Jump to content
jay968

New CL -- Images look awful

Recommended Posts

'Not sure if this has been brought up here before in this thread but are you using the image magnifier in the CL to assist when focusing?  If so great but I recommend a bit of caution if you are also using the focus peaking system.  It appears not to be very active unless you are stopped down a couple of stops.

Also, the two images you posted in "phase" look to be low res exports to me.  'Just a candid observation.

I have eye sight problems so getting everything to work well and together for me is sometimes a task.  I do not currently have any m-mount Leica lenses, only CV and Zeiss and some Leica TL lenses too.  Here's a "super crop" from a head and shoulders image with light processing in LR "Classic" I just took with my CL and a Zeiss Planar 50/F2 wide open.  No resolution issues obvious to me.  Which doesn't mean you aren't having problems with your CL.  "Frustration Central" , we get it.  ;-)

Resetting your CL would be my first choice too.  Then post some more images.  Good luck.

. . . David

Edited by burkey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jaapv, to your ealier response to my 2 images... No I don't think that's it. If you look closely you see that it's not just out of focus. Nothing in the scene is very sharp at all, it's not that the focus just missed. This lens (35mm lux asph) performs perfectly on my M10, there is nothing wrong with it. It's one of my best lenses.

 

What you are also not seeing are images shot with my 50 summicron. Same kind of results. Unfortunately I did not purchase a TL lens along with the CL as I would have liked to have had the opportunity to compare.

 

At any rate, I have just gotten back from Fedex. I have shipped the camera back. Thanks for the help but something is just not right...either the camera and/or adapter are defective or something else is going on that I cannot pinpoint. By the way, while the images posted above (both thighslapper's and yours)...while they have plenty of contrast and saturation, I really cannot tell if the resolution is good or not. To me, looking at images at such sizes on a computer screen from a webpage doesn't really show me anything. If anything, thighslapper's images (if I look closely enough) don't look very sharp at all..but then again as I said, I would need to see them in print or blown up as I have given the opportunity to view mine.

 

Please understand, my standards for resolution are extremely high. To me, something like this --

 

http://www.pbase.com/jayaltman/image/166106261

 

Is sharp.

Edited by jay968

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

burkey, I have tried both maginifying and focus peaking.

You say the 2 images look like low res exports. Yes I understand...but both are straight out of camera uploaded to pbase. Not sure what they do with them there. Both images are from pbase though and the Fuji one looks light years better in terms of resolution. Your image here of the woman in the glasses would not have been acceptable to me at all. Even the sharpest part of her eye do not look terribly good to me.

wda, yes to both of your questions. I have reset the camera and yes I do recalibrate my monitor on a regular basis. I have tried 3 memory cards.

Edited by jay968

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have put up 2 more images. The first, straight out of camera, the second after extensive processing in ACR.

 

http://www.pbase.com/jayaltman/image/167516703

 

http://www.pbase.com/jayaltman/image/167516706

 

While the second isn't necessarily processed perfectly (shadows especially can still use some work), it does illustrate just how bad the OOC one was. Why is this camera demanding so much in PP to get away from that drab, low contrast, low detailed look? Is this normal for this camera?

 

This to me is what a Leica should produce --

 

http://www.pbase.com/jayaltman/image/167516839/large

Edited by jay968

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bottom line guys...thanks for the help and suggestions. I have sent the camera back willing to say that there may have been an issue with it. Will have to go back to the drawing board as far as deciding whether to try another CL. I am just not sold on it at this point.

Thanks again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK here are links to two files. I understand that these are different houses and they are shot with different lenses, but please look at them at max size (ORIGINAL) on the sights

 

The first is with the CL

http://www.pbase.com/jayaltman/image/167516086

 

This one is now with a Fuji XT-2

http://www.pbase.com/jayaltman/image/167516084

 

While these particular shots are not showing the dull contrast and color that I am usually getting out of the CL, they sure do illustrate the difference in resolution. Please remember to click on "original" under the file name at the bottom.

The CL was shot with the 35 lux. To me, this looks terrible.

In the first one it looks like the focus was on infinity - or at least on the tree beyond the roof line.

What did you focus on? And at what aperture?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you have a defective adapter?

Very possible. Something is wrong someplace. But then again, look at the other image that I posted later down of the Hidden Valley Parkway sign, both pre and post processed. Why does it look so drab straight out of camera? I know I always have to do SOME post processing, but this is terrible out of camera, no? So it's not all just focusing issues that I had, several things are just not coming together.

 

As I said, I have sent everything back and need to reassess the entire CL idea.

Edited by jay968

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First image .... as suggested .... OOFV+/- camera shake ...... you arevnever going to get anything out of this no matter what you do.

 

Second image ..... over exposed as the metering has concentrated on the hedge. TL's and to a lesser extent CL benefit from a touch of -ve EV compensation. The default sharpening on the CL is low ..... if you want detail you can rack it up to 100 if you want to. 

 

I'm not sure there is much here to suggest a camera issue .....  possibly just one of expectations and what one is used to in terms of a new cameras characteristics and how to make the best of them .... but I'd certainly try with a native T/C AF lens before throwing in the towel. 

Edited by thighslapper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First image .... as suggested .... OOFV+/- camera shake ...... you arevnever going to get anything out of this no matter what you do.

 

Second image ..... over exposed as the metering has concentrated on the hedge. TL's and to a lesser extent CL benefit from a touch of -ve EV compensation. The default sharpening on the CL is low ..... if you want detail you can rack it up to 100 if you want to. 

 

I'm not sure there is much here to suggest a camera issue .....  possibly just one of expectations and what one is used to in terms of a new cameras characteristics and how to make the best of them .... but I'd certainly try with a native T/C AF lens before throwing in the towel. 

If the first image is just not focused accurately than that says volumes about the focus peaking in this camera (it stinks). Frankly, even if the focus is off, it is still not good anyplace in the frame.

I'm not sure that the second image is overexposed really. It's hazy and lacking good sharpness and contrast.. Quite a bit of sharpness, claity and vibrance were added in post to achieve the look in the second version of that shot. This one may actually be a bit too dark!

I don't know if anything is defective, or maybe this camera has different demands than I am used to but after all is said and done I do not have these issues with any of my other cameras. Yes all cameras have their quirks and take some time to get used to. But this was supposed to be a replacement for a Fuji XT-2 (I wanted to just be in with the M10 and the CL and rely on using my M lenses in my APS-C camera as well) but it just doesn't look like that's gonna happen. The Fuji is just  dancing rings around the CL.

For what it's worth, the Fuji is not so good with adapted Leica M lenses on it either--  as compared to just using native Fuji lenses where the results are stellar.

Edited by jay968

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use SL's for work but bought a CL as a more compact every day camera. Results with TL, M & R lenses are shockingly good. It's made me re-assess APSC as in many cases I struggle to see a difference between the CL files and the SL. Have you tried it with a TL lens? Not sure why the Fuji 'dances rings around the CL' when you say that it's not good with adapted Leica M lenses?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can only say that sometimes it's simply a matter of personal taste.

 

I had the same reaction to the Q that you have to the CL:  I was very disappointed by the RAWs and couldn't fathom why people loved the Q's output (not showing any disrespect to those people, that's just my opinion). I got myself a CL and thought the image rendering was wonderful, very close to if not the equal of my M10's. Further, I couldn't fathom why reviewers trashed that camera.

 

Maybe something is defective, maybe not, but life's too short to worry about it. Return the camera (as you did) and move on.

Edited by nlk10010

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

burkey, I have tried both maginifying and focus peaking.

You say the 2 images look like low res exports. Yes I understand...but both are straight out of camera uploaded to pbase. Not sure what they do with them there. Both images are from pbase though and the Fuji one looks light years better in terms of resolution. Your image here of the woman in the glasses would not have been acceptable to me at all. Even the sharpest part of her eye do not look terribly good to me.

wda, yes to both of your questions. I have reset the camera and yes I do recalibrate my monitor on a regular basis. I have tried 3 memory cards.

 

Interesting.  I focused on her lower eyelashes.

. . . David 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use SL's for work but bought a CL as a more compact every day camera. Results with TL, M & R lenses are shockingly good. It's made me re-assess APSC as in many cases I struggle to see a difference between the CL files and the SL. Have you tried it with a TL lens? Not sure why the Fuji 'dances rings around the CL' when you say that it's not good with adapted Leica M lenses?

I meant with native Fuji lenses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can only say that sometimes it's simply a matter of personal taste.

 

I had the same reaction to the Q that you have to the CL:  I was very disappointed by the RAWs and couldn't fathom why people loved the Q's output (not showing any disrespect to those people, that's just my opinion). I got myself a CL and thought the image rendering was wonderful, very close to if not the equal of my M10's. Further, I couldn't fathom why reviewers trashed that camera.

 

Maybe something is defective, maybe not, but life's too short to worry about it. Return the camera (as you did) and move on.

The problem with the Q the way I see it is that it has a tendency to produce moire an awful lot. Otherwise, have always felt that its output is superb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still tipping on either some esoteric manufacturing error (did Sony position the microlenses out of tolerance?) or user error. There is nothing wrong with the camera as such. I deliberately selected a standard holiday shot, not some high-level expert work

 

 

 

100% crop

 

 

 

 

No Photoshop tricks, just OOC with  some banal adjustments to tone, contrast, exposure and web JPG sharpening

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The OP was using M lenses, so there should be no problem with the adapter. If it's focused in the EVF, it should be focused in the shot.

While a 35 shot at f/8 in bright light should easily produce a sharp image, focus peaking (which I don't use) would be a coarse tool to check it. 

I doubt if any focus aids would be needed in the examples shown, but I would use focus magnification if I wanted precise focusing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jaapv,

What camera was that shot with? Is that the CL?

 

Never mind, I saved it and looked at the EXIF. I see it IS the CL.

 

See, to me, this is honestly not acceptable IQ.

Edited by jay968

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...