Why looks M8 pics less digital than competitors?

[BerndReini]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

stnami, I know your pain. I have a 23pound male cat and a 4.5pound Chihuahua, so my cat definitely looks more like a dog than my dog looks like a dog, but I inherited the little stinker, so what can I do?

 

Plasticman, the criticism was not directed toward you, I actually agree with your post. I was commenting on the very first reply to the original post.

[Advertisement]

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

[Photoskeptic]

I think it may be because the M8 has no AA filter, which make the images look less plastic comparing to some other dSLRs have strong AA filter.

 

Yep. That and Leica glass, IMO

[RSL]

As Ansel Adams famously said, "The negative is the score. The print is the performance." If you have a properly exposed 16 bit file with 12 (or with the Nikon D3, 14) bits of color depth with an Adobe RGB profile you can choose between "plasticy" (whatever that means) or "non plasticy" (presumably the opposite of "plasticy") in the final performance-- the print. A great deal has to do with the amount of noise you either leave in, put in, or take out in post-processing. The file (or negative) that comes out of the camera is just a starting point. Martin Paar's work is what I'd call "plasticy," but it's fabulous stuff.

[jaapv]

teh whole non-digital thing is all to do with Leica glass and the way it works

 

 

I'm no technical expert but I think you'll find that Leica achieves its look and its sharpness though a different methodology than say Canon or nikon. Leica glass produces sharp images for sure, but that sharpness is acheived though high microcontrast traded in exchange for a slight loss in resolution. If you look closely the actual detail borders and tones are soft... so leica glass always has that soft yet sharp rendition to it and I think its this quality that is a major factor to the non-digital look.... that and the fact that they are often used in available light and wide open which will give abscence of field thus amplifying the 3d/filmic look. In addition, the 3d look is further enhanced by Leicas design principles of microcontrast/macrocontrast. Again I'm no expert but I remember reading lots of stuff about this some time ago so well worth looking it up if you're interested.

 

 

I've never owned canon L glass but have owned some of the best lenses Nikon have ever made and whilst they are very sharp lenses, they are also very harsh and do not have the smooth softness that leica glass has whilst retaning the detail. The macrocontrast can also be way OTT. The nikon shots are brutally sharp and crisp ... fine on film but transfer that to the already harsh linear environment of digital and it all starts to look a bit ugly.

 

 

Erwin Puts in his Lens Compendium (no bashing please - he knows his lens theory better than most of us):

"...the old maxim that low contrast combines with high resolution and low resolution presupposes high contrast, is simply not true"

[Fotomiguel]

what's the more natural part of the process?

 

I think you know, I'm just an amateur. I just use photography to be happier. So my opinion is not so important. But since last firmware, the leica files are much more easy to edit. Better said. You don't need to edit the picture, because you get the original file almost perfect. The colours are "natural" ( or better "Real") The white balance is 95% right.

Natural. Yes. How nice the leica files distribute the different colours and tones. In the quantity and quality. And I can imagine, how difficult should be to get it, in an accurate way (like just a painter or a very good painter) More than I know my M8, more than I love it, and I realize how works leica and what offer agains the competitors.

Two weeks ago I had the opportunity to watch my M8 pictures through a professinal monitor (I think was the Eizo ColorEdge CG221). I realize that I've overedited almost all of my files. Oh, My God! And I realize as well, how bad is my monitor and how important is to have a professinal one to edit properly the files. So... next think to buy, and my pocket will remain empty. It was really nice to admire the m8 files through a good monitor.

 

Cheers!

[pgk]

I too would say that there is a more 'filmic' quality to M8 files than to others (I have files from Fuji, Nikon and Canon dSLRs to compare). My own suspicion is that it is to do with one or possibly more factors. For a start I suspect that somewhere the 'noise' is handled slightly differently on the M8 (senor? software? something?) and there is a slightly more randomised 'clumpiness' about the noise on M8 files which has more of a 'filmic' granular feel to it that the rather 'smoother' digital noise from the other cameras I've shot with. I've assumed that this was down to Kodak's sensor design combined with whatever processing is carried out in the camera's electronics (as some must be) - certainly some of my files have decidedly a look of Kodachrome about them too - and again perhaps Kodak have opted for specific sensitivities to enhance this?

 

Combine this with the different desingn of M or other rangefinder lenses and the result is a more 'traditional' look - not to all files but certainly to some. But I'm not so sure just how much of this filmic look is down to the lens - it is after all possible to use none Leica lenses designed for dSLRs on the M8 so it is possible to check this practically and since the same lenses could be used on an SLR a direct comparison is possible if anyone wishes to carry such a comparison out.

[Guest stnami]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Cut the bullshit ...... according to you canon, nikon, olympus photographers etc ( which is most of the photographers) work unnaturally? spare the porkies

[pgk]

Ahhh, Stnami. I assume that by 'bullshit' you are referring to 'granularity' a scientific term which is a measure of the size and spacing of grain clumps and also the microscopic variations in density about the mean density level, which can of course now be varied and mimiced digitally, or even perhaps utilised for specific effect. If of course you believe in the fairy tales of science and our potential abilities to vie such things visually :) !

[Guest stnami]

So only a M8 offers real natural image working capabilities....... sad state of of the "Red Eyed Pseudo Scientific Maniacs"

[Shootist]

So only a M8 offers real natural image working capabilities....... sad state of of the "Red Eyed Pseudo Scientific Maniacs"

I think the doctor is on his way with your sedative.

Don't Worry, Be Happy.

[Guest stnami]

Now worries Shootie babie, life in the ward has always been a laugh though since Mick left and went back to Bullamakenka and with Raelene going back to his former self, things can get a bit mundane. Though..........

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eglon "shootum up" Spekis moved into the room down the corridor with ....

 

 

 

he's a real one red one one white one one green one type of guy ............hey when I get out I'm gonna check out this Atlanta joint maybe I can come to the Olympics

[earleygallery]

Maybe a generalisation but I have noticed a tendency to 'over process' digital images. Too much sharpening, too much colour saturation, too much contrast. A more colourful punchy image probably looks 'better' on first glance to the average punter. Some wedding photos I saw recently were quite shocking - the people looked like clothes dummies such was the effect of the PP.

 

Whilst I've noticed this in some M8 images as well - including images posted on the forum - possibly (and this really is just a thought of the top of my head) maybe, M8 users tend to be less guilty of over processing because they may only recently switched to digital or that they tend to also still use film M's as well.

 

I'm certain that Leica glass has its part to play as well.

[proenca]

Bebert,

Most people who claim a "less digital" look probably just try to justify their $10k investment into Leica M gear. Frankly, I often see images where people claim "ah, that Leica look or glow", and its a mediocre shot of their cat or flower pot.

Peter

 

 

Rubbish.

 

I never had to justify to anyone my camera purchases throghout the years to anyone and I've done quite a brand "safari" : I've owned Fuji S2, S3, Nikon D1x , D2x, Canon 1Ds I & II plus 1Dn II. All coupled with top L and AFS glass from both camps

 

Now for the last couple of years Im with a M8.

 

I had neither cats or flower pots.

 

I do look at my M8 images and they look very much like film as opposed to ALL other cameras I own, where the images are so perfect , grain free and with usually saturated colours that they seem more "plastic". Except ONE camera from all of the ones I own - Canon 1DS but the FIRST version. Files are very very much like the M8.

 

But no point in keeping her with the M8 - files are pretty much the same ( 10 vs 12 mp, both dont like underexposing , both have shadow noise, etc ).

 

Size wise I prefer the M8 - always with me. 1Ds its nice but after couple of hours the weight starts to have its toll.

 

The point is that M8 files are different - mainly because the images, even at its lowest iso are not 150% grain and defect free - that gives, in my opinion a non plastic look. Slap an older lens on the M8 and you definitly start having a very non plastic imagery ( I loooove the output from my 35mm 3.5 Leica , they almost dont need post processing ).

 

Scientific reason ? Dont have.

 

Justifying ? Dont need.

 

Non plastic ? You bet.

 

Hope it helps

[Guest stnami]

.........about the rubbish, especially what these photographers leave behind

[Fotomiguel]

:eek: Oh! My nikon D300 works as well. But.... just Black and White.... How strange!! O sorry I don't know how to use it! And... OH Sorry. Works in colour!

"I agree with you.com"

 

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!

[lct]

Plastic gran'ma

[pgk]

Except ONE camera from all of the ones I own - Canon 1DS but the FIRST version. Files are very very much like the M8.

 

Oddly enough I too still have 2 x 1DS cameras alongside my M8 and I too find their files more 'filmic' than those from other dSLRs, and somewhat closer to the M8. I also have a 5D which although not far removed in specification, does produce a more 'clinical' image useful in certain applications (mine is now solely used underwater) but less pleasing in others.

 

Got to give it to you stnami, you certainly put in a lot of effort on this forum..........

[Guest jimmy pro]

if I compare pics taken with an M8 and other cameras with comparable capacities (such as D3, D200), I must admit (even on the screen but mostly when printed on A4/A3 papers), that each time, pics from the M8 look "less digital" than with other high end digital cameras:

 

You didn't happen to run into Tony Robbins in a elevator did you?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[thompsonkirk]

I ain't a scientist either, but I thought Albert & Photoskeptic put forth the right explanation - that the AA filter (lack of) makes a noticeable difference in medium to large prints. The late Bruce Fraser's sharpening & workflow experiments suggested that more AA filtering calls for more need for sharpening, which is the most prominent aspect of a 'digital' look.

 

AA filters always introduce a bit of softness that usually needs to be overcome by some sharpening, & even conservative sharpening is bound to produce small digital artifacts & an 'edgier' appearance than film. With film, it's the grain that's supposed to look tack sharp (use a Focomat!), while the print supposedly continues to look 'creamy.' With digital it's always & only the edges that are sharpened.

 

In truth, there's no such thing as digital 'sharpening' per se - it's only increased edge contrast, & this is a major factor making digital look different.

 

Because AA filters decrease sharpness, Fraser, when writing about digital workflow & devising the PhotoKit Sharpener, advised a small amount of sharpening at the "Capture" level (not in the camera settings; rather, in digital processing). This first sharpening step was supposed to overcome the effect of the AA filter, while leaving major sharpening efforts until later in PP.

 

Lacking a nice thick AA filter, the trade-off is that we lose some files because of moire. But in general, we can get by with a tad less sharpening & thus see slightly less edgy edges in our prints.

 

Kirk

 

Bruce's essay on 3 levels of sharpening:

Out of Gamut: Thoughts on a Sharpening Workflow | CreativePro.com

[PeterP]

What exactly constitutes a "less digital" image, or a "plastic" image ???

Sounds like rationalization to me.