as possible. It is surely unacceptable to somehow always suffer for example a magenta cast on black subjects, and red blotchy faces as has been reported...........I believe that the job of the unique camera profile is to achieve that neutral colour within the image.

 

I learned at Brett's course to select on my M8 ..5800Kelvin as the norm for outside shooting, and use manual white balance for inside shots. This allows easy batch adjustment if I am slightly out.

 

Prior to doing this I needed to effectively adjust the levels on every shot. Now perhaps because the M8 generic profiles are good I have very little colour adjustment to do if any...unless I want some special artistic effect.

 

I cannot imagine wanting to manually adjust each image purely to reflect what the camera profile should do anyway.

 

A very good point. If you have 300 images in a day from which to choose say 30 or 40, you do want the initial result from your RAW developer to be reasonable, then you can concentrate on the keepers. I certainly cannot be bothered to have to adjust the basic colour profile (including but not limited to the colour temperature) for every shot. C1 and the M8 have developed to the point that most of the time, I can get away with just levels plus shadow and highlight for a first look at the keepers. In that I am keeping my M8 for the time being, I am not too worried about a little bit of time to get M9 profiles correct. I have just ordered a Gretag Macbeth A4 sized chart 24, so that for the time being I can do my own. I needed it anyway as I just can't get the colours right on my Ricoh GX200.

 

Wilson

[adan]

Exactly. And not only that, but does the profiled result really represent your artistic intention?

 

A consistent and repeatable base (e.g., a camera profile) gives one a firmer ground for artistic experimentation.

 

Even Picasso started with a clear understanding of classical representation, technical control, and how paint "worked" before letting his artistic imagination take full flight.

 

File:Garçon à la pipe.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

One could write a great romantic novel about a photographic artist with an unprofiled camera who gets a beautiful blue in one of his pictures, and then spends the rest of his life trying to recapture that same blue. "Happy accidents" occur in both science and art - but usually to scientists and artists who aren't just guessing.

 

Dans les champs de l'observation le hasard ne favorise que les esprits préparés [et cameras profilés]. - Louis Pasteur

 

"Chance favors only the prepared mind [and profiled camera]."

[adan]

On the question of Adobe and Leica's ability to keep up with us individual profilers.

 

First, Adobe and Leica don't "work together". It is probable that the "embedded" M9 profile was worked out by Jenoptik and Leica alone. The only link between Leica and Adobe is that Leica chose to use the open DNG RAW format, which happens to be an Adobe creation. You might just as well blame Microsoft for typos in the M9 instruction manual (if it was created in Word).

 

Second, Adobe generates its own profiles for cameras over time. First, they need files to work with, and presumably need to shoot their own specific target (maybe a ColorChecker, maybe something more sophisticated). Which means getting hold of an M9, or at least having Leica send them files.

 

Then they need to write an upgrade to Adobe Camera Raw, which comes out about every 3 months or so. Adobe - Adobe Camera Raw and DNG Converter : For Macintosh The most recent includes the Panny GF-1, but not the M9 or the Canon 7D.

 

Soon we will see Adobe Camera Raw 5.6, that will likely update for the M9 and the Canon 7D and probably a couple of other new cameras. They aren't going to rush out an M9-only update just because WE think it's the most important camera ever!

 

Once I download it, the tab at the top of the ACR Calibation page will switch from "Embedded" (whatever Leica and Jenoptik put in) to "ACR 5.5"(Adobe's own calibration) - and I will do a new "personal" profile, because Adobe's base calibration likely won't match Leica's base calibration. (or my target numbers - we shall see)

[Guest BigSplash]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On the question of Adobe and Leica's ability to keep up with us individual profilers.

 

First, Adobe and Leica don't "work together". It is probable that the "embedded" M9 profile was worked out by Jenoptik and Leica alone. The only link between Leica and Adobe is that Leica chose to use the open DNG RAW format, which happens to be an Adobe creation. You might just as well blame Microsoft for typos in the M9 instruction manual (if it was created in Word).

 

Second, Adobe generates its own profiles for cameras over time. First, they need files to work with, and presumably need to shoot their own specific target (maybe a ColorChecker, maybe something more sophisticated). Which means getting hold of an M9, or at least having Leica send them files.

 

Then they need to write an upgrade to Adobe Camera Raw, which comes out about every 3 months or so. Adobe - Adobe Camera Raw and DNG Converter : For Macintosh The most recent includes the Panny GF-1, but not the M9 or the Canon 7D.

 

Soon we will see Adobe Camera Raw 5.6, that will likely update for the M9 and the Canon 7D and probably a couple of other new cameras. They aren't going to rush out an M9-only update just because WE think it's the most important camera ever!

 

Once I download it, the tab at the top of the ACR Calibation page will switch from "Embedded" (whatever Leica and Jenoptik put in) to "ACR 5.5"(Adobe's own calibration) - and I will do a new "personal" profile, because Adobe's base calibration likely won't match Leica's base calibration. (or my target numbers - we shall see)

 

Andy what you say as usual is informative and makes sense to me.

 

What I do not understand is why Leica seem to not see this as an issue and adopt a strategy to effectively "spoon feed" Adobe with the files that they need and maybe go beyond that to realise profiles for them to include in the Adobe offering.

 

I have this evening looked at the list of available profiles for Canon, Nikon and other makes and the list is a very long one! Adobe seem to be able to churn profiles out for all amateur and pro cameras but not it seems for Leica in a timely fashion: Specifically:

• M8 (took a year I am told to get it),
  
• M9 is still not available!
  

At the same time some Forum members who either have an M9 or are about to receive one think that this state of affairs is OK (just read the threads where the mood is ...we shall get there eventually!) Gosh I wish I had a client base like that! .....Sell a camera at £4850 plus lenses on top and it has a magenta tint etc etc that will eventually be fixed!

 

Personally I stay with M8 and shall not even contemplate a M9 if the profiles are not there. I actually am a potential M10 owner but again I would expect the profiles to be available at release date.

[adan]

Of the Leica cameras introduced in Sept. 2006, Adobe had profiles for 3 of them (ACR 3.6) by Oct. 2006: Adobe - Adobe Camera Raw and DNG Converter : For Windows : Camera Raw 3.6 update

 

Interestingly, on checking, my ACR says it is also using a version 3.6 Adobe profile (rather than "embedded") for my M8 - so it must have been able to recognize that specific camera within a month, also. I can't see where Adobe ever specifically listed the M8 in a specific version of ACR, so 3.6 it was - 30 days after introduction.

 

So far I can see, Adobe lists every digital camera Leica has ever marketed prior to 9/9/09 on this page:

 

Adobe - Adobe Photoshop CS4: Digital camera raw file support

 

(there are two sections - ACR 5 supported, and then Native DNG down below) - except the really old stuff (S1, FujiLeicas)

 

Leica just doesn't put out 12-15 new models per year (counting P&S), so the list of "every digital camera they have offered since 2004" is a rather short one.

 

Leica also does not run Adobe, who put out ACR updates (for free, one might note) on a schedule of their own choosing. They will do so when THEY want, not when Leica wants or we want.

[Guest BigSplash]

Of the Leica cameras introduced in Sept. 2006, Adobe had profiles for 3 of them (ACR 3.6) by Oct. 2006: Adobe - Adobe Camera Raw and DNG Converter : For Windows : Camera Raw 3.6 update

 

Interestingly, on checking, my ACR says it is also using a version 3.6 Adobe profile (rather than "embedded") for my M8 - so it must have been able to recognize that specific camera within a month, also. I can't see where Adobe ever specifically listed the M8 in a specific version of ACR, so 3.6 it was - 30 days after introduction.

 

So far I can see, Adobe lists every digital camera Leica has ever marketed prior to 9/9/09 on this page:

 

Adobe - Adobe Photoshop CS4: Digital camera raw file support

 

(there are two sections - ACR 5 supported, and then Native DNG down below) - except the really old stuff (S1, FujiLeicas)

 

Leica just doesn't put out 12-15 new models per year (counting P&S), so the list of "every digital camera they have offered since 2004" is a rather short one.

 

Leica also does not run Adobe, who put out ACR updates (for free, one might note) on a schedule of their own choosing. They will do so when THEY want, not when Leica wants or we want.

 

Andy I checked the Adobe Photoshop CS4 Digital camera RAW file support list and was shocked hat just about every camera from Amateur to Hasselblad's many models have profiles listed. I am sure many of these profiles are the same across several camera models from the same manufacturer.

 

In the case of Leica they have listed all of the Digilux cameras (or is that really Panasonic?) and they now list "M8" ......but still no M9. Worse Leica do not seem to have developed a profile for use in Photoshop either yet apparently this is not too dfficult to achieve.

 

I really wonder why Leica do not see this as important for what is their flagship product, and hopefully their cash cow currently.

 

I increasingly see Leica as a company that builds a brilliant camera in all respects and fabulous lenses. They are able to realise products that pushes technology boundaries with Aspheric lenses such as Noctilux, they have invented trielmar lenses, and they have brought to market a FF "M9"...brilliant!

 

What they seem less interested in is taking a solution approach to providing ALL the tools for a Leica photographer to make images.

 

Not having the M9 profile is a case in point, but the list is a long one: UV/IR filter availability is another, standard flash socket is another, availability of lens rear caps at all dealers etc. Leica's heritage 30 years ago was much more in the direction of being a system camera supported by many varied accessories while keeping the clean lines of a M camera.

 

Personally I think they are missing a point and the M9 will need those profiles if it is to match the performance of a M8 ...unless people like you Andy successfully build your own.

[wattsy]

According to Michael Reichmann on his website, the new LR 3 beta contains a profile for the M9. Presumably an update for LR 2 which includes this profile will be forthcoming. I haven't downloaded the beta so I've no idea if you can copy the profile across to LR 2.5.

[redbaron]

Why would you care, Frank? You don't even have an M9.

[Guest BigSplash]

Why would you care, Frank? You don't even have an M9.

 

Thanks as always you are very helpful. The reason I care is that I unlike you it seems would like Leica to release a complete product that is "fit for purpose".

• They did not do it with the M8 until over a year of delay (IR issue, no profile, various firware upgrades before they got it right!). The firmware after 3 years still has the shutter issue that is well known since years to Solms but has still not been fixed.
  
• They have not done it with the M9 it seems.( Phase One have a profile apparently but the product ships with Lightroom, the M8 shutter issue remains with M9)
  

My plan is to get the M9+ or M10 as I have said before however I am now frankly am getting concerned that the Solms attitude is one of a focus on collecting the cash for a £4850 camera body.. However they seem to be very laid back about fixing basic issues and are happy to ship an incomplete product (ie no profiles) and that sits badly with me for the "Rolls Royce of cameras"

 

If you are happy with that level of support I wish you well with M9...maybe you should also buy a Noctilux (0.95) that people have had on order since months and Solms have shipped only limited units despite a £7000 price tag. Looked at as a client Leica have wooed clients but then are unable to satisfy what the client has bought into.

 

I really wish Leica get the message and fix these issues because it hurts the brand, and I for one shall certainly think twice before becoming an early adopter of Leica products.

[redbaron]

You aint here for the huntin', are you Frank?

 

And BTW, I'm quite happy with my MPs, thanks.

[Guest BigSplash]

You aint here for the huntin', are you Frank?

 

And BTW, I'm quite happy with my MPs, thanks.

 

Let me understand...

• YOU do not have a M8, and you shoot film yet you are posting here a thread against the question "Do you get better pictures from your M9 than you did with M8?" ...........
  
• YOU suggest that because I am highlighting deficiencies in the M9 release that I am here for the hunting
  

I am off to take some photos

[sdh]

Has anyone used the new Lightroom beta yet? An example posted

with skin tones predominant would be very interesting to see.

[jschone]

Hi, I am doing some extensive testing with Lightroom 3 Beta. My M9 hasn't arrived yet, so I am working with M8 files. The new raw processor is very impressive. Indeed, I am so impressed that I decided not to sell my M8 yet but keep both cameras (when the 2nd of the both arrives..). Gives me a 2 body setup and I can also shoot the M8 at the higher iso values. Also, in that way I wait that the heavy storm on M8 prices settles down a bit.

 

First observations Lightroom 3 Beta:

-The usability of higher iso images is a huge step up with the new Noise reduction algorithm. Virtually artefact free. Much better then Noise Ninja or Noiseware. Luminance noise reduction is not implemented yet, but already now high iso images are very nice looking with a natural grain.

-Images show much better tonal range separation

-But probably the best thing is the smooth graduation of colour

 

Did some testing against Capture one Pro (latest version) and ACR 5.5 (Lightroom 2.5) and I will be using Lightroom 3 from now on, don't care if it is still Beta, it is that good in my opinion.

 

Jochem

[zipper]

I agree, I have a battered M8, it's all I need for now, brilliant...

[zipper]

I agree, I have a battered M8, it's all I need for now, brilliant...

oh plus 75 Lux, 21 Elmarit ASPH, 35 BP Chron, 35 3.5 Summaron

[vertekijker]

I find the biggest difference for me to be the ISO performance. This is a JPEG file at 1600 ISO (shot as JPEG at 1/60th, handheld with the 28 cron) that I did nothing to in PS - the original is much sharper. The place was pitchdark inside. The version I post here is only 224KB. I could have never done this with my M8. Earlier this year I had to shoot in a place which I thought not so safe and chose to take my M8 with me instead of the M9, just in case. I came to regret it afterwards because all shots of this type turned out disappointing.

--------------

Frans

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[leicashot]

I get better 'files' from the M9. I get better 'pictures' from whatever camera I put more effort into.