M Color

[kdriceman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

HI There

Well, you should probably stop wondering about variability, and since you brought up my name!

I've used 4 different cameras (or is that 5 - yes, 5) the colour has been the same since the first firmware update in October.

I agree with Marc that the colour in the A900 is peerless, but I do not agree that the AWB issue (such as it is) with the M is serious - and I have 1000s of images as evidence.

 

Not to suggest that it couldn't be improved

 

Thank you Jono. I've seen many of your images and have no concerns about the color in those images. I'm not too concerned about any AWB issues as I know that is not an issue for me to correct in post should i use AWB and I'm sure a firmware update will help that - to the extent it is an issue. Perhaps I should have framed my question in a different way: What is it that you are doing that others (who are struggling with the color) are not to reproduce color which seems accurate - or, if not accurate, then pleasing? I realize this is probably a rhetorical question, but after reading this thread and countless other comments about the M's color I am coming to the conclusion that the issue is more user preference and post-processing learning curve than an issue with the camera or sensor.

[Advertisement]

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

[thighslapper]

Thank you Jono. I've seen many of your images and have no concerns about the color in those images. I'm not too concerned about any AWB issues as I know that is not an issue for me to correct in post should i use AWB and I'm sure a firmware update will help that - to the extent it is an issue. Perhaps I should have framed my question in a different way: What is it that you are doing that others (who are struggling with the color) are not to reproduce color which seems accurate - or, if not accurate, then pleasing? I realize this is probably a rhetorical question, but after reading this thread and countless other comments about the M's color I am coming to the conclusion that the issue is more user preference and post-processing learning curve than an issue with the camera or sensor.

 

I have to agree ...... I think the WB issue has focussed attention on the colour profile .... which is not that far adrift from the M9 in reality ...... and is exagerrated buy the fact that no RAW processor has a decent correction that compensates for its particular DNG rendering.

 

When both of these are fixed ..... either by the user sorting it out him/herself ... or Leica and the RAW developers, then we will be back to what 'look' people prefer, rather than grumbles about fundamental faults in the hardware.....

[mwilliamsphotography]

I hope the fixes are as easy as some think they are ... if Leica does anything at all. Perhaps enough folks think it is fine the way it is, and nothing will be done.

 

Personally, I hope this is not a shift in how Leica's color "fingerprint" is rendered from the way it is with the DMR, M9, or S2 ... which, admittedly is a personal preference. Whether that is a sensor, hardware or firmware/software issue is beyond my scope of knowledge.

 

I did NOT place emphasis on any AWB issue this camera may or may not have ... my posts have been focused on Skin Tones and any indicative color issues related to that ... which was the original subject of this thread.

 

I do NOT have this camera so can only go on what is posted, or RAWs sent to me by friends who DO have the camera, or have used it more than an hour ... including some very good photographers.

 

My personal application of a rangefinder is primarily for shooting people, with a lot of images shot in less than ideal light where color issues become more pronounced. I do NOT like a lot of the images of people that I've seen from the M240 due to the "odd to my eye" color rendition most notable in the skin tones. In fact, to many shots are "colorized" looking IMO.

 

That others feel differently is to be expected ... however even if I were the ONLY person with this opinion, I still wouldn't like the color rendition as it is now. Since I wasn't the one that started this thread, I guess I am not alone in that opinion.

 

Here's hoping in a very sincere way, because a rangefinder is an important part of my tool box ... and a Leica M has been a constant companion for as long as I can remember.

 

 

-Marc

[NZDavid]

I can't believe this thread continues for over 30 pages! That indicates there must be an issue. I am sorry to hear Stephen and others have had problems. I would have thought the 240-Type M would be a significant improvement over the M9 -- which I find does stray sometimes as well, although it is mostly fine.

 

I am just looking at the D-Lux 5. It has "Film Mode" settings for Dynamic, Nature, Smooth, Vibrant, Nostalgic, Standard, etc. Really too much choice, and possibly these would not be an appropriate option for an M. Or would they? There is quite a difference between how the D-Lux handles landscapes in Dynamic (excellent color, especially sunsets) and skin tones (excessive red).

 

Of course, as has been pointed out, there is an enormous difference in color from screen to screen without calibration, and printing introduces yet more variables.

 

Taste aside, it is very hard to achieve neutral, natural color, and it seems to me it is nigh on impossible to achieve with AWB. It's surely unrealistic to expect it to do everything. But most of us, I suspect, keep the camera on AWB (or not?) Perhaps we need to be prepared to change the color settings more often? As a comparison, in the film era you would not expect one film to do everything: You would choose say, Astia for skin tones and Velvia for punchy landscapes (I preferred natural anyway and found Velvia OTT).

 

That said, it seems judging by this thread at least, that the M color balance does need tweaking with new firmware.

 

Another option to select color balance rather than by fiddly menu settings would be to have a "color balance wheel" where the rewind knob is on film Ms, marked in deg K, making it quick and easy to tweak the color.

[erl]

A Deg K switch or button I have always wanted, rather than a menu.

 

But of course that only takes care of WB. Profiles are another matter.

[MarkP]

Another option to select color balance rather than by fiddly menu settings would be to have a "color balance wheel" where the rewind knob is on film Ms, marked in deg K, making it quick and easy to tweak the color.

 

Except one really needs to be able to adjust both temperature & tint (globally or using colour droppers) so might as well do it in PP

[John Black]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The M9 (and presumably M-240) meters off of the shutter blades. Those are painted gray, so if the M had a sensor for it, it could take a reflective K metering off those same blades. Is that how the M9 (and M-240) do it today, or are they making extrapolative guess based upon the captured image?

[NZDavid]

Or how about a quick access button/menu feature purely to optimize skin tones?

 

As a comparison, I just found this explanation of Fuji's 100S "film mode" and color temperature settings. Too many options, of course (who needs "toy" and miniature"?) but perhaps some of the options would be helpful on the M, too?

 

http://www.fujifilm.co.nz/products/digital_feature.asp?id=114&sid=1&pid=1216&fid=1348

[Guest malland]

David, but these "modes" are for JPGs, aren't they? The discussion in this thread is about DNG (raw) files.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Paris Obvious [WIP]

Eggleston said that he was "at war with the obvious"...

[erl]

Except one really needs to be able to adjust both temperature & tint (globally or using colour droppers) so might as well do it in PP

Mark, a WB dial or button would only be useful as a guide during shooting. PP is the real place to make corrections if shooting DNG. Tint droppers; I don't know how that could be implemented in camera. At the end of the day I correct everything in post to my satisfaction, but a quick selectable Kelvin No to aid chimping display, which I do rarely, but critically, would be good.

[NZDavid]

David, but these "modes" are for JPGs, aren't they? This discussion in this thread is about DNG (raw) files.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Paris Obvious [WIP]

Eggleston said that he was "at war with the obvious"...

 

Mitch, you're right of course. But I think setting color temperature or adjusting WB still makes a difference even in DNG...though you can tweak the image considerably afterwards in LR or similar. My preference would be to keep it as simple as possible.

[jaapv]

Color temperature/WB settings have absolutely no impact on the end result of a raw workflow, but can provide a handy starting point in post processing.

 

The colour balance i.e. relationship between various colours is more difficult to correct and is best served by a correct colour profile.

[bybrett]

David, but these "modes" are for JPGs, aren't they? The discussion in this thread is about DNG (raw) files.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Paris Obvious [WIP]

Eggleston said that he was "at war with the obvious"...

 

If Leica can't get the colour correct why would they expect that their customers can? At war with the obvious...

[jonoslack]

I can't believe this thread continues for over 30 pages! That indicates there must be an issue.

 

Hi There David

Is there a logical step here?

[k-hawinkler]

Sure, Leica's lack of communication with its customers!

[AlanG]

DXO has a feature that simulates the color response of a variety of cameras. This uses the source photo and basic profile from one camera and converts it to the profile of another. Of course it is using DXO's idea of a good profile for each camera but I think there is a reason why the basic color characteristics of each camera are mapped out to look different. Maybe DXO tries to simulate some default look by each manufacturer along with the camera's color response.

 

In reviewing images in the many simulated cameras the M9 produced images that were more red and a bit darker... at least more red on this skin tone. The M was even a bit further in this direction perhaps a tiny bit more magenta. Most other cameras were lighter and thus more muted. The 1DsIII was the only other one I saw that was close to the look of the M9. This is not a color balance issue. How each camera handles auto white balancing is another matter entirely.

 

I don't know what this means but it does indicate to me something similar to what is being discussed here. I think you should be able to load an M image in DXO and get the same variety of looks and see if you prefer one. You could download a trial version of DXO and play with this feature on skin tones if you are curious. If this truly reflects what the cameras do they are certainly not so far apart to matter much if you are willing to do some fine tuning.

 

This was a cool color balance soft photo in the shade. The girl has fairly light skin. There were no adjustments to the raw file in DXO.

 

In order - 5DIII (original,) M9, M, D800, 1DsIII, A99

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!

[Fgcm]

All opinion deserve respect.

 

That said, in my opinion this tread is inflating a non existing issue.

What's funny is that some of the inflators doesn't own the camera.

Please, refrain from commenting before testing extensively the camera.

 

Sorry if someone feels offended, but this is my opinion.

 

Franco

[AlanG]

All opinion deserve respect.

 

That said, in my opinion this tread is inflating a non existing issue.

What's funny is that some of the inflators doesn't own the camera.

Please, refrain from commenting before testing extensively the camera.

 

Sorry if someone feels offended, but this is my opinion.

 

Franco

 

If you are referring to me, I thought the samples above do the opposite to inflating a "non-existing issue." If anything it shows to me the differences between these cameras may be pretty slight. So I guess I agree with you. How they each handle auto white balance may be another story.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[wlaidlaw]

All opinion deserve respect.

 

That said, in my opinion this tread is inflating a non existing issue.

What's funny is that some of the inflators doesn't own the camera.

Please, refrain from commenting before testing extensively the camera.

 

Sorry if someone feels offended, but this is my opinion.

 

Franco

 

Franco,

 

To be fair, some of us who have the M240, have been posting DNG's on Dropbox etc, so that others who maybe have more experience with colour tweaking and building profiles for RAW developers can try their hand and come back with their results. There was certainly one forum member who was posting on this thread prior to receiving his M and some of his suggestions about building profiles were very useful.

 

Wilson

[mwilliamsphotography]

Yes, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

 

However, I find it odd that one can't form an initial investigative opinion based on observation, working on other respected photographer's DNGs made available to me, and years of experience without first purchasing a $7,000 camera body and extensively testing it myself. That would be okay if I could get a demo camera for a week, or even rent a M240, but neither option is possible.

 

In short, such requirements negate the whole idea of a gear forum and the ability of potential buyers to read the pros and cons across a broad spectrum of sites, to ask questions and post observations of their own based on experience. Then again, perhaps $7,000 isn't that great an amount to some people, but it is to me.

 

Personally, I respect many who tout the M240, and many who offer a caution, because I know their work after years of seeing it here and on other forums. Both sets of opinions help form at least some balanced sense of what the camera can and cannot do. In the end the decision is mine because the $7,000 is mine to spend, or not spend.

 

Trying to silence differing opinions or observational cautions like that of the OP (who did work with the camera), people who did work with the camera and sent it back ... or making up transparently loaded surveys to shore up positive opinions doesn't change anything. My opinion, and my $7,000 "survey vote", is all that counts to me, my work, or my business.

 

BTW, I have one on order, whether I actually shell out for it remains to be seen as all this unfolds ... I waited quite a while before committing to the S2 which initially wasn't ready for prime time ... and I may have to do the same with this camera ... or perhaps never get one. We'll see. One thing is sure, I won't get one just to test it.

 

-Marc