What I miss from M9 in my M10

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'd like to see those results. In my experience the M8, M9, M240 and M10 all have their signature look which an artists eye catches every time. I'm not interested in any other view.

 

Can you show us the signatures?

[NB23]

Can you show us the signatures?

I won't see the difference I'll be supposed to "see".

It'll be because I don't have the "artist's eye". Damn

 

This is the kind of BS I was refering to.

 

 

 

-

Edited September 22, 2017 by NB23

[Advertisement]

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

[jdlaing]

I won't see the difference I'll be supposed to "see".

It'll be because I don't have the "artist's eye". Damn

This is the kind of BS I was refering to.

-

You can't see it on you're digital Leica M?

 

Oh wait. That's right. You don't have any.

[Tailwagger]

Not to wade into the middle of a brewing storm, but AFAICT the glass chosen has a far, far greater impact on 'signature' than does the body, if one is concerned with such things... and I am. 

[pico]

Not to wade into the middle of a brewing storm, but AFAICT the glass chosen has a far, far greater impact on 'signature' than does the body [...]

 

Nonsense! The strap has the most impact!

[Tailwagger]

Nonsense! The strap has the most impact!

 

Ah, but only when used appropriately.  And with vigor.   

[shootinglulu]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I won't see the difference I'll be supposed to "see".

It'll be because I don't have the "artist's eye". Damn

 

This is the kind of BS I was refering to.

 

 

 

-

 

Can't be helped, not everyone can have it.

But how do you know I'm Bisexual?

[BerndReini]

This discussion always leads to people insulting each other. The CCD cameras and the CMOS cameras render differently. Color negative film renders differently from both of them. However, if you do fiddle with your files in post-production, you can make all three look so similar that even in a side by side comparison, it will be different to tell the difference. So this is my concession to the camp that argues that there is no difference.

 

Now, straight out of camera, or out of whichever film scanner you use, they will look different. Since you will most likely not take the same photograph with an M9 and an M10 (or on film for that matter), it makes sense to use the camera that gives you the look you prefer with your standard process. You will most likely never see what the other camera's file would have looked like in the same situation.

 

I use an M9 and often color negative film. I like the look I can achieve with each. A good friend of mine uses Sony and Pentax cameras. His pictures are heavily processed, and he achieves a cinematic look that is very similar with each camera. I like his look very much, but it is not a look that would suit my style of photography. My point is, use whatever works best for your style of shooting, processing, and for your wallet, and be courteous to each other.

 

I will be testing an M10 next week and I am very excited about it. I can tell you that when the M240 was first released I tested once side by side with my M9 by shooting the things I usually shoot. When I processed the images, I preferred the look of the M9 in most situations and I ended up adjusting the M240 images to the M9 images. I was able to do so rather easily, and I hear people commenting all the time that you can easily adjust files to achieve the look of the M9. But if you like the look of the M9 and if you don't mind its shortcomings, then why bother? As far as my trying out the M10, I hope that I prefer the look of the M10 files in all situations, then I can finally be excited to spend a boatload of money on a new camera and not miss the M9.

Edited September 23, 2017 by BerndReini

[pgk]

Can you show us the signatures?

 

Look Pico, you do know that the web can't show differences which are nuances in prints. Different sensors produce marginal differences in colour and noise. Work with these, adjust tonality and colour balance and its possible to exaggerate and utilise these differences. The M8 and M9 showed quite substantial differences. 'Straight' simple unadjusted images will show less differences than adjusted files.

 

FWIW to take the discussion further, I cannot exactly match files from my M9 on either a Canon 5DII or Sony A7II - I can get close but not a match. And FWIW since I cannot shoot underwater with the M9 when I have a mixed exhibition of images from above (mix of cameras but mostly M8/9) and below water (Canon/Sony) its important to achieve consistency of look. Its difficult to do so because colour, tonality and noise are all slightly different and matching one usually throws the others off. Like most things its a compromise.

 

Of course I'm going by 'print quality' not pixel peeping, and my files are 'adjusted' but mine is a practical viewpoint so provided I can get a consistent look across images I'm not over worried about the absolute matching of files. But differences there are, like it or not.

[Jeff S]

I've never made a straight, unadjusted 'fine print', film or digital in 40 years. For me, any 'signature,' includes the entire workflow from capture/ lighting conditions to final display. Often, from the same camera, my prints render miles apart. I was pretty good with darkroom techniques, but there's no question that digital affords me significantly more flexibility..,. altering the contrast curve, using color channels, adding or deleting noise, using all sorts of global and local adjustments, etc, etc. And even then, the use of different papers, inks, toners, etc create enormous potential for variety.

 

Signature? That's mine, not the camera's.

 

Jeff

[jdlaing]

 

But how do you know I'm Bisexual?

It's in the video.

[pgk]

Signature? That's mine, not the camera's.

 

So any camera/decent lens is ok then?

[pico]

It appears from PGK's contribution that the RAW image shows no signature, and we must post-process to evince a signature. I find that intriguing and I step away for the moment looking forward to further evidence

or discussion although the later seems futile.

 

If it is true that outcome can only be shown in a print, then I yield because it is unlikely I will ever see his prints.

Edited September 23, 2017 by pico

[pgk]

I write this with respect to pgk.

 

It appears from PGK's contribution that the RAW image shows no signature, and we must post-process to evince a signature. I find that intriguing and I step away for the moment, awaiting others comments.

 

If only this were true. Applying the same post processing to any raw file would yield an identical result. Wouldn't it?

[Jeff S]

So any camera/decent lens is ok then?

There are many choices, across brands, for high IQ pictures. My selection criteria more often comes down to the viewing/ focusing experience, handling and ergonomics, control interface, the lens options, or other special characteristics, e.g., weather sealing, aspect ratio/ format, low light capability, etc.

 

Some people do well wlth minimal gear; others struggle with the finest. As it always was. Thankfully not everyone produces the same results, even with the same gear.... how boring that would be.

 

Jeff

[adan]

I get the feeling not everyone real-izes or internalizes or reifies just how much stuff - totally beyond our direct control - takes place to get from a signal coming out of a digital sensor to a visible photograph that can be described as having a "signature."

 

What we as photographers see and control in LR or ACR or C1 is very thin icing on the top of a very thick layer cake of image processing engineered by other people, each of whom makes "command decisions" about our pictures (from picking a sensor, to choosing the Bayer filter colors, to choosing and programming A/D converters, to writing the code for de-mosaicing and gamma-correction algorithms, to writing the available camera profiles), over which we have no direct control.

 

That, of course, is quite different and separate from the personal signature a photographer imposes on creates adds to their work, as Jeff S decribes, through their vision and their own creative choices, at the moment of capture, and in processing later.

 

Just as a reminder of how many layers there are - before we even get any say at all about how a camera's output "looks" - I submit this little document.** The tech-speak isn't important (although if one wants to hurt one's head reading it, go ahead), but the images Fig. 1 and Fig. 4 (a-f) show just how much a color digital raw image has to be processed, before we can even see it in LR to start making our own adjustments.

 

https://rcsumner.net/raw_guide/RAWguide.pdf

 

With that understanding, here is a basic sample of the "signatures" of the M9 and the M10 (not in any particular order), with as little post-processing as possible (which is to say - still a huge amount behind the scenes, controlled by Leica and Adobe). The only difference in my processing was the forced choice of using the "Embedded" profile for the M9 , and the "Embedded M10" profile for the M10. There being no option to choose "NO profile" - so either Adobe or Leica will have their influence.

 

Otherwise, all of Adobe's sliders were set to "zero", and same WB (4900K, no tint) used for both. 90mm Summarit lens.

 

Does one have to be an artist to see a difference? Of course not. Does not seeing a difference mean one is not an artist? Of course not. Will those who've used the two cameras side by side be able to pick them out? Probably.

 

Can one be made to look exactly like the other with very minor adjustments? Yes. Is one preferable to the other? De gustibus non est disputandum ("Taste cannot be debated"). Is one more accurate than the other? Well, if you have a spectrometer, we can go back and read the actual colors off that wall on a similar day - if that matters.

__________________________

 

** There's an old line about the existentialist American baseball umpire, who says, "There are balls and there are strikes - but they ain't nuthin until I call them." The same applies to digital pictures - they are just 1s and 0s (not pictures) until Adobe/C1/Leica call them. Only then do you get to play around with the result.

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]

Can one be made to look exactly like the other with very minor adjustments? Yes. 

 

This is where I would have to disagree. Its the word 'exactly'. When putting together a coherent set of images it is usually possible to produce these from a variety of cameras which are at best 'balanced', but try as I might I cannot make them as similar as I might want to do and certainly not 'exactly' balanced. Part of this is the variable noise characteristics of different cameras and sensors, part is the variable tonal distribution and then there is colour (actually I find this less of a problem but shifts are still there). I would actually be delighted if I could come up with a solution to making all the files from the different cameras look precisely the same, but I can't. They actually do have differences, like it or not.

[Jeff S]

This is where I would have to disagree. Its the word 'exactly'. When putting together a coherent set of images it is usually possible to produce these from a variety of cameras which are at best 'balanced', but try as I might I cannot make them as similar as I might want to do and certainly not 'exactly' balanced. Part of this is the variable noise characteristics of different cameras and sensors, part is the variable tonal distribution and then there is colour (actually I find this less of a problem but shifts are still there). I would actually be delighted if I could come up with a solution to making all the files from the different cameras look precisely the same, but I can't. They actually do have differences, like it or not.

How would you know unless all variables at capture, except the camera, were the same...identical subject matter, lighting conditions, lens, camera position, etc? Have you conducted such tests?

 

Jeff

[pico]

I could care less for the nuances of color. Hell, I can rarely see the differences in today's renderings, but I know B&W as part of my perception as evinced by my renderings for better or worse.

 

In my next life (a fantasy do-over) I hope to have an enlightened editor who has a competent post processing assistant. It is way too late to hope for the same today.

 

Within my lifetime I will not be surprised to see conventional silo-stacked lens designs made obsolete by glassless digital mediated devices, like insect eyes passed through a super-computer that fits on a thumbnail. (Look to Apple's bio-chips. Stunning.)

.

Edited September 24, 2017 by pico

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pgk]

How would you know unless all variables at capture, except the camera, were the same...identical subject matter, lighting conditions, lens, camera position, etc? Have you conducted such tests?

 

Jeff

 

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.