M10 with X1D for color consistency across platforms?

[pgh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi all, anyone using the X1D in conjunction with their M10? If so, how does the color compare when imported straight out of camera into Lightroom with the standard conversion? Right now I use Sony A7rII/Rx1RII with the M10 and while the sensor of these is superb, the color is different and I can struggle to get the images to feel consistent - it takes more work than I'd like. I don't dislike the Sony color and was happy with it for 3 years now, but after 6 months I can tell I much prefer the color from the M10, especially as a starting point straight out of the camera. I'm using fairly recent summicrons (50mm v4, 35mm asph) as well, so I'm not really talking about getting that nostalgia color that the older lenses can render. 

 

Since I need a high MP body to use in my projects I am thinking ahead for the next works and if it would be worth it to switch. I am not looking at the GFX because I need (ok, highly prefer) a leaf shutter in one of my cameras as I do a lot of daylight flash work. Right now the Rx1RII provides this for me (which would be part of what I give up if the X1D). I am also loathe to go back to SLR cameras but if recent Nikon or Canon (high res) offerings have improved color (I am out of the loop on this since bailing on my Nikon gear in 2015) I would think about it. The 250 sync is more livable than the 1/125 the fuji - still not ideal.

 

Basically, what's the closest to M10 color in a 40-50 mp camera in your experience - when importing straight into Lightroom specifically. 

Edited March 15, 2018 by pgh

[jaapv]

The way to go if you want colour consistency between brands, or even different cameras from one brand, is to shoot a Colorchecker Passport at each series of images (or even at each change of light) and make dedicated profiles.

Otherwise, work in a colour-managed workflow (you should do so anyway) and eyeball it.

[Advertisement]

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

[pgh]

The way to go if you want colour consistency between brands, or even different cameras from one brand, is to shoot a Colorchecker Passport at each series of images (or even at each change of light) and make dedicated profiles.

Otherwise, work in a colour-managed workflow (you should do so anyway) and eyeball it.

I do work in a color managed workflow and I use a passport sometimes. Still, this doesn't really address my question in the sense that I can make my images color consistent already (using a passport or using post settings), but I am curious about out of the box rendering at default settings. The way I shoot, situations and settings vary constantly, and shooting a passport all of the often would seriously interrupt my process sometimes, to the point that it's not worth it or sometimes not possible. There are more nuances here too, the different sensors changes colors and tones differently with adjustments and these things won't be identical, so the closer I can get to good results as a default with less work the more interested I am in it. 

[Bill W]

I have both the X1D and M10 but I cannot say that they are the same rendering straight out of the camera. I would try to rent or demo the X1D if possible and see for yourself. I have never done a side by side comparison of the same shot to determine differences. I guess it has never been something I worried about. I can say that the X1D files are superb and the colors are spot on from what I have seen but are they the same as my M10 I really do not know.

[pgh]

I have both the X1D and M10 but I cannot say that they are the same rendering straight out of the camera. I would try to rent or demo the X1D if possible and see for yourself. I have never done a side by side comparison of the same shot to determine differences. I guess it has never been something I worried about. I can say that the X1D files are superb and the colors are spot on from what I have seen but are they the same as my M10 I really do not know.

Yea, I will rent one eventually, but it's not that easy where I'm at these days - and this isn't a pressing matter - it's more curiosity for me at this point. I've played with a few raws already but not being able to work with a camera consistently - which is the only place I can really judge how I best use the sensor - is why I'm asking. I always find the impression of the files evolves once you put the camera through some months of use and get used to a process. 

 

This might seem silly - but what would your intuitive description of the files be after working with the camera for awhile? Do the X1D files feel warmer, cooler? Do they feel flatter or more with more contrast? Neutral, less or more aggressive with their default colors? Do they feel dense or light - or whatever other words you might use? This is at default LR import. 

[adan]

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what "out of the box" means.

 

Raw files (Leica .dng, whatever format the H1D uses) have no color, no white balance (warmer or cooler), no saturation (less or more aggressive colors). All they record is a luminance or brightness per pixel, as a single 16-bit value (or subset if the camera is only capable of 12 or 14-bit). If you could open them with the absolute minimum processing to see something resembling a picture at all, it would be a checkerboard of grays. Go a step further, and, from the camera metadata, assign each pixel a color as well as a grayscale brightness, and you'd get a color RGB checkerboard - but still several steps away from a picture on which your could judge qualities and characteristics:

 

http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/technology_guides/raw-image-file-work-61081

 

Only once Lightroom does substantial processing all on its own (no longer "out of the box") will you have anything else. And at that point, the WB and color and contrast and saturation and other things depend entirely on the choices and tastes of an Adobe software engineer, who set up the default settings, including the default WB and default profile for that specific camera model (which may not be the same as that engineer chooses for a different camera model).

 

Open the same raw file with C1, or DxO OpticsPro, or RAW Therapee or Iridient or some other raw developing program - and you will get something different, according to the tastes or measurements or defaults chosen by the software engineers who wrote those programs.

 

In other words, "Lightroom defaults" are hardly a gold standard for an "unprocessed image" - they are just Adobe's tastes. As opposed to yours, or Iridient's or anyone else's. (And - BTW - I have never found Adobe's taste to be very good - I never use either their automated or default guesses as to WB, exposure or calibration because they are usually crummy.)

_____________________

 

I went through something similar to the problem you describe - how to get results as similar as possible from two different camera systems, with as little extra work or time as possible at the computer afterwards. In my case it was getting a Canon 6D with Canon 300mm lens to match color and general contrast and saturation with the M10 and Leica lenses.

 

To make it short - I shot the same scene with both systems. Since I already had the settings I liked dialed in for the M10, I then proceeded to find out what settings for the 6D produced a picture that paired as closely as possible with the M10 image, using all the controls, and most importantly the profiling or calibration controls to shift red more orange or magenta, greens more cyan or yellow and set the relative saturation per primary color.

 

Note in this case I did not use a ColorChecker, because my goal was not "ColorChecker-correct" 6D output, but "Matches the M10" 6D output (and they are not necessarily the same, because I could eyedropper and compare a much wider range of colors, blacks, grays and whites than appear on the ColorChecker).

 

Once I had settings that matched the 6D image to the M10, for all the things you mention - I then simple went over to the menu item in Camera Raw (my choice over Lightroom), and selected the menu item "Save new Camera defaults" for the 6D. and from that moment on, every unprocessed 6D image I imported or already had available used those modified "match the M10" settings, with no additional steps from me ever again, except as individual pictures required to suit my taste for that particular image. But the default image colors/contrast/saturation now matched.

[Bill W]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yea, I will rent one eventually, but it's not that easy where I'm at these days - and this isn't a pressing matter - it's more curiosity for me at this point. I've played with a few raws already but not being able to work with a camera consistently - which is the only place I can really judge how I best use the sensor - is why I'm asking. I always find the impression of the files evolves once you put the camera through some months of use and get used to a process. 

 

This might seem silly - but what would your intuitive description of the files be after working with the camera for awhile? Do the X1D files feel warmer, cooler? Do they feel flatter or more with more contrast? Neutral, less or more aggressive with their default colors? Do they feel dense or light - or whatever other words you might use? This is at default LR import. 

I am not sure that I can realistically answer your question. First I have never used LR. For the X1D I use their processing software which is Phocus. For Leica I use Photoshop camera raw. I am in the process of switching to Luminar 2018. All I can say about the X1D files is that they hold a lot of detail to work with. The raw files are 100mb + in most instances. I always shoot jpg + raw. This helps with the X1D files because I have used Bridge for many years and the X1D raw files are not view-able. I am looking for something to replace Bridge. Not sure if this helps but I guess I am not good at analyzing files with descriptions like fine wine. If your exposure is good, your raw file can be processed to whatever look your desire. There are several examples in my Zenfolio site called Marfa Tx. 

[pgh]

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what "out of the box" means.

 

Raw files (Leica .dng, whatever format the H1D uses) have no color, no white balance (warmer or cooler), no saturation (less or more aggressive colors). All they record is a luminance or brightness per pixel, as a single 16-bit value (or subset if the camera is only capable of 12 or 14-bit). If you could open them with the absolute minimum processing to see something resembling a picture at all, it would be a checkerboard of grays. Go a step further, and, from the camera metadata, assign each pixel a color as well as a grayscale brightness, and you'd get a color RGB checkerboard - but still several steps away from a picture on which your could judge qualities and characteristics:

 

http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/technology_guides/raw-image-file-work-61081

 

Only once Lightroom does substantial processing all on its own (no longer "out of the box") will you have anything else. And at that point, the WB and color and contrast and saturation and other things depend entirely on the choices and tastes of an Adobe software engineer, who set up the default settings, including the default WB and default profile for that specific camera model (which may not be the same as that engineer chooses for a different camera model).

 

Open the same raw file with C1, or DxO OpticsPro, or RAW Therapee or Iridient or some other raw developing program - and you will get something different, according to the tastes or measurements or defaults chosen by the software engineers who wrote those programs.

 

In other words, "Lightroom defaults" are hardly a gold standard for an "unprocessed image" - they are just Adobe's tastes. As opposed to yours, or Iridient's or anyone else's. (And - BTW - I have never found Adobe's taste to be very good - I never use either their automated or default guesses as to WB, exposure or calibration because they are usually crummy.)

_____________________

 

I went through something similar to the problem you describe - how to get results as similar as possible from two different camera systems, with as little extra work or time as possible at the computer afterwards. In my case it was getting a Canon 6D with Canon 300mm lens to match color and general contrast and saturation with the M10 and Leica lenses.

 

To make it short - I shot the same scene with both systems. Since I already had the settings I liked dialed in for the M10, I then proceeded to find out what settings for the 6D produced a picture that paired as closely as possible with the M10 image, using all the controls, and most importantly the profiling or calibration controls to shift red more orange or magenta, greens more cyan or yellow and set the relative saturation per primary color.

 

Note in this case I did not use a ColorChecker, because my goal was not "ColorChecker-correct" 6D output, but "Matches the M10" 6D output (and they are not necessarily the same, because I could eyedropper and compare a much wider range of colors, blacks, grays and whites than appear on the ColorChecker).

 

Once I had settings that matched the 6D image to the M10, for all the things you mention - I then simple went over to the menu item in Camera Raw (my choice over Lightroom), and selected the menu item "Save new Camera defaults" for the 6D. and from that moment on, every unprocessed 6D image I imported or already had available used those modified "match the M10" settings, with no additional steps from me ever again, except as individual pictures required to suit my taste for that particular image. But the default image colors/contrast/saturation now matched.

Hi Adan,

I understand your point. I used the term 'out of the box' incorrectly. LR and C1 are the most commonly used Raw converters, so default conversions are often referred to as 'out of the box' or some similar term in my own circles, however.

 

I understand how RAW files work, how many different options there are, what Lightroom Defaults are, and described specifically what I was asking for. This is not the end of my workflow in any way, though that is immaterial. It is the starting point I am asking about (not after one has gone through the steps to profile and preset one camera to another), as anyone who uses the two cameras in LR would be able to offer some perspective on this. Because RAWs from different manufacturers do not behave identically when processed in different ways, for me it has been the easiest universal starting point to relate to amongst different photographers.

[rent]

I have both the X1D and M10. But I haven't worried about or even paid attention to the difference in color rendering since I typically use M10 for street (more for B&W), and X1D for landscape and portraits. I can tell you the X1D color rendering out of camera is superb, especially the skin tones. With the M10 I occasionally notice the orange cast. Sorry, not much help as a straight answer to your original question.

[Guest JMF]

I would test the X1D and the M10 with the same lens to start from.

[pgh]

I have both the X1D and M10. But I haven't worried about or even paid attention to the difference in color rendering since I typically use M10 for street (more for B&W), and X1D for landscape and portraits. I can tell you the X1D color rendering out of camera is superb, especially the skin tones. With the M10 I occasionally notice the orange cast. Sorry, not much help as a straight answer to your original question.

I appreciate it. It's the only the second post so far that even remotely tried to directly answer what I asked.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

I have both, as well as the A7R2 and A7R3. I never liked the earlier Sony's, especially for skin tones. The A7R3 and A9 are the first I've liked.

 

IMHO the X1D has the better skin tone colours over the M10. The X1D colours are wonderful. I would not be surprised if you don't keep the X1D colours and try to change the M10 profile. Personally, although they are different I don't have a preference so I just let them ride. I didn't do that with the Sony's.

 

As to matching them? Well you can't exactly but if you want reasonable close then you'll just need a preset. Take a colour checker shot from each image in the same light (we're not making a profile here). Then using the calibration tab get as close s you can to the preferred cameras *standard* on the secondary camera. Use the histogram to match the patches as best as possible (it shows the colour saturation at the bottom). Then just apply that as an import profile when adding shots to the catalogue and you'll get that as a starting point.

 

Gordon

[Jager]

I don't think you can get there from here.  Different sensors.  Different formats.  Different manufacturer color profiles.  And, probably, different raw developers.

 

You can eliminate one variable by using the same raw developer.  But in that case you're disadvantaging whichever camera wasn't optimized for it.  Use LR for both cameras, for instance, and the X1D files will suffer.

 

The problem is not limited to cross-brand comparisons, either.  Consider that the M8, M9, M240, and M10 all have their own unique color palettes.  

 

I get the desire for color consistency in certain venues... a wedding or a portrait session or an ad campaign.  But I think there's an equal argument for making every image as strong as it can be, on its own merits.

 

As an aside, I don't have an X1D but do have extensive experience with Hasselblad's CFV-50c digital back, which has the same sensor.  IMO no one does color better than Hasselblad.

[pgh]

I don't think you can get there from here.  Different sensors.  Different formats.  Different manufacturer color profiles.  And, probably, different raw developers.

 

You can eliminate one variable by using the same raw developer.  But in that case you're disadvantaging whichever camera wasn't optimized for it.  Use LR for both cameras, for instance, and the X1D files will suffer.

 

The problem is not limited to cross-brand comparisons, either.  Consider that the M8, M9, M240, and M10 all have their own unique color palettes.  

 

I get the desire for color consistency in certain venues... a wedding or a portrait session or an ad campaign.  But I think there's an equal argument for making every image as strong as it can be, on its own merits.

 

As an aside, I don't have an X1D but do have extensive experience with Hasselblad's CFV-50c digital back, which has the same sensor.  IMO no one does color better than Hasselblad.

I am aware this isn't an exact science, and I don't disagree with making each image strong on its own merits. I'm just wondering how they compared at the baseline that I stipulated (which does indeed state using the same raw developer) and what people who had used both thought of the process of trying to line them to whatever degree they deem reasonable. User feedback based on experience is often helpful to me.

 

However, I stated my inquiry with regards to my own particular way of working. I understand that's not everyone's way of working, but making long term projects that while mixing formats is something I've always done, so these questions are pertinent to that process. I do not generally make single photographs that live alone -for me photographs are pieces of larger narrative and conceptually driven projects, and the workflow that I employ in these projects is generally set. It's not that I won't change it if I need to, but asking about a specific process (ingest to default lightroom settings) as a starting point is reasonable. 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Admittedly, I haven't given Phocus a huge amount of time but now LR has the lens profiles I see little difference between the two. The Lightroom files for the X1D are wonderful.

 

Gordon

[Jager]

Admittedly, I haven't given Phocus a huge amount of time but now LR has the lens profiles I see little difference between the two. The Lightroom files for the X1D are wonderful.

 

Gordon

 

I actually find LR treats Hasselblad digital files pretty kindly, too, whether they come from the CFV-50c or from film scanned with the Flextight.  And, of course, LR incorporates the DAM functionality which is at least as important as its editing chops.

 

I only drop into Phocus for specific, targeted images, where absolute optimization is desired.

[Succisa75]

X1D raw files look like they are jpegs out of other cameras.  Colors are fantastic like others have mentioned, skin tone especially.  M10 raw files are more muted in color than the X1D files when imported  into Lightroom. 

Phocus tend to mute the colors more on the X1D files. While some like Phocus, I only like the software for the shadow recovery. It tends to preserve slightly more detail than Lightroom, but otherwise LR is my choice for editing.  

 

With the price reduction on the X1D recently, its become a viable option if you need more megapixels.  Comparing the files to the A7RIII, you will see slightly more detail from the X1D and better color,  but if you use good glass on the Sony, like the Zeiss Otus, you will find more similarities in the images than differences.  

[pgh]

X1D raw files look like they are jpegs out of other cameras.  Colors are fantastic like others have mentioned, skin tone especially.  M10 raw files are more muted in color than the X1D files when imported  into Lightroom. 

Phocus tend to mute the colors more on the X1D files. While some like Phocus, I only like the software for the shadow recovery. It tends to preserve slightly more detail than Lightroom, but otherwise LR is my choice for editing.  

 

With the price reduction on the X1D recently, its become a viable option if you need more megapixels.  Comparing the files to the A7RIII, you will see slightly more detail from the X1D and better color,  but if you use good glass on the Sony, like the Zeiss Otus, you will find more similarities in the images than differences.  

Thank you for your insight, that's basically my impression from playing with sample raw images, though I have not played with phocus. I am considering parsing out my Sony system for the X1D - for the resolution, but also the color (my least fave part of the Sony, but still totally fine), the leaf shutter and the format itself (meaning sensor aspect ratio and larger size). With regards to resolution the Sony is perfect for me really though. 

[Jeff S]

Thank you for your insight, that's basically my impression from playing with sample raw images, though I have not played with phocus. I am considering parsing out my Sony system for the X1D - for the resolution, but also the color (my least fave part of the Sony, but still totally fine), the leaf shutter and the format itself (meaning sensor aspect ratio and larger size). With regards to resolution the Sony is perfect for me really though.

The ergonomics, control interface / menu design and build quality (weather sealing) are also key distinctions between the systems IMO.

 

Jeff

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Succisa75]

Thank you for your insight, that's basically my impression from playing with sample raw images, though I have not played with phocus. I am considering parsing out my Sony system for the X1D - for the resolution, but also the color (my least fave part of the Sony, but still totally fine), the leaf shutter and the format itself (meaning sensor aspect ratio and larger size). With regards to resolution the Sony is perfect for me really though. 

 

No problem.  I've been back and forth between the X1D and Sony A7RIII myself.  IQ is it's biggest strength and flash syncing.  Downside for me is the lack of image stabilization.  Even shots that were focused according to the camera were hit and miss when viewing the files up close. I found myself having to take two or three consecutive pics to get one sharp. 

 

Like Jeff S mentioned in the last comment, the ergonomics are great, and the X1D menu system IMO is far better and more intuitive than the Sony's.  What the Sony has going for it is the image stabilization, Autofocus, versatility of lens, and speed.  The X1D is plenty fast enough especially comparing it to the Leica M10, but the autofocus will hunt in lower light situations.  Manual focus in low light or nighttime will be faster in many cases. The electronic shutter while having its benefits, will produce banding under certain lighting,  thus limiting it's usage for indoor use.  

 

Hasselblad has seemed to delay the 2018 lens that were supposed to be released thus far. Hopefully they will come soon as that's one of the limiting issues with the system.  The XCD 45 lens is ok but did notice some CA in my photos due to it. The XCD 90 seems to be better at controlling CA for some reason.

 

Overall for me, the X1D felt like shooting film on a digital camera. You will get fantastic IQ if all the parameters are right.  The Sony has everything one could possibly ask on the technical side, but lacks the intimacy one gets while holding and using a Hasselblad or Leica.