noah_addis Posted September 16, 2009 Share #21 Posted September 16, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) With a few notable exceptions, I haven't been impressed by what I've seen online so far. However, I strongly recommend that you try the camera out for yourself and/or try to see some prints, as I've been very impressed by the prints I made from my very brief test. The dynamic range, noise, sharpness It's hard to judge anything online. And yes, I'd say that to experience the full capability of an 18MP digital camera, you need to see prints, and large ones at that. Almost any digital camera can produce good files onscreen and/or small prints. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 16, 2009 Posted September 16, 2009 Hi noah_addis, Take a look here Images posted so far. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
arthury Posted September 16, 2009 Author Share #22 Posted September 16, 2009 Yes, large prints are beautiful when done correctly. However, in this day and age, how many customers see your large prints first versus how many customers see your JPGs first on the web? How many physical stores/galleries can you afford to open versus a website that is visible to a worldwide audience? How many images do you sell on the web versus large prints? Following the traditions of the M camera, journalistic images are its bread and butter. Do journalistic images get published first on the web or on large prints? So, how important are JPGs in the 21st century image publishing? I would rate it as pretty darn important. Quite often, if your JPGs cannot draw attention, there's not even a follow-on to want to see the prints. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
devils-advocate Posted September 16, 2009 Share #23 Posted September 16, 2009 So, are you saying then that M9's images cannot reflect its true strengths in web images but only thru large prints? Yes. We are saying that no camera's quality can be accurately gauged by a 120K web jpeg. 100% crops can tell us something about resolution and DR. That's about it. There is zero colour management on the web at large, plus there isn't even a profile for the M9 yet in LR, and likely only a generic profile of some sort in C1. Moreover, good post-processing, including sharpening for the web, are a real art which few people have any mastery of (I've struggled with it for years and am still not satisfied with my skills). And yes, a lot of the posters' qualifications to pronounce on IQ are questionable. I've seen people posting !unsharpened! images on this forum. This may sound harsh, but If you don't know that (and why) one cannot determine a camera's IQ from web forum posts, you don't need and M9. Spend a fraction of the money on good LR and PS training. Once you're wringing the max from your current camera, you'll know whether you need to drop $7K on on these lovely beasts. - n. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
futureancient Posted September 16, 2009 Share #24 Posted September 16, 2009 Look, and you will find what you are looking for. There's a whole new level of judgementalism on this and other forums I've never witnessed before at the moment, given the release of this new camera. People are obsessed with pixel peeping, judging others images... Obviously they want to evaluate them for their own ends - and this is expected...but, There's 100s of ways of PPing an image, to whatever end the photographer had in mind when they took the shot. If this is taken with an M9 in the current environment, and you PP in a way that the peepers find unacceptable, then you are in for crazy evaluations either about your work, or the camera itself. My point is, you can't take every image as a way to evaluate a camera, some photographers like softness, they like to ADD grain, they add vignetting, etc etc. And simply because they did this does not mean the images from the machine are inferior or imperfect. Pick and choose your choice of pictures you want to use to evaluate the technicalities. But if you are doing that from forumites who have posted an image, then you are slave to their interpretation of the shot and how they shot it.. It is much more likely that you will end up with completely the wrong idea about the images compared to how they actually are. oh and btw, the pics here are compressed jpgs with files sizes of less than 250k... the full size uncompressed DNGs are 30mbs+ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted September 16, 2009 Share #25 Posted September 16, 2009 OK - here's an image. Sorry I can't compare it to the M8 or anything else. It will have to stand or fall on its own merits. 21 pre-ASPH, f/5.6 (more or less). Crops are 100%. Should be a good test of DR (white sunlight foam, dark trees/shrubs in shade (wonder what kind of fruit that is?) The classic "picket fence" for sharpness. Arthury (and anyone else) feel free to comment on image, camera, processing, whatever. I will note that the full-frame image is about 1.55 Mbytes uncompressed - jpegged to meet the LUF upload limits, it is 220K. So 86% of its quality has been thrown away in order to see it on the Web. FWIW. Looking at the two crops, I'd say they've lost 30-50% of their "quality" uploaded compared to how they look in PS straight from the RAW file. 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 Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/97040-images-posted-so-far/?do=findComment&comment=1038452'>More sharing options...
jl4069 Posted September 16, 2009 Share #26 Posted September 16, 2009 "It's hard to judge anything online. And yes, I'd say that to experience the full capability of an 18MP digital camera, you need to see prints, and large ones at that." Agreed! Now let us find out what sizes produce what new benefits. Maybe we will find that even some relatively small prints show some special new qualities? JL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthury Posted September 16, 2009 Author Share #27 Posted September 16, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) [..] There is zero colour management on the web at large . You might wanna check that carefully before you make such a statement. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthury Posted September 16, 2009 Author Share #28 Posted September 16, 2009 OK - here's an image. Sorry I can't compare it to the M8 or anything else. It will have to stand or fall on its own merits. 21 pre-ASPH, f/5.6 (more or less). Crops are 100%. Should be a good test of DR (white sunlight foam, dark trees/shrubs in shade (wonder what kind of fruit that is?) The classic "picket fence" for sharpness. Arthury (and anyone else) feel free to comment on image, camera, processing, whatever. I will note that the full-frame image is about 1.55 Mbytes uncompressed - jpegged to meet the LUF upload limits, it is 220K. So 86% of its quality has been thrown away in order to see it on the Web. FWIW. Looking at the two crops, I'd say they've lost 30-50% of their "quality" uploaded compared to how they look in PS straight from the RAW file. Andy, I see grains in the blue sky. What's the ISO for this one? And, this as shot with pre-production camera? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 16, 2009 Share #29 Posted September 16, 2009 I see a dust bunny, but no grain. Monitor? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 16, 2009 Share #30 Posted September 16, 2009 So, are you saying that non-Leica users in other forums using other brands know how to post-process their images more skillfully than the users in this forum? That would not be surprising, given that a fair proportion of members here have come from film M cameras fairly recently. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootist Posted September 16, 2009 Share #31 Posted September 16, 2009 Just for a little comparison of the same shot quickly PP for posting and then having a fair go at adjusting the image to what I think is a better rendition. 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! Top is just a Quick convert and resize for posting. Bottom is a levels adjustment and sharpened. If I was going to print this image, which I will but from another copy, I would dodge and burn slightly and maybe do a second run at sharpening for print, probably another run with the Smart Sharpening tool. Sorry this image was shot with a M8. Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Top is just a Quick convert and resize for posting. Bottom is a levels adjustment and sharpened. If I was going to print this image, which I will but from another copy, I would dodge and burn slightly and maybe do a second run at sharpening for print, probably another run with the Smart Sharpening tool. Sorry this image was shot with a M8. ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/97040-images-posted-so-far/?do=findComment&comment=1038585'>More sharing options...
microview Posted September 16, 2009 Share #32 Posted September 16, 2009 Just for a little comparison of the same shot quickly PP for posting and then having a fair go at adjusting the image to what I think is a better rendition. [ATTACH]162626[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]162627[/ATTACH] Top is just a Quick convert and resize for posting. Bottom is a levels adjustment and sharpened. If I was going to print this image, which I will but from another copy, I would dodge and burn slightly and maybe do a second run at sharpening for print, probably another run with the Smart Sharpening tool. Sorry this image was shot with a M8. Grossly oversharpened, no? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted September 16, 2009 Share #33 Posted September 16, 2009 Arthury: ISO 160, The camera was FedEx-ed to the Leica reps Tues. Sept. 8 from NY. Updated with latest firmware as of 9/9 (1.002). Compressed 8-bit DNG (same as M8). Let me know where in the sky you see grain, and I'll give you a crop of that area (sized to avoid jpeg compression as much as possible). Remember that a relatively smooth undetailed area like sky is where jpeg will do its strongest compression, to minimize compression in the busy areas. (And yes, there are some dust bunnies - this camera got a workout from 20 or photogs in one day, with lots of lens changing..) Microview - well you and arthury will have to get together on what constitutes "perfect" sharpening. Once you guys have a standard, I'm sure we can meet it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
twittle Posted September 16, 2009 Share #34 Posted September 16, 2009 I see grains in the blue sky. What you see are compression artifacts and the dust bunny Jaap pointed out. There is no grain. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
twittle Posted September 17, 2009 Share #35 Posted September 17, 2009 (And yes, there are some dust binnies - this camera got a workout from 20 or photogs in one day, with lots of lens changing..) I'd be willing to bet you had it longer than anyone , but I, too, was at Pictureline on the 9th, and had it for twenty minutes or so and changed the lens five or six times, so I can attest to what you're saying. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootist Posted September 17, 2009 Share #36 Posted September 17, 2009 Grossly oversharpened, no? Not on my monitor or in print, that is if you are talking about the bottom image. In fact on the bottom image for print I'd sharpen more. Now in these next 2 shots I haven't nor would I sharpen them. 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 Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/97040-images-posted-so-far/?do=findComment&comment=1038627'>More sharing options...
arthury Posted September 17, 2009 Author Share #37 Posted September 17, 2009 Arthury: ISO 160, The camera was FedEx-ed to the Leica reps Tues. Sept. 8 from NY. Updated with latest firmware as of 9/9 (1.002). Compressed 8-bit DNG (same as M8). Let me know where in the sky you see grain, and I'll give you a crop of that area (sized to avoid jpeg compression as much as possible). Remember that a relatively smooth undetailed area like sky is where jpeg will do its strongest compression, to minimize compression in the busy areas. [..] Thanks, Andy, for the EXIF details. About the sky, perhaps, I am seeing unusually high JPG compression on the upper half of the sky, both left and right of the church steeple. And, I am not referring to the dust. How did you generate this JPG ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthury Posted September 17, 2009 Author Share #38 Posted September 17, 2009 What you see are compression artifacts and the dust bunny Jaap pointed out. There is no grain. You are probably right. Then, the next question is who/what introduced it in the workflow? Or was it introduced in the workflow? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
twittle Posted September 17, 2009 Share #39 Posted September 17, 2009 You are probably right. Then, the next question is who/what introduced it in the workflow? Or was it introduced in the workflow? That, I'm sure I couldn't say. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken_nyus Posted September 17, 2009 Share #40 Posted September 17, 2009 [...] Now in these next 2 shots I haven't nor would I sharpen them. [...] Nice shots of Mohonk shootist! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.