Puts part 7

[luigi bertolotti]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Seems I'm the first to take note... this one is dedicated to noise and color reproduction M9 vs. M8. No arguments that can heated discussions arise: personally,I like the noise analisys, and the conclusion confirms an impression of mine: on M8 the noise is highly dependent on certain choices about °K setting and exposure value; if, as Puts says, M9 offers a certain improvement in this sense, that's good.

[UliWer]

I have to admit that I am lost on Mr. Puts' analyses. I can neither critizise nor applaud them. I try to read and to look on the graphs, but I don't understand what the writing and illustration says.

 

I am sure, he is writing for people completely different than me. I hope his writing may be helpful for them.

[pklein]

I'm having a hard time interpreting Erwin's results from a practical standpoint. Many of us know that the first rule for getting the most out of the M8 at ISO 1250 and 2500 is not to underexpose. Let a few highlights blow if necessary, but get the important stuff above the noise floor.

 

I usually have my M8 set at minus 1/3, but for the few times I use 1250, I set it to zero. I've also learned with 4/3 cameras at high ISO that one could examine each color channel and try to minimize the noisiest. Under tungsten light, this usually meant doing a B&W conversion with little blue and much more red and green.

 

Erwin talks about "narrow parameters" under which the M8 performs almost as well as the M9. But he doesn't say what those parameters are, especially regarding the white balance settings. And he doesn't say whether it's more a question of what you choose to shoot, or how you tweak your exposure and white balance settings when you shoot it, although he seems to imply the latter. Can anybody else shed some light here (pardon the pun)?

[ho_co]

Uli--

I'm a big fan of Erwin's studies. I don't always understand them either, but I am of the impression that he feels the graphs justify his conclusions. So I feel justified an accepting them as well.

 

The more Puts you read, the more you understand. For example, in the first part of this article, he explains why various methods produce varying results and introduces me by name to a couple types of test whose differences I would never otherwise have recognized.

 

 

pk--

My reading of the M8's 'narrower parameters' argument is that all the issues work with and against each other, and that there's not a simple rule. In other words, he seems to be lending support to your discovery that at higher ISOs you need to be more careful of exposure. I see the argument (oversimplified) as, 'The M8 will do excellent work, but requires a bit more practice and a bit more experience than the M9.'

 

As he says in the summary, "colour reproduction is a science and a complicated one. It is very difficult, at least in my opinion, to make general statements...."

 

 

 

Question for anyone: In the first two paragraphs following the last PWP image, Mr Puts refers to another set of results "below," which "differ from the ones above." Are these results not posted, or is he referring to a subset of the images already shown?

[ho_co]

I agree wholeheartedly with Erwin's comment in passing:

In straight recording Nikon and Canon have an advantage as their colour profiles are optimized for skin reproduction and other often selected colours. A point to consider is the fact that colour shifts in the M9 and M8 space have a more pronounced effect on the other colours where the high-end Nikon and Canon cameras have a more balanced behaviour.

 

I've been learning from one of the commercial training videos for Lightroom 2 (it arrived one day before Adobe announced the LR3 beta ). In watching it, I see the presenter repeatedly make the same tweaks to his Nikon-generated images that I have to make to mine made from a different Nikon model; and for me, most of these adjustments aren't necessary with my Leica images (digicam or M8). IOW, the video instructor seems to me to be trying to get colors and contrasts from his Nikon images that the Leicas tend to deliver automatically. (As for Erwin's second sentence, I don't usually push the M8 that hard.)

 

Okay. Throw fish. Throw tomatoes. But fresh ones, please. I can use them for dinner.

[t024484]

The first part of the article:

I haven't found in the article how Erwin produced his Jpeg's, but looking how much worse the S/N figures are compared to the RAW figures, they must be generated by the camera's themselves, proving how inferior this is compared to RAW for both Leica's.

The S/N figures are showing an improvement between 3 and 5 dB with the exception of the brightest patch. This is because PNRU and Shot noise are dominating here , being equal between the two cameras.

This is in line with my simulation model, where I found an improvement for the M9 of 3/4 stop, or 2,5 dB.

In section 5, Erwin came to rather different results, but now we are on the same line.

 

The second part of the article with the color charts.

I am not shure what story Erwin wants to tell us. It is rather obvious that taking pictures under different lighting conditions, will result in different colors and different deltas to the original color. One has to know the exact spectrum of this color, to be able to convert is afterwards to a standard illumination like D50 or D65. A Bradford matrix conversion can be used for this. It is also obvious that two cameras having different sensitivities for red and blue, will respond different to changing lighting conditions.

So the point being addressed here, is beyond my understanding, and the conclusions being drawn are not related to the text and the Images to my opinion.

 

Hans

[markgay]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Woah! Don't understand Mr Puts?

 

I think he's pretty clear:

 

"It is very easy to do a noise or resolution (lp/ph) or colour analysis: many programs are available and anyone can design his/her own analysis program. Understandably every result will be different. Not necessarily wrong. But it is impossible to directly compare results because of the greatly differing conditions. The only option here is a rational discourse, not a lawsuit."

 

Some people are wannabe policemen. Lawsuit is the only black and white they know.

 

"The noise pattern is not consistent when using different over- and under exposure values. The pattern does change when using different colour calibrations (daylight, cloudy, flash) and the pattern does change when using different raw converters."

 

If the evidence is unclear, why demand Mr Puts make a categorical statement when the evidence ain't categorical?

 

"The current tendency to profile the M8 as a flawed toy and to profile the M9 as one of the best digital cameras in the world is a bit myopic and disregards the many qualities of the M8 as a photographic tool. The IR bias can be put to good use when doing black and white photography in the wider sense of the word. The M8 is a more demanding camera than the M9 is and to get excellent results with the M8 asks for some additional determination. But even the M9 is not a fully mature product and needs some expertise to take great pictures."

 

Mein Gott! I think Puts is darned polite in his accurate profile of some of the views that turn up on this website.

 

Best regards,

Mark

[jaapv]

And please, why should the quality of a tool be measured according to the expertise needed to use it:confused:

[chrism]

...the M9 is the true successor of the M5, because that camera too left behind a few precious M features to add aspects that update the camera to the modern times.

 

Damned with faint praise, indeed - though it looks like the M5's successor is going to have a far more palatable economic effect on Leica. I'm afraid I didn't try to understand the 3D bar charts related to noise, but I did do something I found more effective: I took pictures with an M8.2 and an M9 and compared them. The M8.2 is going up for sale.

 

Chris

[luigi bertolotti]

Uli--

....he seems to be lending support to your discovery that at higher ISOs you need to be more careful of exposure. I see the argument (oversimplified) as, 'The M8 will do excellent work, but requires a bit more practice and a bit more experience than the M9.'....

 

(quote)

 

moreoversimplified... "M9 is less noisy than M8"... but probably Puts finds too trivial such a statement ; anyway, his analisys remembers me film tests of years and years ago... one could achieve the same level of finegrain from certain 400 ISO films as from another new generation 400 ISO film... but it needed finetuned experience with chemicals...

[ho_co]

Luigi--

Fair enough. I think Erwin takes up that issue in his October Blog.

 

He's aware that just being able to measure something doesn't make it worthwhile to do so (oh, how I wish some of the online reviewers could realize that), but I can see how some of his measurements could be taken that way.

 

To me it seems fine to compare M8 and M9 as he does; it's interesting data that won't change the way I take pictures, but that may help me understand some parts of the process better.

 

Maybe it's just that I have an affinity for his approach. I've long felt that the M5 was Leica's pinnacle pre-digital creation, and am always pleased to see the camera recognized as the groundbreaker that it was.

[Guest EarlBurrellPhoto]

And please, why should the quality of a tool be measured according to the expertise needed to use it:confused:

 

I think you miss the point. That is, I'm assuming you're not purposely turning it on its head. A tool that takes much figuring, fiddling, compensating, second-guessing, etc to get the most out of it is frustrating and counterproductive. At least it is when the tool is being used to make a living. Maybe for a hobby user it bumps up the fun factor, but for a pro it's a deal killer. We get no points for being able to brag that we finally got a camera figured out.

[jaapv]

Now you are turning it upside down. The expertise meant by Erwin in this case is exposing correctly. One may assume that a pro will have no difficulties in that respect. As for fiddling and fumbling you are being a bit uncharitable - the hallmark of any M camera is the simplicity of use. I'm sure you couldn't handle any of the tools of my trade - and yet they are of excellent quality....

[Guest EarlBurrellPhoto]

As for fiddling and fumbling you are being a bit uncharitable - the hallmark of any M camera is the simplicity of use.

 

I was simply paraphrasing H. Puts. I never once commented about the simplicity of the M camera. However I must say that I hardly call a camera simple to use which forces me to light up the rear screen just to check remaining shots or battery condition; and/or which requires me to decide which situations still require front IR filters and then resort to using 3rd-party software to correct the cyan drift; and/or forces me back into guessing at framing to a much greater extent in normal photography than the M8.2

 

 

I'm sure you couldn't handle any of the tools of my trade

 

Hence why I do not inhabit and spout opinions on forums catering to someone else's trade

[steve70]

Holy smokes!

 

It seems as if most of you here are forgetting the basics!.

A Leica, any leica, be digital or film, is ultimatelly a tool to be used to create with, it is a "Means to an end". It is not an "instrument" to be used as a "Crutch".

 

Take your camera out, in this case the M8 or M9, and use the darn thing. Take photos with it, lots of photos! And the great thing with these new digital cameras is that you do not have to worry about the cost of film, processing, etc. Your gratification is instant! What a great way to learn photography!

So guys, and gals, quit all of this "Talking heads syndrome" and head out into the world with your Leica, and show, and prove to everyone else why it is that leica cameras are the best!. (Because the person behind the camera is the best!)

 

Just my 2 cents worth from an old Leica photographer !

[jaapv]

Hence why I do not inhabit and spout opinions on forums catering to someone else's trade

But then, photography is not a trade but a passion. Some of the sufferers manage to make a living out of it