Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/08/13

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] M9 - not much more expensive than M8?
From: hopsternew at gmail.com (Geoff Hopkinson)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 07:25:14 +1000
References: <7ac27f4f0908122357i7d12480bmf8ee579e77294dad@mail.gmail.com> <394650.22545.qm@web86702.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <7ac27f4f0908130239y442c465ajf6d94bf1f6b55023@mail.gmail.com> <36172e5a0908130604q37ac2d8ai9ac46d87b9a2330c@mail.gmail.com> <7ac27f4f0908131212s12855b61t366ffc790ee8a30@mail.gmail.com>

Richard you need to be careful with your terminology and methodology before
making such bold claims ;-)
I really wouldn't challenge Leica to an MTF contest though!
In firmware the E3 adds considerable sharpening even to your Raw files as it
needs to compensate for the softening from the strong low pass filter.

On colour rendition, I am not describing hours of tweaking, I am talking
about an appropriate profile.
Default conversions will be set up different ways which is exactly my point.
Post some E3 photos for us. We love pictures hereabouts.. Especially to
illustrate such extravagant claims of comparable sharpness and superior
colour ;-)
We have at least 3 other LUG folks who shoot with both E3 andM8. It will be
intersting to read their impressions.
2009/8/14 Richard Man <richard.lists at gmail.com>

> Calm down Geoff :-) I am not leaving the Church of Leica.
>
> I dispute the claim that the M8 pics are much sharper. Why don't we
> compare MTF charts :-)? The 35-100 is not the sharpest at F2, but at
> 2.8, it competes well. The 12-60 is stellar at wide open, but of
> course it's 2-4 stops slower than a 'lux. Blaming autofocus errors
> are.... unfruitful, as the Leica does not have autofocus. So autofocus
> on the M8 and adjust as needed.
>
> As for Colo(u)rs, sure one can tweak anything to look like anything
> else, and no, I do not shoot JPG, and no, despite some questions I
> have asked you, I am quite familiar with RAW etc. thank you very much.
> I know how to use preset on import etc. In anycase, out of the box,
> Olympus Colors directly from a LR/ACR default conversion wins hands
> down against just anything else.Yes, of course I can say it's better
> colors. If Frank and Nathan can say sharper pics :-) That's one of the
> things that Olympus really got right.
>
> In any case, enjoy your Leica lens. Really. I do of mine. I don't see
> reasons to use the E-3 unless I need the zoom or the tele and macro
> capabilities. So about 20% for me. I don't have tons of gears per se,
> only one 50, one 35, and one 75, but they are all 'lux ASPH (except
> for the 75 of course). I don't spend hours adjusting in LR, except for
> dusting when I shoot film.
>
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 6:04 AM, Geoff Hopkinson<hopsternew at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Aah Richard you need to come to terms with how Raw files are converted.
> You
> > cannot say that camera X or Camera Y produces "better"' colour. You can
> say
> > that Camera X ,using default conversion settings produces files that
> please
> > me more. that is perfectly valid bit is not an objective assessment or
> > comparison. You are describing the whatever default conversion settings
> in
> > whatever conversion software you are using, I think.
> > Unless you are shooting jpgs!  In that case I shall be over to spank you
> > shortly! Seriously this is a large subject of course. Just to pick
> Lightroom
> > or Adobe Camera Raw for examples, the default conversion settings for M8
> > DNGs are quite conservative. They are only defaults.  The E3 appears to
> be
> > an excellent dSLR in my limited handling of it and files I have. However
> > Nathan is indisputably correct. Your M8 and good Leica glass will produce
> > demonstrably better images than the E3 and the best of the very good Oly
> > lenses, all else being equal.
> > I fear that 17 people will leap in with contrary positions some of them
> > perhaps based on criticising Leica or M8s on principle or for
> entertainment.
> > However, if you like to share some basics on your current process, I'm
> > confident that the subject is worthy and you should end up better
> prepared
> > to extract more from your new M8. You've only had it a few days, trust me
> > your horizons are going to get bigger!  Define better colour for you.
> More
> > saturated, higher contrast? more natural appearing? What colour space are
> > you converting into? How are you comparing the output? Computer screen?
> > prints? Squinting at the LCD preview? What profile are you using in LR2?
> > Can I suggest that you choose one attribute at a time , I mean focus is a
> > separate issue for example, as is your exposure technique.
> >
>
>
>
>
> --
>  // richard m: richard @imagecraft.com
> // w: http://www.imagecraft.com/pub/Portfolio09/ blog:
> http://rfman.wordpress.com
> // book: http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/detail/745963
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>



-- 
Cheers
Geoff
Alles was eine gute Kamera braucht / Everything a good camera needs:

http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/gh/
http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman


Replies: Reply from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] M9 - not much more expensive than M8?)
Reply from richard.lists at gmail.com (Richard Man) ([Leica] M9 - not much more expensive than M8?)
Reply from richard.lists at gmail.com (Richard Man) ([Leica] M9 - not much more expensive than M8?)
In reply to: Message from richard.lists at gmail.com (Richard Man) ([Leica] M9 - not much more expensive than M8?)
Message from frank.dernie at btinternet.com (FRANK DERNIE) ([Leica] M9 - not much more expensive than M8?)
Message from richard.lists at gmail.com (Richard Man) ([Leica] M9 - not much more expensive than M8?)
Message from hopsternew at gmail.com (Geoff Hopkinson) ([Leica] M9 - not much more expensive than M8?)
Message from richard.lists at gmail.com (Richard Man) ([Leica] M9 - not much more expensive than M8?)