M9 versus ... a comparison and "Leica look" question for the community

[odette87]

I am a fairly longtime DSLR and MILC shooter, but new to M9. So please take the following comparison as a plea for sage advice from a Leica newbie. (And not by any means any kind of assessment for Sony Nex vs. Leica!). So, question: what makes for the--to me--striking difference between the images posted here below, captured same time and place using similar optical parameters?

In short, I'm stumped. The two captures below of my dog Natasha were taken at the same place, in the same lighting conditions (full-spectrum artificial, sidelit), within minutes of each other. The first used my Sony Nex 7 with the Zeiss 24mm 1.8, the second Leica M9 with 35mm cron.

To me, the difference is striking: the Nex image, while perhaps not sharper, is noticeably more 3D, with a furriness that you can fairly touch. I can tell you that the colors in the Nex image are quite close to Natasha's actual coat. Especially note the gentle lightening of fur around her nose.

The image from my M9 with Cron 35mm (IV) while not world's apart, does not pop out of the screen, is not "touchable" in that way. Its colors (it seems to me) are more garish, and much more contrasty than in reality. Note that the fur around the nose is now a shade of white. And all that is after my attempts to reduce this kind of rendition, which was much more pronounced right out of the camera.

If I didn't know better, I would think that the Nex photo actually has the "Leica look" that I see achieved so impressively by the experts on this forum and elsewhere! And that's the point really: I acquired the Leica body and glass to achieve that look, but I am so far unable to do so, with these captures just my latest example of futility.

More background:

Both photos have undergone some work in post: about a 25% sharpening for each, and some other tweaks. I wanted not to apply the same post processing for each, but to "do my best" with each.

First photo:
Sony Nex 7, with E-mount Zeiss E24mm F1.8 ZA.
1/60 sec, f / 2.8, ISO 1600, @24mm

Second photo:
Leica M9 with Summicron-M 35mm f/2 (IV).
1/15 sec, f/2.8, ISO 800

Nex/Zeiss

M9/Cron

Thanks in advance for your help...

 

[Keith]

This looks like a white balance issue to me and checking both histograms it appears that the Leica got it right and the Nex 7 warmed it somewhat.

Not being able to actually see the pooch and having little awareness of her colouring the second image actually looks more 'real' to me. 🙂

 

[Dan Daniel]

Agreed, white balance. I have never used an M9 or an NEX-7, but I have dealt with white balance.

I also wonder if the OP's monitor is calibrated?

Anyway, I tend to doubt that the M9 was meant as a P&S camera. Its white balance algorithm might have solid reasons to give results like you have, just as Sony's engineers went for the results the NEX-7 gives.

And still, at the end of the day, the NEX-7 may give results more to your liking. Sony has a few thousand man-hours on Leica when it comes to digital imaging engineering and such!

(P.S. why is the Leica shot 1 full stop more exposure than the NEX-7 shot? 1/60/2.8/1600 should be 1/30/2.8 at 800, not 1/15)

 

[Monochrom]

i like best the second image...i don´t believe in many things...the "leica look" is one on my list...😀

BTW both lenses have different focal lengths so different dof...both camras have different sensors and different software getting in the way between the subject and the final image...

I have an m9 because i think it has the less obstructions between me and the things i see.

Bye!

 

[matt_mcg2]

The shutter speeds, too. I have no particular axe to grind on behalf of the M9 [don't own a digital M at all], but if you are hand-holding, at 1/15, you better be good at it. Because I'd expect to see some loss of sharpness just due to hand shake.

Shooting with different focal lengths [APS-C versus FF], at different ISOs, and with very different shutter speeds, I'd expect to see a difference. Whatever the manufacturers involved.

For what it's worth, I also prefer the first shot.

 

[crispy12]

IMO the 3d look is affected by the photographer's experience much more than any piece of gear...

 

[Ranchu]

The 24mm has more depth of field than the 50mm.

 

[Sylvester]

I like both, but the NEX shot looks off in white balance. If the blanket on the left is supposed to be white, then it's a white balance thing. Shoot raw and adjust white balance in lightroom or camera raw.
Remember it's a digital file and that you're supposed to edit it in software, just like you're supposed with film and a darkroom or scanner.

 

[MCTuomey]

If you find shooting the NEX with an effective FL of ~50mm gives you better results than the M9 with a 35 Cron, then I think your next step is to shoot the NEX more 😉

I can't help with a critical comparison b/w the two photos, too many variables varying too much, and that will only confound my humble processor.

 

[icebear]

Apart from issues others have already commented (1/15 s exposure, white balance, effective focal length), you'll have to be aware that the optimum result with a digital rangefinder camera, you will only achieve if you have the camera checked for specs and the lens then matched for that body. It is just a mechanical connection vs an on screen evaluation in live view in the Nex7 - I assume after google'ing what is actually has...

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

The Leica Look is a myth. If there ever was such a thing, it was an analog matter, and relates to the scores of images we've seen on film, made with the lenses of older vintage — just because that's what a lot of our visual reference is built upon. To suggest that a 60 year old Elmar with Double XX film and a Summicron-ASPH on a Monochrom could share imaging characteristics is kinda silly.

And, even with the old stuff — we can't really tell the difference between vintage Leica images and those made with Nikon or Contax lenses.

It's also kinda funny how people will suggest that the Leica image was somehow compromised, because it's only natural that it should be superior.... Shoot what makes you happy —*either by the experience or the results. There's usually a compromise to make, one way or the other.

 

[odette87]

M9..comparison...tried it again

M9..comparison...tried it again

Thank you everyone for your well considered comments. For what it's worth, I took the consensus view, especially concerning white balance shutter speed and reshot the image with the M9, with much more satisfying results. (with an asterisk). I'll post when I return home from this business trip.

(BTW, the effective focal length of a 24mm APS-C compared with a 35mm FF should be pretty identical I would think, so I'm mystified by the comments about "50mm").

To the "Leica look" point: I realize this is a contentious issue. It never fails to be met with folks that scoff, and people that swear by this look. Personally, I think there is a tendency on the part of skilled and experienced photographers to downplay the look because it seems to emphasize the role of the equipment, the glass, the back, and de-emphasize by extension the craft of the photographer. It's as if all those years of honing skills can be replicated in an instant by buying a certain camera or lens.

We know that will never be true. But I think it is likely that Leica has hit upon some combination of optics, build, and algorithm that makes a particular look come to life in the hands of someone skilled enough to take advantage of it. So, personally I do see a Leica look that I like very much, but one should understand that as connected to skills plus artistic sense plus the right equipment.

To those kind enough to comment:

matt_mcg2, yes, I think shutter speed, and its effect on camera shake had a great deal to do with it. Dan Daniel, re white balance algorithm: you are dead right this needed a lot of work. The ringer is that however I fiddled with color temperature while shooting--my WhitBal card, presets, etc.-- the Leica continued to give a certain unpleasant result, as you imply, out of the camera. I ended up tweaking temperature and some other related variables in LR 4. (this is the asterisk I mentioned!)

crispy12, when you say you think the photographer's experience might have a lot to do with it, could you be more specific? I'm listening, totally ready for critique.

 

[Sunti]

I agree with Keith and others that the difference in color tones is due to WB settings - yellowish n the Nex picture, and bluish on the Leica shot.

Judging from the position of the fold of the cloth and the dog in the photos, I reckon that you or the dog or both may have moved a bit between shots, and the resulting angles may be a bit different. It seems, to my eyes, more across-the-body in the Nex photo, and a bit more head-to-toe for the Leica shot. Shooting with the King of Bokeh at f/2.8, you should expect to see the blurring further from the focal point, shutter speed not withstanding.

I have never own an M9, so many 2 cents are not biased 🙂

 

[mugent]

I think there is a Leica *lens* look, but it's not special, every lens has a look, a unique signature, the Leica one is nothing special, just different, like every lens.

About the pic, I'd say just a colour balance issue.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

White balance, camera shake, NEX image has more of the image in focus, M9 is "front" focused (or "back", depends on who you ask), different perspectives...

Ah, it's 2003 all over again!

 

[leicashot]

Warmer or not, Leica or not, the top picture is better...btw, the Leica look is possible 3 things:

1. Sharp images shot wide open on film
2. Noctilux f/1 images
3. Monochrom files

other than that I've never been able to distinguish what this whole 'leica look' thing is all about, and I've used Leica for 18 years.

 

[ShinX414]

@leicashot, i was just about to say the same thing but you beat me to it XD

if it's too hard to shot at f2 which is pretty hard on a beginner while using a rangefinder, try shooting at f4 and try to compare again.
yes, i too think that the dof is smiliar due to the crop factor of the NEX 7 which makes the 24mm equ. to a 36mm

another thing that i noticed, you probably moved between the shots since the the framing is different.
And maybe you shot everything with the AWB on, in tungsten or mixed lighting? I often discovered that the AWB from the M9 handles the temperature different than most cameras up-to-date.

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

To the "Leica look" point: I realize this is a contentious issue. It never fails to be met with folks that scoff, and people that swear by this look. Personally, I think there is a tendency on the part of skilled and experienced photographers to downplay the look because it seems to emphasize the role of the equipment, the glass, the back, and de-emphasize by extension the craft of the photographer....
We know that will never be true. But I think it is likely that Leica has hit upon some combination of optics, build, and algorithm that makes a particular look come to life in the hands of someone skilled enough to take advantage of it.

Not sure how this can be true. The 'Leica look,' and the discussion of such, was borne years and years ago, in the era of journalistic 'picture stories.' The lenses used back then were likely Elmars and Elmarits and the like. Those lens formulations have no more to do with current Summicrons and Summiluxes and Noctiluxes than Canon, Pentax, or Nikkors. There isn't anything in common. Even if you suggest Leica's glass is different from everyone else's, that glass has changed/evolved over 50+ years. So, where's the commonality?

Add to that the fact that many of the photographers who are often cited as being represented by 'the look' weren't even shooting Leica lenses. Some of it was Contax or Nikkor. My feeling is that the era sorta established a certain *aesthetic — a combination of the limited film choices, the standard developers, and the printing. And then the magazine reproduction where most people actually saw the photographs. But, then, you continue the discussion in the modern age with color and then the internet, and the proclamations of a 'leica look' are confused, augmented and distorted by myth. There have been many threads on the photo.net site, in the Leica forum, with people showing (color!) images and discussing them in terms of 'glow,' and responders correcting the original poster, saying the image illustrates either halation, or poor focus, or back lighting, or some other photographic or light happenstance.

I've bought Summiluxes old and ASPH, Sonnars, Summicrons, Elmarits, etc., all because i liked the results some photographer before me achieved with the individual lenses. And, i never got those same specific results. Because the light or subject matter or development weren't the same. I bought, to try to get 'A look.' I still won't say The Look isn't in the lens. The lens is a component of it. But, over 80 years, there have been many, many Looks. And, in the end, having sold all the Leica stuff, i found The Look i had been chasing in a $40 Nikon lens with a certain film and a certain developer. I can get the aesthetic i've been chasing for so many years reliably now, when i might only happen to occasionally stumble upon it with the Leica stuff. Which tells me it's not really about Leica. It's about the tastes and styles of the photographer.

"Personally, I think there is a tendency on the part of skilled and experienced photographers to downplay the look because it seems to emphasize the role of the equipment, the glass, the back, and de-emphasize by extension the craft of the photographer...."

I kinda think this is backward, when dealing with Leica people. Leica is the only brand where photographers label themselves with the brand. "I'm a Leica photographer." "These are Leica photographs." As if the brand adds cache to the images. I don't recall many instances of people shooting Leicas where they shy away from noting that fact.