colour rendition on M8

[aniMal]

Right now I am sitting here in Graus, south of the Spanish Pyrenees - editing some pictures from todays trip into the landscape.

Is it just me - or do others here agree that the colour rendition on the M8 is far superior to say a Nikon D300?

It is something about the neutrality that I find appealing - and there is next to none "plastic" feeling to it... I remember getting the D300 (now sold) and testing it in Amsterdam - what a mixed blessing... It was great in low light of course - but the colours were screaming digital loudly!

As for the M8 - sometimes I get grainy shadows or strange colour balance or contrast - but it never looks as as bad as anything from the D300!

It might be due to the fact that I always convert from DNG with the M8 and never bother with that with the Nikons I have... But still, the times I have converted - it has had the same plastic feel as on the JPEGs.

So, do you agree - or not?

 

[mn4367]

Well, I can't tell for the M8 since I don't have one, but I often see users saying the same about the color rendition of the R-D1 (which I own). Perhaps both manfacturers spent a little more time on getting nice colors from these cameras. For the R-D1 it's funny because it has the same sensor like the Nikon D70.
That said I believe it would be no problem to tweak the color rendition of the D300 files with a (custom made) ICC profile.
And additionally the question is if the M8 (and every other camera) really produces 'neutral' colors. What is neutral? For me the only thing important for my photography is that a camera makes colors I like, them being neutral, vivid, cold, warm, lifeless or whatever. So if you like the M8 colors that's all what counts.

 

[gavinlg]

Right now I am sitting here in Graus, south of the Spanish Pyrenees - editing some pictures from todays trip into the landscape.

Is it just me - or do others here agree that the colour rendition on the M8 is far superior to say a Nikon D300?

It is something about the neutrality that I find appealing - and there is next to none "plastic" feeling to it... I remember getting the D300 (now sold) and testing it in Amsterdam - what a mixed blessing... It was great in low light of course - but the colours were screaming digital loudly!

As for the M8 - sometimes I get grainy shadows or strange colour balance or contrast - but it never looks as as bad as anything from the D300!

It might be due to the fact that I always convert from DNG with the M8 and never bother with that with the Nikons I have... But still, the times I have converted - it has had the same plastic feel as on the JPEGs.

So, do you agree - or not?

I also found something displeasing about the way the d300 rendered colors and tones. It's very harsh.

 

[herbet]

I also found something displeasing about the way the d300 rendered colors and tones. It's very harsh.

are you shooting in 14-bits mode? I'm getting great results with my D700 in Neutral picture control with 14-bits. beautiful colors right out of the camera.

 

[gavinlg]

I think (i've stated it before on this site) the d700/d3 sensor is a LOT better. 14bit and 12 bit made no discernible difference on my d300 in my tests

 

[yanidel]

Since the R-D1 and Leica M8 have apparently great color rendition, any chance that the wonderfule M lenses are the real reason for it ? 😉

 

[Petroleum V. Nasby]

The lack of a low pass filter on the Leica is making you think that way.

 

[Jim Evidon]

I shoot Raw+JPG with both my M8 and my Nikon D300. I don't know what is responsible for the superior color rendition on the M8, but I do agree about the D300. Something is lacking here. While the D300 is a great camera in most respects, I find that the color rendition on my D70s, now retired, was much more pleasing and natural looking. I took both my D300 and my M8 to Alaska and i expected great performance from both cameras. Both the D300 and M8 were fairly new and while I had spent most of my pre-Alaska time getting used to the M8 and therefore knew what to expect, I really didn't spend a lot of time with the D300 until I got to Alaska. Why bother, since I expected it to behave like a D70, only a lot better?

In many respects, the D300 is a disappointment not only in color reproduction, but it is also inconsistent as far as exposure is concerned. Successive shots resulted in a mixed bag of under and over exposures with some right on. A later field trip to the eastern Sierras using only the D300 was better, but I constantly reviewed the LCD screen and re-adjusted my settings till I got it right. That has not been necessary with the M8. Strangly, I find I work a lot harder to get the right image with the D300 with all of it's bells and whistles than I do with the M8.

Or, maybe getting back to a camera that demands more thought and involvement before the shutter is snapped forces a greater degree of creativity with the M8 while all the automation, bells and whistles and complexity of the new generation of DSLR's forces more attention to be paid to the machine than to the creative process.

I read a lot of gripes about the M8 on this site as well as the Leica L- Camera Forum, and some of these gripes are well founded but most of the other gripes amount to nitpicking.

The M8, even with the second version of firmware (v.1.7) was spot on in most situations with spectacular color. The new third iteration, v.2.0, adds some features, reduces noise and keeps on giving in the image department. I rarely adjust either contrast or color in post-processing with the M8 RAW images.

The M8 is far superior in both exposure control and color reproduction, as it should be given the price we paid. The more I use it, the more I love using it. I shall continue to use the D300 and substantially post-process to get the color and contrast I want because it can do many things the Leica cannot do such as Macro and moderate to extreme telephoto, but it will never become a companion like the M8 for general shooting.

Jim Evidon

 

[JPSuisse]

There are some thoughtful commentaries in this thread.

I don't want to knock either my M8 or the D100 I use. I won't be selling either in the near future. I shoot both only in RAW. BUT, slide film is still better for color rendition.

Therefore, I don't really use any of my digital cameras when the goal is great colors. I use the digital cameras when I'm going into unpredictable situations with regard to the amount of lighting, because I can easily change the ISO.

Just my 2 cents....

JP

 

[eleskin]

I cannot complain about this color

I cannot complain about this color

I shoot mostly black and white. however, the color in this shot is not overdone and seems just right to set the mood. I used a Canadian 28mm Elmarit made in the late 1970's on my M8.

 

[aniMal]

Just back from 2 weeks in Spain - really putting the M8 to use!

Lots of interesting input for me here - and in the meantime I have been working a little on how to use my M8 better. I have finally had the time to work it 90% manually - like I feel it should. I also started converting most images without any extra things like altered WB or tint. I have shot everything on daylight - and then converted only images in tungsten or fluorescent light with the respective settings.

Why? Basically because I want to regain the ability to "see" light that I had when working most intensely with slides. As it was then, I felt I had a reasonable control on what colours would be rendered in what way - using mostly fuji sensia.

And it all really worked I feel! It has helped me get back a lot of control - and also added some interesting small things. Shooting all on daylight made me sometimes go ´wow - is this light really that green/blue/yellow?´from watching the preview screen...

Then back to the colour rendition. When designers build a camera, they naturally have control of all these variables from scratch... Could it then be that Leicas ´look´is taken care of in the process?

Well, I really think so - that everything from the sensor to the algoritms used for conversions etc are designed to get that neutral look...

And all of this goes for DNG - I have never used jpeg on the M8 like most users.

The philosophy of the whole thing is just so different than the prevailing paradigm of automating and tweaking everything to speed and performance that can be measured in figures.

Well then, the overall colour rendition is something the photographer judges subjectively any way. But it does make an interesting point if there are a lot photographer agreeing on a camera (+lens of course) giving a certain look...

 

[Nh3]

What lens you're using on the D300?

 

[aniMal]

Well - not the best lenses I must admit, pretty cheap and generic stuff. But I cannot see that it is very different with a nikkor 50 1.8 D which I sometimes use.

This photo is a good example for what I am aiming at:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=95652

When I first processed it the only thing I fiddled with was contrast. This is straight out of the DNG file with all settings neutral - and in a way I like it better when comparing on screen at least!

The light really WAS something like that - subdued and almost violet on the peaks.

So, in the following months I think I will test out this theory - and getting to know my sensors like I used to know the colours of the film I used.

 

[Nh3]

But you didn't say which lens.

Also that picture would look terrible in any camera. Blue sky with a dark green foreground and brownish mounties in the middle. The camera has exposed the sky correctly but the greens are underexposed. if the camera had exposed for the greens the sky would have been white.

In this case it was not the camera/lens fault.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Is it just me - or do others here agree that the colour rendition on the M8 is far superior to say a Nikon D300?

<snip>

So, do you agree - or not?

Oh boy. That's like honey to hummingbirds. Stray hummingbirds.

 

[aniMal]

Hehe - its not the camera that has chosen the exposure, it is me. Well, based on the histogram that is.

On the nikons I use an old 24 2.8 which I love for the flare I get. For work I used a standard 18-70 something, and a sigma 10-20. I fully know that the lenses of course ar decisive - but on the other hand I think that the sensor and PP has far more influence on the colours...

This image is a duplicate of one that I was very happy with - converted on zero settings as well.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=95653

In short, these two images remind me a lot of what I think they would have looked on film - which for me makes it an interesting starting point. The discussion of what is ´natural´colour rendition is of course another one - which I think I will start soon... ;-)

 

[aniMal]

Hehe - honey is good of course... But so is knowledge - and I just love getting to the bottom on subjects like this...

One thing is for sure - I will start using my digital gear differently. I will definitely test my nikon gear in the same way - to get to know the sensors and how they render colour regardless of conversion later on...