jaapv Posted July 9, 2012 Share #101 Posted July 9, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Maurizio, good examples, but this is the technical forum, so please limit the number to what you need to make your point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 9, 2012 Posted July 9, 2012 Hi jaapv, Take a look here Leica M9 versus Fuji X Pro 1. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted July 9, 2012 Share #102 Posted July 9, 2012 I would be more happy if you used an adapter and Leica lenses, if only to eliminate the difference in color transmission of the lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted July 9, 2012 Share #103 Posted July 9, 2012 I'm sure you didn't had the opportunity to test them with AF in low light situations.I used both, and the AF precision and effectiveness of the mkIII just blow the mkII away. I take your word for it, but as I'm quite content with the AF of my MK1 in low light situations, I don't need anything better. It sounds a bit ironic... anyway... the fact that you don't see the limitations, doesn't mean that they're not there, and vice versa, the fact that you feel the limitations doesn't' actually turns you into a talented photographer, IMHO. With either the 5DMK1 or the M9 I've made plenty of deletable images, but none that I can honestly blame on the camera's limitations. When I start to see a significant number of images on my monitor that I can honestly say would have been perfect if not for a better camera, then I'll consider upgrading. Not before. If my remark sounded ironic it wasn't meant to be. If anything it might be envy. I really wish the camera was my biggest problem. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mauribix Posted July 9, 2012 Share #104 Posted July 9, 2012 I take your word for it, but as I'm quite content with the AF of my MK1 in low light situations, I don't need anything better. Exactly, but this is the difference between what is enough for each one of us, rather than what is really improved in the evolution of that camera. Anyway, I see your point. A simple limitation I have (and you could easily have too) is to shoot over 2500 ISO (so it's not a noise comparison, just the need to shoot in dim light with, let's say, a f:1.4 lens). With the M9, you simply can't do that. Or you can shoot at 2500 and then pull the shot +1 stop in PP, but that's not the same. If my remark sounded ironic it wasn't meant to be. If anything it might be envy. I really wish the camera was my biggest problem. No problem indeed, my friend. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mauribix Posted July 9, 2012 Share #105 Posted July 9, 2012 Maurizio, good examples, but this is the technical forum, so please limit the number to what you need to make your point. Jaap, I really can't see the point in your remark. I'm not making a showcase of my shots since those are nothing I could be proud of. I thought that was just enough the minimum required to discuss the reddish/pink/detail things we were on. I posted 3 shots, with three cameras, plus their PP corrected version taken in the same lighting conditions with same skin of the subjects, I guess the limit to what we need to make a point is still far, and that was meant to be just a beginning IMHO. Anyway I will simply stop posting these if this is not worth a thread in the forum. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mauribix Posted July 9, 2012 Share #106 Posted July 9, 2012 I would be more happy if you used an adapter and Leica lenses, if only to eliminate the difference in color transmission of the lenses. I had the adapter, and the lenses to use... If I could only have a fully working M9 as of this writing, I could post the samples too. Unfortunately, my digital M is on its ritual trip to Solms for the 5th time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 9, 2012 Share #107 Posted July 9, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) No problem, Maurizio, just a general remark to keep the bandwidth down. You are not in our books as an offender in this respect The question about lenses is because I am on rather uncalbrated monitors here, but all show a slight yellow tendency in your images. I was wondering if that is a specific bias of the Fuji lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted July 9, 2012 Share #108 Posted July 9, 2012 Bearing in mind this is the Leica User Forum, we should be looking at this camera with a Leica lens in use, rather than a Fuji one, IMHO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted July 9, 2012 Share #109 Posted July 9, 2012 Bearing in mind this is the Leica User Forum, we should be looking at this camera with a Leica lens in use, rather than a Fuji one, IMHO. I don't agree. I think it is perfectly reasonable to compare these cameras from a system point of view. That said, I think there is more than enough testing and comparing going on in the forum lately. Maybe it's the time of the year? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mauribix Posted July 9, 2012 Share #110 Posted July 9, 2012 Bearing in mind this is the Leica User Forum, we should be looking at this camera with a Leica lens in use, rather than a Fuji one, IMHO. Andy, we were making a comparison between camera systems and color tones between them since the discussion was M9 vs Fuji X-Pro1. Anyway, I have the feeling this is not the right place to share these kind of discussions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted July 9, 2012 Share #111 Posted July 9, 2012 Colour tones can be highly influenced by the lenses used, though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 9, 2012 Share #112 Posted July 9, 2012 Reason I asked my question about the slightly yellow cast. I'll have a look at home on a proper screen Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mauribix Posted July 9, 2012 Share #113 Posted July 9, 2012 In fact, this was a Summilux50 shot on the Fuji X-Pro1. Apologize if I forgot to mention it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 9, 2012 Share #114 Posted July 9, 2012 Whatever else - I love that flying rice It makes the shot as bubbly as the champagne. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mauribix Posted July 9, 2012 Share #115 Posted July 9, 2012 BTW, this is another shot, with the Fuji X-pro1 and the Summilux 50 pre-asph. ISO 200, manual WB, contrast +25. No sharpening, no other PP. Actually (but that may be just my sight) I can't see any reddish/pink issue with the file. I perfectly understand what Jamie pointed out as being "too Lightroom" though. 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/182572-leica-m9-versus-fuji-x-pro-1/?do=findComment&comment=2058792'>More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted July 9, 2012 Share #116 Posted July 9, 2012 Jamie, No one has, at least not in this thread. Certainly not I. I find it interesting, nevertheless, that so many have rushed to the defence of the M9's IQ, even though it is not under attack ... Viv--Maurizio's posts explicitly say the Fuji IQ is superior, for example. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted July 9, 2012 Share #117 Posted July 9, 2012 BTW, this is another shot, with the Fuji X-pro1 and the Summilux 50 pre-asph. ISO 200, manual WB, contrast +25. No sharpening, no other PP. Actually (but that may be just my sight) I can't see any reddish/pink issue with the file. I perfectly understand what Jamie pointed out as being "too Lightroom" though. In truth, that's one of the nicest-looking shots I've seen from the Fuji, Maurizio, for colour. The Summilux is certainly helping @ Jaap--I'm finding a lot of yellow in these posts too... So in this shot, she's still a little too yellow and cyan, but the cyan could be the properties of the shade or makeup or the resulting exposure setting. I suspect you could fix that if you wanted to with a little less density. So I'm suspecting whatever you're doing in Lightroom to control the blue / magenta (which, if you did no PP, seems to be the internal "profile" for the camera) is still needing a yellow adjustment. It's interesting; these are very much more yellow-biased results than I got from our tests. The difference might be manual WB (we just adjusted WB in post for the neutrals), but then, you also take out the colour of the light with manual WB. So if this is later in the day, it might be colder than it should be. Maurizio--are there any profile options you're using here? Did you create your own? I'm sorry, but I don't know LR 4 very well at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mauribix Posted July 9, 2012 Share #118 Posted July 9, 2012 Well, thank you Jamie for the compliment. I wish I could share the raw file with you. Can you handle RAF files with any of your PP software? I'd like to see what your workflow (taste) would be. If I have to be sincere, I'm finding the Fuji files more on the green side of the color spectrum. Anyway this shot was made in the late evening, in a shaded side of the court. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted July 9, 2012 Share #119 Posted July 9, 2012 {snipped}If I have to be sincere, I'm finding the Fuji files more on the green side of the color spectrum. Anyway this shot was made in the late evening, in a shaded side of the court. See--and that actually makes perfect sense with the yellow / warmth in the images you've posted. Another way to characterize what you've posted is that they measure as having too much green and not enough magenta, since they're opposing colours. So maybe LR 4 is doing something to control the camera's magenta bias, and that is giving you too much green (and too much yellow too, in relation to lowered magenta). Or maybe this is happening because the camera needs a white balance tweak for manual WB? Certainly the AWB shots you posted run with more magenta, but they run with too much magenta. So if you follow me, the too yellow saturation levels could be related to your green problem too: skin is too warm because in relation to magenta you have too much yellow You don't have enough magenta because you have too much green LOL gotta love CC. Anyway, this is why I was asking about your profile / setting choices... In C1, anyway, this kind of thing in nice light with an M9 is a simple click or two. Thanks for offering the RAW file. Right now, I really only have ACR and C1, so I'm not sure that's going to help me at this point. I'll take another look when C1 supports the camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted July 9, 2012 Share #120 Posted July 9, 2012 A simple limitation I have (and you could easily have too) is to shoot over 2500 ISO (so it's not a noise comparison, just the need to shoot in dim light with, let's say, a f:1.4 lens). With the M9, you simply can't do that. Or you can shoot at 2500 and then pull the shot +1 stop in PP, but that's not the same. I've shot in dim light with an f/1.4 lens for 45 years. The image quality of my M9 at 2500 is head and shoulders above what I could used to get with any combo of film and development, and more often than not I find it detrimental to the mood I want to portray. I can't think of a single occasion when I shot my M9 at 2500 and f/1.4 and wished the resulting image had less noise. I'm also the guy who can't be persuaded to trade my 130mph car on a 150mph car, inasmuch as I never drive faster than 90. I'm truly a marketing guy's nightmare Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.