bherman
bherman
All;
I've been using Leica digital cameras on and off since the original M8. Back in the day, I recall that the out of the camera jpegs on my M8 or M9 were somewhat 'soft' and the general consensus was "if you wanted sharp images, shoot Raw". Nonetheless, for the purpose of viewing on the PC, they were ok.
So, now I have an M240, and have heard that the out of the camera jpegs are quite a bit better that the M8/M9, but to me, they are still a bit 'soft'. This occurs on both of my bodies with pretty much every lens that I have. I tweaked the sharpness from 'Standard' to Medium High' and it makes 'some' difference, but not a ton. When I had my Fuji X100, the out of the camera jpegs were fantastic. So much so, I pretty much never felt that I needed to shoot Raw. Yes, Fuji's are known for great out of the camera jpegs, and they are two entirely-different systems - agreed.
So, I have a question...Am I seeing what I'm supposed to be seeing? I mean, I've been told by my Leica dealer that Leica doesn't over-sharpen or over-saturate anything. They tend to stay neutral. Is that right? Do they leave it to the photographer-artist to correct this in post processing?
Any comments are appreciated and welcomed.
Thanks!
Brad
I've been using Leica digital cameras on and off since the original M8. Back in the day, I recall that the out of the camera jpegs on my M8 or M9 were somewhat 'soft' and the general consensus was "if you wanted sharp images, shoot Raw". Nonetheless, for the purpose of viewing on the PC, they were ok.
So, now I have an M240, and have heard that the out of the camera jpegs are quite a bit better that the M8/M9, but to me, they are still a bit 'soft'. This occurs on both of my bodies with pretty much every lens that I have. I tweaked the sharpness from 'Standard' to Medium High' and it makes 'some' difference, but not a ton. When I had my Fuji X100, the out of the camera jpegs were fantastic. So much so, I pretty much never felt that I needed to shoot Raw. Yes, Fuji's are known for great out of the camera jpegs, and they are two entirely-different systems - agreed.
So, I have a question...Am I seeing what I'm supposed to be seeing? I mean, I've been told by my Leica dealer that Leica doesn't over-sharpen or over-saturate anything. They tend to stay neutral. Is that right? Do they leave it to the photographer-artist to correct this in post processing?
Any comments are appreciated and welcomed.
Thanks!
Brad
Last edited:
Addy101
Well-known
RAW gives you more control, if it is necessary you decide. Did you try different settings? Like most cameras you can set a higher sharpness if that is what you want.
Ronald M
Veteran
final sharpness depends on display medium AND size of reproduction. The camera has no way to predict.
My advice is to use raw and properly sharpen in stages through the post processing process. It is not a simple switch.
My advice is to use raw and properly sharpen in stages through the post processing process. It is not a simple switch.
bherman
bherman
Yeah, I was just spoiled by the beautiful out of the camera jpegs on the Fuji, and thought that the Leica jpegs would render sharper. I agree that .DNG will yield better results, but when I simply view the jpegs out of the camera on the monitor, they just don't look that great. I tweaked the in camera sharpness up to Medium High and the jpegs look a tad better.
segedi
RFicianado
Brad -
How are you viewing the jpegs and which jpeg setting (basic of fine) are you using?
I haven't used JPEG mode in quite a while, like most, preferring the DNGs.
How are you viewing the jpegs and which jpeg setting (basic of fine) are you using?
I haven't used JPEG mode in quite a while, like most, preferring the DNGs.
YYV_146
Well-known
Sharpening algorithms often create undesirable artifacts. The sharper X100 files may also be because of the lower sensor density/sensor-lens pairing. Shooting an M with older Leica lenses not sufficiently stopped down, and the lens becomes the limiting factor.
Anyways, I would not worry about the jpegs but do sharpening in RAW.
Anyways, I would not worry about the jpegs but do sharpening in RAW.
willie_901
Veteran
Doesn't the M240 offer different levels of in-camera sharpening parameters?
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Perception of sharpness has to do with the interaction of focus and resolution at capture time, and the combination of saturation, contrast, and sharpening applied in image processing.
I don't have an M typ 240, but I have an M9, an X2, and an X. I can get excellent JPEGs out of all of them by finding what is to my eye the right Film Mode, saturation, contrast, and sharpening settings. Which settings to use has sometimes been a little counter-intuitive, but I get good results out of camera when I set the camera up correctly.
Yes, capturing raw and doing my processing in Lightroom does enable me to get even better results. But once I know the right settings for the JPEG engine, I create user sets and get what I want out of the camera without having to fuss with the details all that much.
Leica's JPEG defaults are very neutral and are designed to allow the photographer the greatest latitude in post processing, where Fuji defaults tends to want to produce finished images out of camera, at the expense of some post processing latitude. It's a trade off.
G
I don't have an M typ 240, but I have an M9, an X2, and an X. I can get excellent JPEGs out of all of them by finding what is to my eye the right Film Mode, saturation, contrast, and sharpening settings. Which settings to use has sometimes been a little counter-intuitive, but I get good results out of camera when I set the camera up correctly.
Yes, capturing raw and doing my processing in Lightroom does enable me to get even better results. But once I know the right settings for the JPEG engine, I create user sets and get what I want out of the camera without having to fuss with the details all that much.
Leica's JPEG defaults are very neutral and are designed to allow the photographer the greatest latitude in post processing, where Fuji defaults tends to want to produce finished images out of camera, at the expense of some post processing latitude. It's a trade off.
G
Ben Z
Veteran
I shoot dng for serious hobby photography, jpg if I'm taking snapshots or my end use is to burn a CD for someone else if I know they'll either be displaying them only on a monitor or printing small. I never found the M8, M9 or M240 to need much sharpening, either jpg or dng. A lot of cameras I've found have default settings for jpg which over sharpen, and I end up turning them to a lower setting. There really isn't one single sharpening "look" that will always give the best printed results from every type of file from every camera. It's one of those things where I have to judge it on a case by case basis, and less is more.
newsgrunt
Well-known
I never use in camera sharpening. Any USM is done in post.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Leica isn't really famous for its JPEGS to begin with. I have the M8.2. I simply use the RAW (DNG) option. When I have shot RAW + JPEG with it, I have found the JPEG results to be quite variable. Some are OK, but not consistently. Using the DNG files and developing with Aperture, I'm happy.
With my Leica/Panasonic D-Lux 6, it's another matter. Its JPEGS are quite good!
And I agree completely about the quality of Fuji JPEGS. Those from my X10 and X100 are all I could want! But with Leica M models, based on my experience and others, it seems that RAW is the way to go.
With my Leica/Panasonic D-Lux 6, it's another matter. Its JPEGS are quite good!
And I agree completely about the quality of Fuji JPEGS. Those from my X10 and X100 are all I could want! But with Leica M models, based on my experience and others, it seems that RAW is the way to go.