lct Posted March 10, 2013 Share #81 Posted March 10, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) ...And there's not much point uploading DNG's as they still look the same... You could get sharper results out of DNGs if you were in focus. Mind to upload them? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 10, 2013 Posted March 10, 2013 Hi lct, Take a look here Vegetable pictures - Part Deux. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
wattsy Posted March 10, 2013 Share #82 Posted March 10, 2013 crappy natural lighting (its grey, dull and snowing), handheld ...... all the USUAL things when you take photos. Speak for yourself. Have you tried any comparisons when the light is more interesting – straight into a strong light source? (I think the sun is forecast to reappear sometime around Thursday.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted March 10, 2013 Share #83 Posted March 10, 2013 Mr Watts .......did you see the sun at any stage last week ?? certainly not where I live in the UK ..... so far I have posted pictures in fog, rain, leaden overcast skies .... and today snow/sleet ... if I venture out....... maybe the heavens will part and we will see that elusive yellow thing again later this week ..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
-ph- Posted March 10, 2013 Share #84 Posted March 10, 2013 Let me try and explain:- I read with slight detachment comments about high ISO. It's as if it's NOT possible to work without a camera giving superb results at 10,000 ISO and above. This is clearly not so because I honestly do not know when such high ISO levels are genuinely of use - a dark night is a dark night no matter what ISO the camera is set to. If theres no light then higher ISO is not going to make one jot of difference. There is no such thing as an entirely dark night. Unless you are in a sealed room. The M9 takes great pictures in "darkness", but of course only on a tripod and of course with anything moving blurred. For handheld usage, even the medium light levels available in a restaurant limit the usability of the M9. The 2 stops gained by the M go a long way in these environments. Important here is not the whatever fantastic top ISO level a camera might offer, but the top ISO level at which the image quality of the camera isn't gravely impaired. For the M9 this means 800 ISO is the highest sensitivity you can use without any concerns (Yes I frequently use it above it, but one can clearly watch the image quality degenerate). From what I have seen so far, you can use the M at 3200 ISO without too many worries and carefully at 6400. That is a very valuable gain in a not so uncommon szenario. Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted March 10, 2013 Share #85 Posted March 10, 2013 You could get sharper results out of DNGs if you were in focus. Mind to upload them? Yes ..... they are in focus ..... or at least the bits in the 2.8 plane of focus are .... and sharpening and de-noising in LR4 makes an enormous difference to the M files and a much more limited improvement on the M9 files before artefacts are very apparent. I have tried uploading shapened crops but rendering them as JPG's at forum size makes them look awful.... If I get time later I will post the dng's somewhere..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithlaban.co.uk Posted March 10, 2013 Share #86 Posted March 10, 2013 Yup. 2.8 ..... images look pretty normal to me in these conditions In the conservatory, crappy natural lighting (its grey, dull and snowing), handheld ...... all the USUAL things when you take photos. That's the whole point...... If you want arc lamps, test cards, tripods, 50/2 apo's then we are back into the strange world of the pixel peepers who presumably never leave their laboratories to take real pictures..... Well, it would be nice to have something that shows the capabilities of the camera/lens rather than the limitations of the light and the photographer's hands... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted March 10, 2013 Share #87 Posted March 10, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) and the last 100% crop pair........ if you can delude yourself into thinking there are significant differences that make a blind bit of difference, then possibly psychiatric assistance may be helpful ...... :D:D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pieterpronk Posted March 10, 2013 Share #88 Posted March 10, 2013 It's weird how perception works. At first glance of the flower pictures it seemed to me that the first pictures was flatter than the second. But when I kept looking for the details, trying to see why I got this impression I couldn't find any difference between the two. I think one's eye can be trained to see depth in a 2d plane. And I wonder if the mind sees this depth through small hints in an image, and that for example somebody that has never seen photographs will first need to learn to associate the perception of depth with those small hints. If that is true, then it could be that ccd and cmos just use different hints to make the viewer associate depth, and that people who have been staring at only ccd pictures for years, just havent learned to read the hints of a CMOS picture. Anyway, such perception is very subtle. I see a difference between CCD and CMOS pictures sometimes, but the difference seems to go away when I look longer at a picture. As if it just takes longer for me to "read" a CMOS picture and to translate it to the perception of depth. Also, I wonder if the difference also seems to go away because I have been looking at loads of pictures from the new M, thus (if my theory holds water) training my eyes to appreciate it's language of depth, as it were. (or, which is just as likely, the pictures just have gotten better than those first ones) Anyway, I would be very happy if my instincts are wrong (because I'm on a waiting list for the M), but my first impression would pick the first picture as the M and the second as the M9. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted March 10, 2013 Share #89 Posted March 10, 2013 Flowers This is what I mean by 6MP in post #82 above. Now on to the challenge. To my eye the top image looks to have slightly more detail in the green leaf from outside and to the left of the yellow flowers. Problem is it's outside and that means there could have been wind moving that green leaf in the bottom image. In addition, the stones on the ground also seem to have very slightly more detail visible in the top image versus the bottom image. But who cares, both images are sRGB and at minuscule size this makes very little difference. Other than us, the average person viewing an image either likes it or not never asking about camera, lens, ISO, etc. as they either like it or not. We are the only ones who get anal about all this stuff. OK, time to go out an take photos with my M, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
microview Posted March 10, 2013 Share #90 Posted March 10, 2013 My guarded preference was for the first (top) image with both the daffodils and candle-holder. Be interesting to see which was which! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted March 10, 2013 Share #91 Posted March 10, 2013 Well, it would be nice to have something that shows the capabilities of the camera/lens rather than the limitations of the light and the photographer's hands... Thanks for your endorsement of my abilities ..... At least we agree on something.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted March 10, 2013 Share #92 Posted March 10, 2013 What I would say and as I have always said regarding the M240, is that for MY way of working I like a bit more grittiness. In another thread on the forum there is a comparison between the M240 and the M9 for night pictures. The new M 240 images look very good and I would be churlish to say otherwise. Thanks for that clarification. A few posts earlier you were saying the M240 had "a plastic looking awful CMOS sensor". And you were saying "NOBODY needs" high ISO — that it was "TOTALLY IRRELEVANT" in a Leica M. And you were complaining about "chocolate boxy crappy CMOS images". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithlaban.co.uk Posted March 10, 2013 Share #93 Posted March 10, 2013 Thanks for your endorsement of my abilities ..... At least we agree on something.... Just to be clear, my post was not intended as a judgement on your abilities as a photographer, but rather it was an observation on the value of a particular file in relation to making any kind of meaningful judgement on the new Leica M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiOnara Posted March 10, 2013 Share #94 Posted March 10, 2013 More photos of vegetables from a pre-production beta-firmware M from the vegetable photographer himself are now available! He compares the beta-M to finished production RX1, Fuji X-Pro 1 and Sigma DP2 Merrill. Don't mis it! The Sigma shines with it's resolving power and colour depth. Love it. Really unique look to this camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted March 10, 2013 Share #95 Posted March 10, 2013 heres another try at some sharpened images as requested......... for those unable to tell..... fairly obviously the larger images in all this series are the M's ...... .... now here there is a significant difference ...... and I think this will turn out to be one of the factors that really will sell this camera .... what you can do to the raw images..... 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/199974-vegetable-pictures-part-deux/?do=findComment&comment=2267048'>More sharing options...
photomeme Posted March 10, 2013 Share #96 Posted March 10, 2013 the larger images in all this series are the M's You're trying to make a point about color with yellows at various tonalities and dark greens? Sean Reid posted a colorful vegetable assortment, hence the thread name. The only thing noteworthy here is more dynamic range in the M9 shot, which I doubt was your point (and I doubt means anything except that these are inconsistent exposures). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted March 10, 2013 Share #97 Posted March 10, 2013 Just to be clear, my post was not intended as a judgement on your abilities as a photographer, but rather it was an observation on the value of a particular file in relation to making any kind of meaningful judgement on the new Leica M. err...... I was joking :D:D .... and anyway I'm an indiscriminate happy snapper with absolutely no illusions about my photographic abilities Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted March 10, 2013 Share #98 Posted March 10, 2013 You're trying to make a point about color with yellows at various tonalities and dark greens? Sean Reid posted a colorful vegetable assortment, hence the thread name. The only thing noteworthy here is more dynamic range in the M9 shot, which I doubt was your point (and I doubt means anything except that these are inconsistent exposures). I must sincerely apologise for not posting vegetables or sticking closely to the vegetable related issues in Mr Reids review (which I decline to pay to read). Due to our busy lifestyle we have no time to cook and hence the larder is currently free of vegetables. There are some mouldering red onions and shrivelled garlic in the fridge but I suspect they will disintegrate if touched. I did not intend to offend by posting flowers..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
photomeme Posted March 10, 2013 Share #99 Posted March 10, 2013 I must sincerely apologise for not posting vegetables or sticking closely to the vegetable related issues. Um, I believe the point is to show color accuracy, which means across a spectrum not duotones? You can do that with a variety of vegetables, but not only. Come on, any respectable garden, even if it's a flower garden ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted March 10, 2013 Share #100 Posted March 10, 2013 Color accuracy will depend on your raw converters folks, little jpegs on the LUF are hopeless for that. Only DNG files and your own PP work will convince you or not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.