Apparent sharpness in Leica M8 images

[MikeMyers]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I probably shouldn't be entering this topic, as it doesn't really make sense to me.

 

I've been using Nikon DSLR cameras for ages now, and after a couple of years debating it with myself, bought a new M8.2. I've still got my collection of old Leica lenses from my M2/M3 film days, and now have several of the new Voigtlander lenses as well.

 

It seems that in terms of the best sharpness in my images, "straight from the camera", no matter which lens I use on the Nikon, and no matter what settings I use, the Leica photos just "look" sharper. This is with no post processing, and it's not in any way a scientific fact, just the way things look to me. The Leica images look like what I wanted to get from my Nikons!

 

The only explanation I can think of, is that Leica doesn't use any of the filtering in front of the sensor that other manufacturers do, and that if I want my Nikon photos to look sharp, I don't have any choice - I *must* sharpen the images one way or another.

 

The other explanation is that all my Nikon lenses, and all my Nikon bodies, have some kind of problem, or just plain aren't "good enough".

 

Having said all that, when I send out my Nikon images to a professional processing lab, I'm flat-out amazed at how much clarity and sharpness there is! Images that just looked so-so on my computer look stunning in print. I guess I could blame my computer - except that the Leica images look much better on the same computer!!

 

 

Am I missing something, or does this lack of filtering on the Leica M8 really produce a sharper and better image when the files are viewed as-is?

 

 

(...and as a second consideration, I've always been told NOT to sharpen images until after I've adjusted them for the final size at which they are going to be displayed, whether it's the web or in print. Maybe I'm wrong about that, and I should be sharpening my Nikon images more, either in-camera or on my computer.)

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[holgerf]

I probably shouldn't be entering this topic, as it doesn't really make sense to me.

 

I've been using Nikon DSLR cameras for ages now, and after a couple of years debating it with myself, bought a new M8.2. I've still got my collection of old Leica lenses from my M2/M3 film days, and now have several of the new Voigtlander lenses as well.

 

It seems that in terms of the best sharpness in my images, "straight from the camera", no matter which lens I use on the Nikon, and no matter what settings I use, the Leica photos just "look" sharper. This is with no post processing, and it's not in any way a scientific fact, just the way things look to me. The Leica images look like what I wanted to get from my Nikons!

 

The only explanation I can think of, is that Leica doesn't use any of the filtering in front of the sensor that other manufacturers do, and that if I want my Nikon photos to look sharp, I don't have any choice - I *must* sharpen the images one way or another.

 

The other explanation is that all my Nikon lenses, and all my Nikon bodies, have some kind of problem, or just plain aren't "good enough".

 

Having said all that, when I send out my Nikon images to a professional processing lab, I'm flat-out amazed at how much clarity and sharpness there is! Images that just looked so-so on my computer look stunning in print. I guess I could blame my computer - except that the Leica images look much better on the same computer!!

 

 

Am I missing something, or does this lack of filtering on the Leica M8 really produce a sharper and better image when the files are viewed as-is?

 

 

(...and as a second consideration, I've always been told NOT to sharpen images until after I've adjusted them for the final size at which they are going to be displayed, whether it's the web or in print. Maybe I'm wrong about that, and I should be sharpening my Nikon images more, either in-camera or on my computer.)

 

It is correct that all the Leica M8’s as well as M9 and the R8/DMR don’t have the anti-alaising-filter and therefore deliver sharper files (same as medium format cameras). However there are other aspects to have in mind.

 

First of all the subjective impression of sharpness is often determined by contrast and therefore contrast and sharpness are often mixed-up.

 

Second if you see more clarity and/or sharpness on prints compared to monitoring ask your lab whether or not they leave your files untouched.

 

Best

Holger

[richam]

There's an interesting article in the November LFI magazine that compares the M8 and M9 (with CCD sensor) versus the Canon EOS 5D (with CMOS sensor). I assume your Nikon also has CMOS; this was implied in the article. CCD is "slightly more accurate and slightly less susceptible to noise." CMOS has smaller pixels, but a "fixed noise pattern" which allows for more extensive noise reduction, paradoxically making CMOS more advantageous for high ISO. Bottom line is that CMOS is cheaper; CCD delivers better picture quality.

[MikeMyers]

It is correct that all the Leica M8’s as well as M9 and the R8/DMR don’t have the anti-alaising-filter and therefore deliver sharper files (same as medium format cameras). However there are other aspects to have in mind.

 

First of all the subjective impression of sharpness is often determined by contrast and therefore contrast and sharpness are often mixed-up.

 

Second if you see more clarity and/or sharpness on prints compared to monitoring ask your lab whether or not they leave your files untouched.

 

Best

Holger

 

 

I mostly shoot for the internet, and after a bit of sharpening, my Nikon images look fine. Using the Nikon a few months back, I shot a group of people on a small bridge at night once again. Looking at the image in the camera, greatly magnified, it looked OK, but not particularly sharp. Looking at it on my computer later, ditto. The people I shot it for sent it out to a local lab in Thailand, to get some huge enlargements, and when I saw them, I was amazed at how well they came out. Faces were crisp and sharp, and it gave me the impression of "did this really come from my image???" I have no way of asking the lab what they did, but this isn't the first time this has happened. Sending images to a GOOD photo lab gets you prints that are often far more "stunning" than the images you think you sent in.

 

All I am really asking here, is why the images from my Leica don't have this same impression on me. When I see them in the computer, they look like the Nikon images after sharpening.

 

Maybe this does have to do with sharpness, not sharpness, or maybe it's just that I don't know enough about what I think I'm doing.....

[delander †]

The visible sharpness of M8 images is well established.

There may be three factors at work. The lack of the AA filter helps the M8 and the quality of Leica primes is well established. The other factor is the processing. I'm assuming you are shooting both cameras to RAW images. If you are not already using Capture One for your Nikon RAW files it might be worth trying.

 

Jeff

[MikeMyers]

Unlike the M8, the Nikon 'raw' images and the Nikon 'jpg' images are so close in quality that it doesn't seem to matter. Yes, for this comparison I'm using 'raw' images from Nikon, but the 'jpg' images are so good I often shoot that way. Initially, I shot 'jpg' with the Leica, until I read about how bad their JPG compression was compared to 'raw'. While I now feel that 'jpg' from Nikon is way ahead of 'jpg' from Leica, since I've started shooting almost exclusively 'raw', that no longer matters.

 

Other than to get an answer to my question, maybe this topic doesn't even belong here. The real question as I see it, is how do I get my Nikon images to look as good as those from my M8. As to the M8, I'm thrilled with the quality images it can produce!

 

 

 

I made a mistake in my last post. I wrote:

Maybe this does have to do with sharpness, not sharpness, or maybe it's just that I don't know enough about what I think I'm doing....."

 

I meant to say:

Maybe this does have to do with contrast, not sharpness, or maybe it's just that I don't know enough about what I think I'm doing.....

[garygsandhu]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You have to sharpen the images from the Nikon because of the blur filter that removes alias artifacts.

 

The leica does not have an AA filter so the images are going to be sharper straight out of the camera.

 

The lab is probably applying some processing prior to printing. Also, per pixel images are going to appear fuzzier than prints, at least where they are printed at 300 ppi, or so.

[Guest mc_k]

My Capture 1 LE 3.7.7 handles files from a Nikon D50 really poorly...they just look like unsharp pictures from a point-and-shoot. I have not had time to ask PhaseOne why. The camera is supposed to be supported. The Nikon files with Nikon software look as sharp as the M8 files with C1. Would love to know if anyone has had problems with this older C1 software and older Nikon cameras? Thanks

[john_newell]

I can't help you with the technical explanation, but I have been using Leica and NIkon cameras side by side for almost 40 years. I rented an M8 and came to exactly the same conclusion that you did.

 

I probably shouldn't be entering this topic, as it doesn't really make sense to me.

 

I've been using Nikon DSLR cameras for ages now, and after a couple of years debating it with myself, bought a new M8.2. I've still got my collection of old Leica lenses from my M2/M3 film days, and now have several of the new Voigtlander lenses as well.

 

It seems that in terms of the best sharpness in my images, "straight from the camera", no matter which lens I use on the Nikon, and no matter what settings I use, the Leica photos just "look" sharper. This is with no post processing, and it's not in any way a scientific fact, just the way things look to me. The Leica images look like what I wanted to get from my Nikons!

 

The only explanation I can think of, is that Leica doesn't use any of the filtering in front of the sensor that other manufacturers do, and that if I want my Nikon photos to look sharp, I don't have any choice - I *must* sharpen the images one way or another.

 

The other explanation is that all my Nikon lenses, and all my Nikon bodies, have some kind of problem, or just plain aren't "good enough".

 

Having said all that, when I send out my Nikon images to a professional processing lab, I'm flat-out amazed at how much clarity and sharpness there is! Images that just looked so-so on my computer look stunning in print. I guess I could blame my computer - except that the Leica images look much better on the same computer!!

 

 

Am I missing something, or does this lack of filtering on the Leica M8 really produce a sharper and better image when the files are viewed as-is?

 

 

(...and as a second consideration, I've always been told NOT to sharpen images until after I've adjusted them for the final size at which they are going to be displayed, whether it's the web or in print. Maybe I'm wrong about that, and I should be sharpening my Nikon images more, either in-camera or on my computer.)

[MikeMyers]

Rich, I think you answered my question. Your "standard" photos are very close to what I'm complaining about, while your "HR" pictures are what I want to be able to do!

 

I know there are always compromises, but with the current situation, instead of "sometimes" getting images with a moire problem, now we're "always" getting images with a blur problem.

 

I wouldn't have the slightest idea how to remove the AA filter from my camera, but if I could have ordered one without this filter, I'd have done so.

 

Knowing now what I didn't before, I can understand why the Leica takes much "better" photos (using my own definition of "better").

 

Thanks for posting - I didn't know how bad this really was.

 

(Does turning up the sharpening somewhat compensate for this?)

[pgk]

(...and as a second consideration, I've always been told NOT to sharpen images until after I've adjusted them for the final size at which they are going to be displayed, whether it's the web or in print. Maybe I'm wrong about that, and I should be sharpening my Nikon images more, either in-camera or on my computer.)

FWIW I always sharpen images twice (except from my M8). So if I'm using my Canons (with their anti aliasing filters) and shooting raw I apply a very fine unsharp mask - typically; amount 75~100, radius < 0.5 pixels and threshold 0. This I intend will deal with some of the effect of the AA filter. Later I apply a final unsharp mask when I know the output requirements (web. print. projection, etc.). By keeping the radius setting very low initially you can apply two masks (or even multiple if you want to experiment). The M8 files don't often need any fine unsharp masking due to the lack of the AA filter.

[fotografr]

As several others have mentioned, the lack of anti-aliasing filter has a lot to do with the sharpness difference. But don't discount the lenses. About 25 years ago I did my first Leica shoot for a company that wanted some overall shots in a large warehouse. I got a high vantage point, loaded my M6 with Fujichrome 100, put a 30 magenta filter on my 28mm Elmarit (fluorescent lights) and cranked off a couple of rolls. I had the film processed, then got busy and couldn't edit it for a few days. By the time I spread the slides out on my light table I had forgotten I'd shot the job with my Leica and was thinking I'd done it with my Nikon. I clearly remember going through the slides and thinking to myself that they were the sharpest photos I'd ever gotten with my Nikon and I was trying to recall what I'd done that would account for the difference. Suddenly it dawned on me that I'd used the Leica and it was a pivotal moment for me. I realized right then that I'd be using Leicas for the rest of my life.

[wparsonsgisnet]

i started a different thread (actually it's the 3rd thread as I had a lot of trouble getting the details right) here:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/106551-m9-vs-m8-pix-redux.html

 

No anything has been applied to these images, and you can see that the M8 and M9 images are very similar -- and sharp.

 

Mike, I agree about the sharpness comment.