3D feel between M10 & M9

[Infantasy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I previously own a M9 and upgraded to M10 last year and recently changed to M10-P. 

After taken several hundreds of pictures by M10-P, I feel the images from M10-P are a bit flat and does not have the 3D feel from M9 though using the same lenses. Does anyone who owned a M9 (now of before) and M10 have this findings? 

[a.noctilux]

CCD Ghosts haunt you 😉

I know some people returned to CCD Monochrom or M9, after using for a while the M 240 family, or M10.

[Advertisement]

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

[mikelevitt]

  Hey, I tried to upload a few files, but it wouldn't let me, and wouldn't let me delete the post, sorry!

Edited October 20, 2019 by mikelevitt

[mikelevitt]

Here we go.  The wide one is M10 with a 21mm 2.8 non-asph.  Tight one is M9 with 35mm 2.8 summaron.

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!

[250swb]

7 hours ago, Infantasy said:

I previously own a M9 and upgraded to M10 last year and recently changed to M10-P. 

After taken several hundreds of pictures by M10-P, I feel the images from M10-P are a bit flat and does not have the 3D feel from M9 though using the same lenses. Does anyone who owned a M9 (now of before) and M10 have this findings? 

It's because you are not adapting your post processing to the increase in pixels. The contrast between adjacent pixels is higher by default in the 18mp pixel camera, but then you add more pixels to make it 24mp and there are more gradations in tone between pixels. You're simply experiencing a more subtle and  rich image in terms of tone. You can increase the contrast to get you back closer to the M9, but really you need to also adapt micro contrast and sharpening as well. If you don't do your own post processing you are stuck with finding a preset in some software or other that gets you what you want, but the same happens going from 24mp to 47mp, it's a new learning curve at each pixel jump if you have your own opinion about how you like your photos to look. 

Edited October 20, 2019 by 250swb

[Infantasy]

2 hours ago, 250swb said:

It's because you are not adapting your post processing to the increase in pixels. The contrast between adjacent pixels is higher by default in the 18mp pixel camera, but then you add more pixels to make it 24mp and there are more gradations in tone between pixels. You're simply experiencing a more subtle and  rich image in terms of tone. You can increase the contrast to get you back closer to the M9, but really you need to also adapt micro contrast and sharpening as well. If you don't do your own post processing you are stuck with finding a preset in some software or other that gets you what you want, but the same happens going from 24mp to 47mp, it's a new learning curve at each pixel jump if you have your own opinion about how you like your photos to look. 

Any suggested setting in Lightroom? Thanks 

[Ko.Fe.]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Where are tens of thousands of M9 sensor pictures from thousands of users and not so less from M10. Why not to look at them and decide  to yourself?

 

[adan]

7 hours ago, 250swb said:

It's because you are not adapting your post processing to the increase in pixels.

Or the increase in dynamic range.

It is inherent that if you have more DR (the camera captures more tones before clipping to black or white), then the contrast in between neighboring tones is smaller and "pops" less.

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!

Note mikelevitt's pictures above (allowing for lens contrast/colors differences, of course) - M9 blows out white roofs of potties in background completely, but the higher contrast gives the shaded men more 3D effect. M9 = color slides, M10 = color neg. film (roughly).

If you have a low-DR camera, once you clip whites or blacks, you can't get them back. If you have a high-DR camera, you can restore the mid-tone contrast if you desire.

There are lots of places to play with M10 files and get the mid-tone "pop" back, in LR or other post-processing:

+ Saturation Slider, + Contrast Slider, blacks and whites sliders, mild increase of "Clarity," "Curves" S-curve contrast adjustments.

If mike will allow (his images are © ) I can post a revision of his M10/21 shot to get it more consistent to the M9/35 shot (less pastey, more bronzy)  - and explain how.

[250swb]

1 hour ago, adan said:

Or the increase in dynamic range.

 

Well you say either and I say either.

Either way it' shouldn't affect the overall dynamic range of the M240 image to bunch the mid tone pixels up together a bit. 

8 hours ago, Infantasy said:

Any suggested setting in Lightroom? Thanks 

I don't know anything about Lightroom, I use Photoshop and they have different tools and sometimes even call them different names. But both share ACR so you can start with overall Contrast and compensate for any blowing of highlights this might cause at the same time, and then Clarity which boosts the micro contrast, but not too much or the image can begin to look stark and over processed. In Photoshop I would then do the main work with mid tone contrast using Curves or Levels. And then finally finish with sharpening, but this is a thorny issue depending on perception, size of image, print or web, and of course the desire to match previous work. Follow the rules but have a play, a bit more sharpening is likely to be the key, but after all the other adjustments it won't be too far away from where you have it for the M9.

[Infantasy]

7 hours ago, 250swb said:

Well you say either and I say either.

Either way it' shouldn't affect the overall dynamic range of the M240 image to bunch the mid tone pixels up together a bit. 

I don't know anything about Lightroom, I use Photoshop and they have different tools and sometimes even call them different names. But both share ACR so you can start with overall Contrast and compensate for any blowing of highlights this might cause at the same time, and then Clarity which boosts the micro contrast, but not too much or the image can begin to look stark and over processed. In Photoshop I would then do the main work with mid tone contrast using Curves or Levels. And then finally finish with sharpening, but this is a thorny issue depending on perception, size of image, print or web, and of course the desire to match previous work. Follow the rules but have a play, a bit more sharpening is likely to be the key, but after all the other adjustments it won't be too far away from where you have it for the M9.

Thanks for your advice.

[mikelevitt]

11 hours ago, adan said:

Or the increase in dynamic range.

It is inherent that if you have more DR (the camera captures more tones before clipping to black or white), then the contrast in between neighboring tones is smaller and "pops" less.

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!

Note mikelevitt's pictures above (allowing for lens contrast/colors differences, of course) - M9 blows out white roofs of potties in background completely, but the higher contrast gives the shaded men more 3D effect. M9 = color slides, M10 = color neg. film (roughly).

If you have a low-DR camera, once you clip whites or blacks, you can't get them back. If you have a high-DR camera, you can restore the mid-tone contrast if you desire.

There are lots of places to play with M10 files and get the mid-tone "pop" back, in LR or other post-processing:

+ Saturation Slider, + Contrast Slider, blacks and whites sliders, mild increase of "Clarity," "Curves" S-curve contrast adjustments.

If mike will allow (his images are © ) I can post a revision of his M10/21 shot to get it more consistent to the M9/35 shot (less pastey, more bronzy)  - and explain how.

Hey Adan,

I'm not sure if what I posted is a very fair comparison, as the shots were edited in different ways and at different times, and of course used different lenses.  I would not necessarily read too much into the DR, as it is entirely possible I crushed the range with the process I used in Capture 1...  If you are interested, I can send you the original raw files to look at, or even shoot a few samples using the same lens and subject and time of day.  When I am working, I'm more interested in getting something out the door, and some of the differences in these files might be because of differences in the exposure, etc.  I'll shoot a few today and add them into the thread when I get a chance.  I'll also use a modern lens, as both of the lenses in these samples are at least 30 years old!

[adan]

13 hours ago, 250swb said:

Well you say either and I say either.

Understood - I was more adding to your comments than commenting on them themselves.

4 hours ago, mikelevitt said:

Hey Adan,

I'm not sure if what I posted is a very fair comparison, as the shots were edited in different ways and at different times, and of course used different lenses.

Also understood - there are so many variables unless one is doing a controlled (and thus generally boring) test. Look forward to you showing such if you desire. If you do, you might show some samples using the various camera profiles - Leica Embedded, Adobe Standard, as well as your own modifications. Just to show how much the profile choice alone can influence the appearance of images from the same camera.

Since I no longer have an M9 for comparison, I can't help the OP that way. I can show the following comparison using Adobe Camera RAW controls on an M10 image.

TOP - default ACR settings (all zero), WB "Adobe Auto" (6150K, zero tint). Leica Embedded profile, Lens was 75 Summilux, exp. comp "0"

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!

And then (BOTTOM) revised strictly with the ACR controls (similar to LR).

Exposure +0.10
Contrast +30
Highlights -22
Shadows +24
Whites zero
Blacks -28

White balance - 5550K, -20 (green) tint.

Clarity, Vibrance and Saturation all "zero" (centered)

Curve - "Medium Contrast"

Camera Calibration/Profile (more about hue and sat than contrast) - "Leica Embedded" base.

Shadows -5 (greener)
RED hue +59 (much yellower)
RED sat. -42
GREEN - neutral (no change)
BLUE  Hue neutral, sat. - 15

Slight FX vignette added.

I don't know if it replicates the M9 exactly - it is what I was seeking.

 

 

Edited October 21, 2019 by adan

[mikelevitt]

OK, here we go.  Both images shot with the same lens, a 28mm elmarit ASPH, at 2.8.  ISO 200, 1/125.  Auto WB.  Full size jpegs straight out of the camera, opened, resized at 1800 pixels with no sharpening, and saved at quality 6 (for file size) with no changes in photoshop.  Saturation set to neutral on both bodies.  M10 is on top, M9 on bottom.

My thought is that the M9 is dramatically more saturated, chose a cooler WB, and has less dynamic range than the M10.  I find the rendering more "impactful" but less accurate to reality.  More 3D?  I think yes, actually...  

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 October 21, 2019 by mikelevitt

[mikelevitt]

"Developed" with capture1, downsized to 1800 px, no sharpening, default settings.

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!

[mikelevitt]

Adjusted for WB with eyedropper tool in same spot of each frame (aluminum window frame), and exposure adjusted to match the highlight on his forehead.

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!

[mikelevitt]

On 10/20/2019 at 9:26 AM, Infantasy said:

I previously own a M9 and upgraded to M10 last year and recently changed to M10-P. 

After taken several hundreds of pictures by M10-P, I feel the images from M10-P are a bit flat and does not have the 3D feel from M9 though using the same lenses. Does anyone who owned a M9 (now of before) and M10 have this findings? 

After looking at this quick test, I can only agree with you.  I have to say that I like the M9 images better, though I like shooting the M10 better.  Plus, this is just one situation.  But I do think it reflects what you originally thought...

 

[Infantasy]

1 hour ago, mikelevitt said:

After looking at this quick test, I can only agree with you.  I have to say that I like the M9 images better, though I like shooting the M10 better.  Plus, this is just one situation.  But I do think it reflects what you originally thought...

 

Agree with you. Perhaps this is why so many peoples still looking for a M9 and keep it in high price.

[250swb]

7 hours ago, Infantasy said:

Agree with you. Perhaps this is why so many peoples still looking for a M9 and keep it in high price.

It could be the price is high because those people don't get involved in post processing? There are more than you think, and it's always been the same since Eastman sold the first Box Brownie snapshot camera in 1888 where photography for the masses was reliant on buying the camera that made the picture. I like straight from the box M9 photos better, but I've not felt it needs yet another 'box' each time I want to make a different style of image. Post processing is much cheaper, creative, fun, and more versatile given you can't add pixels to the M9 but can effectively take them away from the M240. I can hear the mantra now, 'but I haven't got the time', and neither did those buying the first box cameras.

 

 

[low325]

@mikelevitt whatever you are doing or NOT doing, I find the M9 images  in your demo to be what most folks are saying about it...i guess for me, i like high contrast and less dynamic range and less like ‘flat’ looking images...of course, its subjective.  But also it is how quickly you realize your images are what you DONT want.  The challenge is...if you have/had an M9, you’re likely going to try to process your images to look like those colors...i am guilty of this..i KNOW my M10D file is better, its got more headroom, a little more MP, better dynamic range, Etc but I’ve been bitten with that Kodachrome ‘profile’...i’ll take ‘the placebo efffect hits the second i push the shutter on my M9 for $200, Alex!’  

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[blacksinner]

have you tried to set the camera profile to "LEICA M10". this is crucial to get the leica color. the standard default setting is adobe color. you have to set "leica m10" as default so everytime you import form sd card the profile is correct. 

m9 doesn't have color profile. the original file is already have good colour and contrast. this is the benefit of ccd. it has beautiful file from the start.

 

hope it helps cheers.