tobey bilek Posted May 31, 2017 Share #1 Posted May 31, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Decades back when I first bought into Leica, the first thing noticed was the exceptional shadow detail compared to my Pentax spotmatics which were newish at the time. Forward to yesterday when my Nikons were beings tested for D lighting which is supposed to increase shadow detail (5 presets and automatic) and and a low contrast picture control supposedly for video but can be used for still. Good news is they work. Bad news is the picture tends to look flat with noise in shadows. Drag out the M9 and take the same photo. Subject was neighbors home, south facing wall at noon, black painted shutters 100% shaded by eaves, window box in sun with red geraniums, and red,white & blue bunting hang down. Green shrubs at the bottom, clear blue sky. The M9 shows nice contrasty detailed black shutters with no manipulation in ACR. Reds were nice pure red rather than the orange tinge Nikons produce. The nikon shots were not so unattractive most people would notice, buy when looking at a side by side it is obvious. All the photos were made in a 10 minute window under clear blue sky. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 31, 2017 Posted May 31, 2017 Hi tobey bilek, Take a look here Shadow detail and Leica lenses. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
lct Posted May 31, 2017 Share #2 Posted May 31, 2017 Any pic? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted May 31, 2017 Share #3 Posted May 31, 2017 Pics or it didn't happen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Lucan Posted May 31, 2017 Share #4 Posted May 31, 2017 LCT and JD, Tobey's post is to let you know his feelings,not to show photos. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted May 31, 2017 Share #5 Posted May 31, 2017 Decades back when I first bought into Leica, the first thing noticed was the exceptional shadow detail compared to my Pentax spotmatics which were newish at the time. Bad news is the picture tends to look flat with noise in shadows. Drag out the M9 and take the same photo...... The M9 shows nice contrasty detailed black shutters with no manipulation in ACR. Reds were nice pure red rather than the orange tinge Nikons produce. The nikon shots were not so unattractive most people would notice, buy when looking at a side by side it is obvious. I think that you have two different things here, both of which have a similar result. Leica lenses you compare with those on your Spotmatics were probably contrastier due to good coatings and design which gave better differentiation of tonality in the shadows. The M9 files are undoubtedly very flexible and their shadow tonality and not terribly objectionable (almost analogue) noise in the shadows still surprises me even in comparison to newer cameras. I don't think that the two observations, decades apart have a common cause but I do agree with them myself. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted May 31, 2017 Share #6 Posted May 31, 2017 LCT and JD, Tobey's post is to let you know his feelings,not to show photos. Then it never happened. A figment..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted May 31, 2017 Share #7 Posted May 31, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Leica glow? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted May 31, 2017 Share #8 Posted May 31, 2017 Toby, given the convenience of your subject, perhaps you can consider modifying how your M9 firmware behaves. See my post regarding the service menu, specifically black and color metrics. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted May 31, 2017 Share #9 Posted May 31, 2017 LCT and JD, Tobey's post is to let you know his feelings,not to show photos. OK but he gives me the feeling to compare OOC jpegs then. With a good raw converter, a Nikon pic can look like a Leica one as far as colours are concerned. As for shadow details, a noisy camera like the M9 can hardly compete with modern cameras including Nikons... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted June 1, 2017 Share #10 Posted June 1, 2017 OK but he gives me the feeling to compare OOC jpegs then. With a good raw converter, a Nikon pic can look like a Leica one as far as colours are concerned. As for shadow details, a noisy camera like the M9 can hardly compete with modern cameras including Nikons... Well at base ISO it competes with the A7II well enough. Basically because the noise is subtly different but if you can't see it/aren't interested so be it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted June 1, 2017 Share #11 Posted June 1, 2017 Well at base ISO it competes with the A7II well enough. Basically because the noise is subtly different but if you can't see it/aren't interested so be it. I have no experience with the A72 sorry. All i know is what DxO says about it. 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/273007-shadow-detail-and-leica-lenses/?do=findComment&comment=3286974'>More sharing options...
Steve Spencer Posted June 1, 2017 Share #12 Posted June 1, 2017 Well both of you have a point. lct those numbers don't measure base ISO noise. You have to select the measurement tab at look at the graph. If you do you will see the A7 has about a stop and a 3rd lower noise at base ISO. One stop is because it has a lower base ISO and the 3rd of a stop is because the sensor records images with less noise. The M9 at base ISO is about 2 3rds better than the A7 at ISO 400 and noise really isn't a problem with the A7 at ISO 400, as long as you can shoot within the dynamic range of the camera. So, at base ISO there really won't be a problem with noise with either camera at base ISO. So, yes the A7 has less noise at base ISO but in practice it is the difference between so little you can't see it even if you try hard and so little you won't notice it unless you try hard. Dynamic range and pushing the images in post is a different matter. The A7 has a clear advantage there, but for base ISO noise really isn't an issue with either camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted June 1, 2017 Share #13 Posted June 1, 2017 Thank you for sharing. What's the relevance of base iso noise when recovering shadow detail in PP? Just curious. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted June 1, 2017 Share #14 Posted June 1, 2017 Thank you for sharing. What's the relevance of base iso noise when recovering shadow detail in PP? Just curious. At base ISO noise is similar. Recovery of shadow detail creates noise which is 'different' - the M9 has a more 'analogue randomness' than the A7II (or my Canons come to that) which both create noise with apparent 'artifacts' - ie a more 'digital' look. I'm sure that this could be defined mathematically (such things usually can) but I haven't seen any info on this so I've reverted to actually looking at the difference in noise characteristics myself. So shadow detail can be recovered surprisingly well from M9 files, providing that is that they are shot at base ISO because the noise produced by recovery is less intrusive to my eye (and I have printed such files to check that this isn't a pixel-peeping exercise and am satisfied that it isn't). This could be a CMOS/CCD difference. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Spencer Posted June 1, 2017 Share #15 Posted June 1, 2017 Thank you for sharing. What's the relevance of base iso noise when recovering shadow detail in PP? Just curious. Signal to noise ratio matters a lot when lifting shadows in post. When you lift shadows you are increasing noise without really increasing signal, so the noise in the file matters a lot. The A7 has a base ISO advantage in signal to noise ratio so it handles lifting the shadows better. The noise that is added lifting shadows is also very random. The M9's noise isn't as random, but it isn't to bad and I haven't seen big issues with banding (and indication of non-random noise) but it worse signal to noise ratio to start out is a problem. At base ISO the A7 has much better dynamic range (close to three stops) over the M9 and that is not a small advantage in some shooting situations. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted June 1, 2017 Share #16 Posted June 1, 2017 Signal to noise ratio matters a lot when lifting shadows in post. When you lift shadows you are increasing noise without really increasing signal, so the noise in the file matters a lot. The A7 has a base ISO advantage in signal to noise ratio so it handles lifting the shadows better. The noise that is added lifting shadows is also very random. The M9's noise isn't as random, but it isn't to bad and I haven't seen big issues with banding (and indication of non-random noise) but it worse signal to noise ratio to start out is a problem. At base ISO the A7 has much better dynamic range (close to three stops) over the M9 and that is not a small advantage in some shooting situations. Thing is, that it depends.... I find that I don't have to recover 'absolute blacks' on the M9 (what's the point?). So in practice its 'darker' areas rather than absolute black that are being lightened and the M9 files tolerate this very well - surprisingly so IMO. The Sony is as good as you suggest too but there are subtle differences and the M9, whilst it may technically be 'noisier' actually produces a visually appealing result (to me anyway - and I'm talking about prints, not on screen). These observations are based on experience as I have learned what I can and can't do with the M9 files - which takes time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted June 1, 2017 Share #17 Posted June 1, 2017 Sensor difference. A negative doesn't lie. A sensor always lies. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted June 1, 2017 Share #18 Posted June 1, 2017 I’m at loss to perceive significant differences between shooting at 1600 iso vs 200 iso then pushing by three stops in PP with all due respect towards much better techies than me here. To my eyes, my CMOS cameras don’t play in the same league as my CCD ones from this standpoint but there are subjective reasons at play here obviously. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted June 1, 2017 Share #19 Posted June 1, 2017 Shooting at base ISO and selectively lightening (boosting ISO/increasing gain/whatever) in shadow areas is not the same as shooting at a higher ISO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregm61 Posted June 1, 2017 Share #20 Posted June 1, 2017 Leaving Sony out of the picture, and I think shadow detail in digital files has less to do with lenses than it does sensor technology and how you expose the files, I see a marked difference between my two Leicas (M9 and M262) when it comes to shadow recovery in Adobe Camera raw. Shadows can basically be raised from the dead with M262 raw files with little noise penalty up to ISO 1000 or so and still look just fine to me at levels up to ISO 2500 (definite grainy pattern, which is fine to me compared to ugly, blotchy noise), while shadows in M9 files captured as low as ISO 200 look quite murky if raised significantly. As a result I use the two quite differently, exposing for highlights with the M262 at the expense of shadows, while tending to exposure as close to the clipping of highlights as possible with M9 files, knowing there's little room on the shadow side of things, and the new M10 raises the bar even further (which it should 7-8 years after the introduction of the M9). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.