geoffwin Posted February 17, 2012 Share #1 Posted February 17, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have an issue with my M9, and I am curious if others have experienced this problem or if I have a bad camera. The color quality of the files from my M9 is not good, particularly in comparison to the files I get from my M8, my Canon 5D and my Fuji x100. Specifically, the DNG files from my M9 are contrasty and cold-toned. With enough Photoshop work, I can generally correct the files to a relatively true color balance and acceptable contrast. But the M8 gives me totally beautiful color (especially in daylight) without any correction at all. Is something wrong with my M9? Also, as much as I love the M8 and the M9 (I have been a Leica rangefinder guy for 40 years) I am ready to sell them, for one simple reason. In my experience, their sensors cannot even begin to match the performance of my Canon 5D or even my Fuji x100 in low light. Why should I own a Leica, if a Canon or Fuji camera that costs a fraction of the Leica can outperform it hands down in low light. I love the Leicas for the way I see with them, but in my experience they are so far behind the other manufacturers in the technology of their sensors that they are no longer desirable, except as collector's items, which I fear is what Leica is focused on. Someone please tell me why I am wrong? geoffwin Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 Hi geoffwin, Take a look here Color and contrast issues with the M9. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
lct Posted February 17, 2012 Share #2 Posted February 17, 2012 ...The color quality of the files from my M9 is not good, particularly in comparison to the files I get from my M8, my Canon 5D and my Fuji x100. Specifically, the DNG files from my M9 are contrasty and cold-toned... Welcome to the forum Colors are a matter of tastes. I don't like those of the M9 for the opposite reason, too much red saturation in skin rendition. But if i like those of my M8.2 it is always after a bit of PP because i feel its jpegs somewhat poor personally. YMMV. ...Also, as much as I love the M8 and the M9 (I have been a Leica rangefinder guy for 40 years) I am ready to sell them, for one simple reason. In my experience, their sensors cannot even begin to match the performance of my Canon 5D or even my Fuji x100 in low light... The 5D1 is hardly better than the M9 in low light and X100 & 5D2 are more modern than M8 & M9. You will have to wait for the M10 to get clean high iso pics i'm afraid. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dannybuoy Posted February 17, 2012 Share #3 Posted February 17, 2012 I agree, the 5D2 runs circles around the M9 in certain low light conditions. But in the daylight my M9 creates files my 5D could only dream of (and I own L lenses). Just depends what you want from each one really. Also,you might want to get Lightroom 3 for RAW processing rather than use Photoshop but again I might be personal preference but I'm sure LR has the edge. LR4 looks to provide even better noise reduction tech too. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hydeca Posted February 17, 2012 Share #4 Posted February 17, 2012 If WB is correct colour is excellent... contrast also... it can take a while to get used to the look and feel but once camera raw conversion settings are fine tuned ... the image quality is superb 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlashGordonPhotography Posted February 17, 2012 Share #5 Posted February 17, 2012 When I changed from the 5D2 to the M9, the first thing I did was shot it like the Canon. This, as you'll probably guess, didn't work at all well. The CCD sensor in the M9 just doesn't act like a CMOS sensor. I have learned to NOT over expose the M9. It doesn't hold detail in the highlights like the Canon/Fuji. However the detail that can be extracted from the shadows is amazing. I now treat the M9 like a film camera, protecting the highlights. Try that and see if the files look better. Lots and lots has been said about how the M9 doesn't hold up like the 5D2 or D3x at high ISOs. But my opinion is why would you want that? I look at files from the 5D2 and 1D4 and they look clinical and plastic compared to the organic files from the M9, even at high ISOs. The M9 files undoubtably have more noise, but printed, that noise is far from objectionable. And the high iSO b&w prints are stunning up to 16x24. Thirdly I can hand hold a Leica at least two stops slower than my 5D2. So I use a lower ISO in the same situation. Jpegs on the Leica are pretty awful. Try raw files. Much better. If you want a CMOS look then you'll need to sel your M9. Personally I celebrate that it's got a different look. Plastic digital files are so common. M9 files are unique. Gordon 9 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted February 17, 2012 Share #6 Posted February 17, 2012 The color quality of the files from my M9 is not good, particularly in comparison to the files I get from my M8, my Canon 5D and my Fuji x100. Specifically, the DNG files from my M9 are contrasty and cold-toned. With enough Photoshop work, I can generally correct the files to a relatively true color balance and acceptable contrast. But the M8 gives me totally beautiful color (especially in daylight) without any correction at all. Is something wrong with my M9? If you need a Canon 5d for low light work that is as good a reason as any to sell the Leica's and keep that. But despite all the hubbub about high ISO in reality not many people do need it, and then on top of that an awful lot of photographers remember how to make photographs in low light from the days before high ISO. And if you ever wanted to make a perfect photograph wouldn't you want a camera with the very best lenses, no AA filter, and use low ISO anyway? But to your question about colour. You give no clues as to where you are starting from. Do you have a calibrated monitor etc? Have you put back to default all your Photoshop ACR settings in order to start with a blank sheet? You see 'cool and contrasty' is not my idea of an M9 RAW file straight out of the camera. I would say slightly flat and insipidly warm is the norm. So you have to make sure none of your 5d settings are affecting your M9 file. It is possible to build a whole post processing workflow based on compensating for errors in colour management along the way but still come out with an acceptable result at the end. But it may only work with one camera or with luck two before cracks start to show. Of course this may not be the case here but if in doubt and wanting to find an answer it is often a good idea to go back to basics. Steve 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 17, 2012 Share #7 Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) The color rendering of the M9 is certainly different to that of the M8 and it took the raw converters' software developers a short time to create new profiles when the camera came out. Might it be you are using very old versions of postprocessing software that have not been updated? I can only describe the colors and the contrast of the M9 as "rich" and similar to the M8, but could not do so in the first week of use. Using an M8 profile will produce a harsh and red-oversaturated image. It might be a good idea to download a trial version of the newest C1 or Adobe software, whatever you are more comfortable with, and try again. Having said that, it is the easiest thing in the world to process the DNG file to any color and contrast look you like from flat B&W to poppy oversaturated posters. It is just a starting point and in that respect it is not very relevant which camera you used. Edited February 17, 2012 by jaapv Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecar Posted February 17, 2012 Share #8 Posted February 17, 2012 The default M9 conversion in Camera Raw is far from ideal - particularly for skin tones, i.e. reds, oranges and magentas. In this respect, you may want to read Thorsten Overgaard's ongoing essay on his experience with the M9. He's a great photographer and a member of this forum. You will also find a link to a custom M9 profile, which may help a bit. That being said, I agree that M9 files often require more work than M8 ones, even with the latest software - but they also give you somewhat more latitude in terms of PP to achieve the result you want. Are you satisfied that the original DNG files are properly exposed? This may affect the perception of colors and contrast. What lenses do you normally use with the M9 and the Canon? Some of the differences in contrast/color rendering may be explained by the glass. For fairly static subjects and up to 1250 ISO, I'd take the M9's CCD + Leica glass over the 5D2's CMOS + L glass anytime. However, in some low-light situations, particularly when I want to freeze movement and "must get the shot", I'd rather use my 5D2 (fast lens + image stabilization + higher ISO) than my M9, although (a) I often need to resort to manual focus and ( the pictures definitely look more artificial. It is, as always, horses for courses. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted February 17, 2012 Share #9 Posted February 17, 2012 IMHO pulling the darkest sections of the images from the 5D/5D2 can all too easily produce unpleasant lines and other artifacts which I really don't like. Neither the M8 nor the M9 do this. Their shadow detail, whilst it can show substantially more 'noise' remains far more 'filmic' in quality - something which I much prefer. I would say that with the 5D/5D2 you have to ensure that the shadow detail needed in the shot is appropriately exposed for so that any unpleasantness can be dealt with, whilst the M8/9 files need care to ensure that highlights are not overloaded too much in the awareness that shadows can be 'pulled up' even if this does mean more noise. As for colour, well presets can be sorted out and this is rather a personal thing. If the 5D files are more to your taste straight out of the camera then so be it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
darylgo Posted February 17, 2012 Share #10 Posted February 17, 2012 Capture One and other raw converters can also process DNG from Leica, each processes different and will have a different look. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerryharwood Posted February 17, 2012 Share #11 Posted February 17, 2012 having used both Leica and Canon, and bearing in mind that if you want the best out of the Canon, then you must have L series glass, I certainly think that images from the Canon, particularly landscape, using just JPEGs, certainly show that leica is struggling to compete; I have carefully examined countless images from both, and there is no contest; Canon wins hands down, I even threw images taken on a Fuji 6X7, Trannies into the fray for comparison, and scanned as JPEGs. These also showed how dated the Leica software is. Sorry fellas, just my 4p worth. I have been using Leica for the last 50 years, and a vast number of other top end cameras and lenses as well.I am not biased, but as an analyst I check carefully what I see. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Negative Posted February 17, 2012 Share #12 Posted February 17, 2012 Colors and contrast are what you make them. Sure, the lens plays a part, but the M9 is more than capable. The rest comes in post-processing (unless you prefer out-of-camera JPEGs). I shoot DNG, and during import I like to keep the curve linear. Though I do use a custom color profile. Once in Photoshop, I use a saved curve that I call "Nudge contrast" which is basically a gentle "S" curve. I tweak from there to taste by nudging 2-3 control points. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 17, 2012 Share #13 Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) having used both Leica and Canon, and bearing in mind that if you want the best out of the Canon, then you must have L series glass, I certainly think that images from the Canon, particularly landscape, using just JPEGs, certainly show that leica is struggling to compete; I have carefully examined countless images from both, and there is no contest; Canon wins hands down, I even threw images taken on a Fuji 6X7, Trannies into the fray for comparison, and scanned as JPEGs. These also showed how dated the Leica software is.Sorry fellas, just my 4p worth. I have been using Leica for the last 50 years, and a vast number of other top end cameras and lenses as well.I am not biased, but as an analyst I check carefully what I see. Ummm... The software is by Adobe, Capture One, etc. Leica has nothing to do with it. Or are you using out-of-camera jpgs? In that case be happy with inferior results... Great for convenience I guess, but not meant to get the best out of your camera. Comparable to "analyzing" Wall-Mart prints.... Edited February 17, 2012 by jaapv Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
haroldp Posted February 20, 2012 Share #14 Posted February 20, 2012 LR and photoshop use ACR for raw processing and are identical. Check that the camera profile you use is right for the m9 ... H Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdk Posted February 21, 2012 Share #15 Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) I have an issue with my M9, and I am curious if others have experienced this problem or if I have a bad camera. The color quality of the files from my M9 is not good, particularly in comparison to the files I get from my M8, my Canon 5D and my Fuji x100. Specifically, the DNG files from my M9 are contrasty and cold-toned. With enough Photoshop work, I can generally correct the files to a relatively true color balance and acceptable contrast. But the M8 gives me totally beautiful color (especially in daylight) without any correction at all. Is something wrong with my M9? geoffwin Hi Geoff, It’s possible that something is wrong if all your DNGs look horrible and blue. Perhaps the white balance function isn’t working right. You might want to have it checked out by Leica or a repair tech in Texas. Perhaps there is something that can be adjusted or repaired to bring the camera up to acceptable performance. Your experience with your camera does not parallel mine. I recently got an M9p, my first serious digital camera, and the results I’ve got are quite good. My daylight shots do sometimes look a bit contrasty and I often change the curve in Adobe Camera Raw (in CS5.5) to linear rather than the default curve (which mildly increases contrast). Auto white balance is usually fine on my camera for daylight, but not for night photography, which can have wildly yellow or blue light depending on the location. I usually do have to play a bit with low light images to get them to look good, but I have been pleased with the results, especially at ISO 800. I can’t compare to Canons but the M9 results are fine for me. You can see some of my M9 photos here: https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10150483535375530.427219.754075529&type=3 Good luck, Steve K. Edited February 21, 2012 by sdk Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdk Posted February 21, 2012 Share #16 Posted February 21, 2012 Hi Geoff et al, Actually, the photos look a bit off in the Facebook album (too down-sampled). Here are full resolution JPEGs to show that the M9 should be capable of good image quality: Index of /~keirst/leica/M9HiRes Steve K. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 21, 2012 Share #17 Posted February 21, 2012 Hi Geoff, It’s possible that something is wrong if all your DNGs look horrible and blue. Perhaps the white balance function isn’t working right. You might want to have it checked out by Leica or a repair tech in Texas. Perhaps there is something that can be adjusted or repaired to bring the camera up to acceptable performance. Your experience with your camera does not parallel mine. I recently got an M9p, my first serious digital camera, and the results I’ve got are quite good. My daylight shots do sometimes look a bit contrasty and I often change the curve in Adobe Camera Raw (in CS5.5) to linear rather than the default curve (which mildly increases contrast). Auto white balance is usually fine on my camera for daylight, but not for night photography, which can have wildly yellow or blue light depending on the location. I usually do have to play a bit with low light images to get them to look good, but I have been pleased with the results, especially at ISO 800. I can’t compare to Canons but the M9 results are fine for me. You can see some of my M9 photos here: https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10150483535375530.427219.754075529&type=3 Good luck, Steve K. White balance has nothing to do with DNG.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdk Posted February 21, 2012 Share #18 Posted February 21, 2012 White balance has nothing to do with DNG.... While white balance doesn't change the information in the DNG it does set a file's initial appearance in Adobe Camera Raw. So it seems to me that a camera that was mismeasuring auto white balance could produce files that always look bad at first viewing. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 21, 2012 Share #19 Posted February 21, 2012 Well, yes, but then you can always hit "auto"in the raw converter. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdk Posted February 21, 2012 Share #20 Posted February 21, 2012 Hi Geoff, I thought of one other cause of blueish images in M9 cameras, leaving the UV-IR filters used for the M8 on lenses when shooting with the M9. This will give a cyan-bluish cast that gets worse toward the corners. You are not doing that are you? Steve K. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.