CL -- Second chance

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

18-56.

 

I use either a Macbook pro (like now) or a MacPro (Old type, fully upgraded) with Eizo CG screens.

What I never use is Preview for any serious image viewing, because it handles images like sh!t IMO. I always download by Bridge.

 

Yes, I have been making my own profiles since the M8.

I have a CL general, CL halogen light, CL shade and CL tropical noon sun.

[jay968]

Yeah I only use Preview to look at the images larger than thumbnail size. Very few digital files really look good at all there.

Been doing a lot of shooting today with the 11-23, making it work for me.

Is the CL the only camera you are using now?

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

No - M9, NEX 7, GX8, Monochrom1 all mixed up, depending on use However, the CL is in the bag that is usually on my shoulder.

[Jeff S]

No - M9, NEX 7, GX8, Monochrom1 all mixed up, depending on use However, the CL is in the bag that is usually on my shoulder.

Jaap, a friend wants to do some BIF (as well as more general nature pics). Would the GX8 or G9 serve well for fast AF tracking? She wants something weather sealed, too, so I've suggested testing the Sony A9 and Canon 7D2. She’s a novice and currently owns a cheaper Canon.... and has not tried an EVF camera. She does paint and has a terrific eye.... her photos and paintings are fantastic. I’d like to see what she can do with better tools.

 

Jeff

Edited June 23, 2018 by Jeff S

[jaapv]

Mirrorless will never be as good as a full DSLR with fast tracking AF and trap focus for BIF, but it can be done. Actually, being not very good at the discipline, the best results I got over time was with manual pre-focus

 

However for general wildlife photography the easy way the GX8 or GX9 and DG Vario-Elmar 100-400 would be my first choice, especially for a novice. Set it up with dual I.S. and I can virtually guaranty good results.

 

The G9 has a marginally better EVF, but is more geared towards video.

[JTLeica]

The Sony A9 / A7III for tracking BIF will be as good as almost any DSLR. A leica likely wont ever be the choice for that type of photography.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Tradeoffs - the I.S. on the Panasonic beats anything on the market. 

And the lens size - an 800 for the Sony?

I agree, Leica offers nothing suitable.

[JTLeica]

Yes didnt really consider that... That is one of the reasons for selling my A7's... The lenses that I wanted to use were just so big. I didnt enjoy my photography. I might get a M43 camera again one day.

[jaapv]

It should be a compelling reason for Leica to get that TL 100-400 O.I.S out. Any ears open in Wetzlar? 

[thighslapper]

I'm sorry, but I find all these alleged 'issues' about the 'OOC images' entirely spurious and irrelevant and nothing at all to do with the camera.......

 

Most of the current mirrorless cameras use a limited range of sensors from basically only a few manufacturers ...... almost all the image issues are down to the default or chosen processing profiles in whatever software you use on your computer. 

 

LR now has a multitude of options apart from the default 'Adobe standard' so you can choose what you fancy and complain to Abobe of you don't like what you get. Leica is only responsible for it's embedded profile (which LR bypasses) and its JPG offerings, which I suspect very few of us use anyway. The 'standard' or 'embedded' profile is only what is suitable for most images under most average circumstances. There is no guarantee it will be correct for everything, or fit with your view of the world or your screens output. 

 

If you were using film and were confident you had correctly exposed images you wouldn't blame the camera if the colour balance and exposure was wrong on the prints you got back from the lab, would you ?

[wlaidlaw]

My desire would be a single travel lens, like Sony offer for their A7, an 18-200mm, or EVOF equivalent, as that is for a full frame camera. Ideally it should be something like 12-150mm for APS-C sensor use. For travel use you would have to accept and be prepared to live with that there would be some optical and lens speed limitations.  The older I get, the less I like carrying around extra lenses with me unless I am sitting in wheeled transport (car/jeep/train). I bought the 90-280 for my SL and used it three times over the year I had it. I bought the 11-23 lens for the CL and it is an excellent lens but again I have hardly used it, as the times I could have done with it, I did not have it with me. So what I would like is the 18-56 but extended at both ends of the range to 12-150. If Leica did a 60 - 250 with OIS, I would probably buy it but I suspect it would not see a whole lot of use. I have loads of photos of animals in Africa and India taken with various telephoto lenses - do I ever look at them - no. 

[Jeff S]

Mirrorless will never be as good as a full DSLR with fast tracking AF and trap focus for BIF, but it can be done. Actually, being not very good at the discipline, the best results I got over time was with manual pre-focus

 

However for general wildlife photography the easy way the GX8 or GX9 and DG Vario-Elmar 100-400 would be my first choice, especially for a novice. Set it up with dual I.S. and I can virtually guaranty good results.

 

The G9 has a marginally better EVF, but is more geared towards video.

Thanks. I’ll have her check out the GX8 as well. Mike Johnston at TOP just chose one over others as his personal camera, but he’s not into tele or zooms. For my friend, one or two zooms will suffice. The only problem is finding a local dealer with gear in stock to try.... not as common as Sony or Canon around here.

 

Jeff

[jay968]

I'm sorry, but I find all these alleged 'issues' about the 'OOC images' entirely spurious and irrelevant and nothing at all to do with the camera.......

 

Most of the current mirrorless cameras use a limited range of sensors from basically only a few manufacturers ...... almost all the image issues are down to the default or chosen processing profiles in whatever software you use on your computer. 

 

LR now has a multitude of options apart from the default 'Adobe standard' so you can choose what you fancy and complain to Abobe of you don't like what you get. Leica is only responsible for it's embedded profile (which LR bypasses) and its JPG offerings, which I suspect very few of us use anyway. The 'standard' or 'embedded' profile is only what is suitable for most images under most average circumstances. There is no guarantee it will be correct for everything, or fit with your view of the world or your screens output. 

 

If you were using film and were confident you had correctly exposed images you wouldn't blame the camera if the colour balance and exposure was wrong on the prints you got back from the lab, would you ?

First, each and every camera I have used over the years (and I have shot with MANY digital cameras) produce out of camera images which have their own look to them no matter who made the sensor. I won't go into illustrating what differences I see other than just say different manufacturers even when using the same (usually Sony) sensor as the next manufacturer, taylor that sensor to their own requirements. To say that almost all image issues are down to the default or chosen processing profiles is just wrong. For instance the CL out of camera images look waaaayyyy different from any of the Sony APS-C cameras which probably use the same exact sensor (yes I have shot with both and know what I am talking about).

 

Second, I never tried to blame Leica or anyone for anything. I merely stated that I am seeing an out of camera look to the files produced by the CL and wanted merely to know if others see this look and thus do any kind of significant amount of post processing. I see a LOT of real nice looking CL images on the web and just wondered whether I have been using a defective camera or if others are also doing the same kind of post processing that I am finding I need to do. Responses have indicated to me that yes, people are doing post processing to do away with the out of camera look (see posts 15 and 16 above).

Edited June 23, 2018 by jay968

[earleygallery]

I don’t think the CL is a good camera for you. Just get something else that you’re happier with.

[jay968]

I don’t think the CL is a good camera for you. Just get something else that you’re happier with.

I am not unhappy with it. Again all I wanted here was to see if others are doing the post processing that I am doing (or close to it) or if what I have is defective. Out of camera files are duller looking than with other cameras. I just wanted to know if this is normal. Once processed, they look terrific.

[thighslapper]

 I won't go into illustrating what differences I see other than just say different manufacturers even when using the same (usually Sony) sensor as the next manufacturer, taylor that sensor to their own requirements. To say that almost all image issues are down to the default or chosen processing profiles is just wrong. For instance the CL out of camera images look waaaayyyy different from any of the Sony APS-C cameras which probably use the same exact sensor (yes I have shot with both and know what I am talking about).

 

 

 

They don't tailor the sensor, they tailor the processing of the data from the sensor to get the look they want ...... and that goes to the RAW processor ...... which then either accepts it (the embedded profile) or manipulates the data in whichever way you choose. 

 

I use both SL and CL and cannot say I have noticed much difference between the default images in LR or have to do more processing to one or the other. I have thousands if intermingled shots from several landscape workshops and it is really difficult to tell which is which at normal screen sizes. 

 

To be honest you could get great results 99% of the time just using the AUTO button in the LR Basic pane and returning contrast closer to zero. That's my starting point, then it's either in the 'also rans' pile or subjected to some serious tinkering with the full LR palette of adjustments. 

Edited June 23, 2018 by thighslapper

[jay968]

They don't tailor the sensor, they tailor the processing of the data from the sensor to get the look they want ...... and that goes to the RAW processor ...... which then either accepts it (the embedded profile) or manipulates the data in whichever way you choose. 

 

I use both SL and CL and cannot say I have noticed much difference between the default images in LR or have to do more processing to one or the other. I have thousands if intermingled shots from several landscape workshops and it is really difficult to tell which is which at normal screen sizes. 

 

To be honest you could get great results 99% of the time just using the AUTO button in the LR Basic pane and returning contrast closer to zero. That's my starting point, then it's either in the 'also rans' pile or subjected to some serious tinkering with the full LR palette of adjustments. 

Yes, when I said "tailor the sensor" your description is what i was referring to. Point being that different cameras can have a different look to the out of camera images.

I don't use Lightroom, I use ACR and Photoshop, so I am not sure if there is an AUTO button as you describe. I have been playing around with creating profiles this morning and maybe just some simple adjustments to the sliders will suffice.

Thanks

Edited June 23, 2018 by jay968

[jaapv]

Yes, ACR has an Auto button.

[Jeff S]

I’ve never made a straight out of camera fine print, film or digital. Fine tuning has always been required. But there weren’t simple sliders or auto buttons in the darkroom. How spoiled we’ve become.... mere seconds to click on a profile or preset, adjust a curve or slider, or use many other convenient tools. Not to mention the now incredible camera and lens choices.... across brands. The user is the limiting factor, now more than ever.

 

Jeff

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[jay968]

I have fond memories of spending hours and hours in the darkroom, slaving over my prints (always thought B&W was actually more challenging that color), ending the day and then waking up next morning, going back to view the prints and deciding they were too dark!

Yes we have gotten spoiled.

I don't make straight out of camera prints either...I always make some kind of adjustment. Again though, ALL I was doing with this thread is trying to find out whether others have been making the same or approximately the same amount of corrections as I have been making or if my corrections are running too extensive.

From the few shots I have seen here, it looks as like mine are normal.