What I miss from M9 in my M10

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A consistent set of images is not the same as an identical set of images. Trying to produce a set of images which share a commonality of noise/tonality/colour is easy enough using one camera type but very difficult using several. Individual images are fine as stand alone but a set is tricky to make coherent and in my experience not absolutely possible. Its not about testing, its about coherence.

I agree, but you're the one debating the term 'exact', and that only comes from exacting procedures.

 

Jeff

[jaapv]

Over from pixel-peeping to real-life photography.  I can only say, not owning an M10, that I took my new-sensored M9 out today ( I hadn't been using it for quite a while, as it had been eclipsed by the M240) for some test shots. I can only say that I really loved the camera. It appeared to be a lot faster than it used to be (? maybe the firmware for the new sensor worked well with this particular card?), the sound was much nicer and discreet than I remembered, and the files were more than excellent.  It will see more use than it did

 

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!

[pgk]

I agree, but you're the one debating the term 'exact', and that only comes from exacting procedures.

 

Jeff

 

No, it really doesn't. making a consistent set of images for exhibition has absolutely nothing to do with comparing the results from exacting procedures and everything to do with providing acceptably consistent colour/tonality/noise across the set. Its possible but difficult and even then if you look carefully its obvious that the images derive from different sources if they are not shot on the same cameras. I have just displayed a set of 20 photographs from film and 4 digital cameras. As a set they work because I was very careful in selection and processing but I can still see differences nevertheless.

[pgk]

Over from pixel-peeping to real-life photography.

 

 

My point really is about the differences visible in displayed prints and not pixel peeping. This to me IS real life photography .

[jaapv]

Yes I understand that, but if we are talking about prints I think these  cameras make little difference, the lens and postprocessing have vastly more impact.

Nor do I think that any difference can be seen in the final result anyway, unless the prints are made from images taken under consistent (studio) conditions. The light will normally be quite different for each photograph, to start with.

[Guest]

Over from pixel-peeping to real-life photography.  I can only say, not owning an M10, that I took my new-sensored M9 out today ( I hadn't been using it for quite a while, as it had been eclipsed by the M240) for some test shots. I can only say that I really loved the camera. It appeared to be a lot faster than it used to be (? maybe the firmware for the new sensor worked well with this particular card?), the sound was much nicer and discreet than I remembered, and the files were more than excellent.  It will see more use than it did

 

beach.jpg

 

Happy to learn that your M9 arrived "home" at last jaapv and that you have rediscovered just how good the camera is.

My MM1 after returning from the last sensor swap, ( it had two original sensors replaced before the new corrosion resistant one went in earlier this year ), also seemed smoother with the newer firmware and whatever else Leica did internally besides switching out the sensor.

As I've said more than a few times on these forums I do like a CCD sensor despite owning a M240 and now the M10 too. It has a look, a "snap", that's hard to define but one I really appreciate, especially with the Monochrom.

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes I understand that, but if we are talking about prints I think these cameras make little difference, the lens and postprocessing have vastly more impact.

Nor do I think that any difference can be seen in the final result anyway, unless the prints are made from images taken under consistent (studio) conditions. The light will normally be quite different for each photograph, to start with.

This is essentially my point to pgk, who keeps missing it.

 

Jeff

[pgk]

This is essentially my point to pgk, who keeps missing it.

 

Because I don't agree with it. But its impossible to illustrate why on the web. You would have to see the prints to appreciate my point of view.

[Jeff S]

Because I don't agree with it. But its impossible to illustrate why on the web. You would have to see the prints to appreciate my point of view.

And this comment proves my point, which has nothing to do with your prints or perhaps your processing skills. Rather, it was about your comment on the word 'exactly'.

 

Jeff

[pgk]

If you want me to agree that shooting a Macbeth Colour Checker and producing identical files from different cameras is possible I will still disagree about an 'exact' match. I do copy artwork and paintings too, and again different cameras yield different results. It is impossible to reproduce colours 'exactly' and each camera has its strengths and weaknesses. Post processing cannot remedy this precisely. There are simply too many variables involved.

[Jeff S]

I care about my own prints and don't care about exact replication, only about doing justice to each.... and often creating sequences that work together coherently. Any limitations are my own, not the camera. Exactness requires steps that don't interest me....there are indeed myriad variables...but without controlling all of them, all we can do is speculate. And that was my initial point.

 

Jeff

[Ko.Fe.]

Yes I understand that, but if we are talking about prints I think these  cameras make little difference, the lens and postprocessing have vastly more impact.

Nor do I think that any difference can be seen in the final result anyway, unless the prints are made from images taken under consistent (studio) conditions. The light will normally be quite different for each photograph, to start with.

 

It depends on how over processed digital images are before they goes on prints or at the screen. And who is looking at them. Actually, if you over process any digital image it erases the SOOC. Some of us are not doing it. If you know your camera and its limitations, printable SOOC or next to SOOC are very possible. And this is how difference of sensor, lens is visible. But, of course, not for everyone. I regularly print post card sized pigment inkjet prints. From iPhone, C-41 film scans, dP&S, DSLR and dLeica. It has nothing to do with source of the light, BTW. They all looks nice. But I could see the difference. Yet, most of regular viewers will not see it. 

But, I think, at least, OP and I one the same side here...

[jaapv]

Come on, you can hardly say that a photograph in flat overcast conditions looks the same as one in bright sunlight etc. And I am talking about prints, not postcards. I use a Canon Selphy printer for quick-and-dirty, which is actually quite nice. But even then it requires well-prepared input.

Out of camera is equivalent to a Wallmart print, no wonder one does not see the quality of the file if one relies on it.

Overprocessing is user error, and not under discussion here. I assume that  most participants in this thread know how to process and image.

[Ko.Fe.]

Let me repeat myself. Light source doesn't matter. I see absolutely no problems to reproduce overcast day and its natural colors with most of the digital cameras. Personally, I might hold it for color film if sun is not out. But, it is up to photographer, not the gear. Fred Herzog's foggy Vancouver, BC pictures originally taken on Kodachrome are breathtaking. Even as scans in the "Modern Color" book or pigment prints in the Gallery. 

 

Size of the print doesn't matter either. If difference is visible on postcard sized prints, it will be more visible on larger prints.

 

I print on 100$ Epson with archival segment inks and on quality paper. Like Ilford Gallery. I do prepare the print, rather than just smash "print" button.

One hint, Epson fw and sw has thing called Photo RPM. 

https://files.support.epson.com/htmldocs/art730/art730ug/source/printers/source/printing_software/printing_windows_consumer/reference/advanced_quality_options_windows_artisan.html 

It takes thirty minutes for the "Letter", but it is worth to wait.  

 

Knowing how to shoot SOOC is nothing big to learn. I think, it is more on the matter of acceptance and preference in natural look.

[jaapv]

I think that we disagree fundamentally here.

 

A digital photograph cannot be at its best without proper postprocessing, like a film image cannot be at its best without good darkroom work. I print on a Canon 9500 Pro, which apart from its ink-thirst is a great tool.

 

Nor can I believe that somebody thinks that the light makes no difference for a photograph....

[Jeff S]

Exactly. (word choice for pgk)

 

Jeff

Edited September 25, 2017 by Jeff S

[pgk]

Knowing how to shoot SOOC is nothing big to learn.

 

With all due respect, you can't learn something which doesn't work.

[Ko.Fe.]

With all due respect, you can't learn something which doesn't work.

 

Respect has nothing to do with. If it doesn't work for you, it has nothing do with what I learned, either.

I'm taking nothing but SOOC images with iPhone and dP&S. It is JPEG1 and no problem to use it SOOC, which is camera processed image. It took me some time to learn and appreciate SOOC images with DSLR and DLeica, as well.

 

I think, one of the problem to get working SOOC is software which imports files from memory card to computer. Until I get LR, I was never happy with my SOOC images.

 

Oh, and quality lens. It is clearly visible how Leica lens in 40$ dP&S, over performs Canon lens in 20$ dP&S. Or how Summarit-M 35 2.5 is superior to Color Skopar 35 2.5. Yet, plenty of people who can't see it. 

[jaapv]

If you mean unprocessed files out of the camera by SOOC (I fear this acronym is gobbledegook to me), you are talking about an unfinished half-product. If that meets your quality requirements, more power to you. I fear my standards are a bit higher...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Ko.Fe.]

Your quality standards talk now? Snobbery is well detected.

My computer graphics went on national TV for programms watched by audience of tens of millions. I run as producer few commercial production. And still working in the broadcast industry. For professionals like me SOOC is the norm. And if it looks like half-product it is not professional. Sorry, different standards, but cameras are almost or exactly the same by now. But resolution might be different. Like 4K live stream vs 640x480 internet picture.