lct Posted June 18, 2013 Share #2081 Posted June 18, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Because X107 users are not supposed to use colour profiles perhaps? Not an excuse for the default settings of the M240 though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 Hi lct, Take a look here Mini M? [MERGED] AKA X-Vario. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
dwbell Posted June 18, 2013 Share #2082 Posted June 18, 2013 Thanks, interesting review. So, the question that comes to mind is that, from the color photos in the review, why does the color rendition seem to better than that of the M240? —Mitch/Bangkok Flickr: Mitch Alland's Photostream Me thinks the M design team should talk to the XV one, and the XV colour team should talk to the M one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted June 18, 2013 Share #2083 Posted June 18, 2013 Me thinks the M design team should talk to the XV one, and the XV colour team should talk to the M one. As Jaap, Jono and I have been all saying, we don't think there is a problem with the M240's colour. The problem lies with poor profiles for the DNG conversion in all three of the major softwares (LR/ACR, C1 and DxO). LR is pretty easy to get round with dual illuminance profiles created in DNG Profile Editor or Color Checker Passport but skin tones still need more work. I am about 90% of the way to creating a better ICC profile for use in C1 but my current lack of mobility (another week to go until I am weight bearing) is slowing that down. I have got skin tones and colours about right but am struggling with consistent exposure and dynamic range control. DxO I don't know about as I have never been a user but I gather it is much more lens correction than colour orientated. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted June 18, 2013 Share #2084 Posted June 18, 2013 As Jaap, Jono and I have been all saying, we don't think there is a problem with the M240's colour. The problem lies with poor profiles for the DNG conversion in all three of the major softwares (LR/ACR, C1 and DxO). LR is pretty easy to get round with dual illuminance profiles created in DNG Profile Editor or Color Checker Passport but skin tones still need more work. I am about 90% of the way to creating a better ICC profile for use in C1 but my current lack of mobility (another week to go until I am weight bearing) is slowing that down. I have got skin tones and colours about right but am struggling with consistent exposure and dynamic range control. DxO I don't know about as I have never been a user but I gather it is much more lens correction than colour orientated. Wilson Wilson, I hope you appreciate that for many less technically gifted and proficient than you, this does constitute a significant colour problem. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted June 18, 2013 Share #2085 Posted June 18, 2013 Wilson, I hope you appreciate that for many less technically gifted and proficient than you, this does constitute a significant colour problem. Peter, I appreciate that but the point I was making is that the colour issue is not fundamental and as profiles improve, which they will soon do and the AWB is improved on the now very overdue FW update (I was told end of April/beginning of May), the colour problems will go away. One of the USP's of the Cmosis sensor, its wide dynamic range and gamut, is I think possibly one of things that may be causing us to struggle with the profiles. Once these are sorted, we will come to realise what a fantastic camera it can be. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
onceuponatime Posted June 18, 2013 Share #2086 Posted June 18, 2013 If it had an 2/3rds sensor instead of APS-C....Lens size is closely linked to sensor size, as mentioned one or two times before in this thread... It was mentioned to have a faster lens on Xvario would make the handling awkward. Xvario 133mm body width, 43mm filter, 95mm length (including lens) Digiulx2 135mm body width, 69mm filter, 103mm length (including lens) Sigma 18-50mm f2.8, filter 67mm, length 85mm Thus Leica could easily have put a 18-46mm f2.8 constant on Xvario and it would have had handling as Digilux2. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted June 18, 2013 Share #2087 Posted June 18, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Of course not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkCambridgeshire Posted June 18, 2013 Share #2088 Posted June 18, 2013 It was mentioned to have a faster lens on Xvario would make the handling awkward. Xvario 133mm body width, 43mm filter, 95mm length (including lens) Digiulx2 135mm body width, 69mm filter, 103mm length (including lens) Sigma 18-50mm f2.8, filter 67mm, length 85mm Thus Leica could easily have put a 18-46mm f2.8 constant on Xvario and it would have had handling as Digilux2. ... but at what £$€ cost? ... and how much extra weight for a constant f2.8 ? I'm sure Leica did all their sums and gozintas properly when the XV was at the design stage with a resultant camera capable of producing superb results - Leica forum's backyard camera designers' criticisms notwithstanding dunk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwbell Posted June 18, 2013 Share #2089 Posted June 18, 2013 The thing that strikes me, is that good products shouldn't normally need justification by 3rd parties using various levels of complete / incomplete analysis matrices and tables etc. It should stand on it's own two feet from launch day. I think the S does, I think the M240 does (more so if you ignore the schnick-schnack), I don't feel the VX does. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
onceuponatime Posted June 18, 2013 Share #2090 Posted June 18, 2013 ... but at what £$€ cost? ... and how much extra weight for a constant f2.8 ? I'm sure Leica did all their sums and gozintas properly when the XV was at the design stage with a resultant camera capable of producing superb results - Leica forum's backyard camera designers' criticisms notwithstanding dunk 445g constant f2.8 18-50mm apsc. Would bring Xvario weight to around 710g (same as Digilux 2). History of all major brands have poor product decisions. If Xvario had constant f2.8 i would forgo buying Sigma Dp Merril's or any other camera as 28-70mm (cropping to get 90-135mm) in one package is just right for me. F2.4 90mm of Digilux2 was fine for me iso400 indoors, outdoors low light, bars, pubs, moving people, dawn, dusk, evening, night. I was happy with Ep1 f1.8 shallow dof which is around 2.4 in apsc, as im not one for razor thin dof, f2.8 would been thin enough. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkCambridgeshire Posted June 18, 2013 Share #2091 Posted June 18, 2013 The thing that strikes me, is that good products shouldn't normally need justification by 3rd parties using various levels of complete / incomplete analysis matrices and tables etc. It should stand on it's own two feet from launch day. I think the S does, I think the M240 does (more so if you ignore the schnick-schnack), I don't feel the VX does. ... but can you deny that the image results so far available more than stand up on their own two feet? They actually JUMP at the viewer and I'd like to see more of them ... Maybe we will when the door is gently closed on all the negative hysteria generated by those who have so far not even handled the camera or properly considered its image results. dunk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwbell Posted June 18, 2013 Share #2092 Posted June 18, 2013 ... but can you deny that the image results so far available more than stand up on their own two feet? They actually JUMP at the viewer and I'd like to see more of them ... Maybe we will when the door is gently closed on all the negative hysteria generated by those who have so far not even handled the camera or properly considered its image results. dunk Oh yeah, IQ looks really really nice. But it's only one part of any camera. And for me I can count on the fingers of my right hand how often I've shot even my G15 and X100s at those small apertures. Heck my biggest complaint with the M9 (with cron and lux glass) was that I was always up in 800 and 1600 and the noise sucked. Again, my opinion only having handled the camera in the shop ... where I was at too slow a shutter speed and too high an ISO for my comfort level. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
onceuponatime Posted June 18, 2013 Share #2093 Posted June 18, 2013 Review: Leica X Vario Defies Naysayers with Impressive Optics Colours, clarity, naturalness are real nice. Really like the photo of Xvario with XpPro1. The elegance of Xvario would just make me want to photo just the way i like. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted June 18, 2013 Share #2094 Posted June 18, 2013 ...I appreciate that but the point I was making is that the colour issue is not fundamental and as profiles improve, which they will soon do and the AWB is improved on the now very overdue FW update (I was told end of April/beginning of May), the colour problems will go away. One of the USP's of the Cmosis sensor, its wide dynamic range and gamut, is I think possibly one of things that may be causing us to struggle with the profiles. Once these are sorted, we will come to realise what a fantastic camera it can be...Wilson, I always thought that the current issues with the M240 color will be sorted out with better profiles and a firmware upgrade, and that these will make the DNGs as easy to work with as those of the M9. What I wonder, however, is, once that is done, how the color rendition will compare to that of the M9 and whether I'll like it as much — and I don't mean whether the M240 will have as much contrast, as it should have less on unprocessed files, considering that the dynamic range is greater than that of the M9. I still wonder though why the X-Vario doesn't seem to have the color issues of the M240. Does the X-Vario also use a CMOSIS sensor, or it a Sony sensor? —Mitch/Bangkok Flickr: Mitch Alland's Photostream Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 18, 2013 Share #2095 Posted June 18, 2013 It was mentioned to have a faster lens on Xvario would make the handling awkward. Xvario 133mm body width, 43mm filter, 95mm length (including lens) Digiulx2 135mm body width, 69mm filter, 103mm length (including lens) Sigma 18-50mm f2.8, filter 67mm, length 85mm Thus Leica could easily have put a 18-46mm f2.8 constant on Xvario and it would have had handling as Digilux2. It wouldn't - the lens would be the size of a drainpipe. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfage Posted June 18, 2013 Share #2096 Posted June 18, 2013 Because X107 users are not supposed to use colour profiles perhaps? Not an excuse for the default settings of the M240 though. We agree upon this, at least. Owning a machine like that -and not knowing colour- is pretty bad. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted June 18, 2013 Share #2097 Posted June 18, 2013 I have an amplifier by NAD and yet I do not have absolute pitch. That must be pretty bad, too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkCambridgeshire Posted June 18, 2013 Share #2098 Posted June 18, 2013 We agree upon this, at least. Owning a machine like that -and not knowing colour- is beyond pathetic. A rather too dogmatic statement. You seem to disregard those users who are, to a greater or less extent, colour blind. Colour blindness tends to be ignored by those ignorant of its consequences. Colour blind photographers still enjoy their picture making and rely more on default settings than those fortunate to have 'normal' colour vision. Colour blind photographers are certainly not 'pathetic'. dunk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted June 18, 2013 Share #2099 Posted June 18, 2013 ...Xvario 133mm body width, 43mm filter, 95mm length (including lens)... Thus Leica could easily have put a 18-46mm f2.8 constant on Xvario and it would have had handling as Digilux2. All other things being equal, that would have yielded a very nice lens with a filter thread of 96.75mm. The glass built into that lens would be about twelve times as heavy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
onceuponatime Posted June 18, 2013 Share #2100 Posted June 18, 2013 It wouldn't - the lens would be the size of a drainpipe. All other things being equal, that would have yielded a very nice lens with a filter thread of 96.75mm. The glass built into that lens would be about twelve times as heavy. No Sigma 18-50mm f2.8, filter 67mm, length 85mm, 445g (This is the fourth time i have metioned this apsc Sigma. It is quite easy to comprehend). Bringing Xvario total weight to around 710g-740g (current weight 680g Anyway i will probably end up getting the Xvario2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.