3D feel between M10 & M9

[mikelevitt]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, blacksinner said:

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.

I think you are assuming that I am using Lightroom, which I am not.  Having said that, I don't think the "Leica M10" profile does much of anything, and a camera should not depend on a particular setting on one particular program (out of dozens available) to output an acceptable file.  What we are talking about here is not simply changes to color, contrast or density.  I would be glad to upload the raw files from both cameras, and let everybody see if they can get them to match.  To my eye, there is something inherently different in the rendering of the CCD and CMOS sensors.

 

[mikelevitt]

If you are interested in taking a look, you can download both files with this link, which is to a zip file on my server:

http://www.latusamedia.com/mlevitt/leicatests-10-21-19.zip

 

Interested to see what you think

[Advertisement]

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

[mikelevitt]

9 hours ago, 250swb said:

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.

 

I think the M9 files are much more difficult to work with in post than the M10 files.  The M10 pretty much spits out ready to use shots, while the m9 suffers from weird colors and blown highlights.  You can see how different the two jpegs are and how much closer the M10 is to a "usable" file.  Having said that, with a bit of work, the M9 file looks a bit more "transparent" to me.  This is very interesting, and if I get a chance this week, I'll try a few more samples, using the same lens and exposure on both of them.

 

 

 

[adan]

2 hours ago, mikelevitt said:

Having said that, I don't think the "Leica M10" profile does much of anything, and a camera should not depend on a particular setting on one particular program (out of dozens available) to output an acceptable file.

I disagree with that - the changes a camera profile can impart often make a huge difference to a color photograph.

This came up on another thread recently - so I happen to have an example ready. M9 image processed with its own Leica profile (its files DO have one, simply labelled "Embedded" - bottom) vs. Adobe Standard (top).

The Leica factory profile provides cooler, classic, Mandler-lens-like cyan skies and green trees - color the way Leica thinks Leica images should look. The Adobe produces purple skies and yellow trees (and an overall orange cast, with the same WB settings).

(Aside - however good Adobe engineers may be at code-writing, my consistent impression since working my first RAW file a dozen years ago is that their artistic color sense is about on the level of the average mudworm.)

A profile is not the be-all and end-all - but it will provide a better (or worse) starting point, saving a lot of fiddling around afterwards.

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]

Going back to the same shots, here are two versions, one developed in ACR with Adobe default profile settings, and the other with the Leica M10 profile.  Using the Adobe M10 profile changes the color temp by 200k (5700-5500, slightly bluer) and the tint from 22 - 15 (slightly greener).  Both profiles enable lens correction (even though I have it switched off in the body).  I don't see any other changes to the settings.  The top shot is the adobe profile.

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 23, 2019 by mikelevitt

[Stein K S]

Hi

I got curious about these profiles... I have always just used the default camera profiles in LR6. However, with pictures taken with my M9 I get the options of embedded or adobe profiles... but with pictures taken with my M10 the only option is M10 profile.

Is this as it should be or is there any (in-camera) settings I miss? To «match» the two bodies; what M9 profile should I use... or yes... I know... I should test myself 😉

 

Thanks for your patience with my probable ¨stupid¨ questions 😉

Edited November 2, 2019 by Stein K S

[mikelevitt]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 10/22/2019 at 9:19 AM, low325 said:

@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!’  

I'm not doing ANYTHING to the photos that I posted here.  I don't see the difference between the M9 and M10 image to be the colors, rather I see a clarity, dimensionality, and transparency to the M9 image that I find superior.  I love my M10 images, and don't try to ever make them look like M9 shots, and frankly I don't see how that would be possible.  When I have an opportunity to shoot the M9 I do, and love the results, but prefer the speed, flexibility, viewfinder, live view and high-iso performance of the M10.  But if there was a CCD camera that acted just like the M10 but with files that look like the M9, I would definitely buy one of those!

 

[dkmoore]

6 hours ago, mikelevitt said:

I'm not doing ANYTHING to the photos that I posted here.  I don't see the difference between the M9 and M10 image to be the colors, rather I see a clarity, dimensionality, and transparency to the M9 image that I find superior.  I love my M10 images, and don't try to ever make them look like M9 shots, and frankly I don't see how that would be possible.  When I have an opportunity to shoot the M9 I do, and love the results, but prefer the speed, flexibility, viewfinder, live view and high-iso performance of the M10.  But if there was a CCD camera that acted just like the M10 but with files that look like the M9, I would definitely buy one of those!

 

I recommend checking out red dot forum, produced by the Leica store Miami. 
 

there is a substantial article comparing the M240 and M9 and an accompanying survey and the result was that it wasn’t that clear of a difference.  Therefore speculating that it would be even more difficult to tell the difference between the M9 and M10 makes sense based on the color and contrast curve of the M10. 

[fsprow]

On 10/20/2019 at 4:37 PM, 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. 

This is quite correct in my view.  The only images in my use that have a real three dimensional character are those taken with my Hasselblad H6D-100c, which I attribute to the very large imager which allows the pixel spacing (even for 100mp) to retain subtle gradations.  I could be quite wrong in the analysis but from 10 feet away my wife (artist) notes the three dimensionality in large prints.

[Kwesi]

On 10/21/2019 at 5:33 PM, mikelevitt said:

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!

Hi Mike, sorry to come late to the party here but this test is flawed.

The M10 image has significantly more window(sun)light. Thus a darker exposure and a warmer color temperature.

The M9 image is swung to the left and thus has less window(sun) light. the exposure is biased more towards the room's lower brightness and and incandescent lighting. thus brighter and cooler color temperature to compensate.

Also ISO 200 on M10 is closer to 160 if not actually 160, so in a sense the M10 was set to about a 3rd of a stop darker than the M9

This is not to say that the M10 and M9 don't render differently, but that these two images can't be used to show that.

Edited December 4, 2019 by Kwesi
adressed unequal actual ISO values

[bbran33]

After shooting thousands of photos on both my M9 , and now M10, I've thought the same thing. I've read many articles on the "magic" CCD, along with the merits of the higher dynamic range M10. 

Here are my highly analytical findings (please keep in mind I'm an engineer, hope it's not too confusing) :

My M9 photos feel "magic" because they were when my kids were little, my wife and I looked so young, and it was a time with less stress and worries.  In summary, it brings back memories of the good ole' days. There, that's it  

[Daedalus2000]

7 hours ago, bbran33 said:

After shooting thousands of photos on both my M9 , and now M10, I've thought the same thing. I've read many articles on the "magic" CCD, along with the merits of the higher dynamic range M10. 

Here are my highly analytical findings (please keep in mind I'm an engineer, hope it's not too confusing) :

My M9 photos feel "magic" because they were when my kids were little, my wife and I looked so young, and it was a time with less stress and worries.  In summary, it brings back memories of the good ole' days. There, that's it  

It is interesting you say that because I was also thinking that for some of us the M8 and M9 was the first time we were able to use Leica M lenses with a digital camera, and the impact of the image quality of the particular lenses was quite strong to us. After many years of using them the impact is now less strong, so maybe part of the magic was driven by the novelty of using the M lenses. So yes, maybe time is a factor, but maybe not the only one.

[rawlit]

You guys are quite romantic

I like experimenting with multiple camera brands, sensor sizes and lenses and finally always go back to shooting my M9 for digital and my Pentax 67 for analog

The best camera is always the one you use the most

alex

https://500px.com/aguarino

 

[mikelevitt]

On 12/3/2019 at 8:45 PM, Kwesi said:

Hi Mike, sorry to come late to the party here but this test is flawed.

The M10 image has significantly more window(sun)light. Thus a darker exposure and a warmer color temperature.

The M9 image is swung to the left and thus has less window(sun) light. the exposure is biased more towards the room's lower brightness and and incandescent lighting. thus brighter and cooler color temperature to compensate.

Also ISO 200 on M10 is closer to 160 if not actually 160, so in a sense the M10 was set to about a 3rd of a stop darker than the M9

This is not to say that the M10 and M9 don't render differently, but that these two images can't be used to show that.

That's ridiculous. Then do ahead and do your own test.  Anybody with eyes can see the difference.

[Kwesi]

17 hours ago, mikelevitt said:

That's ridiculous. Then do ahead and do your own test.  Anybody with eyes can see the difference.

I have eyes, I also  used an M9 and M9P for two years and am currently using an M10P.

Here is my last sentence from above "This is not to say that the M10 and M9 don't render differently, but that these two images can't be used to show that."

My point was and remains that your test above is flawed.

 

[Maxx71]

You can match the M10 rendering to M9 but not the other way around, using lightroom. With the M10 image, increase saturation, contrast and clarity a tad bit. You'll see more "3D" effect. 

Edited December 20, 2019 by Maxx71
word correction