Leica M9 versus Fuji X Pro 1

[Jamie Roberts]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Jamie,

As they are for you, skin tones are very important to me.

The M9's skin tones are so different according to the developer I use (Capture One, LR4/CS6/ Aperture) that I cannot agree that M9 skin tones need little adjustment.

The M9 jpegs which I assume are Leica's idea of what color should be like, are worse.

After much more than 3 decades of Leica M, it is not surprising that I feel most comfortable with my M9.

But it has not kept me from truly enjoying the handling and being very pleased with the results from my Xpro, including its rendering of skin tones

which is also very sensitive to the program used for processing RAW files.

 

I'm glad you're happy with your XPro. I think it's a very nice camera for what it is. But IMO it's IQ is just not on par--not in the same league, actually--with an M9.

 

And my advice to you if skin tones are important is to stick with a raw developer and really learn it. If I may suggest one for the Leicas, it would be Capture One, though I hear LR 4 is much improved from LR3, which was much improved over the absolutely dreadful treatment of Leica DNGs prior to that release. LR3 still has too much colour instability for my liking (as in, you get the neutral right and you need one heck of a curve correction for skin tones).

 

I should say, as well, that it's true I've never even *seen* an M9 JPEG! I don't ever shoot them and I really couldn't care less about them. I don't buy Leica for their "colour sense" and never have. The same goes for the MM, but that's a different story entirely Leica has been very smart with their choice of sensor provider to date, and there's a family resemblance in the Kodak pro sensors (all the M / R / S Leica digital cameras) that I pray Leica doesn't lose entirely with a switch to CMOS in the M10.

 

Anyway, I've been using C1 since it was C1 DSLR and v1.x around 2003-2004, and I've processed the M8, the DMR, the S2 and the M9 (as well as numerous Nikons and Canons) with it. It is brilliant IMO and so it's the workflow developer for me. FWIW, though, I'm familiar with LR / ACR and SilkyPix, as well as programming DCRAW and some other Mac programs. I can't say anything at all about Aperture: it's output performance just never appealed to me no matter how easy it is to use.

 

So when I say the M9 needs not very much colour correction from raw, I also don't mean it needs "none"--but in my workflow and with C1, it's not very much at all and it's far more consistent than many, many other cameras across all kinds of conditions. That's important for correction, too. Other cameras--including both Fuji Xs in my experience--are less consistent and less well-balanced. That doesn't mean they can't be fixed in post; but they take far more work.

 

Now: the learning curve to understand this isn't short. And please don't misunderstand me: some of the most satisfying personal pictures I've ever taken I've taken with my iPhone 3GS and 4s.

 

But I wouldn't go posting that their IQ is equal or better than the M9s

[Advertisement]

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

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped}

 

Take Overgaard. In his M9 color skin tone comments he routinely reduces the red and oranges in skin tones to suit his Danish style. Actually I tend to agree with his directional change for M9 skin tone changes, but maybe not so far.

 

Yes, Thorsten and I have talked about this in the past on this forum. He likes a bit more cyan in his skin (taking out yellow and magenta) that is quite a lot like many European printing processes for magazines. Personally, I find them just a bit too cold (we live in a nothern country here, too, in Canada) but his are still well within the normally accepted colour ratios for Caucasian skin.

 

In truth, I think pleasing skin tones are culturally conditioned expectations, if not geographically determined. A great basic book on this to start is Lee Varis's Skin

 

Guide to digitally lighting, photographing and retouching faces and bodies.

 

But it's only a beginning. If you want more on retouching or correcting skin there's a ton on the 'net.

 

Most digital camera outputs simply are not very good with colour. Most of the "wonder" many pro digital shooters have when shooting, say, Portra for the first time (or after a long time) comes down to the fact that they can't believe how "right" the skin tones are: Kodak knows a thing or two about colour science, and, if you supply the light--they just "take care" of the colour for you.

 

Fuji knows lots too, to be sure--but honestly it's very expensive to provide consistently good colour in a digital camera, and takes a long time in R&D. And it seems to me that Fuji went for the higher ISO "wow" factor rather than concentrate on colour. That's ok--that's the kind of tradoff I'd expect in a camera that costs what the XPro costs.

 

The 5d3 I have here from Canon--much more expensive than a 5d2, BTW--is the first one I've ever shot that actually has decent (as in "film-like") skin tones without a ton of correction for too much magenta. Nikon dSLRs--even the most expensive ones--have their own problems with yellow and cyan.

 

That shouldn't be that surprising. Canon's or Sony's (they make Nikon's sensors) professional cine-camera sensors--where skin tones are *critical* and no one will be correcting for that as much in post--cost orders of magnitude more money than their dSLR--let alone point and shoot--equivalents, and a lot of that cost is the sensor and colour engine involved. Same goes for Phase, Leaf, Hassy and so on.

 

So I don't expect a $2K camera to have superb colour out of the box--not without a lot of work... or to be comparable to an $8K camera.

[archi4]

Jamie

I can only agree entirely with your reply. LR4 has indeed been improved, but my program of choice is still Capture One which I have used since I went partly digital (next to my M film cameras) with an Olympus E1. The color rendering of that camera was exceptionally good and in my opinion thanks to the Kodak ccd it used.

Thank you very much for the link, by the way.

[Viv]

 

But I wouldn't go posting that their IQ is equal or better than the M9s

 

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 ...

[bocaburger]

I shot with a friend's 5D3 and couldn't find a single thing to convince me to pay for it over a 5D2. As a matter of fact I bought one (5D2) used, intending to sell my 5D1. Instead I ended up sending it back and buyng a "beater" second 5D1. Like the M9 it is "old tech" but as with the M9 the limiting factor in my photography is the photographer. It must be awesome to be so talented as you guys who are held back by the M9's limitations.

[Mauribix]

Fuji knows lots too, to be sure--but honestly it's very expensive to provide consistently good colour in a digital camera, and takes a long time in R&D. And it seems to me that Fuji went for the higher ISO "wow" factor rather than concentrate on color.

 

Jamie, I personally believe that this is not actually correct.

I think the higher ISO "wow" is not in the low signal/noise ratio (The 5DmkII seems to make a better job there), the "wow" effect is much more on the color quality at higher iso IMHO.

 

By the way, the CMOS Array used in the Fuji X-mos sensor is the result of a huge effort in R&D (and that was the same with the hexagonal photo sites of the S3).

 

So I don't expect a $2K camera to have superb colour out of the box--not without a lot of work... or to be comparable to an $8K camera.

I would like that to be true, but as for now I can just consider what I see, and what I see is not a 6K difference (whatever it means ).

 

Anyway, I just ended up shooting two weddings this past Saturday and Sunday, I used the Fuji a lot, I'm now in the PP moment, so, if the skin tone is really an issue, I will learn it soon.

[Mauribix]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I shot with a friend's 5D3 and couldn't find a single thing to convince me to pay for it over a 5D2.

 

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.

 

Like the M9 it is "old tech" but as with the M9 the limiting factor in my photography is the photographer. It must be awesome to be so talented as you guys who are held back by the M9's limitations.

 

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.

[jaques]

the m9 was perfect for any serious photographer- until the M9M came out... now the M9 is not the best for B&W... when the M10 comes out the m9 will not really be quite good enough in the ISO department...

[dhsimmonds]

The M9M produces the best colour images!

[dhsimmonds]

Jamie

I am interested in your experiences at developing the raw images from the XP1. Would you mind sharing which Raw converter you used for this please?

[Mauribix]

OK,

so I'd like to share some samples.

First, a 3200 ISO shot, AWB, fuji X-Pro1, Mixed artificial light, no PP at all. Lightroom 4 conversion from raw file to JPG.

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!

[archi4]

I have found the best developer for Xpro-1 to be RPP (Raw Photo Processor 64)

the latest version does an excellent job with M9 files.

I truly hope to see Capture One supporting the Xpro-1 in the near future as that is my processor of choice.

 

I am not certain that IQ is directly related to the price. A large part of the cost of the M9 is due to the complex mechanical rangefinder and the extremely close tolerances it requires, coupled with the manufacturing process. Of course the sensor is larger and is provided with microlenses

Just my personal take

[Mauribix]

Let's see now two shots. One is made with the M9, Summilux 50 ASPH, ISO 160.

The other one is the Fuji X-Pro1, Fujinon 35 f:1.4 Aspherical, and the Last one is Canon 5DmkII with 35 1.4L lens.

 

These first three shots are AWB, no PP, no sharpening, converted through Lightroom4.

 

Guess which is one...

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!

[Mauribix]

Now, the last three shots set at 5000°K in PP, conversion through Lightroom4. No PP, no sharpening.

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!

[Mauribix]

And now, a Fuji X-Pro1 shot, AWB first, manual WB then.

Lightroom4 conversion, no PP, no sharpening, no color changes.

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!

[Mauribix]

Last, but not least ,

this is a 2000ISO shot, Fuji X-Pro1, Fujinon 35mm 1.4 Aspherical.<

Full frame first, and what should be a 100% crop (more or less) then.

No PP, just Manual WB, no sharpening, no color correction.

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]

the m9 was perfect for any serious photographer- until the M9M came out... now the M9 is not the best for B&W... when the M10 comes out the m9 will not really be quite good enough in the ISO department...

 

Not true at all, for me anyway, and I've said so repeatedly.

[Jamie Roberts]

Jamie

I am interested in your experiences at developing the raw images from the XP1. Would you mind sharing which Raw converter you used for this please?

 

Sure--

 

I was borrowing a friend's camera, and I brought my M9 along. We first did a series of tests with SilkyPix, which has a pretty good colour engine IMO, even if it is *one weird* user experience

 

Then we moved to Lightroom 4. I did let him drive--he's a LR guy and I'm not

 

Now, there's a million ways to make things look different in raw processing. It took him much longer to get acceptable results in LR 4 than it took me with the M9 in C1.

 

There may be a lot of reasons for that. But then, the results corroborated everything else I'd seen out of the Fuji to date.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Jamie Roberts]

Last, but not least ,

this is a 2000ISO shot, Fuji X-Pro1, Fujinon 35mm 1.4 Aspherical.<

Full frame first, and what should be a 100% crop (more or less) then.

No PP, just Manual WB, no sharpening, no color correction.

 

Hey Maurizio,

 

Lovely shots!

 

I'll send you a PM when I get a moment; I'm in an album processing nightmare right now I understand entirely what you're shooting and I'm happy you like those results, though I have to say they all look a lot like Lightroom IMO

[dhsimmonds]

Sure--

 

I was borrowing a friend's camera, and I brought my M9 along. We first did a series of tests with SilkyPix, which has a pretty good colour engine IMO, even if it is *one weird* user experience

 

Then we moved to Lightroom 4. I did let him drive--he's a LR guy and I'm not

 

Now, there's a million ways to make things look different in raw processing. It took him much longer to get acceptable results in LR 4 than it took me with the M9 in C1.

 

There may be a lot of reasons for that. But then, the results corroborated everything else I'd seen out of the Fuji to date.

 

Thanks Jamie

 

The ONLY real problem for me with my XP1 is the lack of raw processing in C1 Pro yet.

I have seen some good results from Silkypix but I have found the best results with what's available so far is with Adobe CS6, Adobe Raw but then eliminate all sharpening to zero on the default and save the image (I usually save to tiff) then reopen in CS6 and sharpen to suit using 'unsharp'. I get a much cleaner image this way. There is no doubt that the new design of sensor with it's innovative array of pixels has caused some head scratching amongst the raw program developers. Adobe are nearly there but not quite IMHO.

 

It is interesting that both C1 and Aperture are taking an awful long time to get it right before releasing a sub standard converter.........or not at all!

 

This is why I asked you the question, sorry!