Jump to content

Glow with Leica lenses


orcinus

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Is anyone else experiencing more glow with Leica lenses on M11 than on other M bodies?
Note that my only other digital M experience is with M240.

Side by side, i'm noticing way more glow on M11 than M240, even accounting for the difference in pixel count and resolution.

Curiously, this doesn't happen as much with Voigtlaender lenses.
Granted, my N isn't big - two Leica lenses (cron 35 and elmarit 90) vs. three Voigtlaender lenses (15, nokton 40, nokton 75).

The difference is much more apparent off center.
It's not general loss of detail, but literal glow (loss of mid-frequency contrast).
35 cron also appears to have much worse edges/corners in general though.

Sadly, i don't have any example shots at the moment as the ones i did weren't done in very controlled conditions so i deleted them.
I'll make some side-by-side shots (nothing fancy, just off-the-balcony tripod shots) tomorrow, weather permitting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My observation is the opposite, if we talk about the same (which I am not sure about without photos). With the M10 I had rarely the problem that in camera reflection caused parts of low contrast (glow). With the M11 I never had such things so far. Perhaps the changes of in-body-architecture, that Leica did, was successful. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Potential for confusion in terminology here. "Glow" is often used to mean an aesthetically positive characteristic of Leica lenses. It sounds like you are referring to a sort of detrimental veiling flare? I agree, some photos would help to avoid misunderstanding.

Edited by LocalHero1953
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve never seen a difference between the two, to be honest (one is just acceptable, and other is undesirable, but to me, they’re the same aberration - namely spherical, with some flare).

Images coming later today.
Took them just now, but need a bit of off-work time to copy, sort and convert them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing I see more with the M11 is CA on my 50mm lenses. For some reason, 35mm don’t exhibit any CA (as expected and as in other M bodies), but the 50mm do show a lot of CA (whereas other bodies don’t using the same lenses). This can be fixed in the future by a firmware update according to Leica customer support. 

In terms of glow…my pre-asph lenses glow on the M11 as they do on other M bodies…but do appear sharper, probably because of the higher resolution sensor? Not sure though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

More megapixels - more obvious aberrations with corrections turned off.
Higher megapixels show more because they make lens defects more obvious.
Of course it is not just as black and white and as simple as that (one needs to observe closely to compare), but as a rule of thumb we can safely claim the above providing we observe the images at 100%.

PS. This will be a fun thread to read. Popcorn ready.

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 by Al Brown
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Al Brown said:

More megapixels - more obvious aberrations with corrections turned off.

That was my first thought too, but why not on Voigtlaenders?
And why is the effect on the 35mm worse than the 90mm in the center (i'd expect the opposite)?
 

In any case, outside photos canned, weather was not compliant (the lighting kept changing from shot to shot, making it hard to judge anything as the contrast of the scene was changing too fast). I'll try and do some boring resolution chart shots later tonight instead.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a note for people waiting to turn this into a flame war...

I'm not saying the results on the M11 are in any way unusable, or that the mentioned Leica lenses are horrible on it.
What i'm trying to say is - it's behaving the opposite of what i'd expect based on what was written and based on logical assumptions.
So i'd love to get to the bottom of this.

(Wait for my Nokton f/1.0 to arrive to turn this into a flame war :P)

Edited by orcinus
Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, here goes.

First set, M11.
f/2.0, f/2.8, f/4.0, f/8.0

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!

 

Second set, M240.
f/2.0, f/2.8, f/4.0, f/8.0

 

Addendum - M11 vs. M240, f/2.0, M11 image downsampled to match M240

 

Methodology:
- diffuse constant current LED lighting from above
- both cameras mounted to tripod in the same spot
- lens used: Summicron 35/2.0 Asph.
- focusing using LV at full magnification, with extra manual bracket shots a smidge in the front and a smidge in the back just to confirm focus is true
- i guarantee the focus is dead on, if you doubt it, you provide a way to ensure and prove it is - obviously this isn't astrophotography, so i can't do a bahtinov mask shot
- ISO set to minimum native for both cameras (64 vs. 200)
- automatic shutter speed, automatic white balance
- processed in lightroom (no significant difference in CO22)
- noise reduction (luma and chroma) set to 0
- sharpening set to 40 for both (shouldn't matter, as "veiling" is far higher pixel radius than lightroom's sharpening)
- all images are 100% crops, center of frame, unresized, except the last composite where the M11 is downsampled to M240 size, as mentioned

 

It's much more apparent at the edges of frame, but i couldn't find a good way to produce comparable photos, as LV on M240 does not allow punching into corners (or anywhere other than center, for that matter). I'll figure out something else (more resolution charts, or an outdoors, "real world" test).

I can do some Nokton 40 comparisons too, likely weekend, got a bit of a tight work schedule these days (posting this at 5:30am and i still haven't gone to bed).

Edited by orcinus
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what you were expecting.

At f/4.0 (optimum aperture for the 35 Summicron ASPH):

On the left-hand vertical pattern, the M11 is resolving distinct lines down to 6 (undefined units) at full resolution, whereas the M(240) loses all contrast by 4-4.5 (excessive moire, or lines become just a solid gray blur).

From a different aspect, in the second-from-bottom test pattern "//////////" - the M240 starts to produce color moiré (red-blue) at about 4-5, while the M11 does not produce moiré until 8.

Conclusion: 60 Mpixels has on the order of 1.5x more linear resolution ± compared to 24 Mpixels. Just as one would expect.

Where is the "veiling" or "glow?" I don't see any.

Do you mean that the "white" of the test chart is grayer with the M11 than with the M(240)?

I note in your Methodology that you used Auto-Shutter.

That means you metered using two different methods - the M11's meter, and the M240's meter. That is a deviation from proper experimental method - only change ONE (1) variable at a time.

I might have other comments, but only once I know exactly what problem you are seeing - because I'm not seeing anything troubling or unexpected.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you referring to an effect like anything shown here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_aberration#/media/File:Spherical-aberration-disk.jpg or a spread of bright highlights into adjacent dark areas (flare due to uncoated lenses or coating damage). If not can someone define exactly how the 'glow' manifests itself?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd suggest that any effect you're sensing is probably more down to color science. I did a very quick, somewhat sloppy test of M11 vs. M10-R (auto-WB). What stands out to me is the difference in out of the box color with the M11 WB suffering, as has been previously noted, in this regard.  If I see anything 'glow' related (again I didn't measure and align things precisely and of course as you'd expect, I managed to bump the tripod a bit when changing cameras), its that the M11 fall off is a perhaps a tick less smoother than that of the 10-R.  didn't go through the hassle of normalizing the files sizes. Anyhoo, this is what I wound up with...

F1.4  M11 ISO64,  M10-R ISO100

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!

F4.0:

...and I'd admit that the focus is slightly off on the M11 side (or at least the target is not quite as parallel to the camera).

Should add the shots are SooC (raw) into LR with no adjustments done with the 50mm 'lux.  Seems clear there is a marked difference in contrast and sharpening level straight out of the box (both easily dealt with in post assuming thats the way you wanted to go).

Edited by Tailwagger
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Al Brown said:

Please do not turn this into any flame war. It is a constructive debate, aiming to explain & help.

I was joking. I'm sure it will turn into a flame war at some point anyways.

 

10 hours ago, adan said:

On the left-hand vertical pattern, the M11 is resolving distinct lines down to 6 (undefined units) at full resolution, whereas the M(240) loses all contrast by 4-4.5 (excessive moire, or lines become just a solid gray blur).

I never said anything about resolution being lower.
In fact, what i said was quite literally this, in the very first post:
 

On 3/9/2022 at 3:54 AM, orcinus said:

It's not general loss of detail, but literal glow (loss of mid-frequency contrast).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tailwagger said:

I'd suggest that any effect you're sensing is probably more down to color science.

I think you might be onto something here!
I've played around some more, and if i swap between the built in profile and LR profile, it *appears* as if the mid-frequency contrast changes with it.

I'll poke around some more AND hopefully do some outdoor shots too.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, pgk said:

Are you referring to an effect like anything shown here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_aberration#/media/File:Spherical-aberration-disk.jpg or a spread of bright highlights into adjacent dark areas (flare due to uncoated lenses or coating damage).

Yes, that's what i am referring to - a bleedover of highlights into shadows.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you really expect such a blurred result from the M11 at f/2 folks? I simply cannot believe that something did not go wrong in the lens, the camera or the focusing process. I have zero experience with the M11 though. I have just ordered one but i won't certainly keep it if it behaves this way unless it proves more competent at 36MP.

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

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...