Jump to content

Color quality: SL vs. DMR


wildlightphoto

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The only aspect which worries me about the 90-280mm lens is the fact that it has 23 lens elements … 

 

https://uk.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-SL/Lenses/LEICA-APO-VARIO-ELMARIT-SL

 

… their precise alignment during manufacture might require very stringent QA procedures - and photographers would need to be aware of the need to treat the lens with respect to avoid accidental misalignment. 

 

dunk

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 90-280mm is likely to have been designed by the Peter Karbe team - the same team responsible for the 280/4 R, the 28-90 R and the 24-90 SL lenses; they do not design lemon optics; all their lenses perform superbly throughout their aperture and zoom ranges. It's the AF aspect and potential of the 90-280mm which appeals to me … and I would not be surprised if its MTF curves are a more than a match for the 80-200 R, 105-280 R and 280/4 R lenses - each of which were designed in the early to mid-1990s. Lens design technology and available glass types have moved on considerably in the last 15 years … and with Leica's 'no compromises' philosophy we can surely expect something really special with the AF 90-280mm SL lens. 

 

I expect it will be an exceptional lens, just a bit large and somewhat cumbersome for a 135 or a 180 (the focal lengths I most often use in this range), for me. That's my only real concern (other than the price), just like with the 24-90. 

 

I don't see it in the prototype pictures from the announcement, but I hope that Leica provides an on-lens tripod mount for such a large and (likely) heavy lens. I never feel confident hand-holding such a big lens for best sharpness, even with image stabilization, and I would never hang such a large lens on the body's tripod mount.

 

edit: Ah, I see in the piece you just linked to that there is a rotating tripod collar arrangement supplied. One worry gone...  B)

Edited by ramarren
Link to post
Share on other sites

I expect that in time the most attractive lenses for many people will be the primes that haven't been announced yet.

 

But many people will have to decide between the M  and SL (and perhaps even R) versions of the same focal lengths, which, quite probably will come down to how much we want AF.  Interesting few years coming up in Leicaland I suspect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to hear also how SL colors compare to M240's.  Any thoughts?

I can only give the initial impressions of someone who would rather take photos than test shots.

 

In changing from the M9 to the M240, I felt the SOOC images were more muted on the M240. In time, I concluded this was simply down to the extended DR of the M240, and that in PP I could easily achieve the richer, punchier colours of the M9, if I wanted to - and in time I stopped trying to.

 

After less than a week with the SL, the colours feel more like the M9: rich, strong and distinctive. My wife commented in one case that they were too in-your-face for her. However the SL is also capable of recording delicate pastel and pearlescent colours which I have seen on neither the M9 or M240. The AWB is better than either the M9 or M240, and on a par with my Olympus OMD EM5ii, which is exceptionally good. Indoor skin tones look a bit pink, but are quite acceptable.

 

I have tried little PP to achieve the "look" of the M240, and doubt if I will - I'll take the SL on its merits.

 

With the M9 and M240 I developed my own colour profiles, and I will do the same with the SL, which should sort out any residual red or pink skin tone issues.

 

I have a friend with an an exceptionally difficult skin: a condition that seems to make any shot of her horrendously (and unrealistically) blotchy and magenta coloured. I will be interested to see how the SL performs with her!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be very interested to see examples of the DMR color. Never have that I know of. 

 

I still regret selling the DMR, as well as the arsenal of lenses. This was shot with the 28-90 Asph. Only post, as I recall, is the addition of my watermark.

 

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!

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'd like to hear also how SL colors compare to M240's.  Any thoughts?

 

I haven't done any side by side shooting for direct comparison, but my impression is that the SL's JPEGs and raws (processed at the Lightroom 6.3 defaults) are a closer match than the M-P typ 240 JPEGs and raw files, and that the SL produces more "ready right out of the camera" color JPEGs than the M-P does. The colors from the SL are rich and vibrant without being cartoonish. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't shot the M240 too much.  But I have also seen examples of the muted / thin colors you refer to in printed or online pictures.

 

I can only give the initial impressions of someone who would rather take photos than test shots.

 

In changing from the M9 to the M240, I felt the SOOC images were more muted on the M240. In time, I concluded this was simply down to the extended DR of the M240, and that in PP I could easily achieve the richer, punchier colours of the M9, if I wanted to - and in time I stopped trying to.

 

After less than a week with the SL, the colours feel more like the M9: rich, strong and distinctive. My wife commented in one case that they were too in-your-face for her. However the SL is also capable of recording delicate pastel and pearlescent colours which I have seen on neither the M9 or M240. The AWB is better than either the M9 or M240, and on a par with my Olympus OMD EM5ii, which is exceptionally good. Indoor skin tones look a bit pink, but are quite acceptable.

 

I have tried little PP to achieve the "look" of the M240, and doubt if I will - I'll take the SL on its merits.

 

With the M9 and M240 I developed my own colour profiles, and I will do the same with the SL, which should sort out any residual red or pink skin tone issues.

 

I have a friend with an an exceptionally difficult skin: a condition that seems to make any shot of her horrendously (and unrealistically) blotchy and magenta coloured. I will be interested to see how the SL performs with her!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't shot the M240 too much.  But I have also seen examples of the muted / thin colors you refer to in printed or online pictures.

I've never thought of them as thin! More natural was my view. And the comment in my post was simply a comparative one with respect to the M9, not an absolute rating.

But we all use our own eyes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

l have now created a dual illuminance colour profile for the SL using the X-Rite Color Checker tool and Color Passport, and test shots in daylight outdoor shade (sunny winter day) and indoor tungsten (the only tungsten bulb we have left!)

Compared to the Adobe Standard profile, blue skies are less cyan and more natural, reds are slightly less magenta and perhaps a bit less saturated and greens (noticeably grass) are perhaps more saturated and darker. | need to check a wider range of scenes.

Skin tones are much more natural, though | only have indoor natural light shots far comparison. 

A worthwhile exercise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

l have now created a dual illuminance colour profile for the SL using the X-Rite Color Checker tool and Color Passport, and test shots in daylight outdoor shade (sunny winter day) and indoor tungsten (the only tungsten bulb we have left!)

Compared to the Adobe Standard profile, blue skies are less cyan and more natural, reds are slightly less magenta and perhaps a bit less saturated and greens (noticeably grass) are perhaps more saturated and darker. | need to check a wider range of scenes.

Skin tones are much more natural, though | only have indoor natural light shots far comparison. 

A worthwhile exercise.

 

What is a "dual illuminance color profile"? I'm curious.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a replacement for the "embedded" or "Adobe Standard" profiles that you are offered in LR or PS to convert raw files to real colours. If you don't like those that are offered to you, then make your own.

A single illuminant profile comes from a single shot of a colour chart lit by a light source at one WB temperature. That will only be useful for shots taken under the same lighting.

A dual illuminant profile is derived from two shots lit by sources at opposite ends of the temperature spectrum (usually "cold" daylight in shade, and a "warm" tungsten source). LR and PS then apply a interpolated profile based on what it thinks your raw file WB temperature is.

 

The new profile is thus based on your camera and any peculiarities of practice you have. I have found that my own profiles gave me better colour with the M9, M240 and now the SL, YMMV. l started doing it because of the blotchy magenta skin the M9 was occasionally known for.

 

l hope that is clear, and that others will jump in to correct any errors.

Edited by LocalHero1953
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a replacement for the "embedded" or "Adobe Standard" profiles that you are offered in LR or PS to convert raw files to real colours. If you don't like those that are offered to you, then make your own.

A single illuminant profile comes from a single shot of a colour chart lit by a light source at one WB temperature. That will only be useful for shots taken under the same lighting.

A dual illuminant profile is derived from two shots lit by sources at opposite ends of the temperature spectrum (usually "cold" daylight in shade, and a "warm" tungsten source). LR and PS then apply a interpolated profile based on what it thinks your raw file WB temperature is.

 

The new profile is thus based on your camera and any peculiarities of practice you have. I have found that my own profiles gave me better colour with the M9, M240 and now the SL, YMMV. l started doing it because of the blotchy magenta skin the M9 was occasionally known for.

 

l hope that is clear, and that others will jump in to correct any errors.

 

Interesting. So how does one construct a dual illuminant color profile? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Takes 5 minutes ........ was very useful when the M240 was released as the default from Leica was awful and it took a fair while for them to correct WB and for LR to produce a profile. 

After that was all sorted my Dual Illuminant profile made such marginal changes that I dumped it.

 

Adobe presumably produce their LR profile in exactly the same was a X-Rite allows you to do .... although they can then alter specific colour responses if they are still off.

The current LR profile to me seems sufficiently accurate that I have my doubts whether self profiling will do much ...... unless you can see some obvious issues in your images.....

Edited by thighslapper
Link to post
Share on other sites

Indoor skin tones were unacceptable SOOC to me, but easily sorted by tweaking WB and colour adjustments in LR, But a new profile has sorted that automatically.

Although blue skies did not look so obviously wrong SOOC the new profile has removed a cyan cast that, with hindsight, I do not want.

I dare say other differences will crop up, and I may find problems with my profile, but I'll stick with it for now.

Edited by LocalHero1953
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks! Color is always so complicated .. A mixture of accuracy and "whatever you find pleasing". Doing Monochrome has different challenges, but is technically simpler. 

 

I have the Passport, just never did a dual illuminant profile. The OOC JPEGs from the SL look pretty good to me, but it will be fun to experiment.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...