thighslapper Posted April 7, 2013 Share #121 Posted April 7, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) I am not expert at noise reduction .... this is just a fiddle with the basic sliders in LR4.4, so this is probably the worst that you can expect...... and at least it gives you more idea of what really goes on instead of a selection of graphs (thanks anyway Michael ) The colour balance is not identical but it makes minimal difference to the comparisons ...... the jpegs as displayed on the forum look more at variance than the originals in LR .......and it's too much trouble to go back, correct and upload again ... sorry.... Conclusions ???? That's up to you...... All very interesting, I hear you say....... and not as good a whole host of dastardly devious Japanese cameras at half the price ..... but ..... the originals at base ISO where taken handheld at 1/2 and 1/15 sec and are ok, so why would I be using these vastly inflated ISO's anyway ??? on my M9 I rarely went above 800 ...... primarily because I didn't need to....... and although it's nice to know I could take photos at 3200 and get useable results I do not think I will be making a habit of it..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted April 7, 2013 Posted April 7, 2013 Hi thighslapper, Take a look here Comparison of M9 and M240. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
xrogers Posted April 7, 2013 Share #122 Posted April 7, 2013 Thanks for all the comparison shots! User wjkotze suggested dfine2 with all noise reduction turned off, and "debanding" turned on to address Monochrom banding issues. I tried the demo version on a few 6400 iso M test shots, and it looked pretty impressive. Most of the banding is gone, without the typical destructive noise reduction effects. You might consider trying it out on your worst 6400 banded image to see if you like it. Here's a link to the MM sample: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/269666-monochrom-banding-normal-5.html#post2368556 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted April 7, 2013 Share #123 Posted April 7, 2013 Thanks for all your work on these. As you say, they may not prove much, but they begin to give an indication of the differences... For me, I'm happier with the M for a whole range of things that have nothing to do with IQ (shutter / RF focus / Live View / the EVF with long lenses / Maestro processor / screen). I never had a big problem with IQ on the M9 - there were other things I didn't like. The fact that M240 IQ is also very very good is simply icing on the cake Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted April 7, 2013 Share #124 Posted April 7, 2013 Ditto, Chris.... I admit I was provoked into doing these by some comments in a 'review' elsewhere. Opinions that are not backed up by some evidence tend to irritate me ..... ..... as are the throwaway comparisons with other cameras which are essentially meaningless as it is virtually impossible to adjust the various differences in images to make a valid judgement ..... ...... and numbers on graphs and tables of figures tell you nothing about the real-world performance of a camera...... ..... and noise isn't an issue unless you absolutely can't avoid it ....... and then can't get rid of it without damaging the integrity of the photo Anyway, that's enough of a rant for today Yes, I too bought an M240 for the additional flexibility it offers and a host of minor enhancements that make using it a real delight. I was always happy with the M9 output and the modest improvement on the M240 is a welcome bonus Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted April 7, 2013 Share #125 Posted April 7, 2013 Hi Steve Ditto, Chris.... I admit I was provoked into doing these by some comments in a 'review' elsewhere. Opinions that are not backed up by some evidence tend to irritate me ..... Oh dear - was I the guilty party? - I do hope not. I've avoided comparisons as they always seem to cause punch ups and rarely result in any proper conclusion. But as I've said before, you've done a great job here, with a bundle of good humour into the bargain. Excellent Yes, I too bought an M240 for the additional flexibility it offers and a host of minor enhancements that make using it a real delight. I was always happy with the M9 output and the modest improvement on the M240 is a welcome bonus Me too all the best Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted April 7, 2013 Share #126 Posted April 7, 2013 Not you Jono !!!! .... or for that matter most of the usual suspects.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted April 11, 2013 Share #127 Posted April 11, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Here we go again...... Shadow recovery ...... M9 first, M240 second Top pair originals and 100% crops Bottom pair LR +100 and 100% crops..... Both base ISO 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/201589-comparison-of-m9-and-m240/?do=findComment&comment=2296784'>More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted April 11, 2013 Share #128 Posted April 11, 2013 +100 in shadow recovery in LR4 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/201589-comparison-of-m9-and-m240/?do=findComment&comment=2296785'>More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted April 11, 2013 Share #129 Posted April 11, 2013 Can't say I can see much difference in these at all...... Next set are a bit different..... still base ISO 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/201589-comparison-of-m9-and-m240/?do=findComment&comment=2296795'>More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted April 11, 2013 Share #130 Posted April 11, 2013 LR +100....... 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/201589-comparison-of-m9-and-m240/?do=findComment&comment=2296798'>More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted April 11, 2013 Share #131 Posted April 11, 2013 here there is some definite banding on the M240..... but probably a bit more detail.... and less granularity as shown in: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/278105-comparison-m9-m240-post2368081.html it is easily got rid of with noise reduction.... I have tried a few other pairs from the ISO comparison set ...... and it all gets very noisy and unpleasant with even modest increases in ISO (even 500 is awful), and basically there isn't a lot of difference. From images I have taken there seems a bit more scope for shadow recovery over the M9 .... but the big difference seems to be the correction of the ensuing noise and other atefacts which seem easier to do...... There was a query about highlight detail recovery ..... I haven't got any matched pairs that really show this, but from the images I have adjusted the results look better than on the M9 .... and there seems less tendency to blow highlights anyway.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted April 11, 2013 Share #132 Posted April 11, 2013 A before and after with the M240...... shadows +50, highlights -30 .... can be pushed a lot further but then looks a bit odd as you lose all tonal balance and the flowers in the foreground stick out like a sore thumb and ruin the focal point of the picture... If we see sun again on a sunday I will do an M9/M240 pair...... but from previous M9 shots of this I know it was impossible to get this shadow detail and reduce the window over-exposure.... 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/201589-comparison-of-m9-and-m240/?do=findComment&comment=2296837'>More sharing options...
macjonny1 Posted April 11, 2013 Share #133 Posted April 11, 2013 A before and after with the M240...... shadows +50' date=' highlights -30 .... can be pused a lot further but then looks a bit odd.... If we see sun again on a sunday I will do an M9/M240 pair...... but from previous M9 shots of this I know it was impossible to get this shadow detail and reduce the window over-exposure....[/quote'] Impressive recovery! I imagine in a few years our photos will all look like HDR does now! Not sure if that's good but seems to be the trend. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woorob Posted April 11, 2013 Share #134 Posted April 11, 2013 Excellent set of comparisons, thanks! Just wondering if you set the white and black points in LR 4 as well? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted April 12, 2013 Share #135 Posted April 12, 2013 Excellent set of comparisons, thanks! Just wondering if you set the white and black points in LR 4 as well? No ...... complicated things like that are a mystery to me....... ..... in fact most of LR is as well...... I am a long time Aperture user forced into LR as I have an MM ......I am barely competent using the simple adjustments ..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted April 27, 2013 Share #136 Posted April 27, 2013 Skin Tones........ provoked by the 'M color' thread. I feel this is an insoluble problem and each image needs adjusting to suit ..... hwatever the camera you use. The human eye has it's own auto-white balance and accomodates for varying lighting by some sublte processing based on familiarity and comparison of other colours you are looking at ..... so red tends to look the same red as far as your brain is concerned within a wide range of lighting. The same does not seem to be true of skin ....... people look pale, asher, wan, salllow etc etc under varying illumination and the brain dsen't seem to compensate very well. I had a good look at faces wandering round the supermarket this afternoon ..... and ALL are completely different ..... so there is no universal skin tone or reference to work to..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted April 27, 2013 Share #137 Posted April 27, 2013 Skin Tone comparison photos ....... Done this morning. This elderly chap often turns up trying to cadge a cup of coffee. I plied him with a Cappucino and some cherry pie and he posed for these thrilling portraits. He is the VERY WORST possible subject ..... he has a rhinophyma, telangiectasia and a degree of rosacea...... all of which produce prominent blood vessels and red blotches..... ..... then we throw in some nice mixed overhead lighting ...... and then some typical overcast dull UK weather..... M9 and M240 with 50/2.8's, ISO 400 for the artifical light shots, 20 for the others. The full series was done with ISO 200, 800 and 1600, but there is no observable difference between the base ISO colour rendering and 1600. (If you don't believe me I will post them) Embedded profiles for both in LR4 Top row M9 Bottom row M240 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted April 27, 2013 Share #138 Posted April 27, 2013 Indoors - Tungsten lighting - overhead and side plus light from window. Left to right: Auto WB, Tungsten, WB from grey hair, WB from grey hair +15 in red primary hue M9: 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/201589-comparison-of-m9-and-m240/?do=findComment&comment=2308737'>More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted April 27, 2013 Share #139 Posted April 27, 2013 M240: 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/201589-comparison-of-m9-and-m240/?do=findComment&comment=2308748'>More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted April 27, 2013 Share #140 Posted April 27, 2013 Be warned that the appearance of these is VERY browser dependent ...... on OPera they are all very red, on Safari they are toned down a bit ...... but still more red than the LR originals. Next set are indoors with natural diffused light from above: Auto WB, Daylight, WB taken from grey in background (off crop), no colour correction applied as looks fairly true to life to me....... M9 first: 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/201589-comparison-of-m9-and-m240/?do=findComment&comment=2308759'>More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.