M9, 50Lux ASPH 100% crops

[pascal_meheut]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Lower resolution crops looks sharper than very-high resolution ones. This is not new. Also, the M9 stresses the lens more. There is a significant difference when closing down a bit.

 

But you can see it still records details.

 

Attached: M9, 50mm/1.4 ASPH wide-open, 160 ISO.

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!

[Jamie Roberts]

It was not a comment but a question supported by the 100% crops of this thread which all look more or less soft to me. I don't know why hence my question. BTW your macro pic looks good at first glance but it is not a 100% crop is it?

 

Um, if you think the shot I posted looks soft (remember there's virtually no sharpening) then I respectfully suggest something is wrong with your screen, at least.

[lct]

Lower resolution crops looks sharper than very-high resolution ones...

Not with 100% crops in my experience, Pascal. I may be wrong of course but the M9 gives me the feeling that more sharpening is needed than with the M8 as if there were an AA filter on the sensor.

[hoppyman]

Yes it is a 100% crop at 800ISO and the Raw file processed accordingly

[lct]

Um, if you think the shot I posted looks soft (remember there's virtually no sharpening) then I respectfully suggest something is wrong with your screen, at least.

My Apple cinema display works well usually. I guess you applied the default sharpening setting of Capture One right? If so yes sorry but your 100% crop looks a bit soft to me.

[lct]

Yes it is a 100% crop at 800ISO and the Raw file processed accordingly

Sounds good then, which raw converter did you use if i may ask and what sharpening did you apply if any?

[hoppyman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This is LR2.7 and I used the capture sharpening and noise reduction adjustments in that. Capture sharpening ought to be an integral part of any digital capture in my view since there must be system losses. Screen comparisons are a very limited tool anyway. But this is drifting off the OPs topic. I just commented because you had said that you think the M9 is a soft camera vs. your Epson sample.

I shall go and shoot my Summilux 50 wide open to make a sample to contribute.

[jaapv]

I would support the idea of the screen having an influence. If you look at the crop of my harbour shot, it is extremely sharp on my Eizo at home, but here on my work on a NEC it is clearly softer. I might suggest too that we are looking at an f 1.4 lens wide open mostly. Even if it is the best f 1.4 lens available, it will never achieve the bite of for instance a good 90 f 4.0

[pascal_meheut]

Same for me. The image is sharper on my Eizo. But this is not the only reason.

[jaapv]

No there are many - nobody has mentioned RAW developers yet - but C1-5 gives more detailed images than ACR.

[pack_tor]

Hi Guys,

 

Leica has agreed to take a look at the lens again. Even if my lens is within tolerances, it doesn't hurt being looked at again.

 

I'll post the results when it comes back. Thanks for the help!

[Jamie Roberts]

FWIW, I looked at some of the OP's RAW files in C1 v5 and the focus point / range for the lens is certainly fine for f1.4 (though there might have been the smallest amount of camera shake).

 

It'll be interesting to see if Leica finds anything there, but I'd be very surprised if you see much improvement. There may be something not quite geometrically alright in the setup between M9 and lens (it's hard to tell absolutely from the shots), so maybe there's something there, or in some of the elements, as noted above.

 

But without actually seeing the light the pictures were shot in, it's hard to assess the bokeh (which is certainly not harsh). The higher contrast light shot certainly also appears to have more detail.

 

As for the M9 being soft; it's absolutely not. And yes, I do see a difference, too, between the Eizo and my other monitors But the Eizo is what I make my judgements on as far as "proofing goes..."

 

Because the final test is always a print, and the M9 gives not a single thing to the M8 in sharpness, and is much sharper out of the camera than any of the Canons or Nikons I've had to date.

[pack_tor]

Thanks Jamie! I'll post some high contrast samples once it's looked over by Leica again. I'm softening my stance on the sharpness issue, but there's definitely value in Leica looking at it, if they are open to it. Sounds like they are willing to.

 

I'm hoping to use this as my primary lens, so I'm willing to invest some more time even if it offers only marginal improvement.

 

Thanks all!

[lct]

...As for the M9 being soft; it's absolutely not. And yes, I do see a difference, too, between the Eizo and my other monitors But the Eizo is what I make my judgements on as far as "proofing goes..."...

No Eizo here but i'm using another monitor of my office (Formac). Same feeling. Just comparing to some of my 5D pics with R lenses i get the same sharpness as usual. Pity that i don't have an M9 to test it. Anyway never mind thanks for advice.

[Jamie Roberts]

No Eizo here but i'm using another monitor of my office (Formac). Same feeling. Just comparing to some of my 5D pics with R lenses i get the same sharpness as usual. Pity that i don't have an M9 to test it. Anyway never mind thanks for advice.

 

It is really a pity you don't have an M9 to test with

 

The other thing to be mentioned, probably, is that to fill the frame with a face with an RD1 with a 50 Lux at 1.4 you will be back further from the subject than someone making the same picture with an M9, and so DOF will be shallower on the m9 shot. You might be seeing that effect too... of course, the M9 more than makes up for that in print because of the resolution (it's actually more noticeable on wide group shots, where you get more pixels per face sort of thing).

 

The M9 is much, much sharper than the 5d, even with R glass, right out of the camera. Sharpen the 5d shots for print of course and they're just fine, every time, within the bounds of resolution, of course.

[lct]

'Out of the camera' becomes 'out of Capture One' more and more for me and in most cases the C1's default sharpening is good enough, not too sharp, not too soft, at least with my Epsons and Canon. My Nikon's are not that good with C1 i feel. Anyway back to the first days of the M9 i used to develop a lot of DNG files from it then and i found that it needed more sharpening than the M8. I should try it again with files out of M8 & M9 with the same lens i guess.

[Artichoke]

Why do i have the feeling that the M9 is a somewhat soft camera?

Epson R-D1, Summilux 50/1.4 asph, f/1.4, 100% crop.

 

I have been impressed with just how amazing the M9 is with the 50 Summilux ASPH

this combination may be my favorite (the 28 Summicron ASPH being a close rival) on the M9

I find lct's assertion surprising given the results I have been enjoying with my M9

here is a sample taken with complex ambient light

100% crop straight from the converter without any tweaks save for conversion to 8 bit for the net

 

taken from this finished photograph

 

 

which can be found at a larger size here http://www.pbase.com/artichoke/techniques

higher resolution cameras such as the M9 or D3X do tend to look less sharp at 100% reproduction, because they are resolving more & subsequently provide more information in the crop

this may seem counter-intuitive, but there is little question higher resolution cameras provide much more detail in the final photograph

in the example given by lct, there are very few skin pores or texture seen (would be nice to see the photograph from which this crop was taken, btw)

also I think the flesh tones look lifeless compared to what I get from the M9, which captures a much greater color bit depth than the RD-1

his eyelashes are lovely however ...my Dad doesn't have much in the way of eyelashes :-)

[adli]

My M9 + 50 Lux has also been on a short (10 days) trip to Solms for calibration.

 

To me, it seems pretty sharp and also spot on.

 

First picture is uncroped image, second is 100% crop. Both with Lighthrom 2.7 as raw converter, all settings as default.

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!

[lct]

...I find lct's assertion surprising given the results I have been enjoying with my M9... here is a sample taken with complex ambient light

100% crop straight from the converter... in the example given by lct, there are very few skin pores or texture seen...

 

Here a 100% crop with default sharpening of C1v4 as well. Nikon D70. My results with the 5D are comparable. With more resolution the eyes would be larger of course. (full frame unavailable sorry.)

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

[zlatkob]

Why do i have the feeling that the M9 is a somewhat soft camera

I think you get that impression because a 100% crop of a bigger file usually looks less sharp than a 100% crop of a smaller file. It's a bit like viewing a painting from a closer distance; the brushstrokes will look bigger.