Rick Posted December 10, 2013 Share #1 Posted December 10, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Having spent time with the Sony RX1 and now the Sony A7R and now having spent a lot of time editing pictures from Europe from the M and RX1... and now getting used to the RX1 in PP... I am convinced the color is better from the RX1. Skin tones are better, AWB is actually better and more often correct. Overall color, now that we are printing some of these photographs, is more accurate. I believed the M was a bit better but, now having spent time with the RX1 files... they are just amazing. I don't have enough good shots under good conditions to say much about the A7R. Probably, it will be better as well and all of this can be extrapolated to it as well. But, the RX1 image is just so hard to beat at 35mm and the color is top notch. The M is by no means bad, it just isn't as good. I am becoming convinced, having shot the A7R with a thicker IR filter that design restrictions imposed on the M sensor by the legacy retrofocus M lenses are in part responsible for the M's inability to produce files that are unaffected by IR contamination. Until, this can be addressed in the sensor design I believe M shooters are going to have to live with a small compromise in color, especially in skin tones. For me, this is off set by the incredible catalog of M-lenses and the my personal preference for way the M handles these lenses. But, the future is coming fast at Leica and I do believe they need to address this issue or the trade-off gap between their incredible legacy M-lens catalog and accurate color is going to become more apparent and to wide to ignore with the introduction of cameras such as the Sony A7R. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 10, 2013 Posted December 10, 2013 Hi Rick, Take a look here M Color. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
algrove Posted December 11, 2013 Share #2 Posted December 11, 2013 +1 Well put and I also like my M and RX-1. For me skin tones I can work with on either camera, but perhaps my demands are less than most. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted December 11, 2013 Share #3 Posted December 11, 2013 Several threads here indicate they are actually regressing with the 240. I might guess the solution is a wide angle camera for say up to 28mm, then a second for longer lenses. This will not make many people happy, but will solve the problem. That or the will have to get very creative with software. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanJW Posted December 11, 2013 Share #4 Posted December 11, 2013 Color fidelity is very subjective. I haven't used an A7r yet , though I have one on order to be used as a backup. For my own work, I use an Xrite colorchecker profile and the M240 files are extremely easy to work with, and IMHO with excellent color fidelity. My opinion on that is just that, an opinion, but then so is Rick's and others. The ergonomics of the M240 -- simplicity and ease of use -- are very different from Sonys I have used in the past. I suspect the A7r will be terrific but that I will continue to prefer to pick up the M240. We'll see Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 11, 2013 Share #5 Posted December 11, 2013 Several threads here indicate they are actually regressing with the 240. I might guess the solution is a wide angle camera for say up to 28mm, then a second for longer lenses. This will not make many people happy, but will solve the problem. That or the will have to get very creative with software. That is what Zeiss Ikon did, even on film - we all know how that ended... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 11, 2013 Share #6 Posted December 11, 2013 Color fidelity is very subjective. I haven't used an A7r yet , though I have one on order to be used as a backup. For my own work, I use an Xrite colorchecker profile and the M240 files are extremely easy to work with, and IMHO with excellent color fidelity. My opinion on that is just that, an opinion, but then so is Rick's and others. I quite agree, but it took me a few months to train my eyes into accepting the transition of the color character from the M9 to the M240. Nowadays I find myself trying to process my M9 files to resemble the M240 output. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woorob Posted December 11, 2013 Share #7 Posted December 11, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) WeinschelA: Color fidelity is very subjective. I haven't used an A7r yet , though I have one on order to be used as a backup. For my own work, I use an Xrite colorchecker profile and the M240 files are extremely easy to work with, and IMHO with excellent color fidelity. Alan, spot on. My experience to date is that the M (240) in combination with a color checker passport produces accurate (and in my view) superior coloration across the board. On the other hand, my recent [two-day] foray with an A7R (which I sold to my brother) produced consistently odd coloration which I attribute to the current color profiles in LR 5.3. My experience with the A7R pretty much mirrors Rick's (as he recently noted in the A7R thread). My APO 100 mm macro produced stunning results on the A7R, and the WATE was perfectly acceptable. If I can obtain a decent price on a trade of my Nikon D7100 gear I'll probably buy another A7R, but it's a flawed and overly complex camera in many respects (just my personal opinion, to be sure). In fact the A7R gives me a new and profound appreciation for the elegant simplicity of the M. As others have noted, the real game is yet to come with the next generation of these FF cameras. It would be terrific if Leica could obtain assistance from Panasonic with image stabilization and -- gasp -- a built in EVF. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanJW Posted December 11, 2013 Share #8 Posted December 11, 2013 It would be terrific if Leica could obtain assistance from Panasonic with image stabilization and -- gasp -- a built in EVF. I happen to like the optical rangefinder with wides, but EVFs are still evolving. So far Leica has collaborated with Panasonic only on the p&s cameras but at some point a Leica M with an EVF (yes I know that "M" connotes rangefinder) would be very attractive. So would image stabilization built in to the body like Olympus MFT. I would love for there to be a partnership between Leica and Sony. Both are now focused (no pun intended) on full frame. The synergies together would be terrific. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted December 11, 2013 Share #9 Posted December 11, 2013 I do in part agree that hanging on to the design concept based on film will ultimately keep Leica from surpassing its competitors. However, I just don't think that Leica has the resources to enter into that fight anyway. I read somewhere that in the nineties, Canon made provisions with their camera design for a digital future and that for many years in the film days it cost them their place in front of Leica. But they ultimately were able to cash in on their advantage. Now they are producing their own sensors and have become a huge company, while Nikon is depending on Sony for their sensors. Leica cannot compete with the giants and gain enough new followers to anger their existing customer base by abandoning the classic M design. It would put them out of business. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanJW Posted December 11, 2013 Share #10 Posted December 11, 2013 Leica cannot compete with the giants and gain enough new followers to anger their existing customer base by abandoning the classic M design. It would put them out of business. Bernd: There are some who think Leica has already abandoned the classic M design (not me). But I agree with you that Leica cannot compete with the electronic giants. So how to stay alive? By keeping the basics that Leica is good at (like optics) and partnering to make a package that appeals both to the classicists and the others. Easy? No. Necessary IMHO? Yes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted December 11, 2013 Share #11 Posted December 11, 2013 Having spent time with the Sony RX1 and now the Sony A7R and now having spent a lot of time editing pictures from Europe from the M and RX1... and now getting used to the RX1 in PP... I am convinced the color is better from the RX1. Skin tones are better, AWB is actually better and more often correct. But, the future is coming fast at Leica and I do believe they need to address this issue or the trade-off gap between their incredible legacy M-lens catalog and accurate color is going to become more apparent and to wide to ignore with the introduction of cameras such as the Sony A7R. Well....... the RX-1 may be better, but my experience suggests the A7r is on a par with the M ......AWB most of the time is perfectly fine on both ..... and in fact I have found the Sony a bit blue in dull conditions. I've never had issues with the M that I could attribute to IR contamination ..... but there again I am not a fan of black holdall portraiture ...... As for 'skin tones' we are in 'abduction by aliens' territory ....... everyone has their own opinion, perceptions and preferences which are unshakeable and impossible to change. The human face is not an Xrite Colour Chart so it is well nigh impossible to prove whether the result is 'right' or 'wrong'. My experience with the A7r has just reinforced what a truly excellent camera the M is when paired with M lenses ..... and that Leica have pulled off a minor miracle in getting these lenses to work virtually perfectly on a small digital body. A fixed lens camera like the RX-1 is a different beast altogether ....... you don't need design compromises and can optimise the whole system to work to a higher spec..... I'm not denying the points you raise ....... I just don't think they are as much of an issue as you make out and certainly not a Leica killer. I'm disposing of my A7r as I don't enjoy using it and image quality is (from a practical point of view) no better than an M. If I shot more at 35mm I would be tempted by an RX-1 ..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecar Posted December 11, 2013 Share #12 Posted December 11, 2013 OMG, Rick... When I saw the title of the thread I thought you and Mitch were going to have another go at it! :eek: At least there's no M9 involved here... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted December 11, 2013 Share #13 Posted December 11, 2013 Wait for it ... That's right we can all come together as Leicaphiles to defend ourselves against the Sony. After people get sick of the Sony, we can get back into M vs M9 battles. Or how about film vs. digital? Remember those days? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted December 12, 2013 Share #14 Posted December 12, 2013 At the rate Sony spits out cameras, you won't have to wait long to renew the debate. - Marc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted December 12, 2013 Share #15 Posted December 12, 2013 Hmmm - I'm trying to work out what's wrong with M-240 skin tones. Most of the professional work I do with the M with poor or artificial lighting - though every now and again I get the luxury of doing location work with decent available light. Looking back at recent work I really don't have any gripes. OK - every now and then there's been an IR problem with artificial fibre black, but for my work this isn't an issue. Obviously, we can argue about this until the cows come home - it's subjective. I'm also sure that some will find fault with the examples below. However, these are photos taken in real situations, in variable mixed light, and I'm not convinced that there is an ideal, a perfect rendering. For the moment, and for my purposes, M output is absolutely fine - and the clients agree... 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/218220-m-color/?do=findComment&comment=2485484'>More sharing options...
01af Posted December 12, 2013 Share #16 Posted December 12, 2013 I'm trying to work out what's wrong with M (Typ 240) skin tones. [...] for my purposes, M output is absolutely fine ... Chris, great pictures ... especially the first is gorgeous. But the third is a typical example of poor skin tones in my opinion. And in the fourth I'm wondering if the colour of the lady's dress really was that saturated. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted December 12, 2013 Author Share #17 Posted December 12, 2013 Chris, great pictures ... especially the first is gorgeous. But the third is a typical example of poor skin tones in my opinion. And in the fourth I'm wondering if the colour of the lady's dress really was that saturated. Agree. This is the typical red over saturation of the M. I believe if Chris desaturated the Red primary it would improve the color. Like you, my preset desaturates the Red primary, often quite a bit, and increases the Hue of the Red primary. As a comment as to the OP, my intent wasn't to infer the M has bad color. I have stated before, I like the M color. My only point is that the OOC color of the RX1 is often more pleasing. With a profile for the M the color is excellent. In some ways the corrected M color, for me, I like better. But, through discussion here on the forum and taking that information and looking at more than eight thousand pictures from our trip to Europe in September... the skin tones from the Sony RX1 are more pleasing. And, almost always, OOC with no adjustment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted December 13, 2013 Share #18 Posted December 13, 2013 Agree. This is the typical red over saturation of the M. I believe if Chris desaturated the Red primary it would improve the color. Like you, my preset desaturates the Red primary, often quite a bit, and increases the Hue of the Red primary. As a comment as to the OP, my intent wasn't to infer the M has bad color. I have stated before, I like the M color. My only point is that the OOC color of the RX1 is often more pleasing. With a profile for the M the color is excellent. In some ways the corrected M color, for me, I like better. But, through discussion here on the forum and taking that information and looking at more than eight thousand pictures from our trip to Europe in September... the skin tones from the Sony RX1 are more pleasing. And, almost always, OOC with no adjustment. Rick - probably fruitless to go much further with this, as I think it's become a question of aesthetic judgement rather than objective fact. If you find the RX1 output more pleasing, then that's great. All I will say (again) is that I'm not finding any major problems with M output for my work. I give below OOC images from the Canon 5D2 and Leica M from the Die Fledermaus shoot. Lighting conditions were variable, though the dress remained the same. The COLOUR of the dress of course changed as the lighting changed, and I can go back through the archive and find all sorts of changes in hue in response to variations in the lighting design. Oversaturation - I think not... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 13, 2013 Share #19 Posted December 13, 2013 It doesn't look oversaturated on my screen... Just a theatre dress in theatre light. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonil Posted December 13, 2013 Share #20 Posted December 13, 2013 Chris, great pictures ... especially the first is gorgeous. But the third is a typical example of poor skin tones in my opinion. And in the fourth I'm wondering if the colour of the lady's dress really was that saturated. Maybe they just look that pink? And the Dress was very saturated? Most of the time I work in the theatre, the skin tones are off on any of my cameras because of make up, the artificial light and often enough, a lot of Australians I work with are very pale and pink. But then again, I love the photos but I don't see a problem about the saturation of the dress in the last image - overall, I don't see what you see in the third picture - maybe because I see the same skin tones in real life. Especially in theatre. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.