Images a little soft out of the SL using M lenses

[nscali]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I did a brief controlled test on a tripod using the 50 APO at f2 and f4 on both the SL and the M240.

You are absolutely correct, the images are very very close and if anything, the SL files are a bit cleaner.

I think the SL files do have a bit more tolerance for processing. Thanks for all of your help. I feel better now. I can get back to enjoying using those beautiful lenses on this great body. 

[Advertisement]

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

[scott kirkpatrick]

@Jared -- Palladio?  When a corner looks unsharp in a test like this I always look at all four corners to see if misalignment of the camera might be an issue.  It's hard to get the film plane perfectly parallel to the flat target or brick wall.

 

Looking at a lot recent reports there now frequent examples of lenses that slightly outresolve on the SL what they could deliver on the M.  The examples all seem to be the most recent Leica designs, like the 28 and 35 Summilux FLEs. I've seen evidence that the new 28s with updated designs, also offer better resolution and contrast in the corners on the SL than on the M240, again by just a little bit.

 

scott 

[Jared]

Absolutely. All my tests show is that you can get "sharp" pictures with the SL using these two lenses. I've shown you nothing about how the lenses perform wide open on this body, what the bokeh is like, how the files handle being pushed, what a high contrast Sven looks like, etc., etc.

 

Nicky has a problem, though. His images look soft. That means he needs to find the cause, and the only way I know to do that is to start isolating variables. My samples do that, I think.

 

I'm always a little worried when I post samples like this. One can get too caught up in testing that one forgets to go out and make pictures, at least if one is an amateur. I don't want to come across that way. The point is to make real images that please you, ideally to print them or at least find a way to view and share them, etc.

 

- Jared

[Jared]

High contrast "Sven" was supposed to be high contrast "scene". Dang autocorrect.

[Jared]

@Jared -- Palladio? When a corner looks unsharp in a test like this I always look at all four corners to see if misalignment of the camera might be an issue. It's hard to get the film plane perfectly parallel to the flat target or brick wall.

 

Looking at a lot recent reports there now frequent examples of lenses that slightly outresolve on the SL what they could deliver on the M. The examples all seem to be the most recent Leica designs, like the 28 and 35 Summilux FLEs. I've seen evidence that the new 28s with updated designs, also offer better resolution and contrast in the corners on the SL than on the M240, again by just a little bit.

 

scott

Lack of parallelism? Could be, but I don't think so. I've not seen this before on this body with this lens. Nor likely I just missed the focus slightly, and the corners, since they are at a slightly different distance, suffered. I'll check the other three corners later.

 

I'm surprised to hear that some people are finding sharper results in the corners on the SL than on the M240. Based on my experience so far, if it's true it's not enough to make a difference from a practical standpoint. I'm happy with my 28mm Elmarit, my 35mm Summilux FLE, my 75mm Summicron, and my 50mm APO on both bodies. There is no way I could tell them apart consistently, even when pixel peeping. I even picked up a 180mm APO Telyt for the SL and am starting to learn my way around with that lens. It's a real challenge to hand hold due to the ungainly balance, and the bokeh is just awful in certain images--very "busy" looking--but boy does it do well when you get the technique right.

 

- Jared

[Jared]

Oh, you probably just meant I didn't set up the tripod parallel. Again, I don't think so. I didn't shift the tripod when I put on the other body, so I would have seen the issue on the SL as well. I think I just blew the focus slightly. The liveview screen on the M(240) isn't as big as the SL's, and I didn't bother to put on my reading glasses. Should have done that or used the EVF. In any event, I'm pretty sure it is just user error on my part.

[agencal]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have been using 50mm Apo for a long time.It was pleasure to use it on m240.I have tried many combinations for years including canikons but what i see is nothing comes even close to M+50mm Apo.It has a clearance like midium format.It is like looking from a glassless window with your own eyes.At f2 it is like 3d.I have gone Cuba with many lenses and systems but all my shots were with this set up and %90 wide open.

 

Now i have SL and trying SL with 50 Apo at studio.What i found is most of the colours they look the same with M-P 240 or maybe SL has more contrast on colours which seems good but when it comes to RED M is more accurate.

For image quality SL is a hair sharper but M shots are more bodied and has a bit more 3d rendering.This comes close when you stop down but at f2 and 2.8 i thing M+50 apo beats SL+50 Apo about pop and natural rendering.

 

Maybe outside will be a different story but with studio lights what i found are these.

 

 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

I may be making this up but I also think the SL doesn't have the "bite" the M does, sometimes. And I had a regular client ask me recently why the files were a bit "dull' (his words) recently. I've added about 40 points of sharpness and some more clarity to make the files bite the way my m files do. I mostly see it with the WATE.

 

The files are sharp. The detail is there. but there's something in the contrast of the mid tones that's different. I have to test this properly and I have yet to find the time to even do side by side tests but I think it's a Lightroom profiles thing rather than the camera itself. I have yet to make any custom profiles for the SL and I haven't had time to test the files in other raw converters. But to my eye there's definitely something there that i will need to look into soon.

 

Gordon

[thighslapper]

The WATE does produce a different colour profile to modern Leica W/A lenses.....  like the 21/3.4 which gives much more saturated and contrasty images.

 

Somewhere in Puts' vast output of Leica stuff there is a list which itemises the differences between various Leica lenses with regard to some aspects of this. The WATE is noticeably 'mild mannered' and neutral compared to some Leica lenses.....

 

Basic SL files have less default sharpening applied than a lot of other Leica output ....... I routinely add +80 in LR ...... possibly a bit less at higher ISO. Not a fan of the Clarity Slider at all ......the effects are very harsh above a tiny tweak ......  I tend to add a bit of saturation/vibrance and contrast separately if needed.  

[ramarren]

The WATE does produce a different colour profile to modern Leica W/A lenses.....  like the 21/3.4 which gives much more saturated and contrasty images.

 

Somewhere in Puts' vast output of Leica stuff there is a list which itemises the differences between various Leica lenses with regard to some aspects of this. The WATE is noticeably 'mild mannered' and neutral compared to some Leica lenses.....

 

Basic SL files have less default sharpening applied than a lot of other Leica output ....... I routinely add +80 in LR ...... possibly a bit less at higher ISO. Not a fan of the Clarity Slider at all ......the effects are very harsh above a tiny tweak ......  I tend to add a bit of saturation/vibrance and contrast separately if needed.  

 

 

The LR clarity slider is adjusting contrast, as is the sharpening slider, although in slightly different ways. If you've already added +80 on the sharpening slider, that will make the clarity slider's operation somewhat harsh. I most usually have the sharpening at the 25 default or somewhat below, and use masking when I add as much as 80. On most photos, clarity produces a reasonable range of adjustment in the -10 to +20 range with these sharpening settings for relatively normal photos. 

 

Very few of the photos I've posted have much sharpening added. 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

The WATE does produce a different colour profile to modern Leica W/A lenses.....  like the 21/3.4 which gives much more saturated and contrasty images.

 

Somewhere in Puts' vast output of Leica stuff there is a list which itemises the differences between various Leica lenses with regard to some aspects of this. The WATE is noticeably 'mild mannered' and neutral compared to some Leica lenses.....

 

Basic SL files have less default sharpening applied than a lot of other Leica output ....... I routinely add +80 in LR ...... possibly a bit less at higher ISO. Not a fan of the Clarity Slider at all ......the effects are very harsh above a tiny tweak ......  I tend to add a bit of saturation/vibrance and contrast separately if needed.  

 

 

True. But I'm seeing a difference with the WATE between the M and SL. I could be the profile. it could also be the Leica T-M adaptor causing some internal reflections or something. Sometimes the SL files appear a bit "foggy" (not a great description, I admit) with the WATE. I have yet to find the time to properly test what's going on.

 

As an aside, infinity isn't quite right with my T-M adaptor either. Maybe I have a dud adaptor.

 

Gordon

[nscali]

Gordon,

I think you are on to something.

I have a copy of Capture One Express (for Sony) and imported some DNG files from the SL, that I shot using the 35 lux. Once I loaded them I could immediately see the difference. That 'Pop' you talk about is back in the files!

When you do a side by side of the OOC DNG's there is a massive difference between Lightroom and Capture one. The Capture one files seem more consistent with M240 files.

For sure, it has to be a profile issue in Lightroom. You are right it is not an issue of sharpness when you look at files, but it is more a richness of colour, and obviously the micro contrast generated from the lens. It is as if the Lightroom files are 'missing' key data and you need to over process them to extract what you think the file should look like.

I will attach the comparison files in the next 2 posts keep in mind the image is raw, nothing done and 100% crop just to illustrate the difference.

When I first posted I made an assumption that everyone was using Lightroom, as opposed to Capture one. I would be interested to know how many of you are using Capture one.

Cheers

Nicky

[nscali]

Lightroom screen shot

[nscali]

Capture One screen shot

[ramarren]

I have a copy of Capture One Express (for Sony) and imported some DNG files from the SL, that I shot using the 35 lux. Once I loaded them I could immediately see the difference. That 'Pop' you talk about is back in the files!

When you do a side by side of the OOC DNG's there is a massive difference between Lightroom and Capture one. The Capture one files seem more consistent with M240 files.

For sure, it has to be a profile issue in Lightroom. You are right it is not an issue of sharpness when you look at files, but it is more a richness of colour, and obviously the micro contrast generated from the lens. It is as if the Lightroom files are 'missing' key data and you need to over process them to extract what you think the file should look like.

I will attach the comparison files in the next 2 posts keep in mind the image is raw, nothing done and 100% crop just to illustrate the difference.

When I first posted I made an assumption that everyone was using Lightroom, as opposed to Capture one. I would be interested to know how many of you are using Capture one.

 

 

 

I don't see anything in the posts that you made with "Lightroom Screen Shot" and "Capture One Screen Shot", Nicky. 

 

I use LR exclusively, for all my cameras, and from what I've seen of others' stuff, I'm happy that LR does as well or better. LR6.3 and the matching version of Camera Raw have the SL profile, so does the latest update to the Digital Raw Camera library in Apple systems (that Photos and Aperture use). Capture One does not as yet. 

[ramarren]

As an aside, infinity isn't quite right with my T-M adaptor either. Maybe I have a dud adaptor.

 

Most mount adapters are a scant portion of a millimeter short in order to ensure that you can reach infinity focus with all lenses. The M Adapter T plus R Adapter M stack ends up being about a quarter of a millimeter short, which means infinity focus on my 15 and 19 mm lenses ends up being somewhere around where the lens index ought to be pretty close in. This is normal, expected behavior. Once you learn where infinity actually is, you can focus by scale by using that point as a new reference index. 

[nscali]

Sorry,

I tried to upload the pics. Didn't click attach.

Here is the Lightroom screen shot

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!

[nscali]

Here is the Capture one screen shot

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]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Most mount adapters are a scant portion of a millimeter short in order to ensure that you can reach infinity focus with all lenses. The M Adapter T plus R Adapter M stack ends up being about a quarter of a millimeter short, which means infinity focus on my 15 and 19 mm lenses ends up being somewhere around where the lens index ought to be pretty close in. This is normal, expected behavior. Once you learn where infinity actually is, you can focus by scale by using that point as a new reference index. 

 

 

Thanks. that makes sense.

 

I do have a Voigtlander adapter to Sony and the original Fujifilm one and I don't recall this behaviour from them, although it's been a while. Maybe I missed it.

 

Gordon

[Howid]

fwiw, i found that my images (m lenses) unexpectedly went soft and i fixed by camera reset.  hope this helps.