Disappointed with Leica jpegs

[Surfheart]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I bought an M10 2 weeks ago.  I've lusted after an M for a long time and it was a dream come true.

 

The camera is physically beautiful, feels great in the hand and I'm really enjoying the challenges of true range finder photography and thinking more about my exposures without the crutch of an EVF.

 

However, I have been very disappointed with the Leica Jpeg files from camera.  Highlights are often blown (standard contrast) and the AWB is a mess.  Yellow skin cast in open shade, yellow cast with strong late sun, poor handling of mixed light.

 

Now I know I have the raw files but I have been shooting with Fuji cameras since I stared my photographic journey about 3 years ago and I know at this point "Fuji jpegs!"  is a bit of an internet meme,  but I find that unless I'm doing landscapes where I have huge dynamic range, the Fuji jpegs are fantastic.  Sharp, contrasty without blocking shadows or blowing highlights, and normally the camera will nail white balance even under the craziest mixed lighting.

 

I've been finding it tedious with the M10 to have to edit nearly every single file to correct colour or recover blown highlights and even just to give the images some punch because they come out looking so flat.  I really dislike spending time editing unless it's for a landscape piece.

 

I was shooting with both the Fuji and M10 today, and the out of camera jpegs from the Fuji blew the M10's out of the water in every single shot.

 

As you can see in the attached crops straight from camera, the highlights have far more information on the fuji and micro contrast seems superior. Leica M10 above. Fuji below it.

 

At this point I'm wondering why I spent nearly $13,000AUD (Body and 50 Cron)

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!

[david strachan]

Hi Surfheart, welcome.

 

Give yourself more time.

Leica photography can take a few months to become comfortable.

 

When i use my Fuji cameras and lenses, i still have to process the images, raw or jpg. I use Lightroom.

 

Don't forget the metering methods in M Leicas, is a bit different to many camera systems. Many dial back their exposures by 1/3 stop, or more routinely.

 

Good luck, be patient.

 

 

...

[Advertisement]

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

[PaulJohn]

I bought an M10 2 weeks ago. I've lusted after an M for a long time and it was a dream come true.

 

The camera is physically beautiful, feels great in the hand and I'm really enjoying the challenges of true range finder photography and thinking more about my exposures without the crutch of an EVF.

 

However, I have been very disappointed with the Leica Jpeg files from camera. Highlights are often blown (standard contrast) and the AWB is a mess. Yellow skin cast in open shade, yellow cast with strong late sun, poor handling of mixed light.

 

Now I know I have the raw files but I have been shooting with Fuji cameras since I stared my photographic journey about 3 years ago and I know at this point "Fuji jpegs!" is a bit of an internet meme, but I find that unless I'm doing landscapes where I have huge dynamic range, the Fuji jpegs are fantastic. Sharp, contrasty without blocking shadows or blowing highlights, and normally the camera will nail white balance even under the craziest mixed lighting.

 

I've been finding it tedious with the M10 to have to edit nearly every single file to correct colour or recover blown highlights and even just to give the images some punch because they come out looking so flat. I really dislike spending time editing unless it's for a landscape piece.

 

I was shooting with both the Fuji and M10 today, and the out of camera jpegs from the Fuji blew the M10's out of the water in every single shot.

 

As you can see in the attached crops straight from camera, the highlights have far more information on the fuji and micro contrast seems superior

 

At this point I'm wondering why I spent nearly $13,000AUD (Body and 50 Cron)

If you like Fuji jpegs so much maybe the M10 is not for you. I had a love hate relationship with my Fuji files (x trans 2 and 3) Sometimes I was delighted and sometimes I was disappointed and couldn’t figure out why they excelled sometimes but not others. I sold all my Fuji gear after a set of really disappointing results and am very happy with the out of camera jpegs from my M10 and especially the Q. I did like the Fuji acros simulation and do miss that look.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[erl]

IMO, Leica generally are not good on jpegs. Certainly not as good as other brands.

If you insist on shooting jpegs, the M10 is probably not your best weapon.

 

Seriously consider shooting RAW. That will change the whole ball game. Yes, more work is involved in PP, depending on what your aim is. Give it some time and commit to a bit more effort in shooting and processing. If you don't fancy that, maybe a phonecam would be better.

 

It was never meant to be easy. It was meant to get you involved.

 

Start over with a new mindset and report back after some time.

 

It was also meant to be fun, so enjoy it.

[Gobert]

You should ask yourself why you buy for AUD 13/k gear and then shooting JPG?

You’d better save 12.500 und buy a Coolpix or similar.

[ianman]

RAW is the way to go. Always.

 

Two things to consider:

- Later Fuji cameras have a really good film simulation engine, they basically have a mini albeit powerful built-in post-processor with sets of very good presets.

- As mentioned above, the M metering mode is different, you'll need to experiment with that, and most importantly, take care of your highlights. Either expose for highlights or - again as mentioned before - always underexpose slightly.

 

I have an X-Pro2 which I got when my M9 was sent in for sensor replacement and the M9 blows the Fuji away. I'm not saying the Fuji is bad at all though!

[ianman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

oh and a third thing.... are you sure you have nailed the focus in the top image? It looks a bit out to me.

 

 

(Also, it's probably best to ignore some ridiculous comments you may read here that are less than helpful.)

[rk-d]

It's interesting. I like the colors on the m10 image you posted better than the fuji images. 

 

The first image is not in focus. Learning to shoot accurately with a rangefinder takes months to years of practice. I'm not sure that this is a fair comparison.

 

m10 RAW images processed to JPG are always going to be better. I use Lightroom and batch import/preset process/export in a few clicks. Takes very little time. You have to invest yourself in the process a little, but the results are very much worth it. That really goes for any camera. 

 

Spending over $10,000 on a camera system that doesn't even have autofocus normally means you are not in this for the quick and easy result. It only makes sense to spend time in post as well. And really, once you figure out a workflow - it's not a big deal. 

[GG Media Works]

I own an X-pro2 along side me Leica's and I too enjoy the look of the various film simulators that can be applied to the in-camera Fuji JPG files. IMO, I think that is Fuji's token attribute, the way they process the JPG's in-camera. You can tell Fuji has put a lot of focus on this feature. So its really no surprise that you are preferring the JPG's of the Fuji to the Leica. However, since buying my M10, its what I grab 95% of the time when I go shooting. Its just such a more involved process, it makes me work for my results and when I look at what I've captured later that night its usually a very rewarding experience because I know I didn't just have the camera set to AUTO-exposure, AUTO-focus, AWB, AUTO-process, AUTO-everything. 

When I shoot on the Leica I only shoot in RAW. I have numerous picture profiles saved in LightRoom that when applied to the Leica M10 RAW files almost always produce great results that require little adjustment. 

The Leica M line is a legend. When I look at my M10 sitting next to my M3 I can't help but smile and admire how true Leica has stayed to their lineage over the years. The same way that Porsche has kept the 911 so true to its original form. When every other brand pivots and switches direction depending on what new technology has come out or what direction the market is going, Leica has stayed its course. For this reason, I get a unique and special feeling when using this system over any other camera system that I've used (which is quite a few). For me at least, the Leica brand is just as much about the 'process of taking the photo' then the 'actual photo' itself. 

[fsprow]

Nothing wrong with using JPEGS in my view as long as you don't modify them (cropping, color balance, exposure etc.) which will deteriorate quality with each stored change.

 

I suggest shooting RAW, importing to Lightroom or whatever PP program you have and other than those which you wish to adjust, just batch convert them to JPEGS.  Easy and you will like the results as Lightroom does a good job of this.  For those which you do process in Lightroom, when you are done you can just convert to JPEGs if you wish.

 

Best of success.

Edited April 22, 2018 by fsprow

[frame-it]

the colors on the left look very wrong..blue-ish wood / beak ? and its out of focus..the colors on the right look way better but a bit contrasty

 

 

I bought an M10 2 weeks ago.  I've lusted after an M for a long time and it was a dream come true.

 

The camera is physically beautiful, feels great in the hand and I'm really enjoying the challenges of true range finder photography and thinking more about my exposures without the crutch of an EVF.

 

However, I have been very disappointed with the Leica Jpeg files from camera.  Highlights are often blown (standard contrast) and the AWB is a mess.  Yellow skin cast in open shade, yellow cast with strong late sun, poor handling of mixed light.

 

Now I know I have the raw files but I have been shooting with Fuji cameras since I stared my photographic journey about 3 years ago and I know at this point "Fuji jpegs!"  is a bit of an internet meme,  but I find that unless I'm doing landscapes where I have huge dynamic range, the Fuji jpegs are fantastic.  Sharp, contrasty without blocking shadows or blowing highlights, and normally the camera will nail white balance even under the craziest mixed lighting.

 

I've been finding it tedious with the M10 to have to edit nearly every single file to correct colour or recover blown highlights and even just to give the images some punch because they come out looking so flat.  I really dislike spending time editing unless it's for a landscape piece.

 

I was shooting with both the Fuji and M10 today, and the out of camera jpegs from the Fuji blew the M10's out of the water in every single shot.

 

As you can see in the attached crops straight from camera, the highlights have far more information on the fuji and micro contrast seems superior

 

At this point I'm wondering why I spent nearly $13,000AUD (Body and 50 Cron)

[Narsuitus]

I have been shooting Fuji jpeg for years. First on a Fuji S5 SLR and then on a Fuji X-Pro1 mirrorless. I have been very pleased with the Fuji jpeg image quality.

 

Last year, I purchased a Leica M10. The primary reason for the purchase was for the rangefinder focusing and to be able to use the three M lenses that I have for my Leica M6. Thank goodness, Leica jpeg image quality was not important to me because I prefer Leica raw to Leica jpeg.

 

Leica Rangefinders by Narsuitus, on Flickr

[farnz]

Sorry to hear your M10's not doing it for you.

 

As others have pointed out there's a focus problem with the M10 example.  However, further than that it looks like you have the jpeg controls set to standard on the M10 whereas the Fuji's jpeg looks to be quite heavily processed - sharpening, saturation, and contrast in particular - nothing wrong with that except it makes comparing the two jpegs a bit meaningless.  

 

The Fuji's colour balance looks 'warm': the rocks and pelican leg highlight look too yellow on my monitor although the M10's jpeg looks a little 'cool' (blueish).  The highlight on the pelican's wing in the Fuji jpeg looks blown as it does in the M10 jpeg but not by as much.  

 

The Fuji jpeg seems to have a little more depth of focus (depth of field) but I have no way of telling whether that's due to a smaller aperture or the effect of a cropped sensor; either way more of the subject is in the area of acceptable focus, which produces the detail that you feel is lacking in the M10 jpeg.  Get the focus right in your M10 jpegs and the detail will appear.    M lenses have extremely high resolution so the detail will appear.

 

The lighting in both shots doesn't look the same in both pictures, which is likely to have a considerable effect - light looks stronger in the Fuji jpg but that might be the result of the higher contrast in the picture.  You can adjust this to taste in the M10's menu if you prefer but my advice would be to shoot RAW and process the jpegs to what looks right to you.

 

Good luck,

Pete.

[pgh]

As others have said, shoot Raw, and Leica has a learning curve - every camera system images a bit differently and takes some time to learn how to best exploit.

 

That said, as a whole, even Leica M10 raws aren't great. Leica sensors in general aren't great when compared with others on the market. They're still stuck at 24 mp full frame sensors with about 11-12 stops of capture whereas most others are 30-50 mp with 13-14.5 stops of light. You'll still probably find your Fujis to hold more information in the highlights, which is why a lot of us underexpose with the M10...which is a pain because then much of your image is...well, underexposed and then you have to correct that in post - which is not as necessary with current Nikon or Sony cameras, for example. 

 

The primary reason for shooting with and owning the M10 is to because you love the rangefinder shooting experience, and/or enjoy the unique character of Leica lenses. You don't buy the M10 for the image quality - at least not primarily - even shooting RAW.

[farnz]

I hope we're not going to drag this into the whole megapixel race and pixel overpacking argument.  The OP is concerned about jpegs.

 

Pete. 

[Lonescapes]

Others have already said it, to an extent:

 

You're comparing the best in-camera JPEG processing on the market (Fuji) to JPEGs that are certainly candidates for some of the worst (Leica).

 

The flip side of this, however, is that Fuji raw files are--I don't care what anyone says about the tricks they have figured out--a real pain to work with. It's a running joke amongst Fuji shooters I know that if you're laboring over the post-processing of your Fuji raws, you probably want to avoid comparing them to the JPEGs, because you'll realize you've wasted all your labor just trying to match the in-camera JPEG performance.

 

To give a dramatic example, I have been shooting my XH1 almost exclusively since I got it, and I actually haven't updated my raw processing software to accommodate the camera's raw files yet because I'm too lazy, and because a tweaked JPEG out of this camera is good enough 95 percent of the time.

 

If you really nail focus and shoot raw on the Leica, even a very brief editing treatment of that file using an appropriate preset should result in JPEG output that matches the Fuji, or exceeds it depending on your taste.

Edited April 22, 2018 by Lonescapes

[Surfheart]

Thank you for the comments.  I definitely missed focus with the Leica shot!  I use +1 highlights +2 shadows +2 colour for the Fuji jpegs.  Regarding images, Lecia was set to AWB and Xpro2 was set to shade.

 

The highlights aren't blown in the raw files its the jpeg engine that seems to blow them.

I have always shot raw+jpg.

 I do love the M10 raws though, they seem to take fewer adjustments to look good than the Fuji files do.  It's hard to explain it but the Fuji raws feel "thinner" or have less character than the M10 files.

 

Edit: The jpegs can look nice to me sometimes...

 

 

 

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!

Edited April 22, 2018 by Surfheart

[Gobert]

I think I agree. The mrs here in the house uses a Fuji for her snapshots. In the beginning I advised her to use raw, like I always did and do.

But at a certain moment the thing was set to JPG and remained so.

[blacksinner]

i agree with you some times ago. but i found the solution. shoot with DNG only and capture one. capture one handle highlight far better than lightroom. i ditch lightroom around a month ago. and i'm very impressed with it. there are learning curves though. the output from capture one so much cleaner than lightroom. and local adjustment is very very easy to work with. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Flu]

If you shoot with the M10's RF, then keep in mind that it is center weighted metering only. The M10 does not have advanced multi-metering unless you shoot the camera in Live View mode. The camera doesn't care how bright the sky above is or left/right of center frame. It will be blown if it is bright in those areas. In these cases, underexposing by 1-2 stops will save your highlights. I'd agree with you if you think center weighted belongs in the 50's.