M9 v D3S

[drteitelbaum]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I just returned from a friend's wedding in the Bahamas. Not wanting to chance missing any once-in-a-lifetime shots, I mostly shot my week-old D3S (as opposed to my month-old M9.)

 

I just looked at the RAW images in Lightroom. WOW - the Leica images look awesome right out of the camera. I could confidently show them on screen or email them out EXACTLY as they came out of the camera. But not the Nikon's. Compared to the Leica, the RAW Nikon images look dull and lifeless.

 

Sure, bokeh and personality looks different as expected. But I am amazed at how little work the M9 images will need compared to the D3S images. Does anyone understand why that is? I would think that what I am seeing is less a lens issue and more of an issue related to the physics of the sensor or the RAW algorithms in the camera.

 

Am I correct? Can anyone explain why RAW images from two excellent cameras would look so radically different?

[Advertisement]

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

[k-hawinkler]

I just returned from a friend's wedding in the Bahamas. Not wanting to chance missing any once-in-a-lifetime shots, I mostly shot my week-old D3S (as opposed to my month-old M9.)

 

I just looked at the RAW images in Lightroom. WOW - the Leica images look awesome right out of the camera. I could confidently show them on screen or email them out EXACTLY as they came out of the camera. But not the Nikon's. Compared to the Leica, the RAW Nikon images look dull and lifeless.

 

Sure, bokeh and personality looks different as expected. But I am amazed at how little work the M9 images will need compared to the D3S images. Does anyone understand why that is? I would think that what I am seeing is less a lens issue and more of an issue related to the physics of the sensor or the RAW algorithms in the camera.

 

Am I correct? Can anyone explain why RAW images from two excellent cameras would look so radically different?

 

Thanks. Very interesting. Could you post some examples?

From my D3 I seem to be getting the best RAW conversion with Capture NX 2.

Lightroom doesn't get close!

[gwelland]

AA filtering.

Leica lens micro contrast.

Nikon neutral RAW images.

 

I've been using both Nikon DSLRs (D3, D700, D3X plus all the way back to D1) and Leica M8/M9 and would agree that the Leica definitely does produce the cleanest raw images straight from the camera. That has been true of both the M8 & M9, with the M9 being a little 'punchier' in terms of colour. That said, the Nikon images whilst initially less impressive can be made equally good looking with the application of some standard pre-sharpening/'looks' in Capture One or LR/ACR etc.

[lct]

... Can anyone explain why RAW images from two excellent cameras would look so radically different?

What lenses did you use with both cameras?

[JPH1962]

do you have set "neutral" profile for Nikon as standard to show when importing the files and perhaps "Auto" for the M9?

 

That would explain the difference.

 

To my experience the NX2 conversion is not really better than the one from LR - based onmy D700.

 

rgds

JPH

[gwelland]

To my experience the NX2 conversion is not really better than the one from LR - based on my D700.

 

Hmm, really? I have to say that this isn't my experience at all. Nikon Capture NX2, whilst slower than ACR/LR raw converter, renders a significantly better Nikon raw image that the Adobe convertor in terms of colour, tone and detail. To my eye at least the difference is very visible, particularly in terms of things like foliage & skin tone rendering, not to mention a far richer raw conversion tool set.

 

I find that the same is true of Phase One Capture One as well. Superior colour and detail rendering of both Leica and Nikon files compared to the Adobe tools.

[dewittehd]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Strange, I can post the pictures straight out of my D80 and D300s and they look great. Most probably you need to get used to your Nikon as you got used to your M9.

Jean

[Jamie Roberts]

FWIW, I agree with you, and it's one reason I stick with Leica. But there are tradeoffs... ISOs being low, the M8 / DMR are much easier to get to a great shot in terms of colour.

 

It really does depend on how picky you are, though. I have a d3 and an M8 still, and as someone I admire greatly once said, customers don't care about 3 points of magenta being out, but here's the thing...

 

If I nail the white balance and exposure in both cameras, the Nikon's colour palette is still a bit off--especially in skin tones, regardless of RAW processor. As the ISO rises, the colour gets worse.

 

I believe (but I can't prove it) that this is due to a CMOS / CCD difference, it might just be the technology, but it's also true that Kodak knows colour... better than a lot of camera makers, probably.

 

So my M8 takes way less work than any of the Canons or Nikons to get to a good file in terms of colour.

 

Of course, the tradeoff is noise. The Canons and Nikons render images noise-free with much higher ISO. The colour does degrade as noise-reduction is applied, but sometimes you don't care about that...it's more important to get the shot.

[d2mini]

Strange, I can post the pictures straight out of my D80 and D300s and they look great. Most probably you need to get used to your Nikon as you got used to your M9.

Jean

 

Have you compared similar raw images between your D300s and your M9?

 

I too would like to see an example.

[haroldp]

I shoot both Nikon and Leica, and I find hat Capture NX2 produces better color (by default) from Nikon raw files than PS. I have not tried lightroom, but since they both use ACR. I expect that the primary difference from PS in this regard will be workflow.

 

Nikon's 'standard' profile setting produces punchier colors ( more contrast and saturation) than it's 'neutral' setting. I prefer neutral for portraits and skin tones, and standard for most of everything else.

 

Regards ... Harold

[markowich]

Thanks. Very interesting. Could you post some examples?

From my D3 I seem to be getting the best RAW conversion with Capture NX 2.

Lightroom doesn't get close!

 

Capture NX is very conservative with contrast etc. if you open D3x or D3s files in C1 they look very different.

punchy, crisp, as the leicas.

peter

[dent]

For my part I do not care if RAW images look dull. I want them to take lots of abuse in post processing. Here the Nikon files really shine (at least thats the case with LR+D3). I like the leica files more when You work at low iso and got everything right when I took the shot. For not optimal files I like the Nikon's better. The leica files do often carry some nice shaddow detail though.

[charlesphoto99]

Try putting some Zeiss glass on your Nikon. Gets one that much closer to a Leica.

 

Btw I'm finding Raw Developer beats both LR (v3) and C1, at least with the M9. Haven't tried it with my D3 yet.

[innerimager]

Try putting some Zeiss glass on your Nikon. Gets one that much closer to a Leica.

 

Btw I'm finding Raw Developer beats both LR (v3) and C1, at least with the M9. Haven't tried it with my D3 yet.

 

I'm a big fan of RD too, but I've been running into reddish caucasian skin tones that my demo C1 pro renders beautifully. I actually sent samples to Brian at RD and he agrees and is tweaking his profile. But for detail, RD is the champ. To the OP, I suspect nikon is applying more and more software noise reduction to achieve these amazingly clean iso 128,000 (and lower) shots that may exert itself even in low iso work.

[charlesphoto99]

I'm a big fan of RD too, but I've been running into reddish caucasian skin tones that my demo C1 pro renders beautifully. I actually sent samples to Brian at RD and he agrees and is tweaking his profile. But for detail, RD is the champ. To the OP, I suspect nikon is applying more and more software noise reduction to achieve these amazingly clean iso 128,000 (and lower) shots that may exert itself even in low iso work.

 

Yeah, I found the reddish skin tone as well. But the detail is amazing and it seems to hold detail in highlights much better. Plus the interface is nice and simple. I made the mistake of splurging for C1 pro a while back and have never really got on with it. The UI is really clunky. Yesterday I went to make print comparisons between RD, LR, and C1 of a single M9 image. C1 crashed on me when I went to output (their output UI is awful!). That was it for me. I think my choice will be to do initial DAM with LR (love its website and sorting ability) and then any fine printing with an RD conversion. That was the idea with C1 but it's just too been too problematic for me. I wish I could sell on my license.

[Luke_Miller]

Can anyone explain why RAW images from two excellent cameras would look so radically different?

 

I believe the only versions of Lightroom that process D3s files are 2.6 release candidate and 3.0 Beta. Perhaps the D3s camera profile is not yet finalized. Additionally, Leica may be putting camera setting data into the DNG file that Lightroom is using to display the image. Similar Nikon setting data in the D3s NEF will be ingored by Lightroom.

 

Correction: Lightroom 3.0 Beta does not yet support the D3s

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped} C1 crashed on me when I went to output (their output UI is awful!). That was it for me.{snipped}

 

Charles, just a tip, which is off-topic but worth consideration...

 

C1 v5 is extremely stable, (though I've seen some reports of some strangeness on the newest Macs...I'm on Windows and the the only time it crashes is when there's something wrong with the box )

 

Anyway, if it crashes like that it usually means it's not installed properly or that you may have a physical memory problem... which is something you want to get fixed anyway.

 

Working with C1 is a great app to exercise your system as a "canary in a coal mine."

[charlesphoto99]

Charles, just a tip, which is off-topic but worth consideration...

 

C1 v5 is extremely stable, (though I've seen some reports of some strangeness on the newest Macs...I'm on Windows and the the only time it crashes is when there's something wrong with the box )

 

Anyway, if it crashes like that it usually means it's not installed properly or that you may have a physical memory problem... which is something you want to get fixed anyway.

 

Working with C1 is a great app to exercise your system as a "canary in a coal mine."

 

Thanks Jamie,

 

Yeah, it might need some purging. It is a 2008 8 core Mac Pro with 16 gb RAM so I'm sure it's not a hardware limitation.

 

I just wish Phase would clean up certain aspects of the UI, like streamlining the import and session mindf*%# (sorry, just can't seem to get my head around it) and the import dialogue.

 

In the end I'm sure it's just me, as many use it and are happy with it, but I have only so much patience.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[dpitt]

Thanks. Very interesting. Could you post some examples?

From my D3 I seem to be getting the best RAW conversion with Capture NX 2.

Lightroom doesn't get close!

 

Hi, I have no experience with the M9 or the D3s but I fooled around a lot with NX , LR, Aperture and C1 converting my D70 Raw files.

I found out that NX is the only one able to get to some hidden info in the NEF format. This is because Nikon did not give information about it to others than Nik software. With this info NX is able to get the most out of a NEF file.

 

I have no specific data about what exactly is this hidden info, but it seems to have to do something with in camera settings and info about lens and lighting conditions recorded at the time of the shot.

 

In the end I was just using NX for exposure corrections and conversions to jpg, then imported in Aperture to do the rest.

 

Just my 2c

[dpitt]

In the end I was just using NX for exposure corrections and conversions to jpg, then imported in Aperture to do the rest.

And some of you might find this a lot of trouble, but to me the thought of leaving like 10% of potential quality by not using NX was motivation enough.

 

Still it was not ideal, and since I bought my first Leica (Digilux 2) I am now happily shooting jpegs that need much less PP work to look better than anything shot with my D70.