Nokton 50mm f/1: The difference between switched on and switched off internal camera lens type

[01maciel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I took two raw photos yesterday at f/1 and exported them without any lens correction and pp to jpg. The first one with lens type detection turned off and the second with a Noctilux f/1 profile in the camera. Can you see any considerable differences? I don't.

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!

M10 + Voigtländer Nokton 50mm 1:1.0 VM

[Advertisement]

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

[pegelli]

I see less vignetting in the second

[wda]

The first one is marginally better imo.

[RexGig0]

At the sizes I am viewing them, I see more vignetting in the first image than the second, but like the first image more, overall. The vignetting does not “bother” me, in either image. Some amount of vignette looks “natural.”

I added both the Nokton f/1.0 and the APO Lanthar f/2, both 50mm VM mount, relatively recently, and am still experimenting, but I think that it may be better to shoot them without selecting a lens profile in the camera menu, or adding 6-bit code to the lens, at least in the case of 50mm lenses. I am, however, most certainly not an expert, in this matter.

[sometimesmaybe]

cant say i can see any real difference.

ive given up on using inbody corrections for 3rd party lenses. ive taken to shooting brick walls and saving the adjustments as preset 

[UliWer]

To get an impression about the differences between using specific lens detections or switching off lens detection at all it is better to make a photo of an even bright surface. Here you might see if the differences especially with color shifts bother you or not. Sometimes using a specific lens profile leads to overcorrection which may be worse than using none at all.  

Edited January 30, 2024 by UliWer

[01maciel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 10 Stunden schrieb sometimesmaybe:

ive given up on using inbody corrections for 3rd party lenses.

This is also my conclusion from the small experiment with the Nokton f/1. The slight improvement in the vignette doesn't make the difference. Purple fringes, by the way, was not corrected at all. Perhaps the M10 internal lens correction only works for jpg?

[01maciel]

This is the pp version of the first photo w/o lens type detection. Applied several functions like

• local contrast, increased
• velvia (for improved colours)
• manual vignette correction
• purple fringing correction
• shadow and highlight corrections
• contrast equalizer (preset denoise and sharpen)
• sigmoid (remap tonal range using a modified generalized log-logistic curve)

Now it looks slightly different.

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!

 

[UliWer]

vor 26 Minuten schrieb 01maciel:

Purple fringes, by the way, was not corrected at all. Perhaps the M10 internal lens correction only works for jpg?

The internal lens correction won‘t do anything with purple fringing. The corrections of vignetting an colour shift are written into the DNG-file, so threy don’t only work for jpg. 

[pippy]

As others have said there is more vignetting in the first and the exposure for the second seems 'brighter'. No idea if the exp. thing is to do wth in-camera-correction. As you have already discovered it doesn't take too much time to sort out some of the aberrations in post-prod.

FWIW the majority of my M-lenses are uncoded. Sometimes I remember to input some sort of 'Profile' when using these lenses on the Monochrom but the M-D has no way of manually selecting such a thing. Using the Voigt. Nokton 40mm f1.4 wide-open with the latter body was the first time I realised that 6-bit / profile-coding could actually make a large difference to the DNG files. Previously (with the M9-P) I had it dialled-in as the oldest of the 35mm Summilux options and those pics look very different from the M-D's output in terms of 'natural vignetting'.

Philip.

Edited January 30, 2024 by pippy

[farnz]

In the first picture I see a kangaroo peeking out through the bushes at the far treeline. 

In the second picture the kangaroo has put on a camouflage hat so I can't see it anymore.

Oh wait, the kangaroo in the first picture turned out to be a spot on my monitor, which I cleaned before looking at the second picture.  They're very crafty, these kangaroos, very crafty.

Pete.

[Alberti]

Wait a moment, it is probably more than vignetting, also the color cast might change (I can say having accidentally selected the Nocti f1.0). There was a significant change between two consequetive shots one 50/1 the other 35/2; I must say with a Summicron 35mm v4.

Edited January 31, 2024 by Alberti

[01maciel]

vor 14 Stunden schrieb farnz:

In the first picture I see a kangaroo peeking out through the bushes at the far treeline. 

In the second picture the kangaroo has put on a camouflage hat so I can't see it anymore.

Oh wait, the kangaroo in the first picture turned out to be a spot on my monitor, which I cleaned before looking at the second picture.  They're very crafty, these kangaroos, very crafty.

Pete.

Looks like you didn't have your glasses on, because what you probably saw back there was a six foot, three-and-one-half inch tall pooka. To some he appears as a large white rabbit that cannot be seen by others and became known as Harvey in a movie starring James Stewart 😀

[farnz]

2 hours ago, 01maciel said:

Looks like you didn't have your glasses on, because what you probably saw back there was a six foot, three-and-one-half inch tall pooka. To some he appears as a large white rabbit that cannot be seen by others and became known as Harvey in a movie starring James Stewart 😀

Well no wonder I didn't see Jimmy Stewart's Harvey - he was invisible. (I'll wear my anti-invisibility glasses next time. 😄)

Pete.

[adan]

On 1/29/2024 at 6:59 AM, 01maciel said:

I took two raw photos yesterday at f/1 and exported them without any lens correction and pp to jpg. The first one with lens type detection turned off and the second with a Noctilux f/1 profile in the camera. Can you see any considerable differences? I don't.

This is not in the least surprising, unless one has been living down a coal mine for the past 17 years. 😁

The internal-camera corrections Leica applies to images have always been very simple and purist - and clearly described ever since since the M8 introduction (late 2006):

1) correct for a given lens's monochromatic (light and dark) vignetting on digital sensors, so that it looks as much as possible like the lesser vignetting that would occur on film.

2) correct for color vignetting with short, wide-angle focal lengths (≤35mm, generally) with lens elements extending out of the back of the lens mount (and more precisely, an "exit pupil" extra-close to the sensor). Which, BTW, should therefore be minimal with either the Nokton or Noctilux 50mms.

That is really all it does, ever did, or is supposed to do - correct only the artifacts imposed by using digital sensors (a textured glass-and-silicon surface) instead of film (a coating or coatings of homogenous gelatin).**

Otherwise the image is left exactly the way it would have appeared on film - complete with the natural optical distortion, color aberrations, color fringing, corner sharpness fall-offs, and so on, as designed-in by Berek, Mandler, Kölsch, or Karbe.

The assumption is that people buy Leica M lenses precisely for the way they image "naturally" - so that will not be corrected away by the camera. A Noctilux f/1 image on digital will (to the best of Leica's ability) look just like a Noctilux f/1 image on Tri-X or Kodachrome - warts and all.

6-bit coding (or manual lens selection) does identify the (Leica) lens used (in metadata/EXIF), so that post-processing software can - if it has the capability, and at the photographers discretion - correct the "look" built-in by Leica, to something else.

_________________

**Those corrections are intentionally variable, however, based not only on the lens in use, but also the aperture used (thus the need for the digital Ms to "guess-timate" the shooting aperture, within 1-2 stops) and the ISO used (brightening dark vignetted corners will amplify any noise in them, just like any other digital amplification, so the in-camera correction for vignetting is dialed back somewhat at higher, noisier ISOs.

Edited February 1, 2024 by adan

[rpsawin]

On 1/30/2024 at 1:47 PM, farnz said:

Oh wait, the kangaroo in the first picture turned out to be a spot on my monitor, which I cleaned before looking at the second picture.  They're very crafty, these kangaroos, very crafty.

Pete.

Perhaps a warm glass of milk and a nap would help as well...