CheshireCat Posted March 10, 2016 Share #101 Posted March 10, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Too many complaints lack objectivity in how they are presented and this is essential if they are to be presented viably. This is false. Several examples in this thread have perfect WB and show the problem. Post like yours just increase the entropy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 Hi CheshireCat, Take a look here problem highlights leica sl. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted March 10, 2016 Share #102 Posted March 10, 2016 I think that Paul's call for objective and repeatable testing is valid. Anecdotal evidence like in this thread can suggest a problem, but cannot quantify it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted March 10, 2016 Share #103 Posted March 10, 2016 This is false. Several examples in this thread have perfect WB and show the problem. Post like yours just increase the entropy. Rubbish. Not one image in this thread shows even a grey card, there is no clear and simple lighting used (high contrast sunlit scenes are anything but useful here) and we have no idea of exposure levels or any highlight clipping. If a problem does indeed exist, which it may well, I'd expect some quantitative, illustrated reasoning to demonstrate it (grey card, colour checker, exposure series, known illuminant). I've looked through every image in this thread and none illustrate the problem objectively; all illustrate it subjectively. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted March 10, 2016 Share #104 Posted March 10, 2016 we have no idea of exposure levels or any highlight clipping You have no idea. And there's no need for a grey card. I think that Paul's call for objective and repeatable testing is valid. Anecdotal evidence like in this thread can suggest a problem, but cannot quantify it. Deja-vu. Remember when you were saying my M240 lockups were due to my defective copy ? How do you "quantify" a problem ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrp Posted March 10, 2016 Share #105 Posted March 10, 2016 This phenomenon can be seen through the viewfinder, just by shifting the point of view slightly and watching the sky change from cyan to sky blue and back. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted March 10, 2016 Share #106 Posted March 10, 2016 You have no idea. And there's no need for a grey card. ?????? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jurijgallegra Posted April 5, 2016 Author Share #107 Posted April 5, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Leica Germany has confirmed the flaw that will resolve with update . But still no update from December Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 5, 2016 Share #108 Posted April 5, 2016 No need to shout. Leica works to its own time. Leisurely updates, if rather annoying, are normal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 5, 2016 Share #109 Posted April 5, 2016 Deja-vu. Remember when you were saying my M240 lockups were due to my defective copy ? How do you "quantify" a problem ? Now how do you manage to read my post like that? Your creativity is impressive. One quantifies a problem by careful testing of a number of cameras. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamdewilde Posted April 5, 2016 Share #110 Posted April 5, 2016 THIS IS 100% an SL camera problem.. The JPG engine is CRAP. It's almost impossible to weed images the JPGs are so bad. The RAW files aren't affected at all however. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotha Posted April 5, 2016 Share #111 Posted April 5, 2016 In my case the RAW files are effected. It is a problem of the whitebalance in a situation of mixed light sources, but correction ist very easy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 5, 2016 Share #112 Posted April 5, 2016 If correction is easy, the raw files cannot be affected. You need to look at your raw converter presets in that case. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotha Posted April 5, 2016 Share #113 Posted April 5, 2016 Well, presets are part of the DNG. In my point of view a DNG is a RAW. Others may have their own definition. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 5, 2016 Share #114 Posted April 5, 2016 No - the presets are in Lightroom or whatever program you are using. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotha Posted April 5, 2016 Share #115 Posted April 5, 2016 Presets are in the "program" as well. You may discuss that, I won`t. EOF. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 5, 2016 Share #116 Posted April 5, 2016 No, the development settings are in the raw developer, not in the DNG. I do not know what you mean by "program". Not discussing it won't change the fact. There are even some raw developers that will not read the sidecar file and will not apply the distortion corrections. The raw data are untouched except for some basic camera operations like primary noise correction and blackpoint. That is all. In ACR, the basis for Lightroom and Photoshop, you can set your preferred settings like colour, contrast, sharpening, etc. and save them as a new preset. You can also load your own camera profile using a colour chart. Photoshop and Lightroom and the rest will use the raw data contained in the DNG -that is why it is called raw (not RAW, it is not an acronym) to create the the look that you preset - or, of course, the default preset. Just try it. Use a DNG that shows the problem, yet is fairly neutral in subject and lighting. Adjust to your taste and click "save as a preset" . You can even create various presets for different conditions. Make a camera profile by using a Greta Macbeth colour chart and be even more precise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamdewilde Posted April 6, 2016 Share #117 Posted April 6, 2016 In my case the RAW files are effected. It is a problem of the whitebalance in a situation of mixed light sources, but correction ist very easy. Yes for sure what AWB in mixed light the SL is lacking severely. They really need to update the color profiles of this camera. But the JPG files are unusable when you have a backlit subject or any strong highlights in the image. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamdewilde Posted April 6, 2016 Share #118 Posted April 6, 2016 No - the presets are in Lightroom or whatever program you are using. No the presets are imbedded into the DNG for the SL. It's annoying. I've had to adjust the way my LR imports my files just to not be distracted. Hopefully this is fixed in a future firmware... Us early M240 adopters had to wait a few firmwares before things were smooth. At least we shouldn't have to wait for a new camera (A7 to A7II). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 6, 2016 Share #119 Posted April 6, 2016 If you mean that there are default presets in an embedded sidecar file in the DNG format you are obviously right. But they are easily overridden in ACR by the user (except distortion correction - one needs another raw developer for that) I was an early 240 adapter and did indeed need some time to tweak the import to my taste, including a decent camera profile, but I did not wait for Leica to do it for me. It was the same with the M8 - apart from the IR issue, of course. Jamie Roberts was even selling rather nice profiles for a while. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted April 6, 2016 Share #120 Posted April 6, 2016 All these problems are highlighted by Leica's desperate slowness in posting FW updates for all current cameras. They obviously do not assign sufficient resources to this aspect, I suspect because of their history of being a mechanical/optical camera company. I am not sure that it has really hit home that for digital cameras, the absence of firmware turns a digital camera into an expensive paperweight. The poor JPEG's have an easy work around in the use of DNG but the flash problems don't. The wedding I am doing in 10 days time, will be done with my M240, a borrowed Monochrome and lots of lens changing, rather than the SL and M240, which would have made life much easier, with its zoom and AF. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.