Jump to content
miro

How would you describe the CL's Rendering ?

Recommended Posts

I would say, that like any high-quality modern sensor, the rendering is not determined by the camera, but by the lens (most of all) and post-processing.

I agree with Mark. Go through the image thread. It is getting to the point that almost every style is shown: from an occasional cringe through a multitude of different styles and renderings of amazing quality to stitched high-MP panoramas that will look like medium format when printed.

If you cannot get the rendering you like out of this camera (or a high-end Canikofusony for that matter) it is either the lens or the user - or the wish for a different medium altogether.

 

The JPGs will only show the precooking determined by the engineers in the factory and, with any camera, should be used only for very specific reasons, like direct transfer to a smartphone for immediate sending. Even then, Snapseed is a pretty powerful tool to adjust any look...

 

You have to open the image on a computer anyway. What is simpler than to create a preset in Lightroom that reflects your taste for a "standard" shot, load the raw images and click "auto"?

 

I'm sure that the question you ask will be of no concern when using the camera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The OP is asking about OOC jpegs and all cameras have not the same rendition there. Now "Cinematic", "Digital" and "like slide film" are not expressions i'm familiar with sorry. All i can say is the CL's jpeg rendering is rather transparent in that it respects the character of the lenses as Jaap said above. It is a camera requiring less color correction than my M240 with its clipping reds and it has also a more accurate auto WB so i suspect jpeg users could be happy with it but i'm a raw shooter myself so take what i say with a pinch of salt or other condiment

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I had to choose one word to describe it , I would say "clean" .

I've seen plenty of photos from the CL .

I was just curious how others saw the rendering .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think some online renderings from CL are maybe not post-processed as needed and look soft, the files require the details drawn out via detail sharpening etc. (discovered this while renting CL couple weeks ago).

Edited by Wenge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think some online renderings from CL are maybe not post-processed as needed and look soft, the files require the details drawn out via detail sharpening etc. (discovered this while renting CL couple weeks ago).

Not my experience. I use a rather standard sharpening regime in my postprocessing, (Minimal no-halo, no enhanced grain in ACR, some creative sharpening with the brush @ 50% and final sharpening using high-pass), just like most other cameras, as a matter of fact. After resizing for the web I often find myself using 0,2 or 0,3 of Gaussian blur to take the harsh edge off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't feel that my CL files need more sharpening than my M240 so far but comparing OOC jpegs to processed raw files is hardly relevant anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you rent for the fun , or with purchase in mind ?

I thought about purchase but after returning the rental, bought the Q instead along with GX8 and Leica 8-18 as its companion. I only rented the 18 prime and 18-56 zoom, but maybe should re-visit CL again with the 11-23 and spend more time with it since it looks like that lens (and others) is excellent based on the photos posted here by everyone who owns the combo. (When I referred to 'soft' online images above, I was thinking of a couple review sites w/downloadable raw files, rather than those posted here, should've clarified that before). GX8 with the Leica wide is also excellent so it would be a tough choice. I also think maybe only having CL for a few days wasn't enough time to fully figure out the lenses and raw files.

Edited by Wenge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not my experience. I use a rather standard sharpening regime in my postprocessing, (Minimal no-halo, no enhanced grain in ACR, some creative sharpening with the brush @ 50% and final sharpening using high-pass), just like most other cameras, as a matter of fact. After resizing for the web I often find myself using 0,2 or 0,3 of Gaussian blur to take the harsh edge off.

I was getting good clean shots with the 18 prime but found they needed more detail sharpening than normal (based on my usual pp). Maybe I wasn't doing it right in ACR compared with other cameras, and will go back and try some other options to see what I was missing. Thanks for those insights Jaap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do own a GX8 (and am quite taken by the camera), but I would rate the CL a class higher in image quality. The Panaleica lenses are industry standard for MFT, but the TL lenses are, again, just that bit better. The 18 mm pancake is indeed the least of the bunch ( but still no slouch), the other lenses, including all three zooms leave nothing to be desired.

As it is, when travelling, the GX 8 and CL share my backpack. Lenses: MFT Summilux 15, Summilux 25 and Vario-Elmar 100-400, TL 18-56 and 55-135 and Summilux-M 24.  The CL is the primary camera, the Panasonic the back-up and long tele-specialist. I might add an 11-23 in due course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

snapshot skopar 25, CL

OK understood that CL is real f=ing good, and requires time spent with it.
Edited by Wenge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am hopeful that the Adobe standard LR "recipe" will be improved over time. At the moment it needs quite a bit of tweaking, particularly greens and yellows, which are somewhat over-saturated. The out of camera JPEG's are not at all bad if a tad dark but that is an easy global correction, if you need quicker results than running individually though a DNG convertor. If you check in the DCP profiles in the application folders of LR CC Classic 7.1 or ACR 10.1 on a Mac, there is not actually a CL profile listed, so I am guessing LR uses the TL2 profile dated 17 December 2017, as a default on Adobe Standard Camera Correction for the CL. 

 

Wilson

Edited by wlaidlaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...