X2: Mushy jpgs at ASA 100

[braceman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi,

 

I just bought a Leica x2 from B and H and have shot numerous jpegs set a max resolution set at Natural with a bump in contrast and vividness ( I accidentally had RAW off). Many were at 100ASA and the scenery was definitely mushy. I thought I had done something wrong. On the Digital Photography Review Leica forum I discovered this has been mentioned by others. I do not know if Leica has fixed this or not. This is disappointing because I love shooting with it.. so easy to use. I have 2 weeks to return it to B and H.

 

I have been using an EP2 and OMD-5 with a slew of OLY and manual focus lenses. I never had issues with either. I just wanted an extremely compact camera without all the electronics that reminded me of my Contax T2 and Minox film cameras which I still have. This mushiness is definitely present at 100. Does anyone have any advice about what to do? I guess I could buy a smaller olympus but really want the Leica lens and sensor. I looked at the Fuji x100 but it is similar to my OMD which I am happy with.

 

I know RAW is the way to go but I should be able to shoot jogs without issues.

 

Thanks for any advice you have,

 

Brad

[Advertisement]

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

[andystac]

check to see if image stabilization is turned on, then turn it off, not the best feature.

[braceman]

check to see if image stabilization is turned on' date=' then turn it off, not the best feature.[/quote']

 

Thank you. I checked and it is off. Well, I just shipped the camera back. I may look at getting a used X1.

[Ecaton]

I thought they solved this issue. Did you check whether your X2 had the latest firmware loaded?

[sfage]

Why even bother? Why buy a Leica? Why spend a premium and shoot jpgs? It's like buying a Ferrari and never taking it out of first gear.

 

Buy a Sony. I hear they are nice.

[Ralf]

Why even bother? Why buy a Leica? Why spend a premium and shoot jpgs? It's like buying a Ferrari and never taking it out of first gear.

 

Buy a Sony. I hear they are nice.

 

Too friendly and very helpfull indeed!

[JDFlood]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The x2 is a great camera. The JPGs out of it are truly amazing. I am still having a hard time duplicating them in LightRoom they are so good. Very surprising you got a bad one. But am X1 would be stepping back. I waited for a number of months to get the X2, it is an amazing camera... I looked at others, I own a Fuji XE-1. Would not give up my X2, much better automation. Also, and mushy, is not a descriptor I would ever use of a functioning X2. JD

[HemingwayJones]

The X2 likes to default to 1/30th of a second on App Mode. It's possible that the camera was set to that and/or it wasn't held tightly enough or that the ISO was set to 100 and it was just cloudy enough that the shutter speed slowed down enough to make the details less precise.

 

There is a lot going on with this camera. You have to constantly balance ISO and exposure in your mind to best capture a scene.

 

Just a thought.

[CalArts 99]

I find the DNG files from the X2 to be very good. I like the camera's IQ overall (but really only at base ISO or at least no more than 400-800.) I think it's quite capable if used conscientiously and I'm happy with it overall (and especially with the ergonomics of it.)

 

But like the OP, I also find the jpgs to be poor. Maybe it's the way I have the jpg output set up with the camera. I never bothered experimenting with the jpg settings since I normally toss them out and use only the DNG files. What are the in-camera settings to where people can say that they are getting them so good and even "have a hard time duplicating them in Lightroom?"

 

Here are two sets of in-camera jpgs and their same DNG files. The DNG files were opened in ACR and with only the Adobe default settings; no curves, no color temp changes, and no sharpening or NR. Just converted to TIFFs and then to jpgs via PS.

 

These are all 100% crops from the original image. The original size jpgs direct from the camera are the last two images (and the jpg crops were directly made from them.) Sorry, they aren't very good photos but they are the only ones I had where I had not tossed out the jpgs.....

 

The first of each set is the direct jpg. The second is the DNG converted in ACR.

 

You can clearly see the "mushy" characteristics that the OP is talking about. And they are soft in color and contrast, too. Anyway, it doesn't bother me personally since I don't ever use the jpgs. But I am curious as to the in-camera jpg settings if others are getting such spectacular results from the jpg files.

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!

[CalArts 99]

Just to add: I looked at my jpeg settings and they are set to 16MP super fine and with all the processing parameters at 'standard.'

 

I spoke with someone this evening who also has the X2 and they said that the jpeg compression engine of the X2 tends to smear the files at ISO 100. At other ISO ratings it's not so much an issue. Are those who feel they get 'perfect jpegs' from this camera using higher/different ISO than 100? I'll do some tests tomorrow just out of curiosity. I tend to use the camera primarily at base ISO where I find the DR is quite good with the DNGs (the images I posted were at 100 ISO.)

 

fwiw, I just now did a cursory Google search and it appears that when the camera was first released, the jpegs smeared at both 3200 ISO and at 100 ISO. According to one source, the later firmware corrected the high ISO smear issue but not yet at 100 ISO. My X2 is relatively new and with the latest firmware.

 

Thanks for any insight on this. Again, just curious. I don't use this as a 'point and shoot' and instead more like a 'serious' camera (it's actually very capable) so the jpegs aren't an issue but there may be times when a 'quick' jpeg is desirable....

[CalArts 99]

Here's what I see after trying out jpegs at various ISOs with the X2 today: the in-camera processing smears the files at ISO 100. Anything other than 100, they look fine. They are sharp and with no smearing.

 

So, if I ever feel that I want OOC jpegs to use along with the DNGs, then I'll be certain to set the ISO above 100. (otherwise the DNGs are great at ISO 100; it's the jpegs that are poor.)

 

I wonder if the base ISO is actually 200 and that 100 is a software ISO (like the low ISO settings outside of the base ISO in some cameras.) Is that possible? The smear looks like the phenomenon you get with a 480 standard-def broadcast on a 1080 high-def screen.

 

The OP is right, the jpegs are 'mushy' at ISO 100. At least in our cameras.

 

And sorry about the conversation I seem to be having with myself

[prk60091]

Here's what I see after trying out jpegs at various ISOs with the X2 today: the in-camera processing smears the files at ISO 100. Anything other than 100, they look fine. They are sharp and with no smearing.

 

So, if I ever feel that I want OOC jpegs to use along with the DNGs, then I'll be certain to set the ISO above 100. (otherwise the DNGs are great at ISO 100; it's the jpegs that are poor.)

 

I wonder if the base ISO is actually 200 and that 100 is a software ISO (like the low ISO settings outside of the base ISO in some cameras.) Is that possible? The smear looks like the phenomenon you get with a 480 standard-def broadcast on a 1080 high-def screen.

 

The OP is right, the jpegs are 'mushy' at ISO 100. At least in our cameras.

 

And sorry about the conversation I seem to be having with myself

 

 

i almost never shoot my x1 with anything other than SuperFine jpgs and 99% of my shots are at ASA100 (or ISO100) and I have never encountered the mushy images as shown above.

 

I have done alot of research( i think i have looked at every website mentioning base iso and the x1) over the 3 years I have had the camera...and the best I can determine- 100 is the base ISO for the x1 - it is possible that Leica may have changed it for the x2

 

It is also possible that something is off on your camera.

 

I would be interested in seeing if other X2's have this issue

[CalArts 99]

It is also possible that something is off on your camera.

 

I would be interested in seeing if other X2's have this issue

 

Well, apparently the person who started this thread also had the issue. I'd also like to hear from more X2 owners. I kind of doubt it's a coincidence that I have the same issue as the OP and that just our cameras are doing this. As I mentioned, doing a cursory Google search did bring up other instances of this happening with the X2.

 

Maybe I'll send some sample files to Leica and see if I get a response. I'm more curious now.

 

EDIT: it appears that the OP is gone and so I guess they returned the camera. That's too bad because the X1/X2 does produce excellent files and has a lot of potential.

[nippa]

[quote=prk60091;2371050

I have done alot of research( i think i have looked at every website mentioning base iso and the x1) over the 3 years I have had the camera...and the best I can determine- 100 is the base ISO for the x1 - it is possible that Leica may have changed it for the x2

 

You're right we've never had this problem with the X1 and it's the reason why folk like Steve Huff flagged up the IQ question early on.

I guess that it's sensor related but how strange to fix the problem at one end of the ISO scale and not the other?

[ECohen]

I using an X2. If anything, depending on the lighting my Jpgs are too sharp. No complaints here...must be the "leica look";-)

[CalArts 99]

Do you mind posting a few 100% crops of 100 ISO only jpgs from straight out of the camera (no post processing at all.) Some images from around 10-20 feet of things like cloth, hair, or grass (something with a lot of fine detail, and from a distance.)

 

Thanks, I'm curious and would like to see how they compare (see mine above.) Also what is your in-camera settings for jpeg compression and processing (if you don't mind could you set all the processing parameters at 'standard' and compression at full 16MP super fine.)

 

Thanks!

[CalArts 99]

Okay, I'm obviously going to keep this conversation with myself here going.

 

Anyway, after looking at many jpegs from the X2 at 100 ISO and with samples I could find on the web, I see that indeed the jpegs are mushy/smeared. If you doubt this, try the website called DPReview and look at the 100 ISO jpegs that they have up (there's no full review of the camera itself but they did put up a few pages of images from the X2.) You can download the original size jpegs and look at them at 100%. leica-X2-preview-samples: dpreview review samples: Galleries: Digital Photography Review The ISO and exposure data is at the bottom of each image when you click on it.

 

Look carefully at the images and especially the ones with grass and/or trees or other fine detail (look at the second one on the first page of a building with a tree and vegetation in front of it, at 100% it's clearly mushy/smeared; click on the image for a full size version: http://masters.galleries.dpreview.com.s3.amazonaws.com/2317687.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=14Y3MT0G2J4Y72K3ZXR2&Expires=1366289714&Signature=PSOwELX4kXCrdutq3N%2b0%2b8bua8s%3d) I also read several posts at various websites by other X2 owners saying the same thing about their 100 ISO jpegs.

 

Today I did a few more tests with my X2 and it's definitely mushy jpegs at 100 ISO. But when I did the same series at 200 ISO they looked great and were very sharp. Again, if you look at 100 ISO jpegs at 100% and of subjects with fine detail like hair, cloth, or grass/vegetation it's quite obvious (see my test samples a few posts above.)

 

It doesn't bother me as I use only the DNGs but if I ever need jpegs I'll just set the ISO at 200 and it'll be fine. But it's a curious issue.

[sfage]

1) it's a jpeg. The file size is 7mb. The raw size is probably 10 times that. I don't think I need to expand upon that.

 

2) The image of the building with the tree: the wind was blowing. Leaves move, buildings don't.

 

3) It's hand held, and you're outstretched, looking at a screen. IS is a nice thing, but it is not a God.

 

I still don't understand why you're shooting jpgs, anyway. Personally, I think this entire discussion comes down to technique problems, quite frankly.

 

First: the point of shooting RAW is to capture as much of the image as you can. Learn the work flow process.

 

Second: if you are shooting JPG, you are relying upon and algorithm that was written in a lab somewhere, by an engineer, who probably lives upon the other side of the planet, where the vegetation is a completely different set of colours than the vegetation where you live. Learn colour. You shouldn't be relying upon some squid with a pocket protector and 37 pens in it, **anyway**.

 

Third: you should be focusing upon improving your skills in composition. The only reason to buy a more expensive camera is to print larger images. That's the long and the short of it. A camera worth a quadrillion dollars is useless if the composition is terrible.

 

Fourth: one word... "tripod". If the shot is truly worth it, then it is worth a tripod... under ALL circumstances.

 

Fifth: learn that cameras and lenses are bu11sh1t. All of them. If one takes the time to THINK before they shoot, to look at the image on the camera's screen blown up (or with a magnifier where the eyecup goes), you will get razor blade sharp images. You can get very nice bokeh out of almost any lens... if you know what you're doing.

 

Forget the camera. Forget pixel peeping. Forget what it cost you. Forget that anyone cares if you own a Leica... because, other than here, no-one does.

 

... and... if one takes pictures (just) to analyze the performance of the camera, then buy a tape measure and a light bulb... and never leave the house.

 

And finally, I have repeatedly posted images in the forum taken with a $178 Canon pancake lens. People have come in and said "Leica lenses are so wonderful". The polarizing filter on the front of the Canon pancake is worth more than the lens.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[CalArts 99]

1) it's a jpeg. The file size is 7mb. The raw size is probably 10 times that. I don't think I need to expand upon that.

 

2) The image of the building with the tree: the wind was blowing. Leaves move, buildings don't.

 

3) It's hand held, and you're outstretched, looking at a screen. IS is a nice thing, but it is not a God.

 

I still don't understand why you're shooting jpgs, anyway. Personally, I think this entire discussion comes down to technique problems, quite frankly.

 

First: the point of shooting RAW is to capture as much of the image as you can. Learn the work flow process.

 

Second: if you are shooting JPG, you are relying upon and algorithm that was written in a lab somewhere, by an engineer, who probably lives upon the other side of the planet, where the vegetation is a completely different set of colours than the vegetation where you live. Learn colour. You shouldn't be relying upon some squid with a pocket protector and 37 pens in it, **anyway**.

 

Third: you should be focusing upon improving your skills in composition. The only reason to buy a more expensive camera is to print larger images. That's the long and the short of it. A camera worth a quadrillion dollars is useless if the composition is terrible.

 

Fourth: one word... "tripod". If the shot is truly worth it, then it is worth a tripod... under ALL circumstances.

 

Fifth: learn that cameras and lenses are bu11sh1t. All of them. If one takes the time to THINK before they shoot, to look at the image on the camera's screen blown up (or with a magnifier where the eyecup goes), you will get razor blade sharp images. You can get very nice bokeh out of almost any lens... if you know what you're doing.

 

Forget the camera. Forget pixel peeping. Forget what it cost you. Forget that anyone cares if you own a Leica... because, other than here, no-one does.

 

... and... if one takes pictures (just) to analyze the performance of the camera, then buy a tape measure and a light bulb... and never leave the house.

 

And finally, I have repeatedly posted images in the forum taken with a $178 Canon pancake lens. People have come in and said "Leica lenses are so wonderful". The polarizing filter on the front of the Canon pancake is worth more than the lens.

 

Thanks for the kindergarten lecture.

 

You are clearly not reading any of these posts very well at all, and are only proselytizing about things people already know (and you do not have a monopoly on this sort of information, sorry; many of us are more knowledgeable and are formally trained.) What you posted has zero bearing on this thread. Instead it was simply a form of self aggrandizing.

 

If you have something worthwhile and specific to say about this phenomenon of 100 ISO jpegs from the X2, I'd honestly like to hear it. Otherwise no one needs or wants a rudimentary lesson, or an editorial.

[ECohen]

So I don't get slammed, let me start by saying the DNGs blow away the Jpgs....but you already know that. I ran a NON scientific test today...because the description "mushy" bothered me. Enjoying my X2 for only 3 months and lots of photos, I never observed "mushy" Jpgs. And I would not call the Jpgs shot at 100 "mushy" either. But they aren't as sharp as ISO 200 and ISO 400, seemed over sharpened...though not it a bad way. It's just a characteristic of the camera/firmware.

 

I would say there is merit to your observation. But all cameras,lenses and firmware have their strengths, weaknesses and sweet spots. We test to learn the characteristics of the tools we use.

 

And one more observation.This is one mean snobby group. All we are trying to do is have some fun with photography. And learn more about the tools we choose from other users.

Exactly how big a print do I have to make before I'm aloud to buy this camera?

 

 

35 years shooting professionally and 3 months loving this little camera

 

 

Did I say today's my observation's are non scientific?