nscali Posted January 18, 2016 Author Share #41 Â Posted January 18, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Ramarren, The images I posted don't do justice what I am trying to exhibit...to much jpeg compression. Interesting that you talk about the Apple raw engine, because when I load them into 'Photos' I get a similar result to that of Capture one, being what I would consider better. I have checked that I have the latest version of ACR etc and I do. Cheers Nicky Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 18, 2016 Posted January 18, 2016 Hi nscali, Take a look here Images a little soft out of the SL using M lenses. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
ramarren Posted January 18, 2016 Share #42  Posted January 18, 2016 Ramarren, The images I posted don't do justice what I am trying to exhibit...to much jpeg compression. Interesting that you talk about the Apple raw engine, because when I load them into 'Photos' I get a similar result to that of Capture one, being what I would consider better. I have checked that I have the latest version of ACR etc and I do. Cheers Nicky   The two photos you posted are so close as to be pretty much the same. You can easily dial a hair more warmth and a little bit more exposure into the Lightroom rendering and they'd be identical. This is just a matter of the LR defaults ... It's very easy to change the LR defaults to be closer to what you want as a final, but remember that with any raw converter what you get on the defaults is always just a starting point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter E Posted January 18, 2016 Share #43 Â Posted January 18, 2016 Hi, Â Reading this all, I have the feeling too that the M has more 3D pop wide open then the SL with some lenses. Â When I've tested the SL at the dealer I used my 75 lux wide open on the M and SL, the M images have more pop. At that moment I didn't realized it but at home looking at the files I've got this feeling. Also my 35cron 8 elements seems to have a flatter output(less 3D) on the SL, and even on the M240 vs the M9 where it had a nice 3D rendering. My Noctilux f1 seems to have the same beautiful rendering on the SL Â At the dealer I've made some random shots with the SL and my M using the same lens but I didn't use exactly the same compositions for a correct compare. Now, I have my SL and I'll ask the dealer my M back(I've sold my M to my dealer ) to do some shots with the same settings/compositions to compare the M and SL. Â I know that some lenses work better with some cameras but I didn't expect a difference in pop/3D with Leica gear. Anyway, first I'm going to make a camera profile, this can make things better and if I have results I'll post them here. Â I'm very curious what will come out of the test. Â Best regards Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted January 18, 2016 Share #44  Posted January 18, 2016 The basic embedded Leica profile produces quite saturated images ...... I suspect that is the main LR/Capture One difference ...... LR now defaults to the Adobe Profile which significantly reduces saturation...... C1 probably uses the Leica embedded as I am not aware they have released a specific SL correction yet.  As for the M-T adapter and infinity ..... this was discussed (by me) on the T thread a long while ago.  A 0.09mm shim in the adapter (which easily comes apart) corrects the infinity stop issue. I found bits of LCD screen protector cut to shape worked fine and were just the right thickness, and being lightly adhesive were easy to keep in place when re-assembling.  As has been pointed out, this relies on all your lenses being calibrated well..... as you will have no leeway left if infinity happens to occur after the stop when the adapter is shimmed. Anyway the modification takes 10 minutes and is reversible, so it's no big deal.  Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted January 22, 2016 Share #45 Â Posted January 22, 2016 Hand held = mirror shake. Â Retry on tripod. Â Also possible screen is positioned off a hair so AF works and MF for M lens does not. Â Test MF of 24/90 lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nscali Posted January 22, 2016 Author Share #46 Â Posted January 22, 2016 I have been processing the Raw files in Capture one and to me, there is no doubt that it does a better job of giving the SL files a lot more punch. In Lightroom, it seems that you need push the files harder. I much prefer the Lightroom workflow, particularly the file management and library settings. For anyone using Lightroom, I urge you to download the C1 trial and have a look at the files. I know there is no SL profile yet, but it still does a good job. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted January 23, 2016 Share #47 Â Posted January 23, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have been processing the Raw files in Capture one and to me, there is no doubt that it does a better job of giving the SL files a lot more punch. In Lightroom, it seems that you need push the files harder. I much prefer the Lightroom workflow, particularly the file management and library settings. For anyone using Lightroom, I urge you to download the C1 trial and have a look at the files. I know there is no SL profile yet, but it still does a good job. Â Â I know many people love C1 and get good results with it, so I'm not saying it isn't good software. It just doesn't appeal to me. I don't see any advantage to switching over to it from LR either: testing it many times, I haven't found anything I could get with it that I couldn't also get with LR. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter E Posted January 23, 2016 Share #48  Posted January 23, 2016 I use Photo Ninja for RAW converter, it's slower than LR or C1 but it's worth to try it. It cost arround 100€ and it's the best RAW converter available on the market.  http://www.picturecode.com/index.php  Regards Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Bell Posted January 25, 2016 Share #49 Â Posted January 25, 2016 Glad I found this topic... I've been experiencing the same issue with M lenses on my SL. Â They just don't look as sharp and dynamic as they did on my M9/M240 or Monochrom. I have played with different settings in LR6 and have yet to find a solution. Â Â I've been considering selling off my SL and picking up a M262. Â I'm just not convinced. Â Â Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted January 25, 2016 Share #50 Â Posted January 25, 2016 I agree Christopher, I did not buy because I'm just not convinced, that's it. I miss some bite, already in Jono's review but also from own experience vs. M9. Most people here say this is nonsense, I suspect it's a thicker filter on the sensor Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arai Posted January 25, 2016 Share #51  Posted January 25, 2016 Glad I found this topic... I've been experiencing the same issue with M lenses on my SL.  They just don't look as sharp and dynamic as they did on my M9/M240 or Monochrom. I have played with different settings in LR6 and have yet to find a solution.   I've been considering selling off my SL and picking up a M262.  I'm just not convinced.    Don't sell it just yet, I found using M lens a bit soft too, but I also found that files the SL produced using its native lens 24-90 VE are superb. It doesn't look like M240 file, it's very different but good different. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Bell Posted January 25, 2016 Share #52 Â Posted January 25, 2016 I own the 24-90 SL lens... it's reasonably sharp, but is big and slow... I don't use it much. Â I sold off my Q and M240 for the SL... I am beginning to wonder if this was the best move? Â Â Will download Capture One today and compare results. Â I suppose it could be a processing issue? Â Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
matlep Posted January 25, 2016 Share #53 Â Posted January 25, 2016 Hand held = mirror shake. Â Retry on tripod. Â Â Â What mirror shake? Seriously? The SL was marketed as mirrorless, do you know something the rest of us don't? Â Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted January 25, 2016 Share #54 Â Posted January 25, 2016 I am not sure whether C1 already has the really right stuff for SL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrp Posted January 25, 2016 Share #55  Posted January 25, 2016 I use Photo Ninja for RAW converter, it's slower than LR or C1 but it's worth to try it. It cost arround 100€ and it's the best RAW converter available on the market.  http://www.picturecode.com/index.php  Regards Peter Unfortunately it seems to be €100 / year, so it's not a great deal, compared with the more comprehensive Adobe subscription.  The application was last updated in August.  The web site says "There is no current pre-release, but we have been working very hard on a significant development project. Please be patient."  I may give it a look when that development bears fruit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrp Posted January 25, 2016 Share #56 Â Posted January 25, 2016 I am puzzled by the findings of some that the SL is less sharp / 3D than the M240. Â I have not particularly noticed that (although I haven't done any direct comparisons). Â Adding extra sharpening in post may eliminate the difference (just as you could with the D800 v D800e). Â What I do notice is that the the SL clips less than the M240 and the files look slightly flatter as a result, meaning that you need to apply your own additional contrast. Â This is a benefit, not a negative, to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted January 25, 2016 Share #57 Â Posted January 25, 2016 I am puzzled by the findings of some that the SL is less sharp / 3D than the M240. Â I have not particularly noticed that (although I haven't done any direct comparisons). Â Adding extra sharpening in post may eliminate the difference (just as you could with the D800 v D800e). Â What I do notice is that the the SL clips less than the M240 and the files look slightly flatter as a result, meaning that you need to apply your own additional contrast. Â This is a benefit, not a negative, to me. I agree. The same was said about the M240 vs the M9. IMHO this is down to a wider dynamic range. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter E Posted January 25, 2016 Share #58  Posted January 25, 2016 Unfortunately it seems to be €100 / year, so it's not a great deal, compared with the more comprehensive Adobe subscription.  The application was last updated in August.  The web site says "There is no current pre-release, but we have been working very hard on a significant development project. Please be patient."  I may give it a look when that development bears fruit.  Hi jrp,  You pay 129$ only 1time with 1year free updates. I use it for 3 or 4 years now and only paid for 1 license. This raw converter is much better then adobe and even C1...  Try the demo...   Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrp Posted January 25, 2016 Share #59  Posted January 25, 2016   You pay 129$ only 1time with 1year free updates. I use it for 3 or 4 years now and only paid for 1 license. This raw converter is much better then adobe and even C1...  Try the demo...   Peter   So you've not updated to the latest version?  I did try the demo at the start, but it wouldn't pick up files on a network drive.  Local files were fine, but there were no local adjustments. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted January 25, 2016 Share #60  Posted January 25, 2016 <regards Photo Ninja ...> This raw converter is much better then adobe and even C1...  Try the demo...  I downloaded and compared several exposures of widely differing natures between LR6.3 and Photo Ninja. I don't find much that I can do in Photo Ninja that I can't achieve more rapidly and flexibly with LR6.3. Their total disregard for using the Apple OS X user interface properly is also an issue.  For instance: Why do they make the font so bloody small?  But, eh? It's just another raw processor. It probably works well enough once you get used to it. I don't see anything compelling enough to motivate me to move from Lightroom, but it's nice to know there's another good one to use if Adobe annoys me for some reason. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.