kur1j
Member
I am using the latest firmware version 2.014. Maybe my problem does come down to the fact that i don't have a UV/IR Cut filter. I got one on order (B+W 39mm UV/IR Cut with Multi-Resistant Coating (486M)) to be exact. I do find it odd and I am skeptical that adding glass will make my images sharper and have more contrast. But maybe I am wrong.
I can understand the skill from the user perspective of handling but post processing I don't feel should be put into the equation. If I have a sharp, contrasty, detailed image SooC and I have a less sharp, less contrasty, less detailed image from a different camera Sooc then obviously I'm going to pick the one with those better attributes before I go do anything in lightroom.
What can I do with the metering? I'm not sure how that will add contrast. I am taking basically the same shot with the 5d and the m8 not more than 30 seconds apart and focusing straight the same subject (the best I can). The shutter, aperture and ISO are almost identical between the 5d and m8.
Hopefully once I get my filter things will look different to me but right now I'm not seeing where the Leica has much of an advantage even though most reviews would say that the M8 produces some of the most contrasty, sharp, and detailed images of the digital leicas (most of this was before type 240 but still).
MCTuomey
Veteran
No, I don't think so. But I don't agree with your method. First, you are comparing one camera's output, whose operation you have not mastered, with another's output, whose operation you have apparently mastered. As others have recommended, with the M8 you need to deal with IR/UV filter use, white balance requirements, proper manual focus technique, etc.
Second, you say you've chosen to compare straight OOC files, but have at least adjusted for iso difference with an exposure adjustment (if I understood you right), and your conversion software is quite likely applying modifications to the files on import as well as through jpg conversion for web-posting. And you've done some file resolution equalization too. All of which make valid comparisons difficult.
Back when the M8 came out, there was a very long thread at FM where the 5D classic files were compared to the M8's files by some very technically competent photographers, under well-controlled conditions, such as proper focus-bracketing to name just one. Conclusions were mixed, but generally the files were considered not very far apart. Today, using a 5DIII, leaving aside the large resolution difference and advances in the 5D's AF and WB, I'd guess the same conclusion would be reached.
pepeguitarra
Well-known
Can you convert some of your M8 shots to B&W? It would be interesting too see how the come out.
kur1j
Member
lol so I take it you dropped the M8? I've been tempted to go the M9 route but people say the M8 (given the lack of resolution) has more sharpness, detail and more pop in B/W images even over the M9 due to the subpar IR filter. If that is the case and it is true then even an M9 won't solve my concerns.
I have a B+W 486 on the way.
The 35mm is coded (with a sharpie albeit but it is still coded.
My concern at this point isn't the colors that is a whole different ball game. So setting custom WB and raw profiles I don't feel will help the images gain detail, contrast and sharpness. My issue is with the lack of detail, contrast and sharpness of what is basically touted as the best in those areas. A lot of things I've read say the M8 is one of the best in those areas due to the lack of an AA filter and the special pop of B/W images due to subpar filter of IR. When I compare the images in those areas to the 5d I feel the M8 falls short in those areas.
kur1j
Member
I wouldn't say I've mastered anything
. Far from it. I would probably say I am more proficient with the canon as it does more things for me (AF, WB) as you mentioned. Hopefully the B+W filter will address some of my issues. The IR/UV filter I can see possibly causing my issue, manual focus techniques I can see causing some issues (in this particular case I think it is minimal). However WB I do not see causing my issues of lack of detail, sharpness and clarity. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't see it helping in those regards.The original color images are RAW/DNG converted to JPEG only modifications were done to the 5d files to make it the same size as M8 files so resolution wouldn't play a role. The B/W converted pole image (http://imgur.com/a/H64ih) has -.5EV applied to the m8 image to bring it to the same exposure of (1/1000, f2, ISO100). I should have taken the images @ ISO 160 on the 5d which I will do next time.
kur1j
Member
LCT
ex-newbie
What's the point in using an M8 w/o IR-cut filter? It is like shooting yourself in the foot and complaining that you don't run fast.
kur1j
Member
AncientCityPhoto
Established
I use an m8 along side canon 5dmk2, Fujis, and phase one sensors. The Leica at base ISO is closest to the p45 in terms of look and sharpness. (But obviously not sheer detail due to mp count) Apparent sharpness straight out of camera blows the canons away.
The biggest thing is making sure your rangefinder and lenses are professionally calibrated. It makes a huge difference.
I c tally find leica's white balance and exposure very good in automatic modes if you know where to meter from. The Leica takes more work to get the amazing results. You have to be mindful of highlights and be mindful of focus. The sensor definitely can deliver though.
The IR filter makes a difference. Blocking the IR light will give nicer shadows, nicer color, and I feel crisper image. I've done a lot of comparisons, and for me, I much p refer the IR filter even for black and white. That's my opinion though.
Also, if you are using Lightroom, the M8 shows much better files with the cameras own profile under camera profiles, not the adobe standard. I may need an extra half stop exposure push to equal out if you we're using identical settings between cameras, but at base ISO the m8 is more than capable.
I you aren't getting sharp results, I recommend the camera and lens together get checked by Leica or DAG or similar. I can t ell immediately when my rangefinder is out of calibration. The files just don't look as crisp because the focus is off from where I intended to places it. And at f2 this makes a major difference.
The biggest thing is making sure your rangefinder and lenses are professionally calibrated. It makes a huge difference.
I c tally find leica's white balance and exposure very good in automatic modes if you know where to meter from. The Leica takes more work to get the amazing results. You have to be mindful of highlights and be mindful of focus. The sensor definitely can deliver though.
The IR filter makes a difference. Blocking the IR light will give nicer shadows, nicer color, and I feel crisper image. I've done a lot of comparisons, and for me, I much p refer the IR filter even for black and white. That's my opinion though.
Also, if you are using Lightroom, the M8 shows much better files with the cameras own profile under camera profiles, not the adobe standard. I may need an extra half stop exposure push to equal out if you we're using identical settings between cameras, but at base ISO the m8 is more than capable.
I you aren't getting sharp results, I recommend the camera and lens together get checked by Leica or DAG or similar. I can t ell immediately when my rangefinder is out of calibration. The files just don't look as crisp because the focus is off from where I intended to places it. And at f2 this makes a major difference.
kur1j
Member
The lens I have came with a Leica branded UVa filter. I just bought a B+W IR-Cut filter.
I guess I just don't understand why I'm having such difficulty here getting results as other people have. I saw this article http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/leica-m8.shtml which is when the M8 first came out. He makes no mention of using a filter and even goes on to say "I agree. In terms of being transparent to what the lenses used can deliver, I found it hard to find any performance aspect wanting. The smooth large-field tonalities, coupled with the bitingly sharp microcontrasts that are both hallmarks of Leica images, are all there.". This is a common comment but I clearly can't seem to produce this.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
The only time you will notice the IR filtration is if you shoot at night and get either light sources or specular highlights in the frame. The filters are highly reflective and can cast an inverted image of the light source onto the image. Any filter can do this though if pushed far enough.
What aperture were you using with your 35 'Cron again, vs your 50mm f/1.4 Canon? If it's wide open, you're hobbling your Leica lens a bit (don't flame me RFF'ers, you all know it's true) as it doesn't draw the sharpest image until stopped down a bit. All Leica lenses and almost all lenses regardless of brand, operate this way. Especially with a wide angle, you're fighting spherical aberration no matter how well corrected it is. Putting a 35mm RF lens against a very mature and incredibly well corrected 50mm lens is not quite fair to the Leica lens. They are different horses for different courses.
Even Leica's 50mm vs 35mm is almost an unfair contest because of the difference in formulation. If one were to compare a 50mm Rigid Summicron against a 35mm 8-element Summicron from the same year, you'd have completely different images even if the 50 were on an M9 and the 35 on an M8. The look would be very different. Figure in different apertures and the images won't begin to sharpen up evenly until closed down to f/5.6 or greater.
Once you get really used to shooting a Leica, you'll learn the sweet spots of your lenses with regard to focus, distance and aperture. Every one it seems, has its own signature, something rarely seen with modern SLR glass. This is one reason why one uses a rangefinder, for the ability to impart a unique look to an image, something that isn't created as much with the long retrofocus SLR lenses
Phil Forrest
MCTuomey
Veteran
kur1j:
ask yourself, is it better to compare the starting point or the end point in order to determine which camera/lens combo could serve you better? in my opinion, it's better to admit that, at the starting point (RAW files), there are already too many variables at play between the two set-ups to draw valid conclusions from monitor viewing. Instead, my thinking is that it's more informative to optimize everything in the workflow for each camera/lens combo, produce the very best print you can from each camera/lens of the same scene, then judge. In other words, compare the end point from each, not the starting point.
one question: could you precisely say what you did to the file(s) "so resolution wouldn't play a role"? i ask because if you down-rez the 5D file you will be biasing in favor of the 5D, in the vicinity of a 25% increase in sharpness versus the native file, my guess.
ask yourself, is it better to compare the starting point or the end point in order to determine which camera/lens combo could serve you better? in my opinion, it's better to admit that, at the starting point (RAW files), there are already too many variables at play between the two set-ups to draw valid conclusions from monitor viewing. Instead, my thinking is that it's more informative to optimize everything in the workflow for each camera/lens combo, produce the very best print you can from each camera/lens of the same scene, then judge. In other words, compare the end point from each, not the starting point.
one question: could you precisely say what you did to the file(s) "so resolution wouldn't play a role"? i ask because if you down-rez the 5D file you will be biasing in favor of the 5D, in the vicinity of a 25% increase in sharpness versus the native file, my guess.
leicapixie
Well-known
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135479
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135479
I no longer read anything by Reichman at Luminous Landscape.
Leica had to know about the problem..
Reichman saw it and said nothing..Amazing.I would have contacted Leica immediately and told them, about the problem FIRST. If nothing was done, no reply or answer, the "right thing to do, was inform the readers.."
I have used a friend's M8,with filters on small JPEG as i didn't have a Photoshop. The photos with normal and wide angle were reasonably sharp. The 90mm a tragedy. I shot most at full aperture f2.0 and f2.8. More than half were way out of focus..
The RF simply not the same as on film.
I've used Leica since the 50;s as a kid and from 66 with my own M3. Used professionally. Now the ones that were sharp, were really sharp, the color great(JPEG). A great but flawed camera.
I use a Point and Shoot Kodak, with Eastman sensor. Again the color and sharpness stunning! Better than all my Japanese digitals, if the light is right..I need those cut off filters.Magenta shadows.
so go shoot with filters, have lenses calibrated and maybe things will improve.Personally, the newer Leica M Digital way out of price range and even if affordable, would not buy any.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135479
Well it was way far from the truth!
I no longer read anything by Reichman at Luminous Landscape.
Leica had to know about the problem..
Reichman saw it and said nothing..Amazing.I would have contacted Leica immediately and told them, about the problem FIRST. If nothing was done, no reply or answer, the "right thing to do, was inform the readers.."
I have used a friend's M8,with filters on small JPEG as i didn't have a Photoshop. The photos with normal and wide angle were reasonably sharp. The 90mm a tragedy. I shot most at full aperture f2.0 and f2.8. More than half were way out of focus..
The RF simply not the same as on film.
I've used Leica since the 50;s as a kid and from 66 with my own M3. Used professionally. Now the ones that were sharp, were really sharp, the color great(JPEG). A great but flawed camera.
I use a Point and Shoot Kodak, with Eastman sensor. Again the color and sharpness stunning! Better than all my Japanese digitals, if the light is right..I need those cut off filters.Magenta shadows.
so go shoot with filters, have lenses calibrated and maybe things will improve.Personally, the newer Leica M Digital way out of price range and even if affordable, would not buy any.
hudsong
Member
It honestly looks like there is a smudge on your sensor to me.
mdarnton
Well-known
Converting from raw IS editing. Decisions have to be made, and though you're not making them, the software is. Obviously the decisions being made are favoring the Canon, but that doesn't mean the Canon is better. The differences I see are mainly color and contrast. If those aren't spot-on, apparent sharpness suffers, and that's what seems to be happening here.
I wish I could pull up the specific book from memory, but years ago I read a color correction book that made this point very vividly, with examples of how bad color correction can mask the differences in closely similar colors, which masks the contrast between them, resulting in a huge difference in sharpness.
I wish I could pull up the specific book from memory, but years ago I read a color correction book that made this point very vividly, with examples of how bad color correction can mask the differences in closely similar colors, which masks the contrast between them, resulting in a huge difference in sharpness.
kur1j
Member
Well I guess to me it is better to start with the best you can produce then improve from there. If I have a choice between two images to edit, one that starts out looking better then I feel the end result would be drastically better. Maybe that is just me, I dunno.
I realize its a hard comparison but I'm trying to compare real world results out of the camera (basing what I would do on the above paragraph). If the Leica doesn't live up to the hype and it requires 100x more work and causes me to miss 10x more shots because I have to play and finesse with stuff then maybe it isn't for me. If you had to work with a shot of these two which would you prefer to start working with? http://imgur.com/a/mNp1k. The point of the leica system (or what I thought) is supposed to be "minimal" type system. The bare necessities, camera, lens, shutter button, no frills, no gimmicks. Once you have to start WBing this, custom metering this or that, to get the "most out of it", in which you get to the level of a current day DSLR image that you had on Av/A, point click done the Leica loses some of its luster.
Don't get me wrong the Leica M8 is a fun camera to use. It is intriguing and small. But I only use it for when I just want to go take pictures for "fun". If I know I have to "get a shot" I'm going to take my 5d.
the images above are untouched, granted they are at a different focal length since I switched the lenses out to compare a 50mm to a 50mm at f/8.
MCTuomey
Veteran
kur1j:
it's obviously your call to do as you please in your assessment. you believe in your method and see nothing fallacious in it. you've got several posts from experienced users of both canon 5D and M8 files that contradict your findings. several have tried to suggest a few reasons why that is the case.
fwiw, nothing in my experience squares with your "point of the leica system" expectation in regard to digi M's. there's nothing magical about a Leica digital file that pre-empts responsible, experienced decisions in the initial making and subsequent processing of the file. like any digital image file, it will have one or more relatively optimal ways to process it. can't ignore the reality that a sensor recorded the image and that processing starts the moment the light reaches the sensor.
btw, i don't know how you can say your images are untouched, assuming by "untouched" you mean unprocessed. you converted them from RAW, claim to have down-rezzed the 5D files, adjusted exposure in one case, and exported them as jpgs for web-posting. Down-rezzing the 5D files by itself will skew the comparison (~25% improvement in resolving power), let alone the other variables you've got going.
it's obviously your call to do as you please in your assessment. you believe in your method and see nothing fallacious in it. you've got several posts from experienced users of both canon 5D and M8 files that contradict your findings. several have tried to suggest a few reasons why that is the case.
fwiw, nothing in my experience squares with your "point of the leica system" expectation in regard to digi M's. there's nothing magical about a Leica digital file that pre-empts responsible, experienced decisions in the initial making and subsequent processing of the file. like any digital image file, it will have one or more relatively optimal ways to process it. can't ignore the reality that a sensor recorded the image and that processing starts the moment the light reaches the sensor.
btw, i don't know how you can say your images are untouched, assuming by "untouched" you mean unprocessed. you converted them from RAW, claim to have down-rezzed the 5D files, adjusted exposure in one case, and exported them as jpgs for web-posting. Down-rezzing the 5D files by itself will skew the comparison (~25% improvement in resolving power), let alone the other variables you've got going.
kur1j
Member
When I say untouched/unprocessed I mean someone isn't messing with levels, contrast sliders, sharpness sliders, tones, etc. I downrezed the image because I figured I would have complaints that the loss of detail is from the 24mp vs 10.3mp. I changed the exposure because my "exposure was all over the place", i converted to B/W because there was mention that it was a white balance issue. This image has nothing done to it other than converted to jpg I can't put it online without it. http://imgur.com/a/mNp1k . The same things are being done to both images, both images are being converted from their respective RAW formats. Looking at them before RAW and after the canon looks better. Would it be better if I put up the RAW images?
While people have said that the m8 produces just as sharp or sharper images than the 5dmiii I have not seen someone produce any meaningful results other than just mentioning that its sharper. Anyone care to offer up some samples of basically the same image from a 5d and a m8/m9 to get a comparison? The best comparison I have found is this and it falls in line with what I am seeing (http://www.pebbleplace.com/Personal..._II_and_Leica_M8_-_Mano_a_Mano_-_Round_2.html) granted my pictures look almost hazy/flat in my comparison.
Sure I have taken sharp pictures with my M8, I'm not doubting it but I have also taken sharp pictures with my 5dmiii. This comparison just puts them in the same situation and shows the results between the two and in my own opinion the 5d produces better files as it sits. If you were going to go work with those images that I took not knowing which camera produced which, which would you work with straight off?
But like you said I've had a few suggestions, one being the IR-cut filter which I have on the way.
kur1j
Member
Well when everyone raves about the quality of the images, (e.g. http://shoottokyo.com/leica-m9-review/ " I had a Canon 5DMKII and 9 L Series Lenses. Am I using them wrong? Maybe it was because he was shooting in Black and White? I converted my pictures to Black and White but still didn’t look the same. They had a level of detail I haven’t seen before. ". I can find a 100 other articles saying the same thing and even in this post people are still saying the sharpness impress of the images from the M8 are or can be just as good as the 5d(mii,miii) but I'm not seeing it.
Don't get me wrong, I like the leica, I like the build quality of it, i like the small package, i like the RF focusing system, I love the lenses, but after objectively looking at the images it produces I can't say I'm with everyone else on this boat that the images are anything "special" that everyone raves about. Maybe it is the IR-cut filter. I'll see Tuesday but I'm doubting it will make of up the gap.
LCT
ex-newbie
It's just your imagination. IR-cut filters give me the feeling to enhance sharpness somewhat. Difficult to explain but fact is that i still use them on the M240. Anyway IR-cut filters are mandatory on the M8 so the only thing to do is to try one before drawing any conclusion.