Leica and Fuji Image Resolution

[M11 for me]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 5 Minuten schrieb 250swb:

Nothing wrong with software correction, just don't confuse it with the expense of designing and manufacturing a lens that doesn't need software correction.

Thx. Can you pls clarify as I do not understand what causes confusion here. Thank you in advance.

[Advertisement]

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

[250swb]

26 minutes ago, M10 for me said:

Thx. Can you pls clarify as I do not understand what causes confusion here. Thank you in advance.

Perhaps if you read the quote from Mike Hawley, the person I was replying to? If you can't be bothered, he seems to be unaware of where cheapness comes from. If however you have nothing better to do I am free all day to go around in circles arguing the toss.

[MikeMyers]

On 3/22/2020 at 9:18 AM, Luke_Miller said:

 

John F Kennedy famously said "We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard … "  There is satisfaction in doing difficult things.

You are correct, that there is a satisfaction in doing a complicated task properly, and getting a good end result.  To me, that's personal - simply put, I *enjoy* shooting with the Leica more so than with other cameras.  But if my need is to quickly take a photo of something before it changes, the complication just slows me down.  

Why did I spend so much money on an M10 - not because I "need" it, but because I "want" it.  At the end of the day, I feel that I've accomplished something (even if the Nikon would do the same thing faster, and potentially better because the camera does things instead of me doing them, and has a perfect "batting average".  It never fails.  Every image captured by my Nikon is technically good, it's just the composition and the timing that determines if I've created art, or nothingness.

[MikeMyers]

3 hours ago, M10 for me said:

I think that you do the best thing: Just test the competitors yourself and work with the files in Lightroom or whatever you use. Look at the colors the lenses/sensors render and that then is the base for your decision rather than the MTF curves that are a lot questioned here. I see that even within the Leica products there are big differences in rendering. The Q2 is different to the M10 with 28 Summicron and different to Canon 5D Mk IV (I own these 3 cameras). I prefer the rendering of the 2 Leica cameras OOC. But with some work in Lightroom CC with the Canon I come very near and at the end the look is just a bit different. That might have little to do with MTF curves but that is what is relevant to me in real life. And most important: I do a lot of landscape and would not like to carry around the Canon gear. That is why I switched to Leica. If I wanted to spend less money I would have bought Fuji.

Before processing, while my Nikon images look like my Fuji images, the Leica images usually look different.  Heck, I took several photos of the same scene, with different (old) Leica lenses, and they looked different from each other.  After editing, they usually end up looking the same, which is scary in a way - am I capturing "what was there", or "what I remember was there".

I'm not very interested in all the technical tests, and their conclusions.  In terms of getting good photos, the camera doesn't usually matter, at least as far as the end result, the photos.  I dug out my 2004 Canon Pro One camera, and plan to take some comparison tests of a 16-year old Canon and my much newer Nikon and Leica.  I fully expect the images from this old camera will look as good as the ones I take with the M10 and D750.  (....but having said that, there are many types of photos the old Canon might be useless for, while the newer cameras will do just fine.)

While this was written long ago, it is as true now as then:  https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm

[Luke_Miller]

1 hour ago, MikeMyers said:

 But if my need is to quickly take a photo of something before it changes, the complication just slows me down.  

It can.  I'm primarily an event shooter and when shooting weddings (and other once-in-a-lifetime events) my Nikons were the weapon of choice.  Getting the shot was the priority rather than personal enjoyment.  Since I was a guest at my granddaughter's wedding I took my M-240 and 50 Summicron.  The hired photog was everywhere with her big Canon and her assistant carrying the bag of lenses.  I sat in the first row and quietly snapped away.  The results were excellent.  I was even able to pull focus on the bride coming down the isle.  Not one image was soft.  So I got great shots and had a lot of fun doing it.

What I took from that experience was that I did not have to lean on my Nikon's automation for every event. That my hesitation in using my Leicas was due to fear that my manual focus skills were not up to the task.  So I use them at more events now, but the Nikons still come out when the action is faster paced.  Horses for courses as they say.

[M11 for me]

vor 5 Stunden schrieb 250swb:

Perhaps if you read the quote from Mike Hawley, the person I was replying to? If you can't be bothered, he seems to be unaware of where cheapness comes from. If however you have nothing better to do I am free all day to go around in circles arguing the toss.

I hope you're doing fine. What a rude reaction. Enjoy your day off. Maybe I just do not understand british charm or humor. Very special anyway.

Edited March 24, 2020 by M10 for me

[KFo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, MikeMyers said:

Before processing, while my Nikon images look like my Fuji images, the Leica images usually look different.  Heck, I took several photos of the same scene, with different (old) Leica lenses, and they looked different from each other.  After editing, they usually end up looking the same, which is scary in a way - am I capturing "what was there", or "what I remember was there".

I'm not very interested in all the technical tests, and their conclusions.  In terms of getting good photos, the camera doesn't usually matter, at least as far as the end result, the photos.  I dug out my 2004 Canon Pro One camera, and plan to take some comparison tests of a 16-year old Canon and my much newer Nikon and Leica.  I fully expect the images from this old camera will look as good as the ones I take with the M10 and D750.  (....but having said that, there are many types of photos the old Canon might be useless for, while the newer cameras will do just fine.)

While this was written long ago, it is as true now as then:  https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm

Back when I had a Fuji system in parallel with the M10-P I had noticed the same thing.  Take a look at the white balance. In my case, on the same scene using AWB the Leica looked a lot different and tended to be about 1000k different in color temp reading.  When I used a white balance card on each camera on the same scene the look was very very close.  Color temp setting matters a lot.

[KFo]

7 hours ago, 250swb said:

Nothing wrong with software correction, just don't confuse it with the expense of designing and manufacturing a lens that doesn't need software correction.

I look at optical vs software as matter of expertise. If you are deep in optical design then make your corrections there, if you are deep in software design then use that. Today’s world is built on software...

[mujk]

All corrections made in software change the image data originally recorded by the sensor, e.g correcting barrel distortion compresses certain parts of the image and/or expands some parts. This means data will be lost, in the same way as data is lost when creating a jpg. I think it's ok to correct e.g. lens distortion in camera as long as this does not affect the data in the raw file. The corrections suggested by the camera may well be included as parameters in the raw file, if that's possible, but raw data should not be changed. This leaves it to the person processing the image in post to apply these or any other corrections. If I understand it correctly, this is how e.g. white balance works with raw files.

Edited March 24, 2020 by mujk

[MikeMyers]

The camera may not apply the information to the image, but it does know things like white balance.  If it didn't, the embedded 'jpg' image wouldn't look very good.

[SocialKonstruct]

On 3/18/2020 at 1:54 AM, adan said:

Do keep in mind that on-screen 100% crops are one thing, and blowing up an APS-C image and a full 24x36 (M9/240/10) image to the same final print size is another.

The Fuji XF lenses have to be at least ~50% "better" than lenses for FF (full-frame) cameras - in terms of the absolute MTF they produce - just to keep up.

E.G. a given Leica lens for FF that gets 50% contrast at 50 lpmm will only be beat by a Fuji lens that gets 50% contrast at 75 lpmm. (Approximately).

This is true across all formats - "35mm" lenses have always had to be better than medium-format lenses, and MF lenses have to be better than large-format (4x5 film) lenses, and tiny-sensor P&S or 'phone lenses (or Minox 8mm film lenses) have to be better then either Fuji or Leica-M lenses. Simply because they start with the handicap of a smaller image area.

Some sites get around comparing apples to oranges by using a non-standard measure, usually something like "line pairs per picture height."

It is, of course, legitimate to compare Leica TL lenses (not M) and Fuji lenses, since those are both for the same format - APS-C. Apples to apples.

Lenstip.com is OK - they are just real short on actual Leica M lens tests. 28, 50, 75 Summicrons

But you can compare, say, the Leica-M 28mm Summicron MTF chart here: https://www.lenstip.com/233.4-Lens_review-Leica_Summicron-M_28_mm_f_2.0_Asph_Image_resolution.html

...with the Fuji 18mm f/2 chart (same equivalent field of view) here: https://www.lenstip.com/349.4-Lens_review-Fujifilm_Fujinon_XF_18_mm_f_2_R_Image_resolution.html

So let's look at those.

At f/2, the Fuji gets center MTF50 of 48% contrast

The Leica Summicron gets 33% (x 1.5 = 49.5%). slight but insignificant edge to Leica.

At f/5.6, the Fuji peaks at about 62% contrast - the Leica peaks at the same aperture - off-scale, but about 53% (x 1.5 = 79.5%!). Statistically significant difference in favor of Leica.

How are the Leica TL lenses btw?

[adan]

Well, just because it's you...... here's one comparison.

Fuji XF 23mm f/2 W R vs Leica 23 f/2 Summicron-TL

The heavy red and blue lines are the Fuji at 15 (upper set) and 45 lpmm (lower set). The thinnest red lines are the Leica at 5, 10, 20, and 40 lpmm, counting down from the top.

The Leica shows higher MTF at 20 lpmm (more resolution) than the Fuji does even a a lower resolution (15 lpmm), except at the extreme right side (outer corners) where the Fuji doesn't dip nearly as low.

The Leica at 40 lpmm (lowest thin red lines) is well above the Fuji at 45 lpmm, again until the extreme corners. We should cut Fuji a little slack there, since they are measuring a slightly higher resolution, but that is still a notable gap.

At the extreme corners, the Fuji is better at 15 lpmm. At 40/45 lpmm they are equal at the extreme edge. Anywhere else in the picture, there is no place the Fuji is "better" than the Leica, and in virtually all cases the Leica measurements are higher.

Geek alert - the solid graphed lines show measurements for sagittal lines/structures (running out from the center of the picture in all directions, in pairs). The dashed lines show MTF for meridional or tangential lines/structures (at 90° to the sagittal lines, i.e. running as concentric circles around the center of the image). The charts graphs the MTF (image fidelity or clarity) as contrast (vertical scale) vs. distance from the center of the image on mm (horizontal scale, out to the extreme corners that are 14.2mm from the center of an APS-C sensor.

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!

[M11 for me]

Excellent. Thank you.