Jump to content

Images in 'Play' review is blur?


kaikeong

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi!

 

Does anyone here faces the same problem as I am facing?

 

I did some shots on my recently purchased SL camera with a tripod set up and focus to the sharpest point but when I review it in the 'Play' review section, the largest blow up images are all blurred. Quite blur. I told out the shots onto the computer and to my surprised, the images are sharp. Anyone knows the reason?

 

Thanks

 

 

 

kaikeong

Link to post
Share on other sites

DNG began as long as Zoom Blur. The computer to see clearly, only with DNG+JP clear the Lycra really to refuel, Canon and Nikon do very in place. SL in DMG is also unable to close the noise reduction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Advertisement (gone after registration)

We now have close to a dozen separate topics discussing this. 

Seems like the search function isn't working to well.

 

Regardless, Leica its time to address this oversight. Why on earth would you give us a low res only JPG embedded in the DNG?

The camera is targeted to professionals according to your marketing department. Very few professionals shoot DNG + JPEG. Knowing that why would you give us a crippled preview?

 

Please fix this and stop the madness on the forums.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I currently use a Leica M Monochrome and a Leica S (006) for paying work.

 

I'm considering this camera for specific professional applications (amongst other camera considerations), but like the notion of using some of my M lenses, and later on all of the S system optics, on this camera.

 

Reading these posts and others about accuracy is off-putting.

 

Having to shoot DNG+Jpeg HI so you can zoom review on the fly is a deal breaker for me ... and I sure the heck do not want to wait a month of Sundays for Leica to get around to fixing it. 

 

ANYTHING that takes extra space on a card, or adds extra time in post, is NOT pro level performance.

 

- Marc

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. There is no problem in manual focussing accuracy with M lenses when using EVF alone,  peaking and/or magnification ..... which with the current firmware is easy-peasy. There is ONE user who 'appears' to have issues .... but that is it. Everyone else states focussing is easier than with the M and more accurate. 

 

2. All recent Leicas (T,XV,Q and SL) use the jpg (at whatever resolution set) for review in camera. The likelihood of them changing this policy is zero. 

 

3. JPG's occupy 10-20% max of card space ..... and you have 2 slots ..... so the complaint of lack of card space is a bit much. 

 

4. Selectively downloading or deleting the unwanted jpg's takes seconds ..... and LR can be configured to ignore the jpg's on import anyway. 

 

5. With the 24-90 the AF focus point is at the rear of the DOF ...... which is either a benefit, or an issue, depending on your point of view. Leica are aware and will address this in future firmware. It is not a problem in normal usage. 

 

6. Centre image performance with M lenses on the SL is as good and in some cases possibly better than on the M ........ and those posting 'concerns' have subsequently shown images where the difference is in fact negligible and very subjective. 

 

7. Corner performance with wide angle M lenses on the SL is not a practical issue ..... some are marginally worse, most the same, some are actually better .... particularly the later design lenses. Several of us have tested M lenses and between us covered most of them. No unpleasant suprises. 

 

Sounds to me like you have talked your way into not getting one ....... which is fine...... but I suggest you try first before discounting it ...... forums and reviews only tell you half the story .....

 

I have M240, MM, M246, XV, T, Q and SL.... and a heap of M and R lenses  

Whilst I often miss the compactness of the M240 and Q ....... it's the SL I usually grab first these days ...... as an 'all-purpose' Leica solution it has an awful lot to offer..... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I currently use a Leica M Monochrome and a Leica S (006) for paying work.

 

I'm considering this camera for specific professional applications (amongst other camera considerations), but like the notion of using some of my M lenses, and later on all of the S system optics, on this camera.

 

Reading these posts and others about accuracy is off-putting.

 

Having to shoot DNG+Jpeg HI so you can zoom review on the fly is a deal breaker for me ... and I sure the heck do not want to wait a month of Sundays for Leica to get around to fixing it. 

 

ANYTHING that takes extra space on a card, or adds extra time in post, is NOT pro level performance.

 

- Marc

 

 

 

Marc,

I think you are making too much out of this. I was making a point because I was tired of the threads being created. Maybe if users would search first we wouldn't have a dozen threads on the same topic. After all this issue has existed since Leica first produced digital cameras.

 

There are zero issues with accuracy, this is one of the fastest and most accurate Leica cameras. There is no need to selectively download or delete anything. I have full size jpegs enabled and quite frankly forget they exist. Using LR its a seamless post process that takes no more time than if you shot DNG only.

 

Should Leica fix this? yes

Does it have any real impact as-is? Absolutely not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

digitalfx, on 20 Jan 2016 - 04:06, said:

We now have close to a dozen separate topics discussing this. 

Seems like the search function isn't working to well.

 

Regardless, Leica its time to address this oversight. Why on earth would you give us a low res only JPG embedded in the DNG?

The camera is targeted to professionals according to your marketing department. Very few professionals shoot DNG + JPEG. Knowing that why would you give us a crippled preview?

 

Please fix this and stop the madness on the forums.

Unfortunately we have; however I am to lazy to start merging them. It would create an incomprehensible mess anyway. It is probably best to lock them as they come up and direct all further comments into this thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like opinions on this, if possible.

When manual focusing, zooming,  using the EVF it appears very sharp.

When you preview the jpeg thought the EVF, and zoom in, it appears softer than you remember it. The overall file looks very compressed.

WHen you view the DNG it looks perfect, as you remember when shooting it.

Is this because the hi res EVF is out resolving the quality of the JPEG preview the camera is generating? It seems the JPEG preview file is poor, compared to say a file from the Q.

It seems more noticeable on images with M lenses. I assume camera is set to JPEG+DNG.

Again, I stress that the DNG files look great, once on the PC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I wrote in the post, camera is set to DNG+JPEG.

I understand that DNG only has very poor, low res previews.

The purpose of my post is to determine whether anyone thinks the JPEG preview in the EVF is a bit average, relative to other cameras, such as the Q, and whether or not this is because the EVF is so high res.

In other words, when looking/zooming at 'Previews' of the taken image through the EVF they don't look as sharp and clear as when you are looking at a live view through the the EVF.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know ...

My camera is always set to JPEG+raw. JPEG is always set to full size, max quality.

 

The live view (normal and zoomed in for focus assist) looks good, reviewed JPEGs look the same to me. 

Move to LR on Mac mini with 27" display, JPEGs and raws at 1:1 magnification both look excellent. 

 

But honestly: I don't spend a heck of a lot of time evaluating the quality of my images on a three-inch display screen. I take a peek at them from time to time to evaluate exposure settings and determine whether I placed the focus point correctly. That's about it. Mostly I just turn review off and take pictures, evaluate what I've done when I get home and move them into Lightroom. 

 

I leave the camera set to JPEG+raw for two reasons: one is to provide the large JPEG needed to evaluate focus, the other is that I often transfer the JPEGs to my iPad while I'm still out either while or after I've finished shooting so I can review what I've been doing on a decent sized screen. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I wrote in the post, camera is set to DNG+JPEG.

I understand that DNG only has very poor, low res previews.

The purpose of my post is to determine whether anyone thinks the JPEG preview in the EVF is a bit average, relative to other cameras, such as the Q, and whether or not this is because the EVF is so high res.

In other words, when looking/zooming at 'Previews' of the taken image through the EVF they don't look as sharp and clear as when you are looking at a live view through the the EVF.

 

 

Sorry...I thought this was post #1,374 asking why the images were out of focus :)

In your post you stated "I assume camera is set to JPEG+DNG."...which implies you are unsure. Are you sure you have this set correctly?

 

I don't have any issues, but I rarely if ever use the EVF to review images. I mostly use the rear LCD and it works great.

 

Are you aware you can zoom into the images and see 1:1 pixels? This is how it should be used if you are analyzing the image in camera. As far as the quality difference between review in the SL vs any other camera...I see no difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was trying to state that it was an assumption that I had it set to JPEG+DNG.

Anyway, yes, I know I can zoom 1:1. I had a look at the images on the rear LCD (I normally don't because I need my glasses to see it!) and the JPEG preview looks pretty good. For sure, previewing in the EVF is not the best, for whatever reason. It just isn't that sharp when you preview the file at 1:1. I'm not sure why, maybe a firmware issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...