elmars Posted February 22, 2015 Share #361 Posted February 22, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) The first pictures are the M9, and you were unable to parallel the blacks of the second without ruining the dynamic range differences seen in the in the colour-checker's frame or... The first pictures are the M240, and the second pictures of the M9 had to be over-lightened in order to match-up the shadows of the model. Erwin Puts wrote somewhere, that the M9 and the M240 have different white points and black points in the tone curve - so I did understand it. This may cause a different behavior in exposure and developing. And this may have caused the little differences in the blacks and the lights of the photos. I did only very little adjustments in the Exposure Slider of LR. Elmar Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 22, 2015 Posted February 22, 2015 Hi elmars, Take a look here 400 Leica photographers agree: we love CCD!. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
elmars Posted February 22, 2015 Share #362 Posted February 22, 2015 . These photos were shot with a chinese studio flash. I do not know, if it is very constant in lightquality. Elmar Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firefly Posted February 22, 2015 Share #363 Posted February 22, 2015 I will stick my neck out and say I prefer the pictures with 2 on them. I am no expert at all when it comes to post-processing, in fact a novice really and I am not going to pretend otherwise. I currently have a M8 and aspire to having a M9/M9P, if the "two's" are from the M240 it looks like life just got more expensive for me , regards Rob Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elmars Posted February 22, 2015 Share #364 Posted February 22, 2015 I will stick my neck out and say I prefer the pictures with 2 on them. I am no expert at all when it comes to post-processing, in fact a novice really and I am not going to pretend otherwise. I currently have a M8 and aspire to having a M9/M9P, if the "two's" are from the M240 it looks like life just got more expensive for me , regards Rob I will tell You tomorrow morning (German time, 14 hours from now), if life will be more expensive for You. Elmar Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
firststream Posted February 22, 2015 Share #365 Posted February 22, 2015 . Hmmm, now we're getting somewhere. Of the two portraits with clean backgrounds, image "2" has considerable vignetting, suggesting a thicker glass cover for the sensor. M9? On the other hand, the model's skin in the same image is ruddier, which supports the complaint given the M240. I prefer image "1". The background is cleaner with no perceptible vignette. Neither image is superior in regards to 3D "pop", or micro-contrast. The skin tones are acceptable in both. (I'm thinking the model is your partner, and is presenting an attractive smile in "1" so that we choose it. If it's the M9, then her end-game is to prevent you from lusting after the 240! ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elmars Posted February 22, 2015 Share #366 Posted February 22, 2015 (I'm thinking the model is your partner, and is presenting an attractive smile in "1" so that we choose it. If it's the M9, then her end-game is to prevent you from lusting after the 240! ) Very good analysis. You have to wait till tomorrow to find out, if You know my wife better than me. Who does not want to wait so long: Look carefully on the photos with the fruit, but not on the fruit. Elmar Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daedalus2000 Posted February 22, 2015 Share #367 Posted February 22, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Sorry, unless I am misreading something is it not clear that images 2 come from M240 and images 1 from M9? Can we not assume consistency in the numbering? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elmars Posted February 22, 2015 Share #368 Posted February 22, 2015 Can we not assume consistency in the numbering? You can. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted February 22, 2015 Share #369 Posted February 22, 2015 Who does not want to wait so long: Look carefully on the photos with the fruit, but not on the fruit. Unless you own multiple cameras, one would assume that each pic was taken with the camera not in the photo. Jeff 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted February 22, 2015 Share #370 Posted February 22, 2015 This, of course, is a dicey game when we look at JPEG files on the internet. I can not tell much difference in the first pictures that have the X-Rite color corrected profiles. The second posting that is out of camera files show poor color fidelity in camera #1 which is at 1600 ISO. So, camera #1 is the M9. This was a problem with the M9 as the ISO went up the color depth precipitously went down. At base ISO, the M9 was always very pleasing, though. I also see that the white balance on the background of the "mug-shot" is different between the two sets posted lastly. A simple WB correction would have been helpful in the last set. Ok, I stuck my neck out and I hope that #2 is the M240 based on the higher ISO shots out of camera. But, it is important to see that at base ISO the X-Rite corrected shots are so close. PP is key for any M9 or M240 file. Rick 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted February 22, 2015 Share #371 Posted February 22, 2015 I don't want to derail this thread, but regardless of which is which: can someone show me the big dynamic range advantage of one over the other? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elmars Posted February 22, 2015 Share #372 Posted February 22, 2015 You cannot see a greater dynamic range. It is only important, if You want or need to recover highlights. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbywise Posted February 22, 2015 Share #373 Posted February 22, 2015 I've seen your fruit shots before (on your website?), which of course has the camera that wasn't used in the shot Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted February 22, 2015 Share #374 Posted February 22, 2015 You cannot see a greater dynamic range. It is only important, if You want or need to recover highlights. Are you saying that you cannot see it in these pictures or that you cannot see it in general? You should absolutely be able to see greater dynamic range. When I test for it, I like to shoot a person by a window, possibly through sheer curtains to see how the highlights in the curtains and dark side of the face behave. The results are vastly different between different cameras or film stocks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted February 23, 2015 Share #375 Posted February 23, 2015 Someday the resolution and dynamic range of monitors will make so many current claims utter garbage. Do what you wish and be prepared for the future which will make current viewing primitive. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elmars Posted February 23, 2015 Share #376 Posted February 23, 2015 Are you saying that you cannot see it in these pictures or that you cannot see it in general? You should absolutely be able to see greater dynamic range. When I test for it, I like to shoot a person by a window, possibly through sheer curtains to see how the highlights in the curtains and dark side of the face behave. The results are vastly different between different cameras or film stocks. I am not a technician and my english is bad, but I unterstand it, You can only see what is in the histogram. All beyond is pure black or pure (blown out) white. It is about 10 f-stops, like in ols Ansel Adams times. Adams ruled his tone system for photografic paper and it is true till today, but I do not know, if a monitor has significantly more f-stops. All beyond the histogram borders has to be recovered to see it. I think, if You see differences in the highlights of two cameras it is because of the different tone curve - nothing else as in the old film days. Elmar Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elmars Posted February 23, 2015 Share #377 Posted February 23, 2015 All no 1 are M9 and all no 2 are M240. Elmar 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted February 23, 2015 Share #378 Posted February 23, 2015 All beyond is pure black or pure (blown out) white. It is about 10 f-stops, like in ols Ansel Adams times. It gets a little convoluted because you are translating what is on the negative to a print, or what is captured by the sensor to the viewing medium. Now, in terms of the dynamic range of a sensor, we refer to the range from darkest shadows to brightest highlights that the sensor can capture before clipping. The M240 is stated, according to reports and scientific tests, to have considerably more dynamic range than the M9. In all the comparison pictures I have seen so far though, I don't necessarily see this increased dynamic range. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elmars Posted February 23, 2015 Share #379 Posted February 23, 2015 The M240 is stated, according to reports and scientific tests, to have considerably more dynamic range than the M9. In all the comparison pictures I have seen so far though, I don't necessarily see this increased dynamic range. I think this is right. That is why Puts states not to overrate dynamic range. It is "only" the capacity to recover somthing that ist apart from what You can see. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenshacker Posted February 23, 2015 Share #380 Posted February 23, 2015 In the uncorrected/uncropped images: 1) was lens detection turned on, or the lens type set manually? The M240 image shows more vignetting than the M9. 2) The uncorrected image of the Grass: The M9 "green" is deeper, the M240 color reminds me a bit of the M8 without the IR filter. IR contamination will also produce problems in skin tones. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now