Mike51 Posted February 10, 2017 Share #41 Posted February 10, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) By the way, I read a post by a credible and well respected Leica user that his M10 seems to be smoother (not as sharp) at the pixel level than the M240. he thinks it's a positive thing. I wonder if anyone else has noticed the same. This is something I've noticed from another perspective....sharpening for printing. I'm a fairly 'restrained' sharpener, being always careful not to overdo the adjustment. What I've noticed with the DNG files out of the M10 is that they can take a little more sharpening without detrimental effect compared to files from my M240. This may be an attribute of the 'smoother' base line. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 10, 2017 Posted February 10, 2017 Hi Mike51, Take a look here M10 color rendition compared to M9-M240-SL cameras. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Mike51 Posted February 10, 2017 Share #42 Posted February 10, 2017 By the way, I read a post by a credible and well respected Leica user that his M10 seems to be smoother (not as sharp) at the pixel level than the M240. he thinks it's a positive thing. I wonder if anyone else has noticed the same. This is something I've noticed from another perspective....sharpening for printing. I'm a fairly 'restrained' sharpener, being always careful not to overdo the adjustment. What I've noticed with the DNG files out of the M10 is that they can take a little more sharpening without detrimental effect compared to files from my M240. This may be an attribute of the 'smoother' base line. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted February 10, 2017 Share #43 Posted February 10, 2017 By the way, I read a post by a credible and well respected Leica user that his M10 seems to be smoother (not as sharp) at the pixel level than the M240. he thinks it's a positive thing. I wonder if anyone else has noticed the same. Getting off the color theme a bit - but I think that is just the M10's lower native contrast (from more dynamic range) and lower noise. Both of which can reduce apparent (not the same as real) sharpness. The M10 produces low-contrast native files with definitely smooth noise. They do need some contrast adjustment to make them "pop" - but that isn't a measure of their down-to-the-pixel detail, just how starkly that detail is presented out of the box. I mean, if I can capture details 1 pixel wide with the M10 (and I did) - that's as sharp as possible, and no other 24-Mpixel camera is going to be "sharper". But see below, native M10 image with default Camera Raw settings (all zeros), and with the contrast brought up (right side). More "pop" - but not more real detail. No sharpening was applied in processing. Just a global contrast change (auto-levels). Which does increase the "definition" - or tonal separation of neighboring grays/colors. cf: - accutance - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acutance - Cornsweet illusion - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornsweet_illusion - visual contrast - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrast_(vision) 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/268393-m10-color-rendition-compared-to-m9-m240-sl-cameras/?do=findComment&comment=3209379'>More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted February 10, 2017 Share #44 Posted February 10, 2017 Thank you Adan, Mike and digitalfx. Adan's explanation makes perfect sense, and is what I was suspecting to be the case. Great info guys. Thanks! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike51 Posted February 10, 2017 Share #45 Posted February 10, 2017 Adan.....that's very instructive. Thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ario Arioldi Posted February 10, 2017 Share #46 Posted February 10, 2017 As noted by Sean Reid there is also a lower saturation of the M10 files (probably due to the Lr profile) which contributes to an apparent lower sharpness. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted February 10, 2017 Share #47 Posted February 10, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Ahh - that's because there is a direct link between contrast and color saturation. Take a picture of a blue sky, and the sky will have higher blue values (say, 142 in the 8-bit scale of 0-255) with lower values for green and red (say, 109 and 90). The blue is "contaminated" with some green and red, making it a grayer blue. Change the contrast alone, which darkens darker values and brightens lighter values - and you will make the blue brighter and the green and red component darker, to perhaps 147B/99G/58R, thus saturating the blueness of the sky. Which is why, in adjusting the jets picture on the previous page of this thread, I mentioned adding contrast as a way of getting the native M10 colors to look M9-ish. The effect is clear in this detail shot from the "visual contrast" link in my post #43 - change the contrast, and the color saturation shoots up and down as well: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/Contrast_change_photoshop.jpg Now, saturation and contrast can be de-linked in processing - you can increase contrast, and then de-saturate the colors, all the way to monochrome if desired. The saturation/vibrance controls in Photoshop, LR, etc. simply change the contrast in the chroma (color) band alone, while holding the luminance (brightness - the average of the RGB values) constant. That blue sky of 147B/99G/58R becomes ~(147+99+58)/3, or a gray of 101/101/101 (medium-dark gray). Now, equally, it is true that everything, from the exact densities and hues of the sensor's Bayer filters, to the analog/digital conversion in the Maestro II programming, to the profile applied by Leica (in camera) or Adobe or whomever - will also affect saturation. But my impression is that the M10's lower native saturation is mostly linked to its lower overall native contrast. In that picture linked to above, the M10 produces the top left image, while the M9 (for example) produces the top right picture (approximately) straight from the camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted February 10, 2017 Share #48 Posted February 10, 2017 I accept adan's explanation. However, following the line: M8 > M9 > M240 (what a name... pff) > M10 we can conclude that 'pop' goes down. I have a side by side comparison made myself with SL vs. M9 which clearly demonstrates more pop from the M9. Until now, I'm glad I kept my M9, though very happy with my M10. I gather the M10 is between the SL and the M9 pop-wise Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted February 10, 2017 Share #49 Posted February 10, 2017 True - because advances in sensors have improved dynamic range. Which reduces mid-tone contrast. Fortunately, it is easier to restore contrast in post-processing than it is to restore blown highlights or shadows that were baked in in the exposure. Trivially easy. I can well imagine that my default Camera Raw settings for the M10 will, once I program and save them to apply to any and all M10 images, automatically include setting Contrast to +25 (that is set to 0 for the M9). At which point my M10 images will "pop" just like my M9's - except with a bit more highlight and shadow detail preserved (if I choose). In Ansel Adams terms, the M10 will deliver a better negative (but not necessarily a better out-of-the-box picture) - what I do with it is up to me. "The negative is the [musical] score - the print is the performance". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
skanga Posted February 10, 2017 Share #50 Posted February 10, 2017 ...but I think that is just the M10's lower native contrast (from more dynamic range) and lower noise... Thanks for posting this. This is what I was wondering about. Some reviewers mention the "snap" and contrast of the files. I was wondering if a bit of "snap" or contrast was baked into the native files (if that's the correct term). I would always rather have flatter files to work with and add contrast as I see fit. I'm not concerned about the jpegs, just the original DNGs. Thanks Sam Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 15, 2017 Share #51 Posted April 15, 2017 In mid-March, I bought the M10 in Paris. As I've written elsewhere, my impression of the M10 is the same as that of a friend who is a professional photographer with great color sense, who didn’t buy the M240 because he didn’t like the color rendition, feeling that if he fixed the (often problematic) skin tones some other colors went out of whack. After shooting one week with the M10, he thought operationally it is night and day from the M9, and that it feels like the Leica M that we all wanted when the M8 was released. He had the impression that with a few adjustments in Lightroom one can get pretty close to the M9 look — though he thought that there is still something inexplicably special about that look. He felt that, compared to the M9, the M10 sensor was almost too good, in that it can have something of a homogenizing effect; that the M9 was a challenge, especially in low light, but sometimes challenges pay off in better images, like using film; that probably with the M10 one may have to "rough up" the image somewhat; that the M10 black and white conversions look very good, though it seems that the MM is somewhat better but, again, depending on post-processing it could really be splitting hairs. I should add that ever since I've bought the M10, I've been so busy that I've only shot some 40 pictures with it, mainly at ISO 3200, which reminds me, once you increase contrast a bit, of ISO 640 on the M9 — a speed the look which I like on that camera, with the difference that, shooting at night, the M10 doesn't produce the "electric blues" that often needed desaturation on the M9. You can see of my M10 shots here. As this is now six weeks since than the last post intros thread, I'd be most interested in seeing the degree to which that M10 users have developed some standard adjustments to M10 files to get, the look they want, or an M9-type look — and also whether people have formulated an exposure strategy that differs from what they did on the M9, for example, more underexposure to protect highlights, given how flexible the M10 is in lifting shadows. _______________ Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 16, 2017 Share #52 Posted April 16, 2017 . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 16, 2017 Share #53 Posted April 16, 2017 Jaap - this goes back to our discussion — argument? — over the color rendition of the M9 vs the M240. You've felt that it all can be solved by camera profiles, while others including Andy Petite ("adan"), Marc Williams ("fotografz") and, I believe, Charles Peterson found that whatever one did in trying to "fix" skin tones of the M240, other colors went out of whack. I got to know the late Bruce Fraser on the old CompuServe Photo Forum. At the time, I had a great, big Fujifilm 4500 printer that I couldn't get to print B&W without a color cast. Bruce, who was working on an issue related to color profiles, offered to try to solve the problem. We sent files and prints back and forth and for several months he made various printer profiles — and Bruce concluded that the problem of getting true B&W with that color printer couldn't be solved with color profiles: while his carefully made profiles worked for some images, there were always other images that came out with some form of color cast. The problem had to be solved differently, as it was on inkjet printers when Epson (and other manufactures) came out with printers with multiple black and gray inks, which was further perfected by (generic) printer profiles made by ColorByte, whom Bruce also helped. _______________ Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine EDIT: Jaap - I was responding your post #52, whose text has now disappeared. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted April 17, 2017 Share #54 Posted April 17, 2017 Finally having got my act together, here's a starting point for an M9-M10 color comparison I'm working on. (I've got some more coming, but it may not be tonight). First pair - two shots, each made with one of the cameras. Identical processing in Adobe Camera Raw, which is to say, none, except for the basic profile used (which is fixed). The M10 image used the embedded "Leica M10" profile (camera FW 1.0.2.0). The M9 image used the "Embedded" M9 profile (camera FW 1.196). All the other calibration hue/saturation settings, and all exposure settings - for this test - were zeroed out. WB for both pictures is the same - 5350 K, zero tint green/magenta. Leitz Canada 21mm f/2.8 lens. ISO 400 (since the light was gloomy). "A" metering off the central 15% of the scene (standard Leica semi-spot pattern). With -0.33 exp.comp. in-camera - in both cases. (That has been my standard M9 "protect the highlights" technqiues, and for now it is also my M10 technique.) Just to see what the cameras deliver "out of the box" with no human intervention. So - important point - this is not "the best" either camera can do. Just where they start from. Can you tell which image, FTC or XMA, is the M9 shot, and which is the M10 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/268393-m10-color-rendition-compared-to-m9-m240-sl-cameras/?do=findComment&comment=3256197'>More sharing options...
adan Posted April 17, 2017 Share #55 Posted April 17, 2017 Another pair with a different subject palette - sorry about the slight difference in composition (I have one 21mm finder to share across 2 cameras). ISO 200, processing also all zeros except that both images were brightened (Adobe "exposure") +0.55 to compensate for the -0.33 in-camera exp. comp. WB 4900°K over zero tint. Which is M10 and which is M9 - QFT or ZGL? A hint - the car was orange. 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/268393-m10-color-rendition-compared-to-m9-m240-sl-cameras/?do=findComment&comment=3256204'>More sharing options...
olgierdc Posted April 17, 2017 Share #56 Posted April 17, 2017 QFT & FTC is from M10, as M10 with embbeded has better reproduction of orange. If you try use selfmade profile, orange colour will shift a little to red/magenta cast. I tried to make my profile, but is not so easy with xrite color checker passport, because of red/orange and blue. Not all colors are perfect. The embedded profile could be improved, in particular in the blue sky, which is extremely difficult for any sensor. The Adobe standard profile is completely washed out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted April 17, 2017 Share #57 Posted April 17, 2017 Last pair for now. In this case, I.... - applied the M9 profile I've been using since 2014, to the M10 image (just to see what happens), and to the M10 image. - White-balanced each image separately from the white paint in the sleeve of the guy with the yellow face. - increased contrast in the M10 image via the "blacks" and "whites" sliders Can you tell which is which? (Bigger files, so one per post) 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/268393-m10-color-rendition-compared-to-m9-m240-sl-cameras/?do=findComment&comment=3256234'>More sharing options...
adan Posted April 17, 2017 Share #58 Posted April 17, 2017 And... 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/268393-m10-color-rendition-compared-to-m9-m240-sl-cameras/?do=findComment&comment=3256235'>More sharing options...
olgierdc Posted April 17, 2017 Share #59 Posted April 17, 2017 Pictures are very similar. However, we can distinguish, for example, the orange on the purple bottle in front of the plan. Image of AFD has a more intense orange, so it should be M10. The same applies to the mountains behind the bottle that are green. At the bottom we see orange-yellow color, the second picture orange color is more saturated. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 17, 2017 Share #60 Posted April 17, 2017 @ Mitch: yes, I am on an iPhone from out of the bush and something went wrong editing... I do feel that the differences are caused by the dyes in the Bayer filter and can be made to be so small in real life photography as to be insignificant in anything but product shots. -Where metamerism will rear its ugly head... I know the writings of. Bruce Fraser on the subject, but unfortunately they don't go past OSX Panther and we have come a long way since. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.