M-9 and JPEG format

[kdriceman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

HI all, This is quite a response to my inquiry. Remember i do not enjoy sitting at a computer but i passionately enjoy taking fotos with my film Leicas. It appears most would not shoot in JPEG mode and to enjoy full benefit of Leica glass one needs pp. It also appears that M-9 JPEGS are not up to slide film quality but there are some that say if you get the right exposure and focus correctly the JPEGS do equal or exceed that of Canon or Nikon. Thanks again for all of your advice, Jay

 

Jay, I'm still perplexed. Regardless of whether out of camera M9 JPEG is better or worse than Canon or Nikon JPEG, you will need to spend some time in front of a computer if you go digital. Going Canon, Nikon or Leica doesn't significantly change the amount of computer time required to get comparable quality JPEGS. However, if you prefer the darkroom to sitting in front of a computer you should not go digital.

[bill]

I honestly think that Jay is saying something similar to me. I would no more want to spend hours in a darkroom than in front of a screen. Is that so hard to understand?

 

The thrill is in the hunt not in the cooking.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[Advertisement]

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

[kdriceman]

I honestly think that Jay is saying something similar to me. I would no more want to spend hours in a darkroom than in front of a screen. Is that so hard to understand?

 

The thrill is in the hunt not in the cooking.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

Completely understand that. Just don't understand the rationale for comparison of out of camera M9 to Canon and Nikon.

[Xmas]

HI all, This is quite a response to my inquiry. Remember i do not enjoy sitting at a computer but i passionately enjoy taking fotos with my film Leicas. It appears most would not shoot in JPEG mode and to enjoy full benefit of Leica glass one needs pp. It also appears that M-9 JPEGS are not up to slide film quality but there are some that say if you get the right exposure and focus correctly the JPEGS do equal or exceed that of Canon or Nikon. Thanks again for all of your advice, Jay

 

No the thread has been taken over by those who dont want to explain.

 

If you want quality but no PP you use RAW, you use the tool from the M9 CD to file the images, think you can drink coffee while it works, not real PP.

If you dont want quality you use JPEG. I.e. the file formats do have a difference in quality, nothing to do with post processing.

The RAW files and current slide film will be different in every way, the M9 RAW will be different from Canon or Nikon DSLR as well. Which one you like the best is subjective. The M9 files will be sharper then the full frame DSLRs, but the M9 wont have as nice low light performance, the impact of that depends on your style of shooting.

The M9 allows a differnet style of shooting, if you are using a M6/7 rather than a Nikon F2/5 then you will like the M9.

 

Everything should be easier then your film Ms, e.g. no scanning, if you have an iphone, the street positions of photo shoots can be added to every shot, with an apple app, pretty automatically.

 

The only possible snag is exposure is more sensitive to error, you may have to dial in 2/3 of a stop underexposure or use single coated lenses on sunny days, as I do with film anyway, to stay happy...

 

Although the shots will be sharper, leica lenses, low vibration etc. they will also be subject to moire occassionally and you would need to PP that if it annoys, DSLR do that in camera, but it degrades sharpness, on every shot.

 

Borrow a M8 or M9... expect to have hard learning curve 1st few days.

 

Noel

[jbirdjaf]

I have a stand alone dvd burner (not linked to a computer) that accepts memory cards from my Canon digicams and when i'm done shooting a set of photos i plug in memory card and burn a dvd and label it. Some dvd's have 30 shots while others have 100's. Easy to store and catalogue and no computer crashes with data loss. If i want to see photos there's a playback from dvd burner directly to a tv or i can place dvd in computer or take dvd to lab to print foto. I've never pp a foto which makes me a dinosaur of sorts but i'm very happy with my fotos and enlargements on my walls. My best fotos are slide film which a lab can turn into a print. Leica film cameras outshine my Canon film or digital cameras. I was hoping to hear that M-9 JPEG'S rival the quality of slide film or equal Canon or Nikon JPEGS without pp, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Thanks, Jay

[kdriceman]

I see. Well you might want to obtain some JPEGs from both M9 and Canon/Nikon and determine if you can accept the JPEG IQ before you decide what you want to do.

[robert blu]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thank you Xmas for your answer. I know the data loosing when opening and closing JPGS files, which I would avoid. In a few cases I soon convert them to TIFF prior to work on them. When I use LR3 I keep them as DNG and make the necessary modification. If export to CS3 for more "intensive" work they will be automatically converted to TIFF. Because LR (as Aperture I think) has no destructive processing I think (guess?) that is better to keep the originals with a track of work done on them. Stored on two different HD.

grazie e ciao,

robert

PS prk60091 says: i lurk here in the m9 forum but i am an x1 shooter.....(my finance chief will not approve the funds for the m9 ) : same situation here, I understand you !

[prk60091]

. . . Because LR (as Aperture I think) has no destructive processing I think (guess?) that is better to keep the originals with a track of work done on them. . . !

 

aperture does no destructive processing as well

[Xmas]

I was hoping to hear that M-9 JPEG'S rival the quality of slide film or equal Canon or Nikon JPEGS without pp, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Thanks, Jay

 

No I have not explained if you use JPEG you have bought a Ferrarri but are ignoring 5th and 6th gear. The DSLR and M9 will suffer simlar JPEG degradation, probably the M9 more, but it still should be better.

 

The choice of camera is down to style of photos and low light requirements. The DSLR better at low light, long range tele shots etc.

 

The PP you might need is dependent on the shots you take, with film all mine need PP, well 99%, not the fault of the film or the camera.

 

Noel

[BerndReini]

I want to point out something that a lot of people don't really think about. When I upgraded from and M8 to an M9 and started shooting 16bit 22mp raw files, my computer was definitely getting bogged down by these big files. I work with a top-of-the line Macbook Pro with 8GB of RAM and I would love to have a little extra speed for processing. So when you say you are not into post-processing, do you own a fast computer though? Otherwise you might as well budget another couple of grand for that to make full use out of the M9. Then again, working with Tiff files from scanned negatives is even worse.

[robert blu]

Then again, working with Tiff files from scanned negatives is even worse.

 

I agree, my TIFF files from ED5000 35mm 16 bit are 110-130 MB !

rob

[kdriceman]

Since I usually shoot in RAW/DNG, I never actually thought about the JPEGs straight out of the camera. So I just took a shot of my kid's colorful playtoy with both my M9 and my Canon EOS 7D. M9 Settings: White Balance=Daylight (there is no artificial light in this room); Compression=JPEG Fine; Sharpening=Standard; Color Saturation=Standard; Contrast=Standard. 1/180s; ISO=320; Lens=Summicron 35mm @ f/2.8 . One photo is straight out of the camera (bypassed Lightroom altogether), the other is processed in LR with only one click on the 'Auto' button, exported as a JPEG at 100% Quality, 300ppi, Sharpen for screen.

 

I actually think it looks pretty good. I would post the Canon image (taken at 1/160, f/2.8, ISO 320), but I don't think we are allowed to post non-Leica images. Although the 7D is not a full frame, it is creates impressive images IMO (not like the M9, but still impressive). However, I prefer this Leica image to the Canon.

 

Now the Canon does have pretty good on-board noise reduction for its JPEGs which the Leica doesn't have (I don't think), so at higher ISO's the M9 will likely have a noisier JPEG image...

 

Anyway, so much for my lunch break... back to work.

 

Sorry.... Here is the link to the shot straight out of the camera: https://picasaweb.google.com/kdriceman/M9#5608851340109877250

and Here is the link to the lightly processed LR JPEG: https://picasaweb.google.com/kdriceman/M9#5608851499819136354

Edited May 20, 2011 by kdriceman
Image Links

[Xmas]

Now the Canon does have pretty good on-board noise reduction for its JPEGs which the Leica doesn't have (I don't think), so at higher ISO's the M9 will likely have a noisier JPEG image...

 

Using RAW and TIFF is good using JPEG bad, agonising about Leica lenses buying them and then using JPG woooooo.

 

The M9 has a different sensor and different processing from high end DSLR but

both the RAW and JPEG will be noisier at high ISO.

 

The large TIFF will need a powerful tower >> £, but if you save by using JPEG you might as well use CV or FSU cheap lenses like me, as well, or even a DSLR.

 

Noel

[jaapv]

I have been thinking this over... I think the best solution would be for the OP to get one of my all-time favorite cameras - a Digilux2. It seems perfectly suited for his style of photography.

[ho_co]

I like the Digilux 2 as well. Superb camera, excellent JPGs--but only 5 MP.

 

Nothing wrong with getting an M9 and using it for JPG only, but it is overkill.

 

Also good JPGs from D-Lux 4 and D-Lux 5, with enough features for any dSLR lover!

[tobey bilek]

Do not waste money if you wish to use JPEG only. Honestly pertains for any digital camera, but here you would be hard pressed to tell Leica from a low end DSLR Nikon which are really pretty if you try one.

 

Get a Nikon D7000 with 35 1.8 for $1500.

[brill64]

I honestly think that Jay is saying something similar to me. I would no more want to spend hours in a darkroom than in front of a screen. Is that so hard to understand?

 

The thrill is in the hunt not in the cooking

Here speaketh wise words. Actually the jpgs are pretty good. I regularly submit mine for publication because of exactly what Bill says. Considering the editors, layout artists and printers all play their part to take something away from that, they look okie published. If you want more control & your own signature then raw is the way to go. Owning an m6 I'd say that suggest that you're not exactly moving up as moving the goalposts a bit anyway welcome to the forum

[robert blu]

With todays technology to make an acceptable picture is easy. To make a good pictures is more complicated. To make an excellent picture you need to dedicate time and efforts, having to deal with learning (wet darkroom or postprocessing). No shortway to masterpieces!

It depends where you put the limit of your satisfaction. Jpegs or raw or wet. It depends at what level you are satisfied.

robert

[jbirdjaf]

Jaap, Howard, AND tobey bilek............ are you saying that a $7,000.00 camera produces JPEG'S comparable to a point and shoot ????

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[ho_co]

Fair question, Jay. Hadn't thought of it that way.

 

No, they're better than the P&S. But the point-n-shoot is good enough a lot of the time.

 

I guess the comments come from our preference for RAW files.

 

The fact is, I shoot my point-n-shoots only in RAW as well. But Thorsten Overgaard feels the Digilux 2 is best as JPG-only. With it and the other P&S cameras mentioned, shooting JPG allows more options--faster shooting, auto bracketing, auto aspect-ratio bracketing etc.

 

If you nail it (exposure, WB) with JPG, then you nailed it. Period. No arguments. If you almost nailed it in JPG, there's a little adjustment room in the file. But with RAW, you've still got room to adjust even if you're fairly far from nailing it.

 

If you want an M9, get it. It makes good JPGs. And if you find you'd like to be able to adjust the images more, go DNG.