AlanJW Posted December 1, 2013 Share #121 Posted December 1, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) 01af - are you using the same camera as me? Processing in Lightroom I find that even AWB gives good results. MUCH less need for work in post than I have to do with my Canons. Odd... I agree with both Chris and O1af. The files that come out of the M (using AWB) are excellent (Chris' point) and if you do a profile with an Xrite Colorchecker they require very little work (O1af's point). I would add that with a profile, my M240 files are easier to work with than Nikon (D800E) or Olympus (E-P5) so that can be added to Chris' comparison with Canon. IMHO a camera that is perfect re WB in all situations simply does not exist. And, in any event, my idea of "perfect" is not necessarily anybody else's idea of perfect. Finally, in looking at really great photographs, how many times have you said, "That is wonderful; look at how perfect the white balance is."? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 1, 2013 Posted December 1, 2013 Hi AlanJW, Take a look here M240 Color Test ... Oh, oh!. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Jeff S Posted December 1, 2013 Share #122 Posted December 1, 2013 0iaf, yes I was in touch with a M240 user that also suggested building XRite profiles, and was also of the opinion that it was mandatory ... however, with deeper discussion, he didn't think it would solve my over-all opinion of aggregate image characteristics, nor fit with my workflow needs due to a number of factors ... not the least of which is photographing weddings with synthetic black all over the place shot in very low kelvin temps ... complicating each situation with IR filter or no IR filter and what profile for each of those in a wide range of lighting situations. Basically, it was an honest discussion ... yet I was still willing to give it a try. I agree that tastes vary and that the only thing that matters is one's own conclusion. After all, it's just a camera, and there are many options, and many more aspects to making and enjoying pics. Having said that, I'm quite surprised that you didn't give the ColorChecker Passport a real whirl. Doing, not talking, was the whole point of the demo, I thought. In any case, using the Passport was my simple suggestion from the start. And, yes, it's simple....no need to do lots of profiles, and no problem to just use a UV/IR filter. But that's my opinion. YMMV. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rirakuma Posted December 1, 2013 Share #123 Posted December 1, 2013 Sorry not trying to change the subject but did the M9 have color issues during its early release? If it did then maybe the M is going through the same phase? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 1, 2013 Share #124 Posted December 1, 2013 Yes it did -flamboyant reds and greens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mirekti Posted December 1, 2013 Share #125 Posted December 1, 2013 I hope the IR contamination wasn't included in the firmware development. In a sence, some green look yelowish if there's too much IR so if the Firmware is corrected for it once you come to the environment with almost non IR or put an IR filter on, one would get wrong colors again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted December 1, 2013 Author Share #126 Posted December 1, 2013 "Finally, in looking at really great photographs, how many times have you said, "That is wonderful; look at how perfect the white balance is.?" Of course no one would comment in that manner ... if it is well done, why would you? This all started for me when I DID take note of skin tones I would object to ... which throws up red flags knowing that I shoot primarily people, and do a lot of images at a crack in various lighting. This was covered extensively in another thread here on the LUF. "I'm quite surprised that you didn't give the ColorChecker Passport a real whirl. Doing, not talking, was the whole point of the demo ... " Jeff, as mentioned, I studied a lot of images, for months ... including those done with LR Profiles, LR Presets, Aperture, C1, and I DO have the Xrite Passport and tried doing that without initial success ... but as 01af mentioned it may have taken several attempts to get it to work ... the problem is that the profiled images people shared with me didn't light my fire anyway. So what would be the point? I had hope to find my own recipe ... I do a lot of processing and have a few tricks of my own up my sleeve. "My M9 files are very seductive with a particular look, but the problem is I don't always want that 'pre-processed' look. I find the M240 files with the increased DR to be more robust and flexible with PP work". This I understand Keith. My preference is for initial RAW images that are "relatively" true to what I'm shooting ... then malleable enough to process in either direction based on creative intent afterwards. I wasn't a fan of the Nikon D3X because of its skewed tonal response, and found bliss with the same sensor in a Sony A900 which was truer to the scene in front of me. The one exception to this preference is the Leica MM which produces a relatively flat file when exposed to protect the highlight areas ... but that is an anomaly because it is a mono chrome sensor with very high ISO capabilities allowing flexibility for controlling shadow detail. Eliminate color and a whole host of interdependent cascading issues evaporates. From what I can tell so far from an array of images done by different people in different conditions using a huge range of lenses, the Sony A7R may be just the right solution for my needs. I tried it. Not a rangefinder. Not perfect, just closer in to a look and feel I prefer for my most used M lenses ... 35/1.4ASPH, 50/0.95, and 75AA. The look of the A7/A7R files seem quite natural looking to my eye. That initial images look this good to me so soon bodes well for future work done once it is in more hands. Meanwhile, I still have a few M240 ideas to try yet ... and have enough RAW files to play with. However, I frankly just do not think it all should be this hard. I just want to take photos and spend less time flailing around in front of a computer trying to get something, without requiring a degree from MIT to do it. - Marc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 1, 2013 Share #127 Posted December 1, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Sorry not trying to change the subject but did the M9 have color issues during its early release? ... Never! http://tllg.net/15Fa (7 MB file) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mirekti Posted December 1, 2013 Share #128 Posted December 1, 2013 Sorry not trying to change the subject but did the M9 have color issues during its early release? If it did then maybe the M is going through the same phase? It's been more than a year since the camera was released, and the firmware is being developed in Leica's yard, so... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 1, 2013 Share #129 Posted December 1, 2013 I hope the IR contamination wasn't included in the firmware development. In a sence, some green look yelowish if there's too much IR so if the Firmware is corrected for it once you come to the environment with almost non IR or put an IR filter on, one would get wrong colors again. IR contamination cannot and will not be corrected in firmware. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 1, 2013 Share #130 Posted December 1, 2013 It's been more than a year since the camera was released, and the firmware is being developed in Leica's yard, so... It was not the firmware but the raw developers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rirakuma Posted December 1, 2013 Share #131 Posted December 1, 2013 lct, thanks for that file. Looks quite interesting, ruddy tones indeed . Marc, I'm surprised you're considering the A7r. I've never used the camera personally but looking after looking at samples online I believe that the M would win against it in terms of colors. mirekti, the camera started shipping on early March from what I remember? It hasn't been a year since release unless you meant the announcement? Anyway I still think its "early" for the M as some people are still awaiting delivery for their camera. I've been using the camera for a few months now and although I have never used an M9 I'm pretty sure there's a different look between the two. I suspect that because the M files are more robust it's easier to make the picture look "digitalesque" while post processing. I don't think the differences are noticable in SOOC comparisons but I do think that they must behave very differently in post. Mind you this is just a personal opinion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted December 2, 2013 Author Share #132 Posted December 2, 2013 I'm not "considering" the A7R, I already pre-paid for one. As a Sony SLT A99 shooter it was a no-brainer extension of my current system ... that happens to also take a few favorite M lenses. Which, upon reflection, is probably all I really need since most of my Rangefinder work is B&W with the M Monochrome. I'm sort of a luddite when it comes to rangefinder photography ... much preferring B&W to color. The only A7R color samples I've paid attention to are those posted on the Get Dpi forum that were shot by people whom I know. Subjectively, I disagree with you regarding the color ... which again, is a matter of taste. Obviously, the A7R will be simpatico with my A99, and act as a back-up camera. I also had a chance to personally use the A7R when a friend brought one by the studio for a few hours. Shot with a M50/0.95 at minimum distance in very low light using a much improved focus peaking with the subject quite off center. Nailed it. Nailed every M75/2AA shot also. It is NOT a rangefinder and is not intended to replace one ... but I can plop it into my M Monochrome bag for the occasional color shot. It is actually smaller than a M. I've already affectionately nick-named it "Mighty Mouse." - Marc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted December 2, 2013 Share #133 Posted December 2, 2013 I agree Marc. I've been most impressed by the Noctilux and a7r samples I've recently seen. Who knew the Noctilux was actually so razor sharp wide-open. I will get one not to replace, but to work with my M9. Hopefully until Leica come up with a 36MP M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted December 2, 2013 Share #134 Posted December 2, 2013 By the time Leica does, Sony will probably have an A7/R like camera with even more Megapixels and 5-axis IBIS. This In-Body-Image-Stabilization is wonderful to experience on the Olympus E-M5 and now especially on the E-M1. With it I can shoot handheld with an Exposure Time approaching a second and get pretty much sharp images. IIRC there has been an announcement that Olympus and Sony are collaborating on this development for inclusion in a future Sony camera. That's the one I really want! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted December 2, 2013 Share #135 Posted December 2, 2013 Then why not wait? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mirekti Posted December 2, 2013 Share #136 Posted December 2, 2013 It was not the firmware but the raw developers. Does this mean we should wait for the Adobe to get better? There is also an Embedded profile in LR. Is this the one Leica is responsible for? Do you guys use Adobe standard or the embedded one? I mean, I didn't get where we are at the moment. Are we at the point where we will have to create different profiles for different color temperatures like some members here did/recommended and that's it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted December 2, 2013 Share #137 Posted December 2, 2013 Then why not wait? Thanks Lou. I try to take advantage of technical improvements as soon as they become available in robust products. The A7R advance is a big enough step for me. Having IBIS in it will trigger another purchase, I am sure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted December 2, 2013 Share #138 Posted December 2, 2013 By the time Leica does, Sony will probably have an A7/R like camera with even more Megapixels and 5-axis IBIS. This In-Body-Image-Stabilization is wonderful to experience on the Olympus E-M5 and now especially on the E-M1. With it I can shoot handheld with an Exposure Time approaching a second and get pretty much sharp images. IIRC there has been an announcement that Olympus and Sony are collaborating on this development for inclusion in a future Sony camera. That's the one I really want! Totally. You seen the 54MP A and E mount rumour that's just surfaced? That sort of resolution with Leica lenses and my quest for gear may just be done. Well maybe...:roll eyes: I agree - don't wait. Just jump in. Why wait 2 years for something when you can advance now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 2, 2013 Share #139 Posted December 2, 2013 Gentlemen, this thread is getting rather off topic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 7, 2013 Share #140 Posted December 7, 2013 ...I did some tests from 21 to 50mm with the beta firmware last summer and did not find any significant difference colour wise with and w/o UV/IR filter... Did it again and found some cyan shift with CV 21/4 and Elmarit 21/2.8 asph in corners and/or edges of the filtered pics though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.