The REAL M-240 sample images - congrats to Jono Slack

[ramosa]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Great help from Jono and Chris. Cool to play with the images. I think they work out very well with simple edits in LR4, at base ISO and much higher. When I opened the ISO 200 image of the woman and dog, I certainly wasn't thinking about how CMOS is worse than CCD. I was thinking about how I can get my hands on this camera. A good day for Leica ...

[Guest odeon]

I can't see the "Leica look".

True, Leica M is better at high ISOs, but who use ISO-2500 with Noctilux or Summilux? It's good, theoretically good. Practically it doesn't matter.

[Advertisement]

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

[Peter H]

Playing around with the files in LR, its very easy to manage the colours both in absolute terms and relative to each other, to achieve what feels like a very natural look, bearing in mind we don't know what the original colour and lighting was.

 

They seem to me very malleable and robust files, which is an encouraging.

[coup de foudre]

I can't see the "Leica look".

True, Leica M is better at high ISOs, but who use ISO-2500 with Noctilux or Summilux? It's good, theoretically good. Practically it doesn't matter.

I hit a wall frequently with ISO 2500, even shooting f/1... Sometimes you want to control the shutter speed for performance or whatnot and the ability to bump up the ISO is priceless. So practically, it matters a whole hell of a lot to some of us.

[Jamie Roberts]

I can't see the "Leica look".

True, Leica M is better at high ISOs, but who use ISO-2500 with Noctilux or Summilux? It's good, theoretically good. Practically it doesn't matter.

 

Actually, practically it *does* matter, because it means you can do more in post with a lower ISO file

 

The "Leica look" isn't there because the "Leica light" isn't in these shots

[dwbell]

I can't see the "Leica look".

 

I'm going to allow myself a little self indulgence here and say that this is a good thing. I want to achieve The DWBell look, *especially* if the Leica look is available simply by purchasing the camera and pressing the shutter button!

 

[jonoslack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Ok

 

1. colour corrected for the boys center-face (it's important to note that false colour here is a result of the mixed-light madness, and I wasn't there );

 

HI Jamie

Many thanks for doing these - the two shots were taken in our kitchen, and the lighting is indeed a mad mixture - even before adding in the light from the iPad. But it was rather the point of these images.

 

Like Paul - I don't think you've got the colour quite right - but then how should you? Hints could be that the chalk mark is blue, and the walls are white (and the girl and dog's skin is fairly tanned) - but really this isn't the point.

 

For me, the point is that these shots show plenty of detail, and the colour is quite controllable (and as you say, the B&W conversion works really well). Currently I think the WB is too warm for any given setting, but I think I might be at least partly to blame for this.

 

I think your point about dynamic range is very pertinent. As for the Leica 'look', when someone defines it we can all measure it . To me however, Emma and the dog in the snow certainly has it.

 

I guess that now you've done your 2 minute conversion in C1 . . .. I can post my two minute conversions in Aperture. (give me 2 minutes!).

 

All the best

[Peter H]

I'm going to allow myself a little self indulgence here and say that this is a good thing. I want to achieve The DWBell look, *especially* if the Leica look is available simply by purchasing the camera and pressing the shutter button!

 

 

Spot on!

[jonoslack]

Are there any examples taken with a wider angle lens than a 35mm? It is here that Leica might have made a real improvement compared to the M9 (with its Italian flag / red edge problems). The other area for genuine improvement is in terms of moire – IMO the M9 is very susceptible to it and it would be nice to know that Leica have got a better handle on the problem.

 

HI Ian

Thanks for the kind words.

of course there are hundreds of examples of everything . . . . . . but perhaps for later.

all the best

[zlatkob]

I hit a wall frequently with ISO 2500, even shooting f/1... Sometimes you want to control the shutter speed for performance or whatnot and the ability to bump up the ISO is priceless. So practically, it matters a whole hell of a lot to some of us.

 

I agree, it matters. Sometimes you need a higher shutter speed, and sometimes you want more depth of field than f/1 or f/1.4. Photographing at an in indoor basketball game (without flash) may require ISO 5000 and f/2 and 1/500th. And there is a world of photography at even lower light levels.

[jonoslack]

I think the picture of Jono's wife tending the dog - she and I share the same make of Wellington Boots - is simply tremendous. There's a three-dimensionality about it which is astounding with the foreground beautifully separated from the background.

 

Since it was taken with the APO 50, it gives me hope that my ho-hum results with the lens thus far are down to my incompetence and pre-occupation with tree branches against the light...

 

HI Mark

when we were talking about the lens I was thinking about this shot! I'm really glad you like it. To me it shows what I think of as the 'leica' look . . . but manages to hold on to a good dynamic range at the same time - as you say, the detail is pretty splendid.

 

Choice of files is really difficult, and of course, they were chosen with the intention of showing the files, not of showing off my skills (or lack of them) as a photographer.

 

all the best

[zlatkob]

I can't see the "Leica look".

 

This notion of a "Leica look" as derived from the sensor can only be a recent phenomenon (since the introduction of the M8). Recall that during nearly a century of the film era, Leica did not use any special sensor to create its "look". Instead, Leica used the same films as any other camera. Therefore, the "Leica look" was a result of Leica lenses and the techniques of Leica photographers, not anything in the sensor. This changed to some extent with the Kodak CCD in 2006, but Leica doesn't have to forever be locked into that sensor in order to retain some "Leica look".

[holgerf]

First thanks to the great work Jonos and James have done to help us interpret these samples.

 

Seeing Jonos’ samples developed by Chris with C1 I was wondering about the very different view I got on my (also calibrated) monitor from the same images developed with

Aperture 3.4.

Strange enough AP already has a profile for the M (240) as clearly can be seen in the screenshot below.

 

Especially in the »Woman and Dog« image the whole background seems much more natural for me –

IF

the wall in the background was white and the sweater neutral grey (see the figures im the loupe).

 

So we have to be very careful with our judgements so far until the different RAW developers have their dedicated profiles for the M (240).

 

To share my impression with you I add these files (all sRGB).

 

All the best

Holger

 

 

»Boy with tablet«, straight out of AP

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!

 

 

»Emma and Dog«, straight out of AP

 

 

»Emma and Dog«, skin-tone-color-correction of AP

 

 

Screenshot AP-Developement

Edited February 6, 2013 by holgerf

[Guest odeon]

Actually, practically it *does* matter, because it means you can do more in post with a lower ISO file

 

The "Leica look" isn't there because the "Leica light" isn't in these shots

Practically Noctilux or Summilux users don't need higher ISO values. We need better dynamic range at lower ISOs.

 

The "Leica look" is not my opinion. Leica say it. Leica promises more Leica looked images for new M. If Leica defines the "Leica look" as previous M's colour taste, new M doesn't have the look.

[PeterP]

I agree, it matters. Sometimes you need a higher shutter speed, and sometimes you want more depth of field than f/1 or f/1.4. Photographing at an in indoor basketball game (without flash) may require ISO 5000 and f/2 and 1/500th. And there is a world of photography at even lower light levels.

 

Couldn't agree more!

[PeterP]

Practically Noctilux or Summilux users don't need higher ISO values. We need better dynamic range at lower ISOs.

 

The "Leica look" is not my opinion. Leica say it. Leica promises more Leica looked images for new M. If Leica defines the "Leica look" as previous M's colour taste, new M doesn't have the look.

 

Not everyone shoots with them, nor wide open! However I wouldn't mind seeing ISO 100 or even 80, but that might be on the wish list.

[theboch]

Practically Noctilux or Summilux users don't need higher ISO values.

 

Says who? At least lower noise at high iso would be welcome... Sure we do not need ISO 12800 or something like that.. but ISO 6400 with acceptable noise, why not? Can only help...

[sandymc]

For those interested in how different raw developers render the images, this is AccuRaw Beta 8, with -0.5 exposure but otherwise unadjusted.

 

Sandy

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!

[ShotCapture]

The images are excellent. Once I recalibrated my monitor (EIZO) with x-rite i1 display pro, and worked on them a little in LR 4.3 they came out much better than what I am seeing on this forum. So I'm sure many of you at work or home are also viewing some wonderful images.:)

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Guest odeon]

Says who? At least lower noise at high iso would be welcome... Sure we do not need ISO 12800 or something like that.. but ISO 6400 with acceptable noise, why not? Can only help...

 

Leica put forward new M's high ISO performance. In fact base ISO performance is more important for Leica users. Because Leica users have fast lenses. For example Noctilux users don't use the lens for overexposed in sunny days.