Leica M raw-files (which one is the best)

[Smogg]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Let's conduct a color science survey. Which Leica M camera RAW-files do you like more?
My list looks like this: (by color)

M10-R,

M9,

M10,

M11,

M240.

But if I was offered to organize the cameras according to the overall impression of the quality of the RAW file (color, ease of processing, resolution, white balance and the rest), then my list will change:

M10-R,

M11,

M10,

M9,

M240

Edited March 22, 2024 by Smogg

[dav3]

Am I confusing it or does the M-DMG (36MP) picture on the m11 overall look/render better compared to the L-DMG (60MP) ?!

Edited March 22, 2024 by dav3

[Smogg]

10 minutes ago, dav3 said:

Am I confusing it or does the M-DMG (36MP) picture on the m11 overall look/render better compared to the L-DMG (60MP) ?!

I didn't notice the difference in Lightroom

Edited March 22, 2024 by Smogg

[01af]

vor 25 Minuten schrieb dav3:

Am I confusing it or does the M-DNG (36 MP) picture on the M11 overall look/render better compared to the L-DNG (60 MP)?

I think you're confusing it.

[fenykepesz]

vor 6 Stunden schrieb Smogg:

Let's conduct a color science survey. Which Leica M camera RAW-files do you like more?

i looked at your numerous colour photos, @Smogg, on your instagram website - quite impressive, beautiful colors and amazing sujets !

i am - in terms of photographic story telling - more into b&w but i have to admit that you master colors for that same purpose similar to what Ferenc Berkó (1916-2000) did when he moved from b&w material to the first available colour films.  i understand now also why you press so much on the question of color quality and color science that these various digital M cameras can (re)produce.  i was always happy with the colors rendered by my m10d but perhaps i am mentally somewhat 'colorblind' and don't pay so much attention to such as you and others do !  in fact i am also quite unlucky and unskilled and inpatient when it comes to adjusting color in its gazillion facets and nuances and that's perhaps why i prefer to escape into the grayness and simplicity of b&w photography...

Edited March 23, 2024 by fenykepesz

[Smogg]

@fenykepesz  Thank you for kind words addressed to me. In fact, my success in photography is very modest, I only became interested in photography in adulthood when my friend advised me to try a Leica M9 instead of a Dslr camera. The rangefinder radically changed my perception

[bkphoto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

9 hours ago, 01af said:

I think you're confusing it.

36 has an extra stop of dynamic range

[01af]

vor 8 Stunden schrieb bkphoto:

36 MP has an extra stop of dynamic range.

No, it hasn't.

[Jamie Roberts]

I'm confused by this list entirely, though of course you're entitled to your personal preferences. What does the first list represent if not the "quality of the raw file?" And in what way is it different than the second list? Is it all about ease of processing? I process them all the same; the M11 is, so far, the best of the bunch (by a very long way over something like the M9, which I loved, btw). 

[algrove]

16 hours ago, bkphoto said:

36 has an extra stop of dynamic range

Where did you get that from?

[Smogg]

5 hours ago, Jamie Roberts said:

I'm confused by this list entirely, though of course you're entitled to your personal preferences. What does the first list represent if not the "quality of the raw file?" And in what way is it different than the second list? Is it all about ease of processing? I process them all the same; the M11 is, so far, the best of the bunch (by a very long way over something like the M9, which I loved, btw). 

In the first list, I only evaluate color from the Adobe standard profile or Camera profile in Lightroom under ideal conditions (low ISO). The second list - complex feel (color, dynamic range, highhighlight recovery, noise and its pattern, resolution, editing flexibility, time spent editing the file, AWB accuracy, etc.)

[Jamie Roberts]

On 3/23/2024 at 11:01 PM, Smogg said:

In the first list, I only evaluate color from the Adobe standard profile or Camera profile in Lightroom under ideal conditions (low ISO). The second list - complex feel (color, dynamic range, highhighlight recovery, noise and its pattern, resolution, editing flexibility, time spent editing the file, AWB accuracy, etc.)

Are you shooting extended color checkers or something and measuring results, or is the Adobe color evaluation your subjective sense?

As for Lightroom, even though it's the recommended RAW converter, I've personally never liked its underlying color or processing model--especially with CCD cameras like the M8 (horrid!) and the M9 (only very slightly less horrid!)--and *especially* with skin tones aimed for print.

I hear Lightroom is much improved these days, and someday I'll try it again, but it's low on my list. I still use Capture One, and it's hard to teach an old dog like me new tricks 

But the M11--in C1--so far pretty much bests anything I've seen yet from an M digital camera on *all* counts, including color and ease of processing, though I really don't know the  M10R except through test DNGs. 

It's interesting you think the M10R has better highlight recovery and noise patterns--did you compare at similar image sizes and ISOs or only at 100%? 

Edited March 25, 2024 by Jamie Roberts

[Smogg]

1 hour ago, Jamie Roberts said:

Are you shooting extended color checkers or something and measuring results, or is the Adobe color evaluation your subjective sense?

As for Lightroom, even though it's the recommended RAW converter, I've personally never liked its underlying color or processing model--especially with CCD cameras like the M8 (horrid!) and the M9 (only very slightly less horrid!)--and *especially* with skin tones aimed for print.

I hear Lightroom is much improved these days, and someday I'll try it again, but it's low on my list. I still use Capture One, and it's hard to teach an old dog like me new tricks 

But the M11--in C1--so far pretty much bests anything I've seen yet from an M digital camera on *all* counts, including color and ease of processing, though I really don't know the  M10R except through test DNGs. 

It's interesting you think the M10R has better highlight recovery and noise patterns--did you compare at similar image sizes and ISOs or only at 100%? 

I redid all the old files from M9 on the latest versions of Lightroom and I am pleased with the result. I don't think that M10R beats M11 in noise and highlights recovery, that's not true at all. But I like the color of the M10R better than the M11 (even without magenta cast), and with the new noise suppressor in Lightroom, noise is no longer a big problem. I noticed that with the M10R file I need to do less manipulation than with the M11 file in order to achieve a color acceptable to me (I am not a supporter of deep manipulations with color and Instagram filters a la teal-orange or film profiles, I try to interfere with color as little as possible, to keep it realistic). 
Of course, this is my subjective assessment, based on my photographs and the practice of processing them, and not on the color checker. If it weren't for bugs and magenta cast, I would be very happy with the M11, it would be an almost perfect camera. The M11, despite a slight loss in color compared to the M10R, offers reduced weight, various metering options, a powerful battery, and smoother operation with liveview and an external viewfinder.

[Jamie Roberts]

3 hours ago, Smogg said:

{snipped} But I like the color of the M10R better than the M11 (even without magenta cast), and with the new noise suppressor in Lightroom, noise is no longer a big problem. I noticed that with the M10R file I need to do less manipulation than with the M11 file in order to achieve a color acceptable to me (I am not a supporter of deep manipulations with color and Instagram filters a la teal-orange or film profiles, I try to interfere with color as little as possible, to keep it realistic). 
{snipped}

Interesting. I see no magenta cast on M11 files processed in C1, though I admit I shoot a K value and don't use the camera's AWB or anything like that (to be fair, I don't shoot my Panasonics or Canons with AWB either). 

I've seen some people complain about a magenta cast when processing through LR, which leads me to suspect the raw processing (and maybe the camera's AWB sensor, which, as I said, I never use). 

With the right white balance, M11 skin tones, neutrals, and saturated colours, even under poor artificial light, are pretty much "just right" out of the box. 

I also don't do a lot of color manipulation, in terms of current trends and filters or film profiles (though color profiles are something different). And I pushed the M9 a lot with colour. But I'll take your word for the M10 in LR

As for the other great things about the M11--I agree--and I haven't had any file glitches yet (fingers crossed).

Edited March 25, 2024 by Jamie Roberts

[tom0511]

M11

M10R

M10

M240

M9

M8

[bkphoto]

On 3/23/2024 at 4:21 PM, algrove said:

Where did you get that from?

From their website...60MP is only 14 stops, 18/36 is 15

[Photoworks]

On 3/23/2024 at 11:01 PM, Smogg said:

In the first list, I only evaluate color from the Adobe standard profile or Camera profile in Lightroom under ideal conditions (low ISO). The second list - complex feel (color, dynamic range, highhighlight recovery, noise and its pattern, resolution, editing flexibility, time spent editing the file, AWB accuracy, etc.)

color science survey?

you are just reading lightroom colors, what is the point? I know many use Adobe to process, but I never like the base tone and overly processed auto adjustments.

You can load the same file in any of the 20 or so other programs and they interpret the color a different way for you.

[Smogg]

1 hour ago, Photoworks said:

color science survey?

you are just reading lightroom colors, what is the point? I know many use Adobe to process, but I never like the base tone and overly processed auto adjustments.

You can load the same file in any of the 20 or so other programs and they interpret the color a different way for you.

According to a survey, about 70 percent of photographers use Lightroom or ACR to process their images (https://narrative.so/blog/shotkit-survey-reveals-the-most-popular-alternatives-to-lightroom#). Luminar takes 17 percent, C1 - 12 percent. The rest can be neglected.
But in this case it doesn't matter. When I asked, I suggested choosing the best base Raw file in the photo editor you use and comparing different cameras within your favorite editor. And of course I didn't mean auto adjustment (does anyone actually do that? it's completely for dummies) from Lightroom, but only Adobe standard or Camera standard as a starting point if you use Lightroom like me.

[jaapv]

I am  rather confused by the subject of this thread. The colours created from the data contained in a raw file vary by the profile of the raw converter. There are dozens of profiles in ACR alone besides Standard and many users will create their own or get them from the offerings in the Internet   Added to which the appreciation of the colour is wholly subjective and culturally influenced  

it makes such a ranking completely meaningless  There is such a wide range of colours one can get from the data contained in a raw file  Although the balance between the R,G and B filters will vary and introduce a bias, any raw conversion will create a vast span of colour options under control of the user  Adobe standard is nothing more than the interpretation by a group of software engineers which you as pa photographer may like or not like and if you don’t create your own  

I suspect the mistake that a DNG is an image file  It is not, it is just a data container Colour is made by the interpolation of the data created by the Bayer filters  

 

 

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Smogg]

I suggest comparing cameras using any but the same profile. Of course, I understand that the answers will be subjective. However, I am interested in the results