Jump to content

CL -- Second chance


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Perhaps try the SL? I shot with the CL for a brief period but I'm much happier with the SL's OOC images which I feel have more depth and clarity. (honestly I feel the same way with images I get from Q and M10)

 

Not to mention that the TL lenses are nice but the SL lenses are reference level.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps try the SL? I shot with the CL for a brief period but I'm much happier with the SL's OOC images which I feel have more depth and clarity. (honestly I feel the same way with images I get from Q and M10)

 

Not to mention that the TL lenses are nice but the SL lenses are reference level.

can you use SL lenses on the CL? I 

Link to post
Share on other sites

These are some CL and SL pairs from this morning taken seconds apart ....... same settings (11-23 and 16-35)

 

No processing in LR ..... these are 'OOC DNG's'. 

 

I don't think any comment is necessary .....

 

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 by thighslapper
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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!


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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 by thighslapper
Link to post
Share on other sites

"I like it one way, the camera is at fault!"

"You like it another way, do the processing you like." 

 

I've heard this argument so many times now.  :rolleyes:

 

Off-topic: Has anyone done a proper spectrographic color analysis of the CL's recording? That would be interesting to compare with the SL, Q, and M cameras. 

 

I have quite simply not cared what the "out of camera" results looked like for many years, with any camera, unless I was rendering to JPEGs in-camera. When it comes to raw output files, it takes just as much, or as little, effort to apply my own processing to whatever comes out of a particular camera as it does to let the raw processing application apply its defaults. And if I use a tool like the Xrite Colorchecker Passport to make camera calibration profiles for all of my cameras, the results that come out of Lightroom as default look identical for all my raw files from Leica, Pentax, Olympus, Nikon, Canon, Panasonic, whatever... the only differences become the actual spectrographic limits of their individual sensors.

 

So why sweat it? Even the M9, which to my eye made the weirdest odd color output in its JPEG engine, produced raw files that I could make into lovely and satisfying renderings. 

 

It all seems much ado about nothing.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well one of the interests that I have is to be able to shoot and quickly send off JPGs to either friends or clients so that they can evaluate these images in order to select the ones that they will want me to work on. So to me, the out of camera image quality is not irrelevant at all. It is very relevant. What I am finding in reality is that the CL is not a camera that I should use for such shooting and just accept it for what it is otherwise and use it for not so important tasks (as I find with pretty much any APS-C camera). It's a great camera when looked at like that, or when the viewing is to be done online especially.

 

Second, talking about online viewing and making comparisons, one of my pet peeves is comparing cameras (or sensors, or lenses) A to B by looking at uploaded images. If all anyone ever does is look at images online, I suppose this is fine but anyone comparing like this may never realize the difference between an iphone image and one shot with a medium format camera. I see an awful lot of people online making statements such as "why spend that much money on a camera when my $700 p&s does just as good). I may take some grief for saying this but anyone who does this and draws conclusions such as "look how great this APS-C shot looks compared to the $15,000 worth of full frame equipment shot" is kidding him/herself. Print the images out and print them large. Then tell me which looks better.

Yes I understand that very few print anymore, but I (and many others) certainly do and online comparisons showing how an APS-C and full frame camera do essentially the same thing is totally meaningless. Maybe qualifying those comments with "for online viewing" would make me feel better, but please, lets not say camera A is as good as camera B based on online viewing alone.

Edited by jay968
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have printed images converted from DNG's of both the CL and SL to A2 size with my Epson 3880 printer, using PS CS 19.1.4 to up-rez the size to the native 360 ppi size of the Epson. I see very little difference between the SL and CL. At very high ISO's, the SL might be a tiny bit less noise than the CL but it is marginal. The sharpness of the 24-90 lens in the corners is better than the 18-56 lens at 28mm EFOV. I can see very little difference between the 11-23 and the 24-90 both at say 35mm EFOV. None of the photos I have sent to editors, taken with the CL has had any complaints or comments like "would have been a lot better taken with a full frame".  

 

Wilson

Link to post
Share on other sites

[...] Yes I understand that very few print anymore, but I (and many others) certainly do and online comparisons showing how an APS-C and full frame camera do essentially the same thing is totally meaningless. Maybe qualifying those comments with "for online viewing" would make me feel better, but please, lets not say camera A is as good as camera B based on online viewing alone.

 

Full size TIF files or even JPGs with the least compression tell me pretty well what i need to know on a calibrated monitor. More so than prints adding just variables to comparisons IMHO. YMMV as usual. B) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don’t understand why you’d buy a camera knowing that because it’s apsc you won’t be happy with it, moan about it, sell it, buy it again then moan about it again?

 

My clients (who have been known to be pretty demanding) are quite oblivious to whether their images are shot on the CL or the SL. As far as quick jpegs for evaluation are concerned just open DNG’s in Capture One, hit auto and save.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well one of the interests that I have is to be able to shoot and quickly send off JPGs to either friends or clients so that they can evaluate these images in order to select the ones that they will want me to work on. So to me, the out of camera image quality is not irrelevant at all. It is very relevant. 

 

I never show clients unfinished work. Ever. I don't want my clients evaluating which images I send them I might process to a better result.

 

I want my clients to evaluate photographs I've finished, that I believe meet their goals, for which they prefer. I can't do that with ​any out of camera JPEGs at all, from any camera ... and as I said in my prior post, it makes no difference to me whether I run the images through Lightroom at its defaults (because that's good enough) or whether I run them through Lightroom with MY defaults selected in terms of a camera profile and preset. It makes NO difference in time and is just as fast. 

 

 

I just don’t understand why you’d buy a camera knowing that because it’s apsc you won’t be happy with it, moan about it, sell it, buy it again then moan about it again?

 

My clients (who have been known to be pretty demanding) are quite oblivious to whether their images are shot on the CL or the SL. As far as quick jpegs for evaluation are concerned just open DNG’s in Capture One, hit auto and save.

 

 

Exactly. Either C1 or Lightroom would do the same in this regard, depending on which one you prefer. 

 

If you don't like the CL for whatever reason, don't buy one. And certainly don't buy one knowing it's not "right" for you, and then waste everyone's time by complaining that it's not right for you. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am NOT moaning about it, I am liking it! Everyone keeps questioning me on this. I know what I got into in purchasing APS-C and expected it. For that matter, more than half of the prints that I have hanging in my home were shot with APS-C cameras with less than 10mp. Again ALL I wanted really out of this thread was to hear whether or not others using this camera have to do the same amount of processing that I have had to do so far. The FIRST time I purchased the camera, the images looked awful. I think that was a defective camera somehow. This one produces some pretty good images but I DO have to do a bit more processing than I am used to and just wanted to know if this is normal.

 

However I have never once seen an APS-C image that compares to a full frame one once printed (sensor capabilities and lens choice not being a deciding factor otherwise). Either I am way more critical than everyone or I am looking at something that escapes everyone.

 

I was once in a group where a dozen or so people were looking at two prints. One made from a full frame 24mp camera, the other made from a micro 4/3 camera. NONE of them could see any difference whatsoever and asked me to come over and take a look. I pointed out the full frame print in about 2 seconds. It was obvious to me.

Not sure if it has to do with about 40 years of shooting with 35, 2 1/4 and 4x5 and then printing all in a darkroom but to me, ANY time you have to blow an image up to an X size, you will ALWAYS get more of an apparent depth to the look the bigger the negative (sensor) is. Digital makes no difference. Print an 8x10 from a full frame and there is a different look to it than one printed from an APS-C. No I am not talking about sharpness, color or any one of many other factors. I am talking about a specific look to the apparent depth (and I am NOT talking about depth-of-field) to the image. It btw is NOT something I see in online images. If you are not in tune with or know to look for this difference in depth, I can see how you can say there is no difference to the look out of an APS-C camera and a full frame. It is very subtle, but it is definitely there.

 

BTW my clients may or may not even see the difference, I don't really know to be honest. But I do and I am the one who has to be satisfied with what I am selling.

Edited by jay968
Link to post
Share on other sites

So which is which?  I would guess that the first of each pair is CL and the second is SL, based on small hints of different DOF.

 SL, CL, CL, SL.

 

I posted then in random order and if it wasn't for the image numbering I would be unable to tell which is which. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I never show clients unfinished work. Ever. I don't want my clients evaluating which images I send them I might process to a better result.

 

I want my clients to evaluate photographs I've finished, that I believe meet their goals, for which they prefer. I can't do that with ​any out of camera JPEGs at all, from any camera ... and as I said in my prior post, it makes no difference to me whether I run the images through Lightroom at its defaults (because that's good enough) or whether I run them through Lightroom with MY defaults selected in terms of a camera profile and preset. It makes NO difference in time and is just as fast. 

 

 

 

 

Exactly. Either C1 or Lightroom would do the same in this regard, depending on which one you prefer. 

 

If you don't like the CL for whatever reason, don't buy one. And certainly don't buy one knowing it's not "right" for you, and then waste everyone's time by complaining that it's not right for you. 

Did you work with film before digital? It was routine to show contact sheets to clients and have them pick out that which they wanted and then go to work on the print making corrections etc.

As far as buying the CL goes, please read what I have said. I am NOT unhappy with the CL, not in the least...AGAIN, all I wanted was to know whether or not I am doing the same amount of post processing on its files as others are.

Edited by jay968
Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you work with film before digital? It was routine to show contact sheets to clients and have them pick out that which they wanted.

As far as buying the CL goes, please read what I have said. I am NOT unhappy with the CL, not in the least...AGAIN, all I wanted was to know whether or not I am doing the same amount of post processing on its files as other are.

 

 

I've been doing photography since 1965 and started selling my work when I was 13. That was 1968. I didn't buy a digital camera until 2003. I sold thousands of photos before production grade digital cameras even existed, although I started working with digital image capture and rendering at NASA/JPL in the middle 1980s (mostly with synthetic aperture radar instruments primarily, not cameras). 

 

In the film era: The only times I ever worked with a client who needed to see proof sheets was when I was doing reportage for news services. Then the editors didn't care about the quality of the finished image, they just wanted to see what I had caught to decide what went into the publication. The reason they wanted me to be there during the review was so that I could learn more what was needed, content wise, during shooting. I wasn't the one rendering and finishing the photos in any case ... the guys in the lab did that. Every other case, I preselected what to show the client and made proofs for them. 

 

The "amount of processing" it takes to produce a satisfying color balance and tonal range in the digital space today, regardless of what camera or format you use, should take you about three minutes work in LR or C1. Once you've done that, create a preset and apply it to all the images you import—you're done. What's so freekin' difficult about that? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been doing photography since 1965 and started selling my work when I was 13. That was 1968. I didn't buy a digital camera until 2003. I sold thousands of photos before production grade digital cameras even existed, although I started working with digital image capture and rendering at NASA/JPL in the middle 1980s (mostly with synthetic aperture radar instruments primarily, not cameras). 

 

In the film era: The only times I ever worked with a client who needed to see proof sheets was when I was doing reportage for news services. Then the editors didn't care about the quality of the finished image, they just wanted to see what I had caught to decide what went into the publication. The reason they wanted me to be there during the review was so that I could learn more what was needed, content wise, during shooting. I wasn't the one rendering and finishing the photos in any case ... the guys in the lab did that. Every other case, I preselected what to show the client and made proofs for them. 

 

The "amount of processing" it takes to produce a satisfying color balance and tonal range in the digital space today, regardless of what camera or format you use, should take you about three minutes work in LR or C1. Once you've done that, create a preset and apply it to all the images you import—you're done. What's so freekin' difficult about that? 

 

I am happy that you never really had to work with clients who wanted to see proofs other than the news services you worked with. My situation is different and I like to send off JPGs at times. And it is *I* who want to do at least some processing on them prior to my sending them off.

There is NOTHING  difficult about this but for the umpteenth time all I have been asking is whether or not the amount that I seem to have to do with the CL is normal. What's so freekin' difficult to understand about that?

Edited by jay968
Link to post
Share on other sites

[..] My situation is different and I like to send off JPGs at times. And it is *I* who want to do at least some processing on them prior to my sending them off.

There is NOTHING  difficult about this but for the umpteenth time all I have been asking is whether or not the amount that I seem to have to do with the CL is normal. What's so freekin' difficult to understand about that?

 

Something escapes me here with respect. Why do you need to process jpeg files while you could do much better with raws? It would not take you longer with a decent raw converter. As far as i'm concerned i may need to provide jpeg files for my job (legal photos) but i don't process them then and i don't use Leica cameras for that. 

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.

×
×
  • Create New...