ToddSch Posted January 7, 2020 Share #41 Posted January 7, 2020 Advertisement (gone after registration) 5 hours ago, ToddSch said: I'll post again this evening when I get home. Flat field correction removes color cast in corners as well as vignetting (if you choose to remove). I have/had the exact same issues as you (magenta in center, cyan in bottom corners) and FFC in LR neautralized all of it. How's this? (not the content of the photo! ha) 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! 1 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/305059-is-the-m9-still-worth-it-in-2020/?do=findComment&comment=3886547'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 Hi ToddSch, Take a look here Is the M9 still worth it in 2020?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
a5m Posted January 7, 2020 Share #42 Posted January 7, 2020 On 1/5/2020 at 6:27 PM, shirubadanieru said: By the way for B&W, how do you all shoot? Do you edit the color file or shoot RAW + B&W jpg? I personally love the B&W JPGs straight out of camera. Most of the time when I want B&W I just go with those. Neat little trick I learned from Thorsten to shoot RAW + B&W JPG. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M9reno Posted January 7, 2020 Share #43 Posted January 7, 2020 Todd, many thanks. I will try this and the other suggestions today and report back. The trickiest thing might be to find a suitable, evenly-lit white wall for creating the calibration frames for 28 and 21! I also haven’t checked if my (old - and owned, not licensed) version of LR has Flat Field. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M9reno Posted January 7, 2020 Share #44 Posted January 7, 2020 19 hours ago, DandA said: For the green color cast on the edges/sides, code (or select in the M9 menu), the 21mm Pre asph lens choice. Yes, I know you are using a 28mm, but this selctions (21mm pre asph) in most cases, this severely reduces or eliminates such edge color casts unless the lens is so close to the sensor (like the 21mm angulon). I only shoot RAW so have no idea hw effective it is with jpegs but shoot a raw with and without selecting this lens setting with your 28mm and let us know the results. Dave (D&A) Many thanks, Dave. What you suggest does indeed seem to remove some (eyeballing it, I would say 50%) of the cast on the 28 Elmarit ASPH, but definitely not all. It appears counter-productive on the Summilux (i.e. the dedicated lens profile seems to show less cast than the 21 Elmarit profile). The attached files are unprocessed to show the cast at its worst: Auto lens setting (28 Elmarit ASPH) first, Manual lens setting (21 Elmarit) second. 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 Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/305059-is-the-m9-still-worth-it-in-2020/?do=findComment&comment=3886740'>More sharing options...
M9reno Posted January 7, 2020 Share #45 Posted January 7, 2020 (edited) The image with the manual lens setting does show considerable improvement when processed. The cast appears clearly in both shots, but the shot taken with the Manual setting suggested by Dave (the second shot) looks somewhat better. 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 January 7, 2020 by M9reno Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/305059-is-the-m9-still-worth-it-in-2020/?do=findComment&comment=3886742'>More sharing options...
M9reno Posted January 7, 2020 Share #46 Posted January 7, 2020 (edited) 10 hours ago, ToddSch said: How's this? (not the content of the photo! ha) Todd, thanks for your tip. Flat Field yielded better results: First shot with Flat Field correction (and minimally brightened up), the second without. Most of the green is gone, though I can now see reds. Maybe my calibration shot was not good enough! Anyway, there is some improvement here. 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 January 7, 2020 by M9reno Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/305059-is-the-m9-still-worth-it-in-2020/?do=findComment&comment=3886757'>More sharing options...
M9reno Posted January 7, 2020 Share #47 Posted January 7, 2020 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) Again, Flat Field processed first, without Flat Field second. I'm sure that if I'd taken a better calibration frame it would work even better, but this succeeds in removing most of the green cast. **A thousand apologies to shirubadanieru, the OP, for hijacking his thread like this**, but to return to the topic: Is an M9 still worth it in 2020? Probably yes, but if using wide angles be prepared to do some colour cast work. The out-of-camera yield is a mixed bag! 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 January 7, 2020 by M9reno Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/305059-is-the-m9-still-worth-it-in-2020/?do=findComment&comment=3886759'>More sharing options...
ToddSch Posted January 7, 2020 Share #48 Posted January 7, 2020 20 minutes ago, M9reno said: Again, Flat Field processed first, without Flat Field second. I'm sure that if I'd taken a better calibration frame it would work even better, but this succeeds in removing most of the green cast. **A thousand apologies to shirubadanieru, the OP, for hijacking his thread like this**, but to return to the topic: Is an M9 still worth it in 2020? Probably yes, but if using wide angles be prepared to do some colour cast work. The out-of-camera yield is a mixed bag! 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! Agreed on your statement on M9 and wide angle. Be ready for some extra work (unfortunately). I too tested the 21 mm setting and also found that it was "better" but still present. FF has given me overall better results, but hopefully LR will find a way to automate this more (as in save the FF file as a "profile" that can be applied during import) good luck in your testing and creation of reference files. I do find that I can use 1 ref file for all/most images, vs shooting one for each scene. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M9reno Posted January 7, 2020 Share #49 Posted January 7, 2020 6 minutes ago, ToddSch said: Agreed on your statement on M9 and wide angle. Be ready for some extra work (unfortunately). I too tested the 21 mm setting and also found that it was "better" but still present. FF has given me overall better results, but hopefully LR will find a way to automate this more (as in save the FF file as a "profile" that can be applied during import) good luck in your testing and creation of reference files. I do find that I can use 1 ref file for all/most images, vs shooting one for each scene. My calibration shot was a quick and dirty effort on a clean but yellowish/white wall outside an apartment building in my neighbourhood. I’m sure I looked super-suspicious taking it! 😂 I was thinking that a uniformly overcast (grey) sky would be even better. Or I can find a better white wall, or even use a projector screen set up outside in overcast weather. What’s your preferred subject for calibration frames? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DandA Posted January 7, 2020 Share #50 Posted January 7, 2020 4 hours ago, M9reno said: The image with the manual lens setting does show considerable improvement when processed. The cast appears clearly in both shots, but the shot taken with the Manual setting suggested by Dave (the second shot) looks somewhat better. 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! M9reno, when setting your 28mm to 21mm Elmarit, did you make sure you used the 21mm Elmarit "pre asph" NOT the 21mm Elmarit "asph"? This make a big difference. I was certain it would have a positive effect on reducing color casts with your 28mm but never tried it when using a 21mm Lux. The 21mm Elmarit "pre asph" setting helps with many wide angle lens color casts on the M9 including lenses from other manufactures such as Zeiss and Voigtlander. It not a cure all but helps and then any residual color cast is easier to deal with in post processing. Again I have only used this setting with RAW files and don't know to what extent it helps with jpegs. Dave (D&A) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M9reno Posted January 7, 2020 Share #51 Posted January 7, 2020 (edited) 27 minutes ago, DandA said: M9reno, when setting your 28mm to 21mm Elmarit, did you make sure you used the 21mm Elmarit "pre asph" NOT the 21mm Elmarit "asph"? This make a big difference. I was certain it would have a positive effect on reducing color casts with your 28mm but never tried it when using a 21mm Lux. The 21mm Elmarit "pre asph" setting helps with many wide angle lens color casts on the M9 including lenses from other manufactures such as Zeiss and Voigtlander. It not a cure all but helps and then any residual color cast is easier to deal with in post processing. Again I have only used this setting with RAW files and don't know to what extent it helps with jpegs. Dave (D&A) Hi Dave, Many thanks for your reply. Yes, the profile used was definitely "21 f/2.8 11134" (NOT the only other profile available on Manual setting, which is the ASPH). And I am shooting DNG only. I'm not sure why it doesn't do a better job. Flat Field correction seems the vastly better way to go, if any, despite being fiddly! Thanks again and all the best, Al Edited January 7, 2020 by M9reno Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M9reno Posted January 7, 2020 Share #52 Posted January 7, 2020 (edited) . Edited January 7, 2020 by M9reno Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DandA Posted January 7, 2020 Share #53 Posted January 7, 2020 3 minutes ago, M9reno said: The first picture below is with the 21 Summilux, the second is with the 28 Elmarit (same as above), both corrected by Flat Field. Cast is gone! From what I recall, when using 11134 in the early days of the M9 (which is the correct code), Flat Field (I believe) was not available. It seems to do a good job and as you demonstrated, may be preferable to using coding 11134. Do you find Flat field is even easier/efficient if you use it in conjunction with 11134? Dave (D&A) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M9reno Posted January 7, 2020 Share #54 Posted January 7, 2020 21 minutes ago, DandA said: From what I recall, when using 11134 in the early days of the M9 (which is the correct code), Flat Field (I believe) was not available. It seems to do a good job and as you demonstrated, may be preferable to using coding 11134. Do you find Flat field is even easier/efficient if you use it in conjunction with 11134? Dave (D&A) I have been playing around with the files. There seems very little difference to my eye between using 11134 in conjunction with Flat Field, and using only Flat Field. On reflection I suspect it is better not to use both corrections in conjunction, if only because there should be a different calibration frame for each lens, and it makes it much easier to identify the right calibration frame if its meta-data agrees with the correct lens! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToddSch Posted January 7, 2020 Share #55 Posted January 7, 2020 8 hours ago, M9reno said: Todd, many thanks. I will try this and the other suggestions today and report back. The trickiest thing might be to find a suitable, evenly-lit white wall for creating the calibration frames for 28 and 21! I also haven’t checked if my (old - and owned, not licensed) version of LR has Flat Field. Sounds good. I use a piece of transparent white plexi in front of the lens, and shoot up at an overcast sky. I set my focus at a mid point set my exposure to "A" and set my camera to auto ISO EV+ 1 stop Shoot a bracket from F2.8,F4, F5.6 etc. Name and store said files in a format I can recall: FF_20191227_M9_Leica_Elmarit_28MM_Mid_Focus_F2.8 I end up with a file like the one attached. So far, they seem to be sufficient. I have found that in most cases, it doesn't seem to matter which reference file I use with which actual F stop I am trying to correct, but I like having the range for that time that it MIGHT matter I will capture images as if my lens is "fine", perform a rough edit in LR, then only FF correct those "picks". Helps with the workflow. Good luck! 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! 1 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/305059-is-the-m9-still-worth-it-in-2020/?do=findComment&comment=3886956'>More sharing options...
DandA Posted January 7, 2020 Share #56 Posted January 7, 2020 >>>>I have been playing around with the files. There seems very little difference to my eye between using 11134 in conjunction with Flat Field, and using only Flat Field. On reflection I suspect it is better not to use both corrections in conjunction, if only because there should be a different calibration frame for each lens, and it makes it much easier to identify the right calibration frame if its meta-data agrees with the correct lens!<<<< That makes perfect sense. I have on occasion had slight edge red/green color casts, specifically with some zeiss moderately wide angle lenses and coding for 11134 completely elimated the problem. I'm going way back in my memory bank but I thought I recall the 28mm f2.8 asph did give some problems with their M9's. Now whether there differences between M9's or possibly the current revised M9 sensor (in some), its hard to say unless those with upgraded sensor M9's and the 28mm f2.8 test out this combo. Dave (D&A) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToddSch Posted January 7, 2020 Share #57 Posted January 7, 2020 I guess to really cover your bases, shoot FF files with your lens setting at the 11134 profile. Then, shoot away!. If they look good to you with 11134 without any FF correction, then you will be good to go, but if you have a few that exhibit more of an issue, apply the FF. I did try the 21 pre asph lens profile and I agree, it did reduce the vignette overall, but I still had some color cast. I think the fact that the vignette was gone the color cast seemed less of an issue, but it still didn't remove the actual color issue on my specific set-up. Good luck! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted January 7, 2020 Share #58 Posted January 7, 2020 (edited) As far as the question posed by the OP is concerned I'd reply with a hearty 'Yes'. IMO-and-X the DNG files produced are pretty much all anyone really needs if they are making 'Fine-Art' quality prints up to, say, A2. I've never had the need to print anything as large as A1 (or bigger) but in real terms I suspect that when the 'correct viewing distance' is factored-in then there should not be any issues with prints far larger than A2 - especially if a really good quality paper-stock is used. Without a shadow of doubt the choice of paper can make a HUGE difference in terms of print sharpness. The only thing I would suggest to the OP is that if they enjoy the experience of shooting a film M then perhaps they might consider an M-D (Typ 262)? This camera pretty-much perfectly replicates the 'analogue' shooting experience but marries it to the convenience of having variable ISO and, in effect, an unlimited number of exposures 'per-roll'... Philip. Edited January 7, 2020 by pippy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rivi1969 Posted January 7, 2020 Share #59 Posted January 7, 2020 (edited) On 1/5/2020 at 8:47 AM, Ko.Fe. said: And why M9 is not good in 2020? Did Leica put self detractors chips in all M9, set at 2020? Exactly. I don't understand the inumerable posts asking if "X or Y camera still good in..." My M9P took some nice pictures last December, (like the one below) I hope it will give me the same image quality 2 weeks later, same goes for my M8 and Canon 5D "classic"!. 😂 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 January 7, 2020 by rivi1969 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ko.Fe. Posted January 7, 2020 Share #60 Posted January 7, 2020 2 hours ago, rivi1969 said: We are very alike. I had M8 and 5D and like them. Still very appealing in 2020. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now