JPEG quality of M8.2?

[vicaf]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Greetings -

I am seriously thinking of purchasing an M8.2, which will allow me to re-enter the world of RF shooting for the first time in many years. I have been chugging along as an avid hobbyist with the Digilux 2 and the DL-4, along with the Olympus E-3 and its many lenses, but the siren sing of the Leica M, as sung so sweetly by all of you, has seduced me. A quick question for those of you who are using the M8.2 or the latest firmware on the M8 - how is the quality of the JPEG for color shooting: has it gotten better, is it worth pursuing, or should I expect to use only raw? I understand that the AWB has improved, but I wonder how that translates out to the full JPEG experience - there are times I may want to shoot JPEG only -

 

Many thanks in advance for your generous input -

Vic

[Hacker]

I shoot RAW + JPG. For those shots where I want to further process, the RAW files come in useful. Otherwise, I find the JPG pictures sufficient since I do not do commercial work.

[Advertisement]

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

[Shootist]

Sorry I really can't answer your question because after getting a Nikon D200 about 3.8 years ago and using it in Jpeg mode for about a week I switched to RAW image capture and have continued to use mostly RAW for all digital cameras I've owned.

I have shot some images in Jpeg only on the M8 but those few and only when I need to share the shot right away.

There is just so much more you can do with the image when shooting RAW.

 

The M8 is faster when shooting just DNG/RAW files and the Jpeg engine in the M8 is not that good.

[ho_co]

Vic--

You're aware that the M8.2 is just an M8 with a couple differences. Both firmware and images from the two are identical.

 

You also mentioned that many firmware iterations ago, Leica so greatly improved the AWB that a number of people on the forum felt it was better than that of their Canons.

 

As for JPG, you're probably aware that there were one or two very early updates in color rendition. (See KammaGamma Articles Leica M8 Colors.)

 

Since that time, I don't believe there has been any change to JPG performance.

[vicaf]

Thank you to all of you for your replies

 

"Vic--

You're aware that the M8.2 is just an M8 with a couple differences. Both firmware and images from the two are identical.

 

You also mentioned that many firmware iterations ago, Leica so greatly improved the AWB that a number of people on the forum felt it was better than that of their Canons.

 

As for JPG, you're probably aware that there were one or two very early updates in color rendition. (See KammaGamma Articles Leica M8 Colors.)

 

Since that time, I don't believe there has been any change to JPG performance."

 

Howard, I am very aware that the M8.2 has the same firmware as the updated M8. I don't think I was that exuberant about the revamped AWB, but I am aware that it was improved, but my point of reference is such that I do not know how much better it really is. I appreciate very much your link to the article on the M8 colors- it was very useful. I guess my revised question would be this: has AWB performance improved enough so that the M8 JPEG engine can take advantage of the unique M8 colors that it can potentially produce?

Thanks,

Vic

[ho_co]

Vic--

I don't usually shoot JPG except when I hit the wrong buttons and accidentally set the camera to JPG, so I can't answer directly.

 

Previous to the firmware revision that completely revised the AWB, I was resigned to expecting a wide variation in color balance in every situation. For the most part that simply doesn't happen any more. Occasionally when I use Continuous shooting mode on the M8 there may be a slight deviation from one file to the next, but that used to happen with almost every shot and to a much greater degree.

 

I used to use AWB and expect to adjust later. Today I use AWB and almost never adjust except occasionally for effect.

 

For me, the AWB issue is a thing of the past. I would predict that any disappointment you might have with the JPG output of the M8.2 would come from a direction other than color balance--e.g., slower writes than DNG, not enough choices of compression ratio, etc.

 

In summary, IMHO the answer to your question ("Has AWB performance improved enough so that the M8 JPEG engine can take advantage of the unique M8 colors that it can potentially produce?") is: Yes, definitely.

 

I simply don't worry about AWB any more. YMMV. If you're a photojournalist or shooting color swatches, your needs may differ; but the camera will do what most people want.

[vicaf]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Howard -

Thank you for your answer - it is much appreciated. I am glad that I have waited to get a DRF until now. It seems as though the initial bugs have been scoped out by Leica. The proof is in the fact that there is very little criticism of the M8 series now, and instead there exists mostly appreciation for the beauty of the files that it produces which go to the soul of the subject matters at hand instead of a computerized interpolation of such. And that is what is so appealing of the Leica images and, by extension, the people who create them: the proof is in the lasting images that resonate throughout this forum that have no peer in this or any other medium.

 

Thanks,

Vic

[chris_livsey]

The OP asked asked about the colour quality of the in camera jpeg. Put simply there is no single in camera jpeg rather there is a choice of options to produce a jpeg :-

 

Sharpening 5 options

Colour saturation 5 options (+BW)

Contrast 5 options

 

Obviously it would be unusual to use extreme opposite settings but that still leaves a huge number of possible combinations for jpegs. I have found that where I have a low contrast scene I may want to use a high contrast setting with perhaps higher colour saturation or indeed sometimes just the opposite to obtain the "look" I want. This means I may as well shoot RAW and leave all my options open for later.

The AWB is no longer an issue and is fine for jpegs. (I can get occasional aberrations for no discernible reason and am tending to use a fixed WB which gives absolute certainty).

 

KammaGamma Articles Leica M8 Colors has been quoted and while the firmware has made changes the basic principles of colour look up tables remains so the Leica jpeg "look" is there but as that information was available to Phase One the C1 M8 profile produces colour of a good match to the jpeg( within the same range of settings). That "look" of course may not be what you want and other profiles have been developed both individually and made available to others.

Certainly the M8 RAW files can stand a lot of pushing about in post and retain a very high IQ, in the light of the manipulations available for RAW that is the way to go IMHO.

[footnoteblog]

I think the quality is fine, but the last time I tried JPG with any manually-capable camera was quite a while ago.

 

This is kind of like asking for a race car with air conditioning.

[trs]

I shoot DNG+JPG, but JPG is BW. Even though WB has improved I still find it misses often. So, I always have DNG unless I am only interested in BW, then I shoot JPG only without hesitation because I am happy with the result.

 

Having said that, only camera that gives good in camera JPG is Fuji SxPro series. Never had to think about shooting RAW with my S2Pro. Well, good enough quality for a hobbyist.

[Boxer 53]

Greetings -

I am seriously thinking of purchasing an M8.2, which will allow me to re-enter the world of RF shooting for the first time in many years. I have been chugging along as an avid hobbyist with the Digilux 2 and the DL-4, along with the Olympus E-3 and its many lenses, but the siren sing of the Leica M, as sung so sweetly by all of you, has seduced me. A quick question for those of you who are using the M8.2 or the latest firmware on the M8 - how is the quality of the JPEG for color shooting: has it gotten better, is it worth pursuing, or should I expect to use only raw? I understand that the AWB has improved, but I wonder how that translates out to the full JPEG experience - there are times I may want to shoot JPEG only -

 

Many thanks in advance for your generous input -

Vic

 

My experience with JPEG setting in the M8.2 works fine in most situations when speed is paramount.

 

Attached picture is an S Mode JPEG shot with an M8.2, 50mm Summilux wide open at F1.4 and ISO 160. No reouching at all -- photo is as shot.

 

Max Bowers

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!

[woodyspedden]

You nailed this one. Good job!

 

Woody

[photoshutter]

This camera has bad jpeg, camera will work slow, like many digital back has no jpeg option, forget about it.

[jamesmd]

Hi , I've just done some tests , and obviously jpg are ok , but nothing to do with DNG , and B&W has nothing to do either , I use silver fx and you can get pretty much out of DNG files always, as it seems logical .

 

Cheers

 

James

[Jager]

I consider out-of-camera jpegs to be on a par with what I get from my D3. Decent, in other words, but not as good as RAW images. (Since Leica fixed the AWB in the M8 a while back, I far prefer the out-of-camera color rendition of RAW images to JPEG).

 

Like trs and Max, I currently shoot JPEG+RAW, but the JPEG is set to B&W so when I import them into Lightroom I have quick versions of both, side by side.

[danhefner]

This is kind of like asking for a race car with air conditioning.

 

Maybe bad if the M8 is a race car, but in the summer, I have to put the top up and use AC on my convertible sports car, or else my girlfriend won't ride with me. And when I'm in heavy traffic, I actually like having the AC (sitting in an open ragtop on a stalled freeway in 90+ ºF is no fun).

 

So, my take on your question is that for many uses of your images, shooting in JPEG on the M8 may be completely acceptable for you.

 

I tend to agree with the others on the quality of auto white balance, which I think Leica pretty much nailed last year. That being correct now, the M8's JPEG rendering engine is really not bad for a handheld device. It's just not as good as you can get using a computer and RAW images.

 

However, one has to ask what you plan to do with the images? If you are planning to print larger prints, then you'll no doubt benefit from shooting RAW and investing money in a capable computer system with suitable RAW workflow software, and the time needed to understand how to use it. You'll also benefit from this time and cash investment if you want to learn the most about digital imaging (and what your lenses can do), and for being able to play with your images with the greatest latitude and control.

 

However, if you are interested in acquiring high-quality images for online sharing, or viewing on a digital display, or even for small size prints, I suspect JPEGS will be just fine. You'll see many stunning JPEG images on these forums taken right from the camera. Even for larger prints, a JPEG off the M8 can produce acceptable prints - just not consistently as good as you might get shooting RAW.

 

Why not get comfortable with your excellent camera and enjoy the images it can draw for you first? You can learn about the intricacies of RAW - and how to work with those images to get even more performance from your M8 - at your own pace.

 

Just my 2¢ worth.

[rycm]

AWB is fine. But shoot RAW and JPEG (B&W). The B&W JPEG is very usable, color is a different story.. and I would use RAW for those.,

 

Auto ISO is excellent.. use it. I would limit to ISO 1250.

[Guest]

I currently shoot JPEG+RAW, but the JPEG is set to B&W so when I import them into Lightroom I have quick versions of both, side by side.

 

This may be nothing new for some, but it's great help for me. Thank you, Jager!

[chris_livsey]

Auto ISO is excellent.. use it. I would limit to ISO 1250.

 

 

I to use Auto ISO and also commend its use.

I never understand though the reasoning to limit to 1250 though. If you do that and hit less light the shutter speed needed slows to accommodate to below a hand hold-able level. Surely it is better to go to 2500, and use noise reduction software as I do agree it is a last resort speed, than loose the shot from shake.

The disadvantage is not knowing the ISO you used until you chimp but on the other hand I don't want it shown cluttering up he display so I don't have an answer.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[footnoteblog]

Maybe bad if the M8 is a race car, but in the summer, I have to put the top up and use AC on my convertible sports car, or else my girlfriend won't ride with me. And when I'm in heavy traffic, I actually like having the AC (sitting in an open ragtop on a stalled freeway in 90+ ºF is no fun).

 

No, I mean, a real race car., no AC, just a roll cage, pedals, shifter and a steering wheel. Yeah, you could put groceries in it and haul around, but, uh...

 

...

Why not get comfortable with your excellent camera and enjoy the images it can draw for you first? You can learn about the intricacies of RAW - and how to work with those images to get even more performance from your M8 - at your own pace.

 

.

 

My point exactly.