JeTexas Posted January 22, 2013 Share #61 Posted January 22, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) I don't understand why they're posting photos from September at this point. Surely the firmware has improved since then. If the camera is almost ready to ship, why not give us some really recent photos? The photographer had a few months to do some PP on these too (such as cloning out dust bunnies at least) but he didn't. Very strange. It's like we are in a time warp and it is still only a few days after the M launch. Marketing/advertising works four-to-six months ahead. Agencies are already focused on dads and grads at this point. They probably have the entire series of these photos/videos, which were shots over the course of several months, in the can and ready to be published along some pre-set schedule leading up to the camera's arrival. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 22, 2013 Posted January 22, 2013 Hi JeTexas, Take a look here new 'official' M240 pics up!. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
JCharlton Posted January 23, 2013 Share #62 Posted January 23, 2013 Just to be fair, a little post goes a long way. Original Processed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D&A Posted January 23, 2013 Share #63 Posted January 23, 2013 Just to be fair, a little post goes a long way. Original Processed LOL...everyone was talking about an image with a donkey and I went through all posted images multiple times and kept saying to myself, what donkey?? Examining both shots (links) posted by JCharlton (above)...I've been so focused on skin tones and the human element all this time, I missed the donkey completely! In any case, whether one looks at either one of these two images ( either the one originally posted or with the additional post processing), the woman on the right side of the frame (with child in hand), has very ruddy/magenta skin tone and this is somewhat disappointing. I realize it may simply be old firmware. Has anyone considered that all images might be taken by the new M (M240) but with two individual M240 cameras with different firmware revisions in order to compare. If this is the case, one might read M9 in the exif data while the other reads M240 and thats why images from each camera look different. Every time they make a firmware revision early one, there must be some testing in comparing the two. Just a thought. Dave (D&A) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted January 23, 2013 Share #64 Posted January 23, 2013 Hope they improve IQ real soon, other wise we will all be Beta testers! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brill64 Posted January 23, 2013 Share #65 Posted January 23, 2013 Why are Leica putting such poor images out there? There were the few beach shots originally, then the yachting party and now these. What on earth are they trying to do?! Although conjectural, my feeling is that it's not the camera or eminent magnum photographer that is at fault. It's more likely to be the ad agency & whomever is handling the account not fully understanding the product. It's almost certainly not the same agency that released the M9. Whilst appearing casual & relaxed in his approach on the video, I'm sure Jean Gaumy carefully backed up his images & what better than to do that than with an M9! The agency probably mixed them up after they were submitted because they were on a tight deadline & didn't check the exif data before doing so. JB Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecaton Posted January 23, 2013 Share #66 Posted January 23, 2013 5) This is the best Leica has to offer!? No, but the most versatile;) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecaton Posted January 23, 2013 Share #67 Posted January 23, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Leica decided to post pics shortly before launching the product which leave a lot of questions. A Solms marketing strategy to keep demand under control and avoid being backordered for many months to come:) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John McMaster Posted January 23, 2013 Share #68 Posted January 23, 2013 All the images look to be posted in Adobe RGB colour space, they look better converted to sRGB..... john Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramosa Posted January 23, 2013 Share #69 Posted January 23, 2013 Flat, boring images. Did my mother take these with her 5-year-old P&S? Pardon that ... Seriously, while I have been waiting to see the M, it's starting to look like the M9 will be my upgrade from an M8. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barjohn Posted January 23, 2013 Share #70 Posted January 23, 2013 Leica management must read this forum but I haven't seen a reasonable explanation yet for the release of poor quality images unless it is that Leica management thinks these are great images and we are just not capable of seeing that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted January 23, 2013 Share #71 Posted January 23, 2013 Whatever these are they are disappointing especially from a color standpoint. They are flat and ordinary. I don't know how they are processed or if they are jpegs. Until Leica releases DNG files and I have a way to develop them it is all useless, really. Again, Leica please release DNG files and an update to LR as soon as you are ready. But, no more of this. It is just silly and a waste of our time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted January 23, 2013 Share #72 Posted January 23, 2013 All the images look to be posted in Adobe RGB colour space, they look better converted to sRGB..... john That is an interesting observation. All of these photos have the Adobe RGB color profile. I believe sRGB is still the standard for images to be shown on the Internet. If anyone is viewing them in a non-color-profile-aware browser, they will see dull and muted colors. Most people are probably using profile-aware browsers, but perhaps some aren't and as a result are seeing dull colors. Why is it "wrong" to put Adobe RGB images on websites? - Photo.net Digital Darkroom Forum Digital-Image Color Spaces - Jeffrey Friedl's Blog - excellent 7-part article. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted January 23, 2013 Share #73 Posted January 23, 2013 Good point Z. I am viewing with Safari and it is aware of color profiles. I know this is a problem in the past for some browsers. It would seem like this would have been solved by now across all browsers. I think this is a link to a test photo that will tell people if their browser can display correct profiles: Is your system ICC Version 4 ready? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoppyman Posted January 23, 2013 Share #74 Posted January 23, 2013 It seems a bit silly to me for people to be rushing to judgements and conclusions. We know nothing about the camera settings beyond the exposure data from the EXIF and nothing about the post processing except that it was done in CS3. Of course there are no optimised profiles currently either. Looking at these in a proper colour managed environment (not just in a web browser) on a calibrated monitor and in a full Adobe RGB colour space shows very different colour and tonal rendition too. The wedding set exhibit encouraging tonal range to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindolfi Posted January 23, 2013 Share #75 Posted January 23, 2013 Good point Z. I am viewing with Safari and it is aware of color profiles. I know this is a problem in the past for some browsers. It would seem like this would have been solved by now across all browsers. I think this is a link to a test photo that will tell people if their browser can display correct profiles: Is your system ICC Version 4 ready? Thanks. The lesson here is also: don't use an iPad or iPhone with Safari to judge colors in these images: no ICC support. I agree that these images can not be used to say anything about the M 240. We need DNGs taken with the M9 with known firmware and with the M 240 of same subject, same conditions, same settings, preferably with a large subject brightness range. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted January 23, 2013 Share #76 Posted January 23, 2013 #8 -> Artist: Jean GaumyCredit: ©Jean Gaumy / Magnum Photos Camera: Leica Camera AG LEICA M (Typ 240) Lens: 35 mm (Max aperture f/1.4) Exposure: Manual, 1/60 sec, f/4.8, ISO 400 Flash: none Color: Adobe RGB When I read all the answers, I'm glad to know that I'll easily sell my M9 , and for a good price Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted January 23, 2013 Share #77 Posted January 23, 2013 Thanks. The lesson here is also: don't use an iPad or iPhone with Safari to judge colors in these images: no ICC support. I agree that these images can not be used to say anything about the M 240. We need DNGs taken with the M9 with known firmware and with the M 240 of same subject, same conditions, same settings, preferably with a large subject brightness range. Well said, agree 100%... and thiscomparision will be done, I think, only by reviewers with production items... and there must be a reason why Stefan Daniel spoke recently of March 2013 as first deliveries... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted January 23, 2013 Share #78 Posted January 23, 2013 When the camera does become available, I think there's going to be a lot to read, especially from those who are expert in colour management, profiles and so on (I do not count myself among them BTW). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwbell Posted January 23, 2013 Share #79 Posted January 23, 2013 Lot of camera design experts, photography experts and marketing experts in here today. What a well educated audience. Sarcasm aside, as clearly we all know we're an armchair expert at everything at some point. And deep down we all know that no, we couldn't shoot that penalty if it was up to us. And no, we don't own and run one of the most highly regarded photo optical companies in the industry. And no, Magnum never did come knocking at the door, with their jaws on the floor at the shear quality of our cat pictures. I've never quite understood the comparison of the look straight out of camera. DR, resolution etc yes I do understand. But do people actually leave the profile as set by Leica and Adobe on their RAW files!? And if they don't like it they don't buy the camera? I know I don't. I have a look that I like out of all my cameras, and I set up profiles to give me that look regardless of 5DII, G9 or M9. Isn't that that the point of raw? Their recipe doesn't have to be your recipe. In fact, as an artist, it's akin to accepting one of the jpeg presets in camera in my opinion? edit (for the mods watching my like eagles) - As I have previous in another thread about the early M240 images. I might just add that this is a light hearted post. And also that I'm as guilty as the next guy, so please no over defensive responses! FOr example, I think the back of the new M is a dogs dinner of a design. But that's easy for me to say, not having been the one who was responsible for creating it. Pot, kettle anyone? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikasmg Posted January 23, 2013 Share #80 Posted January 23, 2013 ... but it really does look a little Digilux 2 "brick-like" with the little extra width... It's that silver disk that's making it look like that. Infact I first thought of Digilux 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.