Leica SL Image Thread ...post your examples here ....

[jonoslack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Very fine, very regular horizontal lines across the sky as you might get from a poor inkjet print?

 

 

I've seen it faintly in one or two others.  I've tried looking closely at photos in the photo forum but can't find it anywhere else.

 

It's also there in Jono's post 115 for example, and in a few others where there's a fairly uniform background in the mid range between light and dark.

 

It's not my eyes, but I wonder whether it could be my screen. (I'm looking at a 27" iMac.) I can't find it anywhere else except in this thread, but I'll look more carefully.

 

PS, i don't think it's the screen as the lines are nor stationary as I scroll the screen as they are on an iPad for example, i.e. they appear as a fixed part of the image, but I suppose they could still be some artefact relating to the colour density or something. Odd.

I can see it too - and on my post 115 - I've just checked the image in LR, and it's definitely not showing there.

I'm looking at a 27" Thunderbolt display . . . but I wonder if it's the Lightroom export doing it. 

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!

[Advertisement]

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

[Peter H]

I can see it too - and on my post 115 - I've just checked the image in LR, and it's definitely not showing there.

I'm looking at a 27" Thunderbolt display . . . but I wonder if it's the Lightroom export doing it. 

 

Thanks Jono. Beautiful photos, by the way.

 

The main thing is that it doesn't appear to be in the original file.

 

I wonder why it appears in some uploaded photos but not in others. But I suspect I shan't understand the explanation if I get one!

[ramarren]

I see it on my MacBook Pro... but didn't notice until it was pointed out... I just saw a nice picture 

 

 

Yes, they are nice pictures. I wasn't t looking for faults or pixel-peeping, but they were clear enough to stand out, just.

 

And once you spot something like that it becomes hard to ignore it. It sort of draws your eyes to it. 

 

 

You are right... once it was pointed out, it was all I could see...

 

Yes, once you focus my eyes with words that lead their expectations, I see banding ... I see it now on almost everything, including the white background of the window. 

 

The mind and the eye are tricky things; the one can overwhelm the other pretty easily.

 

Perhaps I'm not looking for flaws critically enough most of the time ... I'm looking to see the photographs, not the dust spots or the bands or the other flaws. My assumption is that photos I see on the net are heavily de-rezzed, downsized representations of the original image; many kinds of flaws can arise from that process. 

[ramarren]

I can see it too - and on my post 115 - I've just checked the image in LR, and it's definitely not showing there.

I'm looking at a 27" Thunderbolt display . . . but I wonder if it's the Lightroom export doing it. 

 

That's a lovely photo, Jono! 

[Peter H]

Yes, once you focus my eyes with words that lead their expectations, I see banding ... I see it now on almost everything, including the white background of the window. 

 

The mind and the eye are tricky things; the one can overwhelm the other pretty easily.

 

Perhaps I'm not looking for flaws critically enough most of the time ... I'm looking to see the photographs, not the dust spots or the bands or the other flaws. My assumption is that photos I see on the net are heavily de-rezzed, downsized representations of the original image; many kinds of flaws can arise from that process. 

 

Well, this is making me sound as though I'm looking for faults. 

 

In photography, I strongly believe that the quality of the photograph consists 99% in the creative imagination of the photographer, and that a iPhone or Brownie is as capable of producing a brilliant, stunning, moving photo as anything, given the inspiration in the first place. In fact I complain regularly about the over-emphasis on gear as opposed to photography in this whole forum, and I still feel the same way.

 

But when we're specifically looking at threads from a brand new camera and we're interested in how it performs (otherwise why the specific thread?), and when something is visible in the photos which shouldn't be there, (not on the background screen, by the way, and not in most photos) it's worth asking whether the new camera is the cause, even though it is in all probability not the cause.

[ramarren]

Well, this is making me sound as though I'm looking for faults. 

 

In photography, I strongly believe that the quality of the photograph consists 99% in the creative imagination of the photographer, and that a iPhone or Brownie is as capable of producing a brilliant, stunning, moving photo as anything, given the inspiration in the first place. In fact I complain regularly about the over-emphasis on gear as opposed to photography in this whole forum, and I still feel the same way.

 

But when we're specifically looking at threads from a brand new camera and we're interested in how it performs (otherwise why the specific thread?), and when something is visible in the photos which shouldn't be there, (not on the background screen, by the way, and not in most photos) it's worth asking whether the new camera is the cause, even though it is in all probability not the cause.

 

You seem to want to take my statements personally, as if I'm trying to find fault with you or someone else. Please don't assume that; I'm not. 

 

For me, posting examples and viewing examples posted by others isn't a matter of trying to determine a camera's performance or ascertain its flaws. I participate to see how others are using the camera, discovering how it works, or seeing what different lenses they use on it—an opportunity to ask how they feel the lens performs if I have one or am interested in obtaining one.  

 

When I make a statement like: 

 

 

Perhaps I'm not looking for flaws critically enough most of the time ... I'm looking to see the photographs, not the dust spots or the bands or the other flaws. My assumption is that photos I see on the net are heavily de-rezzed, downsized representations of the original image; many kinds of flaws can arise from that process. 

I'm questioning my perceptions and assumptions, not yours, in the hope of obtaining input into whether I'm looking at things in an appropriate way.

 

I've only very rarely found that posted photos on-line give me much insight into the performance of a camera, or useful information about its potential flaws, unless the posted photo illustrates a point or a question being referred to in accompanying text very clearly. 

[Peter H]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You seem to want to take my statements personally, as if I'm trying to find fault with you or someone else. Please don't assume that; I'm not. 

 

.........................

I've only very rarely found that posted photos on-line give me much insight into the performance of a camera, or useful information about its potential flaws, unless the posted photo illustrates a point or a question being referred to in accompanying text very clearly. 

 

 

Since I haven't been able to even see an SL let alone try one out, the only way I can form any sort of opinion is to look at photos and ask questions. I know it's no substitute for taking one's own photos, but that's currently impossible, hence the questions.

 

I'm not taking it personally, simply trying to explain why i'm asking so many questions, and it did read to me as though you were suggesting that it was inappropriate to expect photos to convey very much, which is partially true of course. Anyway, not to worry. Thanks for explaining.

 

By the way, have you or anyone else yet tried the latest Summilux M 35 on the SL? 

Edited November 26, 2015 by Peter H

[svenjosh]

 

By the way, have you or anyone else yet tried the latest Summilux M 35 on the SL? 

 

Yes I have used the lens, no issues. Superb performance, no color shift or smearing. Extreme corners show some softness wide open, not sure if it matters for anyone.

[ramarren]

By the way, have you or anyone else yet tried the latest Summilux M 35 on the SL? 

 

I don't have access to the current generation lens. I briefly tested my 1972 Summilux 35mm f/1.4 v2 on the SL so far.

 

The v2 is wonderfully quirky even on film and does the same things on the SL: Wide open and at f/2 and f/2.8, it's center sharp and the effect is similar to having a Zeiss Softar of varying hardness on the lens. From f/4 to f/8, it becomes very sharp and even illumination over the field. That holds through f/11, then goes a little soft at f/16. It's one of my favorite lenses for the M-P. 

 

I don't have anything other than pretty simplistic test photos to offer with this lens as I've since sent it off to DAG to be six-bit coded and cleaned/lubricated. I should have it back in hand around the end of the year. 

[digitalfx]

 

By the way, have you or anyone else yet tried the latest Summilux M 35 on the SL? 

 

 

Yes, I have been using it. Looks great, I posted some images in this thread.

[Peter H]

Yes, I have been using it. Looks great, I posted some images in this thread.

 

Sorry, I didn't remember any with the 35 and I've just looked again and can't see any.

 

I am not good at finding things that are right in front of me though, as I am often reminded!

[Likaleica]

First day out with SL and 90mm Apo-Summicron-Asph R.  PP in LR CC using only Levels.  

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!

[pop]

Vario Elmarir 24-90. No PP

How large was the image on your disk (in kB) before uploading?

[digitalfx]

Sorry, I didn't remember any with the 35 and I've just looked again and can't see any.

 

I am not good at finding things that are right in front of me though, as I am often reminded!

 

Sorry, I was wrong. I'll post some shortly.

[Likaleica]

More SL with 90AA-R

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!

[Likaleica]

One more, same setup.

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!

[digitalfx]

35mm FLE Summilux

f1.4

ISO 50 and ISO 100

(vignette applied in LR)

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!

Edited November 26, 2015 by digitalfx

[Peter H]

35mm FLE Summilux

f1.4

ISO 50 and ISO 100

(vignette applied in LR)

Very nice. Thank you for posting these

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[digitalfx]

Noctilux at .95

ISO 50 and 125

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!

[jonoslack]

35mm FLE Summilux

f1.4

ISO 50 and ISO 100

(vignette applied in LR)

There's nothing quite like a pretty girl!