Some initial observations with my move into Leica (262)

[_Michael]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

With my recent move to the Leica system that was a long time coming. Everyone here has been so gracious and willing to share thoughts as I started diving more seriously into the new world. Thank you so much! 

 

I wanted to share a couple of things I've observed in my still-limited shooting experience. This is all still very new to me with a couple hundred frames taken, and some thoughts will most certainly change. 

 

1) First of all, in this very limited shooting I have a lot of junk images. Just terrible results in comparison to what I envisioned. The great thing about that though is really two-fold;  (1) I can blame those bad frames on only one thing: me!  The camera / lens combination cannot be blamed. I simply didn't use it right.  And (2) is that this has almost been like my golf game. Mostly terrible, but just enough really good results to keep me coming back with a desire to improve. That one birdie on the back 9 that gives you the satisfaction strong enough to erase all of the sliced/hooked/shanked balls on the other 8 holes. 

 

2) The LCD is good to have, but its not accurate enough for me to be useful when it comes to the image. More specifically, to the sharpness on the subject I am trying to highlight. As an example yesterday morning I was at a local hotel having breakfast. There was a nicely back-lit Bird of Paradise flower near me, but far from filling the frame from where eI sat. I spent some time to carefully compose with the flower dead-center of the image. Lens was wide open at 2.0. After the shot, I took a look on the screen, and zoomed in as tight as I could. I thought I missed the focus and it was an "oh well" moment.

 

Fast forward to today when I get back home and ingest the images. Low and behold, the flower is sharp! I was very pleased with what I saw but it puts some doubt in my mind about the LCD. On other systems I use or have used, I feel I can rely on the detail enough to at least be close.  In this case, the only thing I can think of is that maybe I zoomed in tighter than what I really should have. Does the magnification got beyond what the low-resolution preview file can support? More testing will help me figure that out. 

 

3) In anything but perfect light, and to some degree even then I am not real impressed with the color on JPG files. Still a work in progress for me with this one as I spend more time with the various saturation/contrast settings. I find the DNG files to be far more pleasing in most cases, and certainly far more natural and accurate. I'm used to raw files being pretty flat overall but in this case I have frequently been super impressed with what I see in the DNG.  A very slight adjustment is usually all it takes. Black point, white point, done. 

 

4) Still going back and forth with the Thumbs Up lever support. I think I like it but don't feel an absolute must-have desire for it. 

 

5) Metering = great for me. Refreshingly simple. 

 

6) Related to the color comments in point 3, I think the JPG processing is somewhat unique and I think it can contribute to what might call the Leica-look in some cases. There is a vintage quality to it at times. 

 

7) The 'richness' of the files combined with a fantastic transitioning of sharpness that results in a far more organic feel to the images. There is an unmistakable 'feel' to the images that I can't say I've ever experienced. Yes, its still digital and I'm not trying to say this is file and paper print but there is a wonderfully smooth look to everything. Less digital looking is a very ambiguous term but I don't know how else to say it. I came into this venture mostly thinking that was all just myth and wishful thinking. I am being proven wrong. 

 

8) Dynamic range and accuracy. I have read countless positions debating DR in images. X-body has X more or less stops of range.  Meh. I care much less about that argument than ever. This sensor has incredible range to me. Now, can I get more from the top of the line Sony or some other? Certainly.  BUT, I will suggest that the way the ranges of light transition with the wonderful focus rendering produces some amazing results in less than favorable situations. I will followup later with a post showing an example of this from bright sky to black vehicles. I am completely happy with this. 

 

All of this said, I have realized more and more that I have made the right decision. Is is the right tool for every situation? No not even close in some cases. But for more of what I want to do this is a perfect fit. It clears my head. It gives me the freedom of overthinking what I should be doing with settings and obsessing with details. The M simple gets out of the way better than ANY digital system I have used. No question about that. ... and I love it.

 

Two images below. Both have minimal touch in Lightroom. First is cropped to 16x9 which I really enjoy the look of at times. 

 

More to come I'm sure.  

 

Cheers

 

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!

[Advertisement]

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

[_Michael]

Behind the Curtain 

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!

[LocalHero1953]

1. I know how you feel! We probably all do.

2. Agreed. I don't rely on the LCD for anything except checking composition.

3. I don't use jpg.

4. I guess this depends on your hands. I've never understood the need for a thumbs up, thumbie or grip. I use a wrist strap for security, but that's all.

5. Yes, simple, and you gain from experience. OTOH, I get more accurate results from the CL and SL from being able to use the histogram in the viewfinder (I know you can use the EVF on the M, but I don't see the EVF as a normal part of the M system).

6. See 3.

7, 8. Agreed.

[Ernstk]

Welcome to the forum.

 

The Thumbs Up has transformed my use of my M-P 240 and I couldn't be without it now.

 

Ernst

[CharlesL]

 Lens was wide open at 2.0. After the shot, I took a look on the screen, and zoomed in as tight as I could. I thought I missed the focus and it was an "oh well" moment....I get back home and ingest the images. Low and behold, the flower is sharp!

 

Same here. I learned that if I see the rangefinder frame snap into focus, that gets it - most of the time. Not a camera for when it is absolutely necessary to get precise focus.

[totocaster]

1. Welcome to the Forum! 

2. Probably one of the reasons I ended up with M-D. (Prominent and analog ISO dial was bigger contributor though.)

3. Can't comment on JPEGs (M-D is DNG only), but I fully share your experience with DNGs—they are very pleasing and usually need almost no post-correction. I've seen a lot of posts poo-pooing M240 generation colors, but I can not agree at all. I constantly get lovely colors out of the camera (in both Lightroom and Capture One).

4. I guess that depends on the size of your hand. I never felt a need for it.

5. Yes! Especially when you get experienced and know on what to meter to get exact results you have in your head. Love it—feels almost like manual exposure controller by simply pointing the camera at things.

6. —

7. I noticed that too, but I think the lens is a more significant contributor to that feeling/look. I might be wrong.

 

8. Agreed. I did, however, measure my camera's sensor. My point by doing this was that when you understand what is your cameras range you can make exposure decisions confidently. This might be not your style at all, but for me as film and M-D shooter is very natural way assessing the environment. Here is a brief overview if you're interested → https://twitter.com/totocaster/status/1005309535727206400 (see the whole thread).

 

Enjoy your great camera!

Edited September 4, 2018 by totocaster

[otto.f]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Ad 4: depends on the lenses you use. I don’t use the ThumbsUp with ‘normal’ lenses. With the 75, 90 or 135 however, or a Noctilux, it’s certainly critical if you don’t.

[microview]

I am intending to replace my M10 with a 262 (the only Leicaphile in the world to do this?). Looking at my LR catalogue, the images which stand out are nearly all from the 262. I bought an M10 seduced by the numerous forum plaudits/reviews but looking at Jim Arnold's YouTube video on the 262 reminds me of all its features I'd prefer – it even tells you which way to slot in the SD card, which I can never remember with M10/Q/CL! So I'm about to jump ship.

Edited September 4, 2018 by microview

[otto.f]

Are you sure this is not because of the quantity of photo’s from the 262 vs. the M10?

[microview]

Are you sure this is not because of the quantity of photo’s from the 262 vs. the M10?

 

Not at all.

[convexferret]

Note that if you're using your Jpegs just for post-photo focus checking etc and not later on, then it's worth turning up the sharpness. This will make good/bad focus more obvious on the LCD.

[_Michael]

 

1. Welcome to the Forum! 

2. Probably one of the reasons I ended up with M-D. (Prominent and analog ISO dial was bigger contributor though.)

3. Can't comment on JPEGs (M-D is DNG only), but I fully share your experience with DNGs—they are very pleasing and usually need almost no post-correction. I've seen a lot of posts poo-pooing M240 generation colors, but I can not agree at all. I constantly get lovely colors out of the camera (in both Lightroom and Capture One).

4. I guess that depends on the size of your hand. I never felt a need for it.

5. Yes! Especially when you get experienced and know on what to meter to get exact results you have in your head. Love it—feels almost like manual exposure controller by simply pointing the camera at things.

6. —

7. I noticed that too, but I think the lens is a more significant contributor to that feeling/look. I might be wrong.

 

8. Agreed. I did, however, measure my camera's sensor. My point by doing this was that when you understand what is your cameras range you can make exposure decisions confidently. This might be not your style at all, but for me as film and M-D shooter is very natural way assessing the environment. Here is a brief overview if you're interested → https://twitter.com/totocaster/status/1005309535727206400 (see the whole thread).

 

Enjoy your great camera!

 

 

 

 

Thank you for the great feedback.  

 

For #7, I think you are probably right about the lens being a bigger contributor. As I look through lots of different images, I am seeing a trend with some fairly distinct looks from different lenses. 

 

Your chart in regard to the DR is interesting. I need to think about it a little while to fully grasp what you are showing, but if I read it right there is just over 6 stops of range with no clipping blacks or whites. About 9.5 stops of usable range with some limits. I guess I get confused a bit by the 9.6 stops of range, but we see blacks and whites clipping completely with less than that. 

 

Regardless, thank you! 

[_Michael]

Note that if you're using your Jpegs just for post-photo focus checking etc and not later on, then it's worth turning up the sharpness. This will make good/bad focus more obvious on the LCD.

 

Nice suggestion. I will try that a bit to see what the results are. Does the Leica use JPG for preview, or just the much smaller DNG preview files if capturing in DNG?  I assumed the latter as the explanation for what I see. 

[pico]

Nice suggestion. I will try that a bit to see what the results are. Does the Leica use JPG for preview, or just the much smaller DNG preview files if capturing in DNG?  I assumed the latter as the explanation for what I see. 

 

DNG files can contain JPEG files for previews, thumbnails, etc..

Edited September 5, 2018 by pico

[250swb]

Not a camera for when it is absolutely necessary to get precise focus.

 

The rangefinder is accurate enough to focus a Noctilux used wide open, just saying.

[otto.f]

The rangefinder is accurate enough to focus a Noctilux used wide open, just saying.

+1, just saying. This also counts for the Summilux75, the SAA 90 and the 135 too and more so since the M10’s improved RF. The rest is practice and experience.

Edited September 5, 2018 by otto.f

[_Michael]

DNG files can contain JPEG files for previews, thumbnails, etc..

 

 

Can, or always do contain preview files?  I understood it to be the latter.  I can't help but wonder what is displayed for preview on the LCD when capturing in both JPG and DNG. It seems to me there could be a difference in display quality between the two

[CharlesL]

Can, or always do contain preview files?  I understood it to be the latter.  I can't help but wonder what is displayed for preview on the LCD when capturing in both JPG and DNG. It seems to me there could be a difference in display quality between the two

 

The DNG - that is, the un-demosaiced raw data - cannot be displayed directly. Most digital cameras embed a JPG in the raw file. They also prepare a separate JPG if the user has set it to do so. I have not noticed a difference in the detail I see in review on the LCD that varies with whether or not I've asked for a separate JPG.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Exodies]

There is the embedded thumbnail which is displayed when you press the play button but if you zoom in past a certain amount it recalculates a larger jpeg, just for the moment.

[otto.f]

They also prepare a separate JPG if the user has set it to do so. I have not noticed a difference in the detail I see in review on the LCD that varies with whether or not I've asked for a separate JPG.

Me either in 11 years from the M8 on to M10